4 ms·

Such a post at that time would have greatly improved people's response to the change. Instead what we usually get is a PR sanitized gobbledygook which occupies

Such a post at that time would have greatly improved people's response to the change. Instead what we usually get is a PR sanitized gobbledygook which occupies space without speaking much at all. Now a similar thing is happening with Firefox Android and their extensions. Firefox can easily run most extensions but it's hidden behind a config in a canary release of the browser. No doubt there are some good reasons for it but we simply do not know. Ultimately this is a fault common among almost every product designer. They refuse to explain their decisions fearing (perhaps justly) that they may be proven wrong. Many such cases

wolpoli 4y ago
The product designers don't realize that a lot of the backlash comes from the technically-minded audience, and that their usual approach of highlighting user benefits only further fuels distrust among that vocal community.
commoner 4y ago
> Now a similar thing is happening with Firefox Android and their extensions. Firefox can easily run most extensions but it's hidden behind a config in a canary release of the browser. No doubt there are some good reasons for it but we simply do not know. Ultimately this is a fault common among almost every product designer. They refuse to explain their decisions fearing (perhaps justly) that they may be proven wrong. There were no good reasons for Mozilla to restrict extensions on Firefox for Android. It was a stupid decision that alienated Firefox's user base on Android with no real benefits. However, Mozilla has finally listened to the negative feedback and custom add-on collections are now available on Firefox Beta for Android: https://www.ghacks.net/2022/10/20/firefox-beta-for-android-now-supports-custom-add-on-collections/ https://www.ghacks.net/2022/10/20/firefox-beta-for-android-n... Mozilla also said they would start working on WebExtensions on Firefox for Android this year. The goal is to have feature parity with desktop Firefox, which includes retaining the Manifest v2 features that uBlock Origin uses: https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2022/12/15/new-extensions-available-now-on-firefox-for-android-nightly/ https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2022/12/15/new-extensions-av... While Mozilla has made numerous missteps in the past, it looks like they're finally moving in the right direction.
- m-p-3 4y ago
  What also annoys me is they disabled about:config on the Firefox for Android Stable release..
- yjftsjthsd-h 4y ago
  However, Mozilla has finally listened to the negative feedback and custom add-on collections are now available on Firefox Beta for Android Anything to avoid putting a useful feature in a stable release or making it convenient, I suppose...
- its-summertime 4y ago
  The API being unfinished, meaning web extensions could fail in random, unexpected ways, sounds like a good reason to me?
  - cuteboy19 4y ago
    No reason why it can't be hidden behind a WARNING:MAY BREAK or about:config. But they implemented it in such a roundabout manner. Anyways the issue is not the decision but rather the communication about it. Ideally a dev post about this could have satisfied a lot of people but they chose to go with the PR soup method. It's not even that these are exclusive, include a link to dev post in the soup
    - its-summertime 4y ago
      https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2020/09/02/update-on-extension-support-in-the-new-firefox-for-android/ https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2020/09/02/update-on-extensi... and https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/category/mobile/ https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/category/mobile/ ? > We looked at add-on usage on Android, and made the decision to start by building support for add-ons in the Recommended Extensions program that were commonly installed by our mobile users. Enabling a small number of extensions in the initial rollout also enabled us to ensure a good first experience with add-ons in the new browser that are both mobile-friendly and security-reviewed. And progress is on the MDN: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/WebExtensions/Browser_support_for_JavaScript_APIs https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/Web...

wolpoli 4y ago

The product designers don't realize that a lot of the backlash comes from the technically-minded audience, and that their usual approach of highlighting user benefits only further fuels distrust among that vocal community.

commoner 4y ago

> Now a similar thing is happening with Firefox Android and their extensions. Firefox can easily run most extensions but it's hidden behind a config in a canary release of the browser. No doubt there are some good reasons for it but we simply do not know. Ultimately this is a fault common among almost every product designer. They refuse to explain their decisions fearing (perhaps justly) that they may be proven wrong. There were no good reasons for Mozilla to restrict extensions on Firefox for Android. It was a stupid decision that alienated Firefox's user base on Android with no real benefits. However, Mozilla has finally listened to the negative feedback and custom add-on collections are now available on Firefox Beta for Android: https://www.ghacks.net/2022/10/20/firefox-beta-for-android-now-supports-custom-add-on-collections/ https://www.ghacks.net/2022/10/20/firefox-beta-for-android-n... Mozilla also said they would start working on WebExtensions on Firefox for Android this year. The goal is to have feature parity with desktop Firefox, which includes retaining the Manifest v2 features that uBlock Origin uses: https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2022/12/15/new-extensions-available-now-on-firefox-for-android-nightly/ https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2022/12/15/new-extensions-av... While Mozilla has made numerous missteps in the past, it looks like they're finally moving in the right direction.

m-p-3 4y ago
What also annoys me is they disabled about:config on the Firefox for Android Stable release..
yjftsjthsd-h 4y ago
However, Mozilla has finally listened to the negative feedback and custom add-on collections are now available on Firefox Beta for Android Anything to avoid putting a useful feature in a stable release or making it convenient, I suppose...
its-summertime 4y ago
The API being unfinished, meaning web extensions could fail in random, unexpected ways, sounds like a good reason to me?
- cuteboy19 4y ago
  No reason why it can't be hidden behind a WARNING:MAY BREAK or about:config. But they implemented it in such a roundabout manner. Anyways the issue is not the decision but rather the communication about it. Ideally a dev post about this could have satisfied a lot of people but they chose to go with the PR soup method. It's not even that these are exclusive, include a link to dev post in the soup
  - its-summertime 4y ago
    https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2020/09/02/update-on-extension-support-in-the-new-firefox-for-android/ https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2020/09/02/update-on-extensi... and https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/category/mobile/ https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/category/mobile/ ? > We looked at add-on usage on Android, and made the decision to start by building support for add-ons in the Recommended Extensions program that were commonly installed by our mobile users. Enabling a small number of extensions in the initial rollout also enabled us to ensure a good first experience with add-ons in the new browser that are both mobile-friendly and security-reviewed. And progress is on the MDN: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/WebExtensions/Browser_support_for_JavaScript_APIs https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/Web...