44 ms·

Add-on support in new Firefox for Android (2021)

292 points by karlicoss 4y ago

guelo 4y ago
Mozilla doesn't seem to have a clue why people prefer firefox. It's not because of privacy or security, though that's nice. It's certainly not because it behaves similarly to chrome. It was always the extensibility. The power of plugins that allowed adblocking to be invented on firefox. They threw that away in the name of security and supposed clean code. Clean code doesn't get you users.
- mmmrk 4y ago
  I'm a decade-long user and am perfectly fine with modern Firefox (plus uBlock), both on the desktop and on Android. In fact, I don't want to go back to the before-times. Speak for yourself.
  - MerelyMortal 4y ago
    Speaking for myself, I wish I could run more addons in Firefox for Android than just uBlock Origin. (I'm a 15+ year user, I started using it when I discovered I could run it off a flash drive on locked-down shared computers.)
    - capitainenemo 4y ago
      Ditto... For example. They allow NoScript, but they blocked Custom Style Script, Tampermonkey/Violentmonkey, Old Reddit Redirect all of which I used for small tweaks to common sites with poor non-JS CSS defaults to make NoScript more usable. They also blocked about:config (fixed by using F-Droid Fennec). I also lost functionality that I had relied on (not going to turn this into a rant on that - and that's probably due to the rewrite, but it's still unfortunate). Here are the addons I'm still miss post change. There's been no modifications to the list since. "View Source" "Tampermonkey" "Old Reddit Redirect" "Custom Style Script" "Android PDF.js" "uMatrix" "Alt Text Viewer" The only one they had an adequate replacement for was "Dark Mode" - "Dark Reader" does basically same job with slightly less convenient UI. "Dark Reader" is also an extremely crude alternative for custom CSS.
  - throw10920 4y ago
    I'm also a decades-long user, and am very unhappy with many of the changes that Mozilla has made to Firefox (both on the desktop and on Android), and I do want to go back to the before-times. I feel like it should be obvious that, at least in the case of addons, some users want addons and some users don't care about addons, but very very few users explicitly don't want addons to be available at all, and that consequently the correct approach is to make addons available.
  - superkuh 4y ago
    Don't worry, he's speaking for the majority of long term firefox users. You're the exception. I started using Firefox when it was Gecko/Phoenix in 2002, then Firebird, then Firefox. I started using it because it was so customizable. I stopped using it at version 37 in 2015 because that was when Mozilla destroyed the browser by removing user freedoms to install their own add-ons without Mozilla's approval. And no, using Nightly (alpha renamed aurora renamed nightly) is not an option because it is extremely crashy on non-standard OS/Distros. Since 2015 Firefox has become rapidly less capable and rapidly more 'secure' for non-technical users. It's just not what I or the original userbase want. But like with all things Mozilla (including the original employees and CEO) we've been replaced. There's plenty of users who just want Chrome that's not labeled Chrome and Firefox modern gives it to them.
    - seszett 4y ago
      Just to chime in, I also started using Phoenix in 2002, but it wasn't because it was customizable. I've never used more than a couple of extensions and I actually have every extension I need on Android, so I'm fully satisfied for my particular use case. I still think most of what Mozilla does with Firefox is absolutely stupid and I wish it was different because attracting or retaining more users would make Firefox less likely to die, and generally help the web.
    - Arnavion 4y ago
      FWIW my distro's firefox package allows installing my own extensions. I wouldn't be using it if it didn't.
    - soundnote 4y ago
      > There's plenty of users who just want Chrome that's not labeled Chrome and Firefox modern gives it to them. Firefox isn't Chrome that's not labeled Chrome, though. Less customization doesn't mean it's necessarily more Chrome-like, especially lately where Chrome's implementing things like tab groups and keeping more or less the same UI design. The new Firefox looks more Safari-ish than Chrome-ish. to me.
      - superkuh 4y ago
  - sbcd 4y ago
    >Speak for yourself Haha. Firefox went from above 20% marketshare in its early days, to below 4% today, and the number is continually dwindling. At this point it's the few defensive, aggressive fanboys left who are "speaking for themselves". We'll probably still hear this kind of comment from the likes of you even when usage drops below 0.01%. And I don't want to hear the "it's chrome's fault" again from the FF brigade, IE had more marketshare in the IE vs Netscape days than Chrome has today, and it didn't stop Firefox from eating at IE's shares.
    - slightwinder 4y ago
      Firefox decline started long before they switched the extensions-system, In fact they lost majority of their share before that point, and seem to have gained a bit momentum back because of it, temporary. > And I don't want to hear the "it's chrome's fault" again from the FF brigade, Sure, who cares about facts when you can have guts-feeling... > IE had more marketshare in the IE vs Netscape days than Chrome has today, and it didn't stop Firefox from eating at IE's shares. IE had no marketing at that point, while Firefox did had significant marketing at the time. Chrome then started also with big marketing, while Firefox was busy with dying projects. Coincidence? Seems like marketing is a major factor for success even here.
  - pessimizer 4y ago
    If you compare the marketshare of firefox a decade ago to the marketshare of firefox now, you can determine pretty precisely how extreme a minority you are in that.
    - CorrectHorseBat 4y ago
      As if that has anything to do with it, Chrome is even worse in that regard and it's market share has only grown.
      - pessimizer 4y ago
        Even worse in what regard? Did you reply to the right comment? Chrome imitates Chrome far better than Firefox does. I just don't think they can catch up at this point. edit: maybe you meant addons? Chrome has more addons, with more users, updated more often. Chrome fails at ublock because it wants to, but as long as you're not messing with Google's core business, Chrome is (of course) going to be better off than the product of the endangered company that solely survives from Google's donations.
        yoasif_ 4y ago
        More addons on mobile?
        krzyk 4y ago
        Chrome has any addons on mobile?
        mardifoufs 4y ago
        Kiwi browser is basically chrome but with full extension/dev tools support. Nothing custom, all stock chrome. But I know the devs behind that browser rely on data collection themselves, so it's less than ideal (you can I think turn all of that off but I'm not sure). But it shows that it is possible to have full add-on support on mobile chromium. Especially considering Kiwi was developed by a single dev initially. Most open source chromium forks on Android don't have add-ons though, so kiwi is the best option. I guess it's usually because those forks are usually very privacy centric so add-on support is far from a priority. Kiwi on the other hand is basically stock desktop chrome Edit: apparently they don't outright collect user data! >The browser is getting paid by search engines for every search done using Kiwi Browser. >Depending on the search engine choice, requests may go via Kiwibrowser / Kiwisearchservices servers. This is for invoicing our search partners and provide alternative search results (e.g. bangs aka "shortcuts"). >In some countries, the browser displays sponsored tiles or news on the homepage. >User data (browsing, navigation, passwords, accounts) is not collected because we have no interest to know what you do in the browser. Our main goal is to convince you to use a search engine partner, and this search engine makes money / new partnerships and shares revenue with us.
  - throwaway0x7E6 4y ago
    then you're not a poweruser. you'd be perfectly fine with stock Chrome too.
- doix 4y ago
  Yeah, when they did the big performance rewrite(quantum?) and killed pentadactyl (vim mode), I was really upset. I remember using Firefox 52-esr for as long as I could to keep my workflow the same. In my mind, that was peak Firefox. Yes performance wasn't great, but I didn't care. It was good enough and I mostly browsed with JavaScript disabled. The new vim mode plugins can't compete with the old plugins because they are much more restricted in what they can do.
  - causi 4y ago
    The really galling thing is they lied right to our damn faces about how "the new faster systems breaks the old add-on system" while they were still using XUL behind the scenes. In fact an HN reader compiled versions of Firefox 57 and above with user-installed XUL enabled and they work perfectly well.
    - yoasif_ 4y ago
      Nothing is really stopping people from keeping those extensions compatible. Unsupported doesn't mean impossible - it just means you need to do some tweaks: https://webextensions-experiments.readthedocs.io https://webextensions-experiments.readthedocs.io
      - causi 4y ago
        I'm not understanding how that relates to the fact that the only thing stopping users from installing their XUL extensions on FF57 was a software switch they weren't allowed to touch without editing and compiling from source.
        yoasif_ 4y ago
        No editing or compilation needed. You just needed to disable signature checks (xpinstall.signatures.required) and enable extension experiments (extensions.experiments.enabled) in a developer edition version (or nightly) version of the browser.
- causi 4y ago
  Mozilla lost the plot the day they decided chasing Chrome was more important than appealing to their actual userbase. That was about the time they started incrementing version numbers every six weeks and rendered the numbers meaningless.
  - dblohm7 4y ago
    Or you know, we just wanted to offer the closest thing we could get to continuous delivery of desktop software?
    - causi 4y ago
      Which is a great justification for releasing updates every six weeks. Destroying the paradigm of "integer release = major revision" instead of "Firefox 5.102" is what makes it a pointless dick-measuring contest with Chrome. One you lost, by the way.
- slightwinder 4y ago
  > It was always the extensibility. Going by the numbers, that's far from the truth. Majority of user never used addons, not even adblockers. Even the most popular addons are only used by a small minority of users. I'm also a big addon-user and complain what firefox has lost over time. But we should also admit that we are a minority, and addons are simply not the major selling point for a mainstream product's success.
  - antisthenes 4y ago
    You shouldn't be afraid to cater to the minority of power users. Power users are the ones that make browser recommendations to an outsized group of people, e.g. friends, relatives and coworkers. They are also the ones that drive new standard adoption. It's entirely plausible that when you alienate a power user, you also alienate their entire social circle, dependent on them for tech advice, so you lose 20x-100x of your audience/users. I'm not saying that's exactly what happened, but it definitely happened to some degree. Personally, I no longer recommend or use Firefox to anyone. The techy people in my circle use Brave or ungoogled Chromium. The untechy ones use Chrome/Edge and maybe have Opera/Vivaldi as their backup browser or Safari if they're big Apple fans. Almost no one uses FF anymore. Without its extensibility, it simply doesn't compete anymore.
  - rurp 4y ago
    I think it's hard to tease out the size of effect. Extensions are only used by a minority of users, but that's mostly the set of vocal power users that are likely to be the go-to tech person within their social circles. I'm sure I'm far from the only HNer that has recommended or installed Firefox for many friends and family. I mean, I used to recommend and install Firefox before their terrible management turned the org into a dumpster fire. They've lost both myself and everyone I would have turned onto Firefox.
    - slightwinder 4y ago
      That might have been 20 years ago when Firefox grew from it's grassroot-movement. But Chrome started without extensions and grew more through marketing and Googles fame. Power users have their influence even today, but I'd say it's not as strong as it was in the old days. Most users have emancipated themselves from us, and can choose now on their own, because this kind of information is not arcane anymore.
- throwaway0x7E6 4y ago
  they know it. that's why they've killed XUL. that's why they're going even further by enforcing an inferior extension standard from their supposed competitor. that's why they've killed off the extensions and about:config for the android version. that's why you can't even use a private extension on desktop without jumping through the hoops. that's why usercss (toolkit.legacyUserProfileCustomizations.stylesheets - legacy and disabled by default - the writing is on the wall already) and userjs will get axed. that's why about:config will get axed on the desktop version as well. all of that is just off the top of my head. and in the end, Firefox will be a clunky and inferior alternative for Chrome with not 2%, but 0.2% of the market. which is the goal.
  - anonymousab 4y ago
    > which is the goal I don't think so. There's many more ways and decisions they could have gotten away with to make Firefox worse without outright killing it, that they haven't done (yet). Rather, I think it's more likely that Firefox, the browser application, is a bit of an albatross to the Mozilla foundation. Something they begrudgingly have to live with, at least in the short term. It's their organization's 'product', but to a certain layer of leadership and above, it's just another vehicle for their broader mission which could be accomplished much easier by just being a chrome fork instead. It'd also remove the need to hire and retain so many pesky and annoying engineers. Such that the Mozilla corp. is something they have to keep around, but definitely not something they want to keep around. It is an attractive way of rationalizing the astonishing and bewildering decision making at Mozilla.
  - dblohm7 4y ago
    No. > that's why they've killed XUL We couldn't deliver a multiprocess browser without doing it. > about:config for the android version I completely supported this and continue to do so. GeckoView on Android works completely differently than desktop Firefox, and about:config's semantics are not identical between the two. A few of us were interested in offering an alternative that gave users a way to make adjustments in a way that was "safe," but as you can imagine that has never been a management priority.
    - 4y ago
bwat48 4y ago
misleading title, some addons are available... e.g. I use ublock origin in firefox on android
- randy408 4y ago
  You mean half a dozen add-ons are available
  - rcMgD2BwE72F 4y ago
    Far more… if you're using Nightly (I do as my daily browser, with a dozen of active extensions). Not easy though: https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2020/09/29/expanded-extension-support-in-firefox-for-android-nightly/ https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2020/09/29/expanded-extensio...
therealmarv 4y ago
That's not true. It's more that Mozilla white lists only very few of the addons for the mobile browser. The fork Iceraven whitelists/allow all (?) of the addons (not all work fully, so the whitelist has a purpose): https://github.com/fork-maintainers/iceraven-browser https://github.com/fork-maintainers/iceraven-browser
- vintermann 4y ago
  Yes, I thought it was odd, since I certainly use ublock origin right now. It is the reason I stick with Firefox on Android in the first place.
  - oittaa 4y ago
    Same, but it would be nice if all the plugins worked instead of the few that are whitelisted.
- ropeladder 4y ago
  "the whitelist has a purpose" doesn't really capture what's going on, though. It's more like they whitelisted some of the most popular extensions and then just stopped completely with no intention of continuing. With the much more limited plugin API (and simple html plug-in config pages) of the new browsers you'd think it would be easier to build and vet secure, cross platform add-ons.
  - sbernecchia 4y ago
    yes, you're probably right, they have no intention of continuing. I think mozilla is not really committed to firefox on android. after all they have a minuscule market share on mobile, almost not existent. they probably think that most users will install just an adblocker, so they don't want to "waste" money enabling other extensions. so sad.
  - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
    Somewhere in a parallel universe, Mozilla just let all the plugins claim compatability, and vaguely fascist users who dont like their politics are complaining that the instability of Mozilla on Android is the reason they hate them. And further along, in a universe where they poured a lot of time energy and money into fixing the whole plugin ecosystem and succeeded, they're complaining about something that didn't get done because of that shift in focus. The conversation goes something like: "Why are they spending time and money on fixing mobile addons no one uses? I think this is because their management are too political, not like their old unpolitical leadership. And as I say every time they get mentioned "I hate people who say and do political stuff!!". It makes me so angry. They should only do what I want or I'll force them out of business from pure spite. That'll teach them to be political.
paol 4y ago
...and that's why I'm still running FF 68 on my phone. Well that and a bunch of UI regressions.
vsskanth 4y ago
I use bypass-paywalls-clean addon and I'm forced to use Firefox Nightly and deal with all its weird bugs (it's nightly so that's expected) because of this. Things have improved quite a bit though. They finally fixed that stupid scrolling bug that cuts off a part of the page below the nav bar. That finally got me off Kiwi Browser. Eagerly waiting for all add-ons to be allowed in stable.
- sbernecchia 4y ago
  you can use fennec from f-droid too. it's compiled from stable, not nightly.
  - sp332 4y ago
    You don't have to put so many copies of the same comment on one story.
    - woojoo666 4y ago
      It think it's fair, its a response to all the copies of the same complaint (aka "i dont want to have to use firefox nightly")
- causi 4y ago
  They haven't added any extensions in a year and a half. It's not going to happen.
phreack 4y ago
This sucks because it also means no one is making add-ons for mobile, it's more of an accident that we even have ublock. There's use cases that the Firefox team will not work on for decades that could be filled by add-ons if they just told people to go wild, absolute top of the list being text reflow to prevent having to scroll sideways to read long text. Opera is still the only browser that does it for some reason years on, but it gets worse every update.
- olvy0 4y ago
  Yeah, that's why I still use Opera on mobile. All the other mobile browsers including Chrome and Firefox are broken for me since I have to slide sideways to read texts. On desktop I use Firefox exclusively. I tried several time to use Firefox mobile but the sideways scrolling was really a pain. I can't believe no one has implemented such a basic and important addon for readability. I search for something like that about once a year but find nothing. But it's probably just me. And phreack above.
nelblu 4y ago
I use iceraven to get around some of these limitations. Addons that I needed(privacy redirect) work great: https://github.com/fork-maintainers/iceraven-browser https://github.com/fork-maintainers/iceraven-browser. From the github link : The ability to attempt to install a much longer list of add-ons than Mozilla's Fenix version of Firefox accepts. Currently the browser queries this AMO collection Most of them will not work, because they depend on code that Mozilla is still working on writing in android-components, but you may attempt to install them. If you don't see an add-on you want, you can request it.
sbernecchia 4y ago
also fennec from f-droid is able to use custom extensions (and also about:config) it is compiled from firefox stable, with minimal changes, and mozilla telemetry disabled. https://f-droid.org/en/packages/org.mozilla.fennec_fdroid/ https://f-droid.org/en/packages/org.mozilla.fennec_fdroid/
- mrandish 4y ago
  Yep, Fennec has been my solution to Mozilla abandoning FF on Android.
  - rhamzeh 4y ago
    That's a weird take, considering Fennec is FF on Android, just with some minor config changes. Your statement is akin to saying: "Firefox on Debian is my solution to Mozilla abandoning FF on desktop" If FF on Android _were_ abandoned, then so would Fennec. I use Fennec, but because I know that it the well-supported, actively developed Firefox on Android, but available on F-Droid. which sadly Mozilla doesn't provide or allow F-Droid maintainers to publish it as "Firefox"
- pmontra 4y ago
  I just checked. Firefox on Google Play is version 101.2.0 from June 8. Fennec on F-Droid is version 97.1.1 from February 26. Maybe it's not abandoned but it doesn't feel that one can count on it for timely bug fixes. Edit: then I remembered that F-Droid has the quirk of requiring a manual refresh of its repository. I did it and got version 101.1.0 from June 5. Much better.
TrianguloY 4y ago
Fenix is basically a whole new browser, and that means that all features need to be implemented again (which takes a lot of time, and I don't think Firefox developers have much of it). Lots of Fennec features are still missing (view source code, save as pdf, install general addons, the whole about:config...). Why they changed is a mystery, maybe the old browser had a core privacy bug or something that couldn't be fixed, but basically they killed Firefox on android.
- Dylan16807 4y ago
  Another fun missing feature is the ability to delete cookies for a site.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - jay3ss 4y ago
    Click on the lock in the URL bar then "Clear cookies and site data"
    - Dylan16807 4y ago
      Oh, you're right, they got that in in April. Very slow progress but nonzero progress.
  - capitainenemo 4y ago
    Another missing cool feature from old Firefox for mobile was ability to remove a site url from suggest and history just by long touching on it, which seems to have entirely purged it from the places db. In fact, the new one doesn't remove things from suggest even if you remove it from your browser history manually, which is also really only convenient to do if you accessed it recently. If you don't want things spamming up suggest, the only option is to use private browsing or wipe your entire history.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
causi 4y ago
For those who think Mozilla did a good job with Firefox for Android, how do you justify the fact there's still no way to change the User Agent without swapping to Beta? Sure, there's a "desktop mode" button, but not only does that break and force you to reset the browser if you hit the back button but it doesn't actually change the user agent. Sites that bar mobile devices can still tell you're on mobile and stop you from seeing the page.
thinkingemote 4y ago
I was writing an extension for Firefox mobile to improve HN a bit to make it work nicer on mobile. Then whoops Firefox no longer does extensions really. * Such a wasted missed opportunity for the mobile web. FF could and still might be able to recognise the utility. (* Yes I can install it via developer mode I think, but it was for you too)
- yoasif_ 4y ago
  FWIW, people that want to run extensions can either use Fennec (the F-Droid fork, not the old Firefox for Android) or Nightly versions. There are developers targeting this stuff - I wrote about some here: https://www.quippd.com/writing/2022/01/26/most-wanted-add-ons-firefox-android-part-1.html https://www.quippd.com/writing/2022/01/26/most-wanted-add-on...
  - capitainenemo 4y ago
    It does require creating a Firefox account and creating a "collection" so it's definitely not out of the box.
    - yoasif_ 4y ago
      I don't think I or my post implied that it was out of the box. You also don't need to create your own collection - one just needs to exist with the extensions you are looking for.
      - capitainenemo 4y ago
        Sure. Wasn't implying anything. Just warning people. It's also why I haven't gotten around to it yet. I've made many accounts with Mozilla over the years and none of them were migrated over to this new system (ditto when they killed off moznet actually). I'm just sick of it. It's just enough friction that I haven't gotten around to fixing the annoyances of the missing addons.
    - gaius_baltar 4y ago
dblohm7 4y ago
(Former Mozilla developer here, who worked on GeckoView[1], the modern way to embed Gecko into Android apps, including all currently shipped Mozilla browsers on Android) From an engineering perspective, the sad thing about this is that the work to finish extensions in GeckoView was essentially completed in the months after the initial Fenix release. When GeckoView was still being rolled out into release, we understandably wanted to restrict the selection of addons only to those that exercised APIs that we knew were ready for production. Since that time, however, the WebExtensions work was essentially completed -- since that time it has entirely been a business decision to continue restricting the selection of addons available. I didn't personally work on the WebExtensions bits, but I know that those who did were frustrated that their work to finish fleshing out full extension support was being held back for seemingly arbitrary reasons (that were never explained to engineering). [1] https://geckoview.dev https://geckoview.dev
- jonkoops 4y ago
  This pretty much feels to me what is happening to Mozilla as an organization from an outsider perspective. Engineering is no longer as important as the evangelism and management is making strange decisions that lack focus on what the target audience really is.
  - pessimizer 4y ago
    The evangelism is even bad. It was more coherent and convincing back when the browser was better.
    - Filligree 4y ago
      The evangelism is mostly about stuff that nobody outside the USA cares about. It just looks like the browser is made by crazy people.
      - smachiz 4y ago
        It would seem not many people inside the USA care about it either given their market share...
Pxtl 4y ago
After dealing with performance, janky scrolling, and crashing in FF and dealing with weird UI bugs in Edge (keyboard overlaps page instead of resizing page), I've sadly had to return to Chrome on my phone.
moonshinefe 4y ago
I like using Firefox on Android because uBlock origin makes mobile browsing at least tolerable and it lets me use the "desktop mode" view on certain sites so e.g. I can listen to youtube playlists even if the phone is locked without paying for a premium service (for what I consider basic functionality). Surprised to hear literally the sole reason I use it on mobile is also neglected. Do they think they're going to out compete Chrome on Google's own platform for casual users or something? I don't get it.
- cowtools 4y ago
  uBlock Origin is still availible on Firefox mobile, just not all addons
- kevin_thibedeau 4y ago
  Google only funds Mozilla so it can be an anti-trust figleaf. It's kept on a short leash to ensure it is never a threat.
- zaik 4y ago
  > so e.g. I can listen to youtube playlists even if the phone is locked NewPipe on F-Droid is a killer app.
  - Beldin 4y ago
    Every video, I get errors in the UI. I once powered through, it seems eventually the video does play normally. Perhaps that is because of blocked ads(by newpipe then - I have no other restrictions on mobile)
    - pmontra 4y ago
      Keep NewPipe updated. You must install every update as soon as it tells you one is available. I've not got any error for a while.
      - mmebane 4y ago
Pakdef 4y ago
Most the addons that I use work with collections, but collections are cumbersome to use. Why don't they just have an option to unblock all addons and give you a warning that some might not work? The day they do that on Desktop, I don't know which browser I'll switch to...
kashyapc 4y ago
For a year now, I began using DuckDuckGo's (DDG) "Privacy Browser" on Android. By default it removes ads and third-party trackers; no need for add-ons. So far DDG's browser works roughly on par with my older setup of stock Android Firefox plus a couple of usual extensions. I wonder why DDG's Android browser isn't more well-known.
- gs17 4y ago
  > By default it removes ads and third-party trackers; no need for add-ons. I wish it really was "no need", but it's frustrating if their built in list doesn't meet your needs. With uBlock I can add new rules easily.
- Sakos 4y ago
  I use a bunch of addons beyond adblocking. It's really a huge pain that FF only allows whitelisted ones without jumping through ridiculous hoops.
- soundnote 4y ago
  It doesn't block Microsoft trackers due to a search deal: https://twitter.com/yegg/status/1528838579455250434 https://twitter.com/yegg/status/1528838579455250434 > For non-search tracker blocking (eg in our browser), we block most third-party trackers. Unfortunately our Microsoft search syndication agreement prevents us from doing more to Microsoft-owned properties. However, we have been continually pushing and expect to be doing more soon. > > We've been working tirelessly behind the scenes to change these requirements, though our syndication agreement also has a confidentially provision that prevents disclosing details. Again, we expect to have an update soon that will include more third-party Microsoft protection.
  - kashyapc 4y ago
    I see, didn't know that; thanks! (Also to the other replies in this thread.)
eadmund 4y ago
And Print to PDF still doesn't work, which is another regression. Why Mozilla why‽
itvision 4y ago
I've closely been following Mobile Firefox development over the past year - this browser is dead, like totally dead. Bug reports pile up, nothing is really fixed, a ton of commits about telemetry, some commits here and there changing certain UI elements, some refactoring, almost nothing else. Go check its revision history all you want: https://github.com/mozilla-mobile/fenix/commits/main https://github.com/mozilla-mobile/fenix/commits/main Mozilla has seemingly totally given up on it. It's incredibly sad.
- Jap2-0 4y ago
  That's because actual browser development doesn't happen there - that's at https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/ https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/. Rereading your comment, you're referring more specifically to mobile; I suppose you might have a point there, but when almost everything is in mozilla-central, I'm not sure what you expect to see there (well, extensions, but beyond that) other than UI work.
  - iggldiggl 4y ago
    There are still loads of things that used to work before the rewrite and now don't, plus a number of bugs introduced during the rewrite, and progress in that area is positively glacial.
- criddell 4y ago
  I'm starting to think that maybe browsers on Android and iOS just don't matter much anymore, other than as the foundation for in-app web views. I have a fairly new phone on a 5G network and the browser is soooo much better than it was even ten years ago yet I use it far, far less than I did back then. Part of it is that my phone just didn't do as much back then and so I spent more time in the browser, but I think the other part is that the web has turned into a garbage fire. I used to browse the web the same way I used to channel surf in 1984. It was what I did for fun. Today, I go to five sites 99% of the time and I kind of dread having to use my browser on my phone outside of that.
  - 4y ago
jimmaswell 4y ago
I wish the developers would all organize, break off ties with Mozilla, and endorse a fork as the new real Firefox.
- jrochkind1 4y ago
  i would think most of the developers have a job working for mozilla, by which they support themselves, which would make that somewhat harder.
  - jimmaswell 4y ago
    Maybe Elon Musk or someone could pay them all to come to a new company, as long as I'm dreaming of pipes.
sva_ 4y ago
You can use custom addons in Firefox Nightly though, at least. https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2020/09/29/expanded-extension-support-in-firefox-for-android-nightly/ https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2020/09/29/expanded-extensio...
thewebcount 4y ago
I'm confused by this. Yesterday there was an article about how Apple only lets browsers use WebKit for rendering, and that was considered bad because it means that mobile browsers can't support add-ons. But it looks like Firefox doesn't support them anyway, so what's the problem again?
- commoner 4y ago
  Even though Mozilla's execution leaves much to be desired, Firefox does support a limited number of extensions on Android (including the incomparable uBlock Origin), which is still more than the number of extensions Apple allows Firefox to support on iOS (zero). Forks of Firefox for Android, such as Mull and Fennec F-Droid, gain access to all compatible add-ons on addons.mozilla.org, while an equivalent fork of Firefox for iOS would also be restricted to zero add-ons. So yes, Apple's anti-competitive App Store restrictions are still a problem because they prevent Safari's competitors from implementing an important feature that Safari supports.
331c8c71 4y ago
I use ff almost exlusively both on my laptop and the phone. The existing gap between even the core features has been puzzling for a while. On mobile I can add a current page to home screen, collections and the top sites. Neither is available on desktop (with the same profile). WTF mozilla? What kind of usability is this? I am totally not looking forward switching to another browser but it looks inevitable...
- kbrosnan 4y ago
  On Windows/Mac OS/Linux you can drag the lock icon to the desktop to create a desktop launcher/shortcut.
  - 331c8c71 4y ago
    thank you for the suggestion. i find collections super handy and use them but the fact they are not exposed (even in rudimemtary form) in desktop UI is appalling. the usefulness of collections drops by some 50% to me - i basically need to reopen a saved page in mobile, send it to the desktop browser (using "send to device" feature) and then, probably, save it again in bookmarks.
AshamedCaptain 4y ago
To this day Firefox for Android still does not have a tab bar on tablets. Which is double ridiculous since the previous two rewrites both did have one (in fact I contributed to the former...).
- dblohm7 4y ago
  Yeah, but what's the tablet market for Android these days?
  - capitainenemo 4y ago
    There's quite a few chrome books that run android apps. I think it's even default these days...
    - wilsonnb3 4y ago
      Chromebooks can run the linux version of firefox, so I don't think many people would be using the android version on them
      - capitainenemo 4y ago
        No idea... I feel like the android one might be a better fit, interface-wise for a chromebook with a tablet mode and touch screen and limited file system access like the one a friend of mine has, but it's also true I don't own a chromebook so I don't know which people prefer to use.
  - amanzi 4y ago
    I just bought a Galaxy Tab S8 after continually being disappointed with the iPad and lack of user-friendly multi-tasking capability. I was disappointed to find that Firefox's tablet interface is just a blown-up phone interface. I have switched to using Edge instead because it looks like a proper desktop browser with a tab bar, and has integrated ad-blocking. For me, the two biggest pain points I experience with Firefox is the lack of PWA support on desktop, and now the lack of a proper tablet interface. So I end up using Chrome/Edge on desktop for PWAs, and now I use Edge on tablet. It's getting harder to stick with Firefox...
dang 4y ago
Submitted title was "Firefox addons are still unavailable on Android, two years after Fenix release". Since that language doesn't appear in the OP, it seems a little editorialized and I've replaced it with the page title now. If there's a better (more accurate and neutral) title that uses representative language from the article itself, we can change it again.
- jimmaswell 4y ago
  This title change is a complete disservice. It's vague and milquetoast to the point of meaningless now when before it firmly but fairly stated the truth of the situation.
  - troyvit 4y ago
    Actually I saw the (2021) in the title and it made the tragedy quite clear.
- ncann 4y ago
  dang, this is a really bad title change. The original title was clear and to the point, the new one is vague and omits the most important fact of the whole thing. At least something like "Lack of add-on support in new Firefox (2021)" would be better.
xthrowawayxx 4y ago
I exclusively use Firefox on Android because of the addons. For me it's the killer feature. Dark mode, ad blocks, YouTube while screen is off. It's made android so much more enjoyable.
- sbernecchia 4y ago
  all three features are also awailable on brave browser.
jacooper 4y ago
For people who want to use extensions on mobile, check Kiwi browser, an open source chromium based browser with full support for extensions.
Markoff 4y ago
one of the many reasons why Firefox is unusable on mobile Kiwi Browser FTW https://kiwibrowser.com/ https://kiwibrowser.com/
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
rsoto 4y ago
I remember back in late 2018, early 2019 I downloaded the Nightly version, Mozilla had been hinting on a rewrite for a while and I wanted to see what they were up to. This version seemed solid, although a work in progress: you could not customize the listed sites in the home screen, addons were disabled and the settings seemed lacking compared to what we had in the stable release, but work was solid. Then, out of nowhere, they phase out what we currently have with this half-baked Nightly version. The app updated itself overnight and now all the addons are no longer supported (Violentmonkey was a big one for me as I could customize some websites with a user script), the home page icons can't be rearranged, the history can't be deleted and overall this updated app seems like a worse deal that we previously had. Mozilla has stopped caring about their products. It seems that nobody in there is dogfooding Firefox, and it shows. They have a big advantage because of Google still not allowing addons on Mobile Chrome, and instead of opening up the whole ecosystem (which previously most of the desktop addons were compatible with the mobile app), they double down on allowing only a very short list of preapproved addons.
1vuio0pswjnm7 4y ago
Would be nice if one could run uBlock Matrix on Fennec.
timvisee 4y ago
I've been using Firefox on Android with a set of custom extensions for a while now, and it is fanatic! No more ads, no more cookie banners.
- sbernecchia 4y ago
  yu can do the same with brave or vivaldi
iamevn 4y ago
Do any of the mobile Firefox forks have a better story for tab management? I've been on nightly for a long time (for its janky addon support) and the way I can't manually sort and group tabs is extremely frustrating to me.

292 points by karlicoss 4y ago

Mozilla doesn't seem to have a clue why people prefer firefox. It's not because of privacy or security, though that's nice. It's certainly not because it behaves similarly to chrome. It was always the extensibility. The power of plugins that allowed adblocking to be invented on firefox. They threw that away in the name of security and supposed clean code. Clean code doesn't get you users.

mmmrk 4y ago
I'm a decade-long user and am perfectly fine with modern Firefox (plus uBlock), both on the desktop and on Android. In fact, I don't want to go back to the before-times. Speak for yourself.
- MerelyMortal 4y ago
  Speaking for myself, I wish I could run more addons in Firefox for Android than just uBlock Origin. (I'm a 15+ year user, I started using it when I discovered I could run it off a flash drive on locked-down shared computers.)
  - capitainenemo 4y ago
    Ditto... For example. They allow NoScript, but they blocked Custom Style Script, Tampermonkey/Violentmonkey, Old Reddit Redirect all of which I used for small tweaks to common sites with poor non-JS CSS defaults to make NoScript more usable. They also blocked about:config (fixed by using F-Droid Fennec). I also lost functionality that I had relied on (not going to turn this into a rant on that - and that's probably due to the rewrite, but it's still unfortunate). Here are the addons I'm still miss post change. There's been no modifications to the list since. "View Source" "Tampermonkey" "Old Reddit Redirect" "Custom Style Script" "Android PDF.js" "uMatrix" "Alt Text Viewer" The only one they had an adequate replacement for was "Dark Mode" - "Dark Reader" does basically same job with slightly less convenient UI. "Dark Reader" is also an extremely crude alternative for custom CSS.
- throw10920 4y ago
  I'm also a decades-long user, and am very unhappy with many of the changes that Mozilla has made to Firefox (both on the desktop and on Android), and I do want to go back to the before-times. I feel like it should be obvious that, at least in the case of addons, some users want addons and some users don't care about addons, but very very few users explicitly don't want addons to be available at all, and that consequently the correct approach is to make addons available.
- superkuh 4y ago
  Don't worry, he's speaking for the majority of long term firefox users. You're the exception. I started using Firefox when it was Gecko/Phoenix in 2002, then Firebird, then Firefox. I started using it because it was so customizable. I stopped using it at version 37 in 2015 because that was when Mozilla destroyed the browser by removing user freedoms to install their own add-ons without Mozilla's approval. And no, using Nightly (alpha renamed aurora renamed nightly) is not an option because it is extremely crashy on non-standard OS/Distros. Since 2015 Firefox has become rapidly less capable and rapidly more 'secure' for non-technical users. It's just not what I or the original userbase want. But like with all things Mozilla (including the original employees and CEO) we've been replaced. There's plenty of users who just want Chrome that's not labeled Chrome and Firefox modern gives it to them.
  - seszett 4y ago
    Just to chime in, I also started using Phoenix in 2002, but it wasn't because it was customizable. I've never used more than a couple of extensions and I actually have every extension I need on Android, so I'm fully satisfied for my particular use case. I still think most of what Mozilla does with Firefox is absolutely stupid and I wish it was different because attracting or retaining more users would make Firefox less likely to die, and generally help the web.
  - Arnavion 4y ago
    FWIW my distro's firefox package allows installing my own extensions. I wouldn't be using it if it didn't.
  - soundnote 4y ago
    > There's plenty of users who just want Chrome that's not labeled Chrome and Firefox modern gives it to them. Firefox isn't Chrome that's not labeled Chrome, though. Less customization doesn't mean it's necessarily more Chrome-like, especially lately where Chrome's implementing things like tab groups and keeping more or less the same UI design. The new Firefox looks more Safari-ish than Chrome-ish. to me.
    - superkuh 4y ago
- sbcd 4y ago
  >Speak for yourself Haha. Firefox went from above 20% marketshare in its early days, to below 4% today, and the number is continually dwindling. At this point it's the few defensive, aggressive fanboys left who are "speaking for themselves". We'll probably still hear this kind of comment from the likes of you even when usage drops below 0.01%. And I don't want to hear the "it's chrome's fault" again from the FF brigade, IE had more marketshare in the IE vs Netscape days than Chrome has today, and it didn't stop Firefox from eating at IE's shares.
  - slightwinder 4y ago
    Firefox decline started long before they switched the extensions-system, In fact they lost majority of their share before that point, and seem to have gained a bit momentum back because of it, temporary. > And I don't want to hear the "it's chrome's fault" again from the FF brigade, Sure, who cares about facts when you can have guts-feeling... > IE had more marketshare in the IE vs Netscape days than Chrome has today, and it didn't stop Firefox from eating at IE's shares. IE had no marketing at that point, while Firefox did had significant marketing at the time. Chrome then started also with big marketing, while Firefox was busy with dying projects. Coincidence? Seems like marketing is a major factor for success even here.
- pessimizer 4y ago
  If you compare the marketshare of firefox a decade ago to the marketshare of firefox now, you can determine pretty precisely how extreme a minority you are in that.
  - CorrectHorseBat 4y ago
    As if that has anything to do with it, Chrome is even worse in that regard and it's market share has only grown.
    - pessimizer 4y ago
      Even worse in what regard? Did you reply to the right comment? Chrome imitates Chrome far better than Firefox does. I just don't think they can catch up at this point. edit: maybe you meant addons? Chrome has more addons, with more users, updated more often. Chrome fails at ublock because it wants to, but as long as you're not messing with Google's core business, Chrome is (of course) going to be better off than the product of the endangered company that solely survives from Google's donations.
      - yoasif_ 4y ago
        More addons on mobile?
        krzyk 4y ago
        Chrome has any addons on mobile?
        mardifoufs 4y ago
        Kiwi browser is basically chrome but with full extension/dev tools support. Nothing custom, all stock chrome. But I know the devs behind that browser rely on data collection themselves, so it's less than ideal (you can I think turn all of that off but I'm not sure). But it shows that it is possible to have full add-on support on mobile chromium. Especially considering Kiwi was developed by a single dev initially. Most open source chromium forks on Android don't have add-ons though, so kiwi is the best option. I guess it's usually because those forks are usually very privacy centric so add-on support is far from a priority. Kiwi on the other hand is basically stock desktop chrome Edit: apparently they don't outright collect user data! >The browser is getting paid by search engines for every search done using Kiwi Browser. >Depending on the search engine choice, requests may go via Kiwibrowser / Kiwisearchservices servers. This is for invoicing our search partners and provide alternative search results (e.g. bangs aka "shortcuts"). >In some countries, the browser displays sponsored tiles or news on the homepage. >User data (browsing, navigation, passwords, accounts) is not collected because we have no interest to know what you do in the browser. Our main goal is to convince you to use a search engine partner, and this search engine makes money / new partnerships and shares revenue with us.
- throwaway0x7E6 4y ago
  then you're not a poweruser. you'd be perfectly fine with stock Chrome too.
doix 4y ago
Yeah, when they did the big performance rewrite(quantum?) and killed pentadactyl (vim mode), I was really upset. I remember using Firefox 52-esr for as long as I could to keep my workflow the same. In my mind, that was peak Firefox. Yes performance wasn't great, but I didn't care. It was good enough and I mostly browsed with JavaScript disabled. The new vim mode plugins can't compete with the old plugins because they are much more restricted in what they can do.
- causi 4y ago
  The really galling thing is they lied right to our damn faces about how "the new faster systems breaks the old add-on system" while they were still using XUL behind the scenes. In fact an HN reader compiled versions of Firefox 57 and above with user-installed XUL enabled and they work perfectly well.
  - yoasif_ 4y ago
    Nothing is really stopping people from keeping those extensions compatible. Unsupported doesn't mean impossible - it just means you need to do some tweaks: https://webextensions-experiments.readthedocs.io https://webextensions-experiments.readthedocs.io
    - causi 4y ago
      I'm not understanding how that relates to the fact that the only thing stopping users from installing their XUL extensions on FF57 was a software switch they weren't allowed to touch without editing and compiling from source.
      - yoasif_ 4y ago
        No editing or compilation needed. You just needed to disable signature checks (xpinstall.signatures.required) and enable extension experiments (extensions.experiments.enabled) in a developer edition version (or nightly) version of the browser.
causi 4y ago
Mozilla lost the plot the day they decided chasing Chrome was more important than appealing to their actual userbase. That was about the time they started incrementing version numbers every six weeks and rendered the numbers meaningless.
- dblohm7 4y ago
  Or you know, we just wanted to offer the closest thing we could get to continuous delivery of desktop software?
  - causi 4y ago
    Which is a great justification for releasing updates every six weeks. Destroying the paradigm of "integer release = major revision" instead of "Firefox 5.102" is what makes it a pointless dick-measuring contest with Chrome. One you lost, by the way.
slightwinder 4y ago
> It was always the extensibility. Going by the numbers, that's far from the truth. Majority of user never used addons, not even adblockers. Even the most popular addons are only used by a small minority of users. I'm also a big addon-user and complain what firefox has lost over time. But we should also admit that we are a minority, and addons are simply not the major selling point for a mainstream product's success.
- antisthenes 4y ago
  You shouldn't be afraid to cater to the minority of power users. Power users are the ones that make browser recommendations to an outsized group of people, e.g. friends, relatives and coworkers. They are also the ones that drive new standard adoption. It's entirely plausible that when you alienate a power user, you also alienate their entire social circle, dependent on them for tech advice, so you lose 20x-100x of your audience/users. I'm not saying that's exactly what happened, but it definitely happened to some degree. Personally, I no longer recommend or use Firefox to anyone. The techy people in my circle use Brave or ungoogled Chromium. The untechy ones use Chrome/Edge and maybe have Opera/Vivaldi as their backup browser or Safari if they're big Apple fans. Almost no one uses FF anymore. Without its extensibility, it simply doesn't compete anymore.
- rurp 4y ago
  I think it's hard to tease out the size of effect. Extensions are only used by a minority of users, but that's mostly the set of vocal power users that are likely to be the go-to tech person within their social circles. I'm sure I'm far from the only HNer that has recommended or installed Firefox for many friends and family. I mean, I used to recommend and install Firefox before their terrible management turned the org into a dumpster fire. They've lost both myself and everyone I would have turned onto Firefox.
  - slightwinder 4y ago
    That might have been 20 years ago when Firefox grew from it's grassroot-movement. But Chrome started without extensions and grew more through marketing and Googles fame. Power users have their influence even today, but I'd say it's not as strong as it was in the old days. Most users have emancipated themselves from us, and can choose now on their own, because this kind of information is not arcane anymore.
throwaway0x7E6 4y ago
they know it. that's why they've killed XUL. that's why they're going even further by enforcing an inferior extension standard from their supposed competitor. that's why they've killed off the extensions and about:config for the android version. that's why you can't even use a private extension on desktop without jumping through the hoops. that's why usercss (toolkit.legacyUserProfileCustomizations.stylesheets - legacy and disabled by default - the writing is on the wall already) and userjs will get axed. that's why about:config will get axed on the desktop version as well. all of that is just off the top of my head. and in the end, Firefox will be a clunky and inferior alternative for Chrome with not 2%, but 0.2% of the market. which is the goal.
- anonymousab 4y ago
  > which is the goal I don't think so. There's many more ways and decisions they could have gotten away with to make Firefox worse without outright killing it, that they haven't done (yet). Rather, I think it's more likely that Firefox, the browser application, is a bit of an albatross to the Mozilla foundation. Something they begrudgingly have to live with, at least in the short term. It's their organization's 'product', but to a certain layer of leadership and above, it's just another vehicle for their broader mission which could be accomplished much easier by just being a chrome fork instead. It'd also remove the need to hire and retain so many pesky and annoying engineers. Such that the Mozilla corp. is something they have to keep around, but definitely not something they want to keep around. It is an attractive way of rationalizing the astonishing and bewildering decision making at Mozilla.
- dblohm7 4y ago
  No. > that's why they've killed XUL We couldn't deliver a multiprocess browser without doing it. > about:config for the android version I completely supported this and continue to do so. GeckoView on Android works completely differently than desktop Firefox, and about:config's semantics are not identical between the two. A few of us were interested in offering an alternative that gave users a way to make adjustments in a way that was "safe," but as you can imagine that has never been a management priority.
  - 4y ago

bwat48 4y ago

misleading title, some addons are available... e.g. I use ublock origin in firefox on android

randy408 4y ago
You mean half a dozen add-ons are available
- rcMgD2BwE72F 4y ago
  Far more… if you're using Nightly (I do as my daily browser, with a dozen of active extensions). Not easy though: https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2020/09/29/expanded-extension-support-in-firefox-for-android-nightly/ https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2020/09/29/expanded-extensio...

therealmarv 4y ago

That's not true. It's more that Mozilla white lists only very few of the addons for the mobile browser. The fork Iceraven whitelists/allow all (?) of the addons (not all work fully, so the whitelist has a purpose): https://github.com/fork-maintainers/iceraven-browser https://github.com/fork-maintainers/iceraven-browser

vintermann 4y ago
Yes, I thought it was odd, since I certainly use ublock origin right now. It is the reason I stick with Firefox on Android in the first place.
- oittaa 4y ago
  Same, but it would be nice if all the plugins worked instead of the few that are whitelisted.
ropeladder 4y ago
"the whitelist has a purpose" doesn't really capture what's going on, though. It's more like they whitelisted some of the most popular extensions and then just stopped completely with no intention of continuing. With the much more limited plugin API (and simple html plug-in config pages) of the new browsers you'd think it would be easier to build and vet secure, cross platform add-ons.
- sbernecchia 4y ago
  yes, you're probably right, they have no intention of continuing. I think mozilla is not really committed to firefox on android. after all they have a minuscule market share on mobile, almost not existent. they probably think that most users will install just an adblocker, so they don't want to "waste" money enabling other extensions. so sad.
- ZeroGravitas 4y ago
  Somewhere in a parallel universe, Mozilla just let all the plugins claim compatability, and vaguely fascist users who dont like their politics are complaining that the instability of Mozilla on Android is the reason they hate them. And further along, in a universe where they poured a lot of time energy and money into fixing the whole plugin ecosystem and succeeded, they're complaining about something that didn't get done because of that shift in focus. The conversation goes something like: "Why are they spending time and money on fixing mobile addons no one uses? I think this is because their management are too political, not like their old unpolitical leadership. And as I say every time they get mentioned "I hate people who say and do political stuff!!". It makes me so angry. They should only do what I want or I'll force them out of business from pure spite. That'll teach them to be political.

paol 4y ago

...and that's why I'm still running FF 68 on my phone. Well that and a bunch of UI regressions.

vsskanth 4y ago

I use bypass-paywalls-clean addon and I'm forced to use Firefox Nightly and deal with all its weird bugs (it's nightly so that's expected) because of this. Things have improved quite a bit though. They finally fixed that stupid scrolling bug that cuts off a part of the page below the nav bar. That finally got me off Kiwi Browser. Eagerly waiting for all add-ons to be allowed in stable.

sbernecchia 4y ago
you can use fennec from f-droid too. it's compiled from stable, not nightly.
- sp332 4y ago
  You don't have to put so many copies of the same comment on one story.
  - woojoo666 4y ago
    It think it's fair, its a response to all the copies of the same complaint (aka "i dont want to have to use firefox nightly")
causi 4y ago
They haven't added any extensions in a year and a half. It's not going to happen.

phreack 4y ago

This sucks because it also means no one is making add-ons for mobile, it's more of an accident that we even have ublock. There's use cases that the Firefox team will not work on for decades that could be filled by add-ons if they just told people to go wild, absolute top of the list being text reflow to prevent having to scroll sideways to read long text. Opera is still the only browser that does it for some reason years on, but it gets worse every update.

olvy0 4y ago
Yeah, that's why I still use Opera on mobile. All the other mobile browsers including Chrome and Firefox are broken for me since I have to slide sideways to read texts. On desktop I use Firefox exclusively. I tried several time to use Firefox mobile but the sideways scrolling was really a pain. I can't believe no one has implemented such a basic and important addon for readability. I search for something like that about once a year but find nothing. But it's probably just me. And phreack above.

nelblu 4y ago

I use iceraven to get around some of these limitations. Addons that I needed(privacy redirect) work great: https://github.com/fork-maintainers/iceraven-browser https://github.com/fork-maintainers/iceraven-browser. From the github link : The ability to attempt to install a much longer list of add-ons than Mozilla's Fenix version of Firefox accepts. Currently the browser queries this AMO collection Most of them will not work, because they depend on code that Mozilla is still working on writing in android-components, but you may attempt to install them. If you don't see an add-on you want, you can request it.

sbernecchia 4y ago

also fennec from f-droid is able to use custom extensions (and also about:config) it is compiled from firefox stable, with minimal changes, and mozilla telemetry disabled. https://f-droid.org/en/packages/org.mozilla.fennec_fdroid/ https://f-droid.org/en/packages/org.mozilla.fennec_fdroid/

mrandish 4y ago
Yep, Fennec has been my solution to Mozilla abandoning FF on Android.
- rhamzeh 4y ago
  That's a weird take, considering Fennec is FF on Android, just with some minor config changes. Your statement is akin to saying: "Firefox on Debian is my solution to Mozilla abandoning FF on desktop" If FF on Android _were_ abandoned, then so would Fennec. I use Fennec, but because I know that it the well-supported, actively developed Firefox on Android, but available on F-Droid. which sadly Mozilla doesn't provide or allow F-Droid maintainers to publish it as "Firefox"
pmontra 4y ago
I just checked. Firefox on Google Play is version 101.2.0 from June 8. Fennec on F-Droid is version 97.1.1 from February 26. Maybe it's not abandoned but it doesn't feel that one can count on it for timely bug fixes. Edit: then I remembered that F-Droid has the quirk of requiring a manual refresh of its repository. I did it and got version 101.1.0 from June 5. Much better.

TrianguloY 4y ago

Fenix is basically a whole new browser, and that means that all features need to be implemented again (which takes a lot of time, and I don't think Firefox developers have much of it). Lots of Fennec features are still missing (view source code, save as pdf, install general addons, the whole about:config...). Why they changed is a mystery, maybe the old browser had a core privacy bug or something that couldn't be fixed, but basically they killed Firefox on android.

Dylan16807 4y ago
Another fun missing feature is the ability to delete cookies for a site.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- jay3ss 4y ago
  Click on the lock in the URL bar then "Clear cookies and site data"
  - Dylan16807 4y ago
    Oh, you're right, they got that in in April. Very slow progress but nonzero progress.
- capitainenemo 4y ago
  Another missing cool feature from old Firefox for mobile was ability to remove a site url from suggest and history just by long touching on it, which seems to have entirely purged it from the places db. In fact, the new one doesn't remove things from suggest even if you remove it from your browser history manually, which is also really only convenient to do if you accessed it recently. If you don't want things spamming up suggest, the only option is to use private browsing or wipe your entire history.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

causi 4y ago

For those who think Mozilla did a good job with Firefox for Android, how do you justify the fact there's still no way to change the User Agent without swapping to Beta? Sure, there's a "desktop mode" button, but not only does that break and force you to reset the browser if you hit the back button but it doesn't actually change the user agent. Sites that bar mobile devices can still tell you're on mobile and stop you from seeing the page.

thinkingemote 4y ago

I was writing an extension for Firefox mobile to improve HN a bit to make it work nicer on mobile. Then whoops Firefox no longer does extensions really. * Such a wasted missed opportunity for the mobile web. FF could and still might be able to recognise the utility. (* Yes I can install it via developer mode I think, but it was for you too)

yoasif_ 4y ago
FWIW, people that want to run extensions can either use Fennec (the F-Droid fork, not the old Firefox for Android) or Nightly versions. There are developers targeting this stuff - I wrote about some here: https://www.quippd.com/writing/2022/01/26/most-wanted-add-ons-firefox-android-part-1.html https://www.quippd.com/writing/2022/01/26/most-wanted-add-on...
- capitainenemo 4y ago
  It does require creating a Firefox account and creating a "collection" so it's definitely not out of the box.
  - yoasif_ 4y ago
    I don't think I or my post implied that it was out of the box. You also don't need to create your own collection - one just needs to exist with the extensions you are looking for.
    - capitainenemo 4y ago
      Sure. Wasn't implying anything. Just warning people. It's also why I haven't gotten around to it yet. I've made many accounts with Mozilla over the years and none of them were migrated over to this new system (ditto when they killed off moznet actually). I'm just sick of it. It's just enough friction that I haven't gotten around to fixing the annoyances of the missing addons.
  - gaius_baltar 4y ago

dblohm7 4y ago

(Former Mozilla developer here, who worked on GeckoView[1], the modern way to embed Gecko into Android apps, including all currently shipped Mozilla browsers on Android) From an engineering perspective, the sad thing about this is that the work to finish extensions in GeckoView was essentially completed in the months after the initial Fenix release. When GeckoView was still being rolled out into release, we understandably wanted to restrict the selection of addons only to those that exercised APIs that we knew were ready for production. Since that time, however, the WebExtensions work was essentially completed -- since that time it has entirely been a business decision to continue restricting the selection of addons available. I didn't personally work on the WebExtensions bits, but I know that those who did were frustrated that their work to finish fleshing out full extension support was being held back for seemingly arbitrary reasons (that were never explained to engineering). [1] https://geckoview.dev https://geckoview.dev

jonkoops 4y ago
This pretty much feels to me what is happening to Mozilla as an organization from an outsider perspective. Engineering is no longer as important as the evangelism and management is making strange decisions that lack focus on what the target audience really is.
- pessimizer 4y ago
  The evangelism is even bad. It was more coherent and convincing back when the browser was better.
  - Filligree 4y ago
    The evangelism is mostly about stuff that nobody outside the USA cares about. It just looks like the browser is made by crazy people.
    - smachiz 4y ago
      It would seem not many people inside the USA care about it either given their market share...

Pxtl 4y ago

After dealing with performance, janky scrolling, and crashing in FF and dealing with weird UI bugs in Edge (keyboard overlaps page instead of resizing page), I've sadly had to return to Chrome on my phone.

moonshinefe 4y ago

I like using Firefox on Android because uBlock origin makes mobile browsing at least tolerable and it lets me use the "desktop mode" view on certain sites so e.g. I can listen to youtube playlists even if the phone is locked without paying for a premium service (for what I consider basic functionality). Surprised to hear literally the sole reason I use it on mobile is also neglected. Do they think they're going to out compete Chrome on Google's own platform for casual users or something? I don't get it.

cowtools 4y ago
uBlock Origin is still availible on Firefox mobile, just not all addons
kevin_thibedeau 4y ago
Google only funds Mozilla so it can be an anti-trust figleaf. It's kept on a short leash to ensure it is never a threat.
zaik 4y ago
> so e.g. I can listen to youtube playlists even if the phone is locked NewPipe on F-Droid is a killer app.
- Beldin 4y ago
  Every video, I get errors in the UI. I once powered through, it seems eventually the video does play normally. Perhaps that is because of blocked ads(by newpipe then - I have no other restrictions on mobile)
  - pmontra 4y ago
    Keep NewPipe updated. You must install every update as soon as it tells you one is available. I've not got any error for a while.
    - mmebane 4y ago

Pakdef 4y ago

Most the addons that I use work with collections, but collections are cumbersome to use. Why don't they just have an option to unblock all addons and give you a warning that some might not work? The day they do that on Desktop, I don't know which browser I'll switch to...

kashyapc 4y ago

For a year now, I began using DuckDuckGo's (DDG) "Privacy Browser" on Android. By default it removes ads and third-party trackers; no need for add-ons. So far DDG's browser works roughly on par with my older setup of stock Android Firefox plus a couple of usual extensions. I wonder why DDG's Android browser isn't more well-known.

gs17 4y ago
> By default it removes ads and third-party trackers; no need for add-ons. I wish it really was "no need", but it's frustrating if their built in list doesn't meet your needs. With uBlock I can add new rules easily.
Sakos 4y ago
I use a bunch of addons beyond adblocking. It's really a huge pain that FF only allows whitelisted ones without jumping through ridiculous hoops.
soundnote 4y ago
It doesn't block Microsoft trackers due to a search deal: https://twitter.com/yegg/status/1528838579455250434 https://twitter.com/yegg/status/1528838579455250434 > For non-search tracker blocking (eg in our browser), we block most third-party trackers. Unfortunately our Microsoft search syndication agreement prevents us from doing more to Microsoft-owned properties. However, we have been continually pushing and expect to be doing more soon. > > We've been working tirelessly behind the scenes to change these requirements, though our syndication agreement also has a confidentially provision that prevents disclosing details. Again, we expect to have an update soon that will include more third-party Microsoft protection.
- kashyapc 4y ago
  I see, didn't know that; thanks! (Also to the other replies in this thread.)

eadmund 4y ago

And Print to PDF still doesn't work, which is another regression. Why Mozilla why‽

itvision 4y ago

I've closely been following Mobile Firefox development over the past year - this browser is dead, like totally dead. Bug reports pile up, nothing is really fixed, a ton of commits about telemetry, some commits here and there changing certain UI elements, some refactoring, almost nothing else. Go check its revision history all you want: https://github.com/mozilla-mobile/fenix/commits/main https://github.com/mozilla-mobile/fenix/commits/main Mozilla has seemingly totally given up on it. It's incredibly sad.

Jap2-0 4y ago
That's because actual browser development doesn't happen there - that's at https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/ https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/. Rereading your comment, you're referring more specifically to mobile; I suppose you might have a point there, but when almost everything is in mozilla-central, I'm not sure what you expect to see there (well, extensions, but beyond that) other than UI work.
- iggldiggl 4y ago
  There are still loads of things that used to work before the rewrite and now don't, plus a number of bugs introduced during the rewrite, and progress in that area is positively glacial.
criddell 4y ago
I'm starting to think that maybe browsers on Android and iOS just don't matter much anymore, other than as the foundation for in-app web views. I have a fairly new phone on a 5G network and the browser is soooo much better than it was even ten years ago yet I use it far, far less than I did back then. Part of it is that my phone just didn't do as much back then and so I spent more time in the browser, but I think the other part is that the web has turned into a garbage fire. I used to browse the web the same way I used to channel surf in 1984. It was what I did for fun. Today, I go to five sites 99% of the time and I kind of dread having to use my browser on my phone outside of that.
- 4y ago

jimmaswell 4y ago

I wish the developers would all organize, break off ties with Mozilla, and endorse a fork as the new real Firefox.

jrochkind1 4y ago
i would think most of the developers have a job working for mozilla, by which they support themselves, which would make that somewhat harder.
- jimmaswell 4y ago
  Maybe Elon Musk or someone could pay them all to come to a new company, as long as I'm dreaming of pipes.

sva_ 4y ago

You can use custom addons in Firefox Nightly though, at least. https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2020/09/29/expanded-extension-support-in-firefox-for-android-nightly/ https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2020/09/29/expanded-extensio...

thewebcount 4y ago

I'm confused by this. Yesterday there was an article about how Apple only lets browsers use WebKit for rendering, and that was considered bad because it means that mobile browsers can't support add-ons. But it looks like Firefox doesn't support them anyway, so what's the problem again?

commoner 4y ago
Even though Mozilla's execution leaves much to be desired, Firefox does support a limited number of extensions on Android (including the incomparable uBlock Origin), which is still more than the number of extensions Apple allows Firefox to support on iOS (zero). Forks of Firefox for Android, such as Mull and Fennec F-Droid, gain access to all compatible add-ons on addons.mozilla.org, while an equivalent fork of Firefox for iOS would also be restricted to zero add-ons. So yes, Apple's anti-competitive App Store restrictions are still a problem because they prevent Safari's competitors from implementing an important feature that Safari supports.

331c8c71 4y ago

I use ff almost exlusively both on my laptop and the phone. The existing gap between even the core features has been puzzling for a while. On mobile I can add a current page to home screen, collections and the top sites. Neither is available on desktop (with the same profile). WTF mozilla? What kind of usability is this? I am totally not looking forward switching to another browser but it looks inevitable...

kbrosnan 4y ago
On Windows/Mac OS/Linux you can drag the lock icon to the desktop to create a desktop launcher/shortcut.
- 331c8c71 4y ago
  thank you for the suggestion. i find collections super handy and use them but the fact they are not exposed (even in rudimemtary form) in desktop UI is appalling. the usefulness of collections drops by some 50% to me - i basically need to reopen a saved page in mobile, send it to the desktop browser (using "send to device" feature) and then, probably, save it again in bookmarks.

AshamedCaptain 4y ago

To this day Firefox for Android still does not have a tab bar on tablets. Which is double ridiculous since the previous two rewrites both did have one (in fact I contributed to the former...).

dblohm7 4y ago
Yeah, but what's the tablet market for Android these days?
- capitainenemo 4y ago
  There's quite a few chrome books that run android apps. I think it's even default these days...
  - wilsonnb3 4y ago
    Chromebooks can run the linux version of firefox, so I don't think many people would be using the android version on them
    - capitainenemo 4y ago
      No idea... I feel like the android one might be a better fit, interface-wise for a chromebook with a tablet mode and touch screen and limited file system access like the one a friend of mine has, but it's also true I don't own a chromebook so I don't know which people prefer to use.
- amanzi 4y ago
  I just bought a Galaxy Tab S8 after continually being disappointed with the iPad and lack of user-friendly multi-tasking capability. I was disappointed to find that Firefox's tablet interface is just a blown-up phone interface. I have switched to using Edge instead because it looks like a proper desktop browser with a tab bar, and has integrated ad-blocking. For me, the two biggest pain points I experience with Firefox is the lack of PWA support on desktop, and now the lack of a proper tablet interface. So I end up using Chrome/Edge on desktop for PWAs, and now I use Edge on tablet. It's getting harder to stick with Firefox...

dang 4y ago

Submitted title was "Firefox addons are still unavailable on Android, two years after Fenix release". Since that language doesn't appear in the OP, it seems a little editorialized and I've replaced it with the page title now. If there's a better (more accurate and neutral) title that uses representative language from the article itself, we can change it again.

jimmaswell 4y ago
This title change is a complete disservice. It's vague and milquetoast to the point of meaningless now when before it firmly but fairly stated the truth of the situation.
- troyvit 4y ago
  Actually I saw the (2021) in the title and it made the tragedy quite clear.
ncann 4y ago
dang, this is a really bad title change. The original title was clear and to the point, the new one is vague and omits the most important fact of the whole thing. At least something like "Lack of add-on support in new Firefox (2021)" would be better.

xthrowawayxx 4y ago

I exclusively use Firefox on Android because of the addons. For me it's the killer feature. Dark mode, ad blocks, YouTube while screen is off. It's made android so much more enjoyable.

sbernecchia 4y ago
all three features are also awailable on brave browser.

jacooper 4y ago

For people who want to use extensions on mobile, check Kiwi browser, an open source chromium based browser with full support for extensions.

Markoff 4y ago

one of the many reasons why Firefox is unusable on mobile Kiwi Browser FTW https://kiwibrowser.com/ https://kiwibrowser.com/

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

rsoto 4y ago

I remember back in late 2018, early 2019 I downloaded the Nightly version, Mozilla had been hinting on a rewrite for a while and I wanted to see what they were up to. This version seemed solid, although a work in progress: you could not customize the listed sites in the home screen, addons were disabled and the settings seemed lacking compared to what we had in the stable release, but work was solid. Then, out of nowhere, they phase out what we currently have with this half-baked Nightly version. The app updated itself overnight and now all the addons are no longer supported (Violentmonkey was a big one for me as I could customize some websites with a user script), the home page icons can't be rearranged, the history can't be deleted and overall this updated app seems like a worse deal that we previously had. Mozilla has stopped caring about their products. It seems that nobody in there is dogfooding Firefox, and it shows. They have a big advantage because of Google still not allowing addons on Mobile Chrome, and instead of opening up the whole ecosystem (which previously most of the desktop addons were compatible with the mobile app), they double down on allowing only a very short list of preapproved addons.

1vuio0pswjnm7 4y ago

Would be nice if one could run uBlock Matrix on Fennec.

timvisee 4y ago

I've been using Firefox on Android with a set of custom extensions for a while now, and it is fanatic! No more ads, no more cookie banners.

sbernecchia 4y ago
yu can do the same with brave or vivaldi

iamevn 4y ago

Do any of the mobile Firefox forks have a better story for tab management? I've been on nightly for a long time (for its janky addon support) and the way I can't manually sort and group tabs is extremely frustrating to me.