3 ms·
Yeah, this baffles me. I can't figure out why this still exists. I've got to imagine the volume of people paying that fee specifically to develop Safari extensi
by krbzsq 6y ago
Yeah, this baffles me. I can't figure out why this still exists. I've got to imagine the volume of people paying that fee specifically to develop Safari extensions has to be low.
Thing is Safari is a nice browser to use, but without uBlock Origin it's a non-starter for me, all these 'content blocker' solutions are either bloated or nowhere near as good as uBlock Origin.
- neurobashing 6y agothe fee exists, at least from what I have gleaned historically, to provide some mild barrier to people who would otherwise spam the App Store with crap. By building a modest amount of hoops, it keeps the laziest spammers out. (Also something about "paying to keep the lights on", as if AAPL needs money these days) In practice, well, just search this site for threads about it. I'm not sure, like you indicate, it's worthwhile for the browser ecosystem.
- paulryanrogers 6y agoGoogle Webstore has a one time fee of $5. Surely there is a more reasonable middle ground.
- stephenr 6y agoThe irony of calling content blockers, which provide prebuilt block lists to the browser, to compile into an efficient format, “bloated” while suggesting that JavaScript extensions running before every single resource request to check if it should be blocked are not, is beyond ridiculous.