5 ms·
Agree with the $100/year just to be able to do what other browsers allow for free (AFAIK). Used to be that Apple offered free extension hosting, even with a fre
by sebastien_b 6y ago
Agree with the $100/year just to be able to do what other browsers allow for free (AFAIK). Used to be that Apple offered free extension hosting, even with a free certificate.
Forcing developers to pay is the most developer- and user-hostile thing they could do, and is the main reason I don’t use Safari anymore (there just isn’t any worthwhile extensions for it).
- macinjosh 6y agoIMHO, it is the reason to use Safari. The $100 and the registration process is a high barrier that helps keep out junk extensions. Even better, in some cases I can pay the creators of the extensions I rely on which makes the ecosystem more sustainable.
- upbeat_general 6y agoI’m sure as a percentage of extensions you’re probably right, but who installs extensions by browsing the entire catalog of extensions? What I’d bet most people (including myself) do is search for extensions (assuming you don’t already know the exact one you want). My experience has almost always been that the extension I want isn’t available for safari (just chrome and Firefox), or is a shitty/old version of the chrome one. So even if the $100 keeps some more junk out than on chrome, I still don’t get to use the extensions I want and the ones that are available aren’t great (albeit better than junk).
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- rayshan 6y agoI'd be happy to pay a $100 1-time fee, but Apple's $100 is recurring.
- duskwuff 6y ago> free (AFAIK) Google requires developers to pay them $5, once, before they can upload extensions to the web store.
- sebastien_b 6y agoSo, basically free. I mean most coffees cost more. They’re just covering the fees to prove you’re a person/developer, and basically nothing more.