4 ms·

I worry that this may lead to an embrace/extend/extinguish by Google given that they have a tremendous influence through Chrome. After all what's their angle h

by simias 5y ago

I worry that this may lead to an embrace/extend/extinguish by Google given that they have a tremendous influence through Chrome. After all what's their angle here? Almost every browser extension under the sun has a Chrome version due to its immense market share. It seems like a good way for them to later potentially push for changes that would make, say, ad blocking easier (under the guise of performance or some such). I consede that it's a bit tinfoil-hatty, but I have very little faith in Google these days.

Macha 5y ago
Does this make a meaningful change? WebExtensions were already practically required to be a superset of Chrome's APIs, so the incentive is already there to just use what Chrome offers for maximum compatibility. Mozilla can and does offer additional APIs beyond what Chrome does, and in some cases (like adblocking in a manifest v3 world), this will soon be more relevant as Chrome's adblocking capabilities will take a hit upon killing manifest v2, but it's already the case that Firefox is a better platform for adblockers, as detailed by uBlock origin devs: https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-Origin-works-best-on-Firefox https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-Origin-works-b... I don't see this group constraining vendors to implement _only_ the blessed APIs, much like web standards hasn't stopped Chrome inventing new APIs for Google needs.
- whereistimbo 5y ago
  I hope background pages is still available for manifest v3 at least in firefox as service worker still has limitation in comparison: [meta] Deprecate background pages in favor of service workers: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1578286 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1578286
  - Guidii 5y ago
    What specific limitations concern you?
ferdowsi 5y ago
It gives Google an ingress to weaken adblocking and privacy controls in other browsers.
- stephenr 5y ago
  Content Blocking is unrelated to Web Extensions in Safari.
A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
Is it though? I personally would argue that most of the population is not tinfoil enough. To me, it is fascinating, and terrifying, how quickly narratives change and people seem to take that vhange in stride. Admittedly, it does not help that I am now watching mr robot.
- oogabooga123 5y ago
  It was always a lab leak Everyone knew it was a bad election We were always at war with Eurasia
Kiro 5y ago
You guys do everything in your power to twist a seemingly good thing into something evil. Understandable I guess but at this point I don't even know if Google actually is evil or if that's just a presumed narrative this place likes to put on every initiative from them.
- clusterfish 5y ago
  And whose fault is that? They reap what they sow.
- thatguy0900 5y ago
  Well Google neutered ad blocking extensions for Chrome. It's very hard not to see this as them trying to do the same elsewhere. Google used to be the good guy darling, not too long ago. They brought it on themselves.
moksly 5y ago
On an anecdotal note this might ironically lead me to being able or moving back to Safari again. I moved to chrome when YouTube started having sooo much advertising and I couldn’t get unlock origins for safari.

by simias 5y ago

Macha 5y ago

Does this make a meaningful change? WebExtensions were already practically required to be a superset of Chrome's APIs, so the incentive is already there to just use what Chrome offers for maximum compatibility. Mozilla can and does offer additional APIs beyond what Chrome does, and in some cases (like adblocking in a manifest v3 world), this will soon be more relevant as Chrome's adblocking capabilities will take a hit upon killing manifest v2, but it's already the case that Firefox is a better platform for adblockers, as detailed by uBlock origin devs: https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-Origin-works-best-on-Firefox https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-Origin-works-b... I don't see this group constraining vendors to implement _only_ the blessed APIs, much like web standards hasn't stopped Chrome inventing new APIs for Google needs.

whereistimbo 5y ago
I hope background pages is still available for manifest v3 at least in firefox as service worker still has limitation in comparison: [meta] Deprecate background pages in favor of service workers: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1578286 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1578286
- Guidii 5y ago
  What specific limitations concern you?

ferdowsi 5y ago

It gives Google an ingress to weaken adblocking and privacy controls in other browsers.

stephenr 5y ago
Content Blocking is unrelated to Web Extensions in Safari.

A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago

Is it though? I personally would argue that most of the population is not tinfoil enough. To me, it is fascinating, and terrifying, how quickly narratives change and people seem to take that vhange in stride. Admittedly, it does not help that I am now watching mr robot.

oogabooga123 5y ago
It was always a lab leak Everyone knew it was a bad election We were always at war with Eurasia

Kiro 5y ago

You guys do everything in your power to twist a seemingly good thing into something evil. Understandable I guess but at this point I don't even know if Google actually is evil or if that's just a presumed narrative this place likes to put on every initiative from them.

clusterfish 5y ago
And whose fault is that? They reap what they sow.
thatguy0900 5y ago
Well Google neutered ad blocking extensions for Chrome. It's very hard not to see this as them trying to do the same elsewhere. Google used to be the good guy darling, not too long ago. They brought it on themselves.

moksly 5y ago

On an anecdotal note this might ironically lead me to being able or moving back to Safari again. I moved to chrome when YouTube started having sooo much advertising and I couldn’t get unlock origins for safari.