30 ms·

Google Play Store: Browsing with Firefox is no longer supported on Android

448 points by gphilip 12y ago

When I try to open play.google.com from Firefox on my Android device I get: This browser is no longer supported. Please use the Google Play Store app to access Google Play. My Firefox version is 35.0, which is the latest version for Android. So it looks like the walls are going up around that particular garden as well.

mewwts 12y ago
Does it work in Chrome?
- rquirk 12y ago
  Yep, just tried it. Firefox not supported, Chrome works fine. It's like Microsoft in the early 2000s all over again.
  - nkuttler 12y ago
    Hehe, I was just thinking of the 90s.. http://www.anybrowser.org/campaign/ http://www.anybrowser.org/campaign/ This can't be intentional, can it?
    - s_kilk 12y ago
      Even if it is intentional, they'll still claim it's an unfortunate mistake and just backpedal from it if the pressure is high enough. Edit: there really isn't a downside for Google. If no-one complains, then they get a clean shot at locking out a competitor. If they people complain loudly enough, they can just revert the change and pretend like it was a mistake. Within a week the whole episode will be forgotten and they can just cook up another scheme.
hutattedonmyarm 12y ago
It works from mobile safari (iOS 8.1.3)
- law 12y ago
  I tested it with Cyanogenmod's stock browser customized with an iPhone user-agent, and it also works fine. It seems like Google is trying to coerce "eligible users" into using the Google Play app, but won't prevent others from accessing the site.
dannywoodz 12y ago
Interestingly, it works if you request the desktop site: they're explicitly blocking Firefox Mobile.
- zanny 12y ago
  They probably just don't want you accessing the store from a browser on mobile when you can be using their app. I don't think this is some malicious betrayal of trust, even if its a stupid thing to do.
  - qntmfred 12y ago
    You can access the store from Chrome on mobile
    - LiroXIV 12y ago
      Completely missing the point here.
  - themartorana 12y ago
    Gave you an up-vote, not sure why you're being down-voted for making a perfectly logical assumption. It's annoying if in fact it's very specifically Firefox Mobile and nothing else, but I agree, if the app has the better experience, they likely want to funnel everyone that way. Edit: aaaand down-voted. What is the actual problem here?
    - gareim 12y ago
      Because as qntmfred said, you can access the store from Chrome.
      - TuringTest 12y ago
        Which, as LiroXIV said, is missing the point. If they publish the Google Play store as a web site, it should work on all standard-compliant web browsers. If they want it to be accessed only from the Android app, fine, but then don't make it available to the Chrome browser either. That kind of "only-works-with-products-from-the-same-vendor" bundling is what got Microsoft convicted for monopolistic practices back in the day.
98Windows 12y ago
Nobody uses firefox anymore anyway so who cares?
- madez 12y ago
  I use firefox and I care.
- 51Cards 12y ago
  As do I. Edit: realizing this was a very short out of context comment. I use Firefox exclusively on Desktop and >50% on Mobile. Seeing the browser market start to fragment again is quite concerning.
- blablablaat 12y ago
  I switched back to firefox after google turned evil.
- vetinari 12y ago
  I'm using Firefox and I care to have a browser, that does not spy on me.
  - bighi 12y ago
    Oh no, not the spying argument again...
    - madez 12y ago
      I would like to understand you but I don't yet. Why do you refuse an argument just because it was used in another occasion? That appears to me to be a logical fallacy. Please correct me if I'm wrong. The heart of the argument - that is the demand not to be spied upon - seems to be to be perfectly reasonable and justified due to economic and security aspects. Care to weigh in?
      - bighi 12y ago
        Looking at English dictionaries I found two main meanings of spying: 1) Observing a target with hostile intents. 2) Acquiring and tracking information. Google has never been hostile towards me. I've never lost money because of Google, or had health damage, or had naked pictures of me released to the web, etc. No "harm" done to me by Google, either literal harm or figurative harm. So, number 2. If people are complaining of Google tracking information, 99% of things in your computer track your information. Even a simple 'sudo ls' in linux is tracking SOME information to allow you to run other sudo commands without inputting your password again for a while. A computer software that does not store information is usually quite limited. What harm (and I accept a loose definition of harm here) comes from Google remembering what search you did yesterday or when was the last time you logged on to gmail?
marak830 12y ago
That is quite disappointing. I do wonder if there is a valid reason. In which I mean I hope there is one.
- mariusz79 12y ago
  Yes, there is a valid reason - market share wars
  - TheCapn 12y ago
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor Without evidence its not really worthwhile to sling mud like that. Chances are they implemented some feature in the Play store that FF mobile doesn't support. When a FF mobile user goes to the site and its broken who would they blame most likely? Google? or Firefox? Experience tells me they'd blame Google.
    - VlijmenFileer 12y ago
      And rightly so, because it was Google that fucked up by implementing crap only supported by their proprietary crap browser.
    - arca_vorago 12y ago
      I just wanted to say, as I have said before, that Hanlon's razor is a rhetorical reference tool that should be relegated to the dustbin of conversational history. It is by definition a logical fallacy, is not conducive to intellectual conversation, and should not be used by any logic respecting person. Every time I see it referenced almost in the exact same way, eg, as an excuse to cover someones ass for them. Stop using Hanlons razor as lead in to why someone isn't malicious when you aren't in a position to know one way or the other! edit: I would appreciate a response along with the downvote.
  - zanny 12y ago
    I don't see how mobile browser access to play.google.com constitutes a significant portion of the Firefox Mobile user bases core competencies. I don't think I've ever tried going to the store via browser on my Android phone just because its slower than using the native app.
interdrift 12y ago
I wonder what caused this. That would be a step back...
captn3m0 12y ago
The Chrome Webstore used to act similarly (I believe it was because of WebP support, but I might be wrong). It works now, though.
jdalgetty 12y ago
Title should specify this is on android and not desktop. Firefox is accessing the store fine for me on OSX.
- gphilip 12y ago
  Fixed, thanks.
josteink 12y ago
Hi Google. Remember those non-evil days where you said you cared about web-standards and actually acted according to those claims? Those days were great. Feel free to get back to those.
- k-mcgrady 12y ago
  Although I don't support what they're doing I can guess the response here based on past responses: They are using new technology that's currently only available in Chrome but available to other browsers to implement and therefore they are pushing the web forward. I'm not sure if that applies to this specific case but that's usually the excuse.
  - Galanwe 12y ago
    Yeah, that's also how ActiveX were sold...
    - Justsignedup 12y ago
      Cannot agree more. At least they need to justify this statement. If there is a legitimate critical missing feature in FF, I am sure the FF devs will get on it pronto. But this lack of communication is worrisome.
      - bzbarsky 12y ago
        Yeah, the communications piece is awesome. We (Mozilla) have run into Google properties that send Firefox on Android degraded content because "it's missing some features our mobile site relies on, so it's not Tier 1". When we ask them what these features are, the response is "we can't tell you what things need to be supported to be Tier 1".
    - rburhum 12y ago
      and flash
      - 12y ago
engendered 12y ago
Is this a reasonable complaint? Why would you be browsing the play store from Android in a browser? If you try to open it in the Chrome browser, it just forces you to the play store app, which rather makes sense. Every platform and browser requires support and attention, and in this case they chose not to support an edge case that really makes no sense, and simply causes usability issues (so how do you install an app from the Play Store in Firefox?). But cue the typical "don't be evil" sorts of comments. EDIT: Wow, five downvotes within 2 minutes. The Google hate is strong in this case (and is probably a coordinated effort), where an app ignoring Android URL intents is used in a comically irrelevant fashion....don't be evil, hurr durr. And the decline of HN continues.
- wlesieutre 12y ago
  > Why would you be browsing the play store from Android in a browser? Because you're browsing the web in your web browser (that's what I do with mine, anyway), you end up on a webpage with an app review, so you click the link to check out of the official screenshots and reviews, and all of a sudden you're browsing the Play Store in your browser! What a crazy random happenstance! It's almost like that's how webpages work or something.
  - tuxone 12y ago
    It's not crazy, it's Intent Filters [0], IMHO the Android killer feature as an open platform. As an Android user I love the ability to select my default app in order to open an image, share an image, share a text/link and, of course, open a Play Store app record. It's the Android way and Firefox is breaking it. [0] http://developer.android.com/guide/components/intents-filters.html http://developer.android.com/guide/components/intents-filter...
    - wlesieutre 12y ago
      As a recent iPhone switcher, yes, I love intents. It's great to be able to set what I open mailto: links in, etc. Not sure I understand the connection here though, could you explain? What intent is Firefox breaking, and why is it OK that Chrome can go to play.google.com (in the browser, it doesn't bounce me to the Play Store app) while Firefox is blocked?
nfriedly 12y ago
That's a shame. I love Firefox mobile and use it pretty much exclusively, so this just means I'll spend less time browsing the Play Store.
- dinesh_babu 12y ago
  why in god's name would you browse the play store in Firefox instead of the app?
  - madez 12y ago
    I don't use the app because of the permissions it demands. Firefox works with just access to the internet.
  - Touche 12y ago
    The great thing about the web is links. Some times you click them and they take you places. If the place it takes you asks you to open an app instead... that's a bad experience.
    - zanny 12y ago
      It only asks you once and you can set play URLs to open in the app. I've never browsed into the store on my phone.
    - ntlve 12y ago
      I'm curious as to why you think it is a bad experience?
      - rev_bird 12y ago
        Off the top of my head: The back button doesn't work right, saved passwords don't move over, clicked links (if they work at all) keep you in the new application instead of your browser, the places you're taken are left out of your browsing history, you can't bookmark the destinations. Basically all browser functionality that isn't "render the page" gets lost -- it's the same problem you'd run into if you use Chrome for everything and a link from Outlook pops up the page in IE: It _works_, but the ecosystem you've built up for yourself is gone.
ottoflux 12y ago
wow. hope --Maemo--, er... --Meego--, er... Tizen can gel, or I guess we can wait on Firefox OS to show up on a device that isn't terrible in the US.
- sp332 12y ago
  This isn't about Firefox OS. It's about the Firefox browser app on Android. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.mozilla.firefox https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.mozilla.fi...
- morganvachon 12y ago
  Take the Nexus 4, a device with decent specs even by today's standards, and load up Firefox OS. It's mostly a usable (if slightly buggy) experience, but it still isn't "good enough" to replace Android, iOS, or Windows Phone in my testing even on good hardware. I would call it something between a modern feature phone and a smartphone. It's getting better, but it's still not there yet.
- vetinari 12y ago
  Why throwing baby with the bathwater? Android is a good os, with many existing apps and libraries... why redo everything? Just cut the bad bits.
- sospep 12y ago
  Blackberry 10
phireal 12y ago
Working for me now (14.08 GMT).
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
cognivore 12y ago
I sometimes wonder if browsers are going to become runtimes. For Google services you obviously use Chrome. For others they choose to support runtimes Chrome and Firefox. Microsoft supports IE as the runtime for there services. It's awful, but it seems like the direction things are going.
- sp332 12y ago
  It used to be that way, but it's been getting better over time. The browser teams are working on standardizing more seriously and more quickly than before. Each team has their own experimental stuff, but they all aim for standardization instead of proprietary features.
  - gcp 12y ago
    It used to be that way, but it's been getting worse over time. Seriously, the last 5 years have undone much of the "web standards web" that took a decade to accomplish. If you use Google services, you're going to suffer if you don't use Chrome. Thinking about it, maybe it's only Google that has "regressed" because IE and MS have been getting better at it.
- VlijmenFileer 12y ago
  "For Google services you obviously use Chrome" What makes you say that? It is like saying that for going to work you need a red car, but for going to the shop you need a blue car. It's insanity. It is how internet and the web were supposed to not be. It is what shitty companies like Google try to push for the greater glory of their profit margins. It is /very/ bad for customers in the mid- to long term. It is what we should put serious effort into to kill off. For browsing, I use Firefox, and Firefox only. If it does not work in Firefox, it is /broken/ and I walk away within less than a second. I might return in a few months to see if the particular site has already been repaired.
  - cognivore 12y ago
    "...companies like Google try to push for the greater glory of their profit margins. It is /very/ bad for customers in the mid- to long term." Oh, I'm right there with you. I just think that, as a company, you spend millions of dollars making a web browser, making a great Javascript runtime, and your web sites run better when you use this browser, there isn't a lot of incentive to make it work on other browsers.
andrewgjohnson 12y ago
Can you browse the App Store on iOS using Firefox? Seems like a bit of a red herring issue to be honest.
- Aissen 12y ago
  No. You can browse the Play Store in any browser except Firefox for Android. You cannot browse App Store with any browser (also you cannot run an alternative browser engine on iOS)
- 0942v8653 12y ago
  As one commenter said, you can use it in Chrome on android. And until recently (it's in development now) it was mozzila's decision not to make Firefox for iOS.
  - venomsnake 12y ago
    Did apple allowed foreign engines? Or everyone still pretends that re skinned safari is a different browser? What about asm.js and the likes
  - Steuard 12y ago
    What would it mean to make Firefox for iOS? My understanding was that iOS requires all browsers to use the same rendering engine under the hood, so "Firefox" there wouldn't be much more than a different skin for Safari. (Has that changed?)
    - untog 12y ago
      No. It will be a skin around the Webkit runtime - but with Firefox Sync and similar enabled. Maybe a few extra APIs, too...
      - fpgeek 12y ago
        In other words, more of a SafariFox than a Firefox.
Brakenshire 12y ago
Now might be a good time to mention that Firefox on Android has a built-in marketplace which allows you to install most FirefoxOS Apps as full Android Apps, with access to most of the device APIs. Unfortunately, I find that most of the apps aren't very good at all (and in no way is it a replacement for Google Play) but it's something interesting to keep an eye on.
matthewmacleod 12y ago
Sloppy user-agent matching. This string: (Android) Gecko triggers the message, with both "Android" and "Gecko" being required components. I don't see any benefit to this. It's just stupid.
venomsnake 12y ago
Dear firefox, please make built in user agent switcher. Thanks.
- o0-0o 12y ago
  You can use about:config for this. There are useragent overrides.
- gcp 12y ago
  Firefox for Android supports extensions, and Phony provides this.
RyanMcGreal 12y ago
The same message comes up on the default Android browser. I'm using Android 4.4.2 on a Galaxy S3.
jsight 12y ago
On Android, clicking a link in the browser generally takes you to the default application for that type of url. If there is no default set, then it will give you the choice of what to use to go there (possibly including the browser in the case of a link like this). Firefox doesn't support that, and would instead take you to the play website, that really doesn't perform well on a lot of mobile devices. I'm guessing this factored into their decision to discourage its use. I don't necessarily agree with this decision, but I think it is an exaggeration to imply that there is some evil intent here. It's not keeping you from doing anything that you could do before, and if you are really eager to get to the site just tap "Request Desktop Site" and it will still load.
- gcp 12y ago
  that really doesn't perform well on a lot of mobile devices Maybe not on their default browsers, but you're trying to show the site in Firefox, which worked fine, until they intentionally blocked it. In fact, that's one excellent reason to use Firefox for Android in the first place.
  - jsight 12y ago
    I switched user agents on Firefox on my mobile to see. It was not a good experience (it was actually quite slow, and I have a relatively fast device).
- fpgeek 12y ago
  This isn't true. As I mention in a comment below, Firefox gives you two nicer ways to switch from the web to an app: 1. The droid in the URL bar once the page has loaded. 2. The "Open in an app" alternative in a link's long-press menu, which often tells you which app when the destination is clear.
  - tuxone 12y ago
    The point here is that it's not a lack of feature but a lack of user experience. Android Intent Filters [0] should work like that: the user starts an action and the system executes the default behavior (or prompt a choice list). Think about the average user, both ways you described seem poorly user friendly. Sure Google solution is crap, right now following a link to a Play Store app generates this [1], you really need to be a Firefox Power User in order to tap the droid in the URL bar (on this point Firefox should prompt a tip, at least the first time). [0] http://developer.android.com/guide/components/intents-filters.html http://developer.android.com/guide/components/intents-filter... [1] http://i.imgur.com/X43Izy3.png http://i.imgur.com/X43Izy3.png
sz4kerto 12y ago
I suppose this way they can control access to the store of users coming from AOSP devices. Firefox is available in 3rd party app stores, Chrome isn't. So AOSP users who are not aware of other browsers (=average non-techies) can simply not browse the Play Store.
andreastt 12y ago
For reference, this is being tracked by Mozilla's webcompat group in https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1131601 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1131601.
- eginhard 12y ago
  And it was apparently "blocked by mistake and will be fixed very soon": http://venturebeat.com/2015/02/10/google-play-no-longer-supports-firefox-for-android-did-the-browser-war-just-get-ugly/ http://venturebeat.com/2015/02/10/google-play-no-longer-supp...
  - kapok 12y ago
    Come one, don't be naive... https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=668275 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=668275 The whole point of web standards is to create a - you know - "standard" basis everybody can build upon. If your webapp doesn't work on a given recent browser (firefox latest is both recent and decent), you're doing it wrong. And Google has been doing it wrong for years (since 2011 for Gmail). Not only is it wrong in the sense that it's poorly developed, but it's also wrong in any other sense of the word (evil, bad,...). We're talking about a company that develops a web browser and that, in 2015, serves barely usable version of their services when the UA doesn't match its own. Edit (for the sake of completeness): if you don't spoof the UA of firefox mobile, you can't use gmail except for painfully reading e-mails.
oblio 12y ago
This is a dangerous slope. And I'm sad seeing many of the arguments here - a wild guess is that they've been made by people who weren't here (or have forgotten) the Microsoft/IE story. Soon it will become: "Why would they invest resources? Firefox is a niche browser, the return on investment is not justified". After all, Firefox's market share is dwindling. I really hope we're not slowly being boiled like the proverbial frog, by Google.
- drzaiusapelord 12y ago
  Weren't we all applauding some startup that had a douche-bagy "We dont support IE" message on their site and everyone here was so excited about it. Now that the bell is tolling for Firefox, its a different story, eh? There's been this largely ridiculous "revenge of the geeks" after the IE6 days. Now we've fed so much fuel into that fire, that casually telling people to use different browsers is the norm. I'm not saying I told you so, but.. I told you so. Instead of focusing on your customers' needs, we just ran with what's popular. That's always going to be a losing strategy.
  - jimktrains2 12y ago
    “Anyone who slaps a ‘this page is best viewed with Browser X’ label on a Web page appears to be yearning for the bad old days, before the Web, when you had very little chance of reading a document written on another computer, another word processor, or another network.” – Tim Berners-Lee (in Technology Review, July 1996)
    - johnkpush 12y ago
      It's browser vendors that are bearing the torch of interoperability and standards compliance. Unfortunately, most vendors are companies with their own agenda. To add to that, all companies and people interpret standards differently. Given this, it's no wonder we don't see consistent api implementation and behaviors between browsers. The aftermath of all of this falls on the developer's shoulders, which is why so many hours are poured into getting a modern webapp to work across all browsers. Resources are limited, and at some point, developers have to throw their hands up and resign from having support across all browsers. When you start using a seemingly mature HTML5 api, and find that it doesn't work as expected in all browsers, what recourse does one have? Should we continue to stifle innovation while we wait for the browser vendor to reach compliance? History shows you're going to be waiting for a while, or for ever.
jagtesh 12y ago
I think we're just making a big deal out of this. As someone pointed out, they're likely using technologies not implemented in other browsers yet. Has the OP tried using play store on Aurora? In any case, I feel Google has the ethical and moral right to use whatever they see fit for their own web applications. And let this be said people, this isn't something new. Not even from Google. Inbox doesn't work on non-chrome browsers. Even apple restricts using iCloud anything other than Safari. So, why the commotion?
- jagtesh 12y ago
  For the person who just downvoted me, I'd like to know why. Since when is making our opinions heard a bad thing on HN? I never said agree with me. Shouldn't downvoting be restricted to offensive posts?
  - sphink 12y ago
    I am not that person, but I can probably explain anyway. The whole point of the web is to be a common runtime. You can use it from any browser and any device. You avoid the situation where you prefer browser X because it has some feature that is critical to you, but you have to use browser Y for some web sites. (So in the end, you'll use browser Y for all sites so that your user agent can actually be your agent by eg remembering your history/passwords. Or worse, you will be forced to use multiple browsers due to multiple incompatible websites.) You also avoid the situation where a new hardware platform or browser engine can never be released because there's no way to make it compatible with the current web. In short, if a "web site" does not work in a strictly standards-compliant browser, then it's not part of the Web. It may be linked to from the web, and it may almost be part of the web, but it's really something else hanging off of it. There are many such things. Flash apps are a common type. Heck, PDFs are too and until recently all videos were. There's nothing inherently wrong with them existing, as long as they aren't claiming to be part of the Web. In this case, it may only be a QA shortcoming with respect to a 0.7% market share device. Inbox is not so benign, since the compatibility delay is a pretty strong indicator of corporate priority and policy. And that's the danger, and the probable reason for the downvote. If you accept non-web things on the web, only thinking of the convenience and added functionality you gain (because your particular user agent is fine with it and makes it appear to be part of the web), then lockin will gradually set in, standards will lose their meaning, browser makers will start having to implement each other's half-baked experimental features that don't interoperate with everything else, cats and dogs will start living together, and there will be no reason not to gain the extra 10% in performance and functionality you get from a native app because your web sites don't run universally anymore anyway. So developers get to start maintaining half a dozen separate code bases because we've pissed away our opportunity to make a single codebase work everywhere. The blasé acceptance of that possibility is what earns downvotes. The movement in this direction is already well under way on the mobile web, so I'm not just dreaming up imaginary hypothetical scaremongering. (disclaimer: I am a Firefox platform developer)
droopybuns 12y ago
This seems consistent with the other poor design decision in the play store: no anonymous app reviews. A team that forces you to compromise your anonymity in order to write a positive app review has no qualms about forcing you to use a different browser. That team must be filled with former MS employees.
- a3n 12y ago
  > That team must be filled with former MS employees. Nah, just people. People are the same everywhere. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Upton_Sinclair https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Upton_Sinclair
jMyles 12y ago
Is this payback for the Mozilla - Yahoo deal? Or am I reading too much into things?
- eestrella 12y ago
  I think so... http://uk.businessinsider.com/google-search-market-drop-mozilla-2015-1?r=US http://uk.businessinsider.com/google-search-market-drop-mozi...
- calbear81 12y ago
  Surprising that you're the first to mention the most obvious answer which is that with the search deal ended, there is less affordance to "play nice" with competitive browsers. This is not at all unusual and perhaps before there was more consideration given to have their mobile offering work on one of their largest commercial search partners. Also, lot's of people are lamenting the seeming betrayal of "don't be evil" but I think it really hasn't been about that for a while. Google has bigger ambitions to change the world now as their investment in driverless cars, medical devices, VR, etc. has shown. Those ideas require large capital investment and anything they can do to generate more revenue to fund those truly game-changing ideas are probably seen as fair (regardless of whether they adhere to an open internet/standards based approach). One day, we'll all see that the "ends justify the means" or so we hope.
whizzkid 12y ago
This was an unexpected move from Google. I am guessing they are trying to have singleton system around their app market but this is not how it is supposed to be done. They can give users a unique email address with play store domain and ask them to sign in if they want to give a different user experience to Google users. And you need to have installed Google OS or Chrome in order to get that email address. With this way, Google is no different than the 90s enterprise companies whose sites were only supporting IE in order to function. This is not the first time Google is doing this, and I am guessing this will not be the last one either. Since they got Eric Schmidt on board, they are focusing more on revenue than being the Internet hero. I can not really blame them though..
- gsnedders 12y ago
  > This was an unexpected move from Google > This is not the first time Google is doing this Really, this should be no surprise precisely because it's far from the first time; numerous Google properties use UA-sniffing (many in combination with whitelists, which is nothing but badness for the open web, where any standards compliant browser should be fine!). An increasing number are supporting Chrome only at initial launch, which really is sad. The fact that Opera, who nowadays build on top of the Chromium Content API, have a comment in browser.js after dodging the UA-sniffing saying the following says a lot: > Google, please make sure your obfuscator does not change class names, so our patch continues working (or stop browser-sniffing as we both use and contribute to Blink!) - love, Opera. (from https://github.com/operasoftware/browserjs/blob/ceef10b34f63259c1aea2edb7d0f35f2b29ab4c4/OPRdesktop/browserjs-25.0.js#L252 https://github.com/operasoftware/browserjs/blob/ceef10b34f63...)
- ProAm 12y ago
  Im surprised we dont have to sign in to Google+ to use the Play Store.
callahad 12y ago
Why this is bad: Google is saying "I don't care whether or not your browser can view this site, I won't even let you try." If more online properties go this way, we effectively give Google the exclusive ability to develop and drive the Web platform at a fundamental level. For instance, Servo, an experimental, highly-parallel rendering engine written in Rust, won't be able to improve the efficiency or security of the Web as a whole if it's not allowed access to the Web in the first place.
- sabret00the 12y ago
  What makes this so bad for consumers is that if you search for an app via Google, you can't even open links directly.
chrismarlow9 12y ago
Chrome deleted. Default search engine in firefox set to duckduckgo. Will be moving all my gmail/gdocs to a self hosted solution this weekend. If anybody can recommend an open phone or a cheap/throwaway I would appreciate it.
gioi 12y ago
Sightly off-topic but: Do we really need user agent? What are good reasons we should keep on using them? I could find none...
- hrjet 12y ago
  Disabling the user-agent breaks quite a few websites as of today, but I agree, it's a good way forward to break the hegemony of certain websites and browsers.
eitland 12y ago
For twitter users: Google play seems to be @GooglePlay. Tag with #ChromeIsTheNewIE and ask if it is malice or incompentence (those are the only two I can come up with : )
myfonj 12y ago
For those lazy but curious, hurl: http://hurl.eu/hurls/75bc3ea92343cf38b3711597c5bd4a2e25bed842/7e0dd3048409eaaa4f8b1ef95db7cebefb926ede http://hurl.eu/hurls/75bc3ea92343cf38b3711597c5bd4a2e25bed84... (GET of `https://play.google.com/store` https://play.google.com/store` with User-Agent header of Fx 35 on Android)
felipc 12y ago
Jeff Atwood's App-pocalypse Now gets more relevant every day http://blog.codinghorror.com/app-pocalypse-now/ http://blog.codinghorror.com/app-pocalypse-now/
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
ifdefdebug 12y ago
Is it just me, or did anybody else see here a comment from a Google dev just one minute ago, stating this was "just a simple bug", going to be "fixed in short time"? I refreshed the page and now it's gone. Edit: well I don't really know if the comment came from a Google dev, I guessed so because it looked very authoritative.
- myko 12y ago
  It was published on an Android fan site but didn't identify a specific developer: http://www.androidcentral.com/heres-whats-google-play-store-being-blocked-firefox-mobile http://www.androidcentral.com/heres-whats-google-play-store-...
ocfx 12y ago
Who the hell browses the google play store from firefox anyways
brudgers 12y ago
Google broke Youtube with IE mobile years ago by simply refusing to serve up HTML5 to it. It's just the way they do business. Relevant items on HN: https://hn.algolia.com/?query=youtube%20windows%20phone&sort=byPopularity&prefix&page=0&dateRange=all&type=story https://hn.algolia.com/?query=youtube%20windows%20phone&sort...
davidgerard 12y ago
> Update 9:05 a.m. PT: Google has informed VentureBeat that the issue experienced by Firefox users on Android is a bug, and a fix will be issued “very soon.” i.e. "whoops, we got caught"
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
imnes 12y ago
Doesn't appear to be related to Firefox. I tried it from Chrome on my desktop (with dev-tools emulating a Nexus 5). See screenshot. Looks like if you're on a mobile device at all they want you to use the app instead of your browser. http://snag.gy/Dl0ay.jpg http://snag.gy/Dl0ay.jpg
gcb0 12y ago
have you seen firebox for android? it's years ahead of chrome. you can have extensions to begin with. from ad blockers to stylish, which let people with poor vision actually use the browser. also it allows you to disable all sort of asinine tracking that is forced in chrome. expect Google to play a Microsoft on Mozilla harder and harder now.
- omaranto 12y ago
  Firefox for Android also has nicer default fonts and MathJax works! (MathJax on Chrome for Android renders with parts of formulas overlapping other parts and overlapping surrounding text.)
_lce0 12y ago
time to switch to f-droid, as an open-source app store. http://f-droid.org/ http://f-droid.org/
squiros 12y ago
luckily, firefox has a useragent plugin. you can change it to 'i hate chrome because chrome is stupid, and so is google play' and you can access the google play store again. or you can simply use apkleecher and bypass that as well. this is why firefox is king. adaptability for whatever idiocy plagues you.
squiros 12y ago
luckily, firefox has a useragent plugin. you can change it to 'i hate chrome because chrome is stupid, and so is google play' and you can access the google play store again. or you can simply use apkleecher and bypass that as well. this is why firefox is king. adaptability for whatever idiocy plagues you.
staircasebug 12y ago
If you visit Gmail with Firefox on Android, Google will serve up a low-fidelity, non-ajax version of the site/app... a very poor user experience vs Android Chrome. I feel like this is done intentionally as Safari on iOS gives the same user experience as Android Chrome. Also, Google search omits many filters and feature options in Firefox and again, it seems intentional since Safari on iOS offers the same UX as Android Chrome.
Sesetamhet 12y ago
Just a bug :P. http://www.androidcentral.com/heres-whats-google-play-store-being-blocked-firefox-mobile http://www.androidcentral.com/heres-whats-google-play-store-...
telany 12y ago
Nothing happens right away.
Mandatum 12y ago
"Embrace, extend and extinguish" comes to mind. They've played the long con. Personally not against it, I see Chrome as a better product.
jaxonb 12y ago
I'm not jumping on this bandwagon. What are you looking for - plugins for the Firefox browser? Go to the Firefox store. And hey, Firefox is my backup browser. But I haven't seen any anti-Firefox campaigns from Google, though I've certainly seen anti-Google campaigns from Firefox, and I thought, they need to choose their battles a little more carefully. You start a war, there's always a chance you'll become a casualty.
Anilawasarmol 12y ago
8078725882
Chahat 12y ago
Plz gogel play store working right now
9927984798 12y ago
Fackook
lcedp 12y ago
Works for me: https://s3.amazonaws.com/pushbullet-uploads/ujvlIvV7Mia-fXRnH1aX5UsBdzGcThKC60devQbBjjaJ/Screenshot_2015-02-11-20-45-25.png https://s3.amazonaws.com/pushbullet-uploads/ujvlIvV7Mia-fXRn...
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
wenderson 12y ago
Ooiiiii
Too 12y ago
Clickbait headline. As bad as this is, the headline make it sound like Firefox was removed from the play store all together, which is far far worse.
masto 12y ago
The bug has been fixed: https://twitter.com/ficus/status/565234296294625280 https://twitter.com/ficus/status/565234296294625280

448 points by gphilip 12y ago

mewwts 12y ago

Does it work in Chrome?

rquirk 12y ago
Yep, just tried it. Firefox not supported, Chrome works fine. It's like Microsoft in the early 2000s all over again.
- nkuttler 12y ago
  Hehe, I was just thinking of the 90s.. http://www.anybrowser.org/campaign/ http://www.anybrowser.org/campaign/ This can't be intentional, can it?
  - s_kilk 12y ago
    Even if it is intentional, they'll still claim it's an unfortunate mistake and just backpedal from it if the pressure is high enough. Edit: there really isn't a downside for Google. If no-one complains, then they get a clean shot at locking out a competitor. If they people complain loudly enough, they can just revert the change and pretend like it was a mistake. Within a week the whole episode will be forgotten and they can just cook up another scheme.

hutattedonmyarm 12y ago

It works from mobile safari (iOS 8.1.3)

law 12y ago
I tested it with Cyanogenmod's stock browser customized with an iPhone user-agent, and it also works fine. It seems like Google is trying to coerce "eligible users" into using the Google Play app, but won't prevent others from accessing the site.

dannywoodz 12y ago

Interestingly, it works if you request the desktop site: they're explicitly blocking Firefox Mobile.

zanny 12y ago
They probably just don't want you accessing the store from a browser on mobile when you can be using their app. I don't think this is some malicious betrayal of trust, even if its a stupid thing to do.
- qntmfred 12y ago
  You can access the store from Chrome on mobile
  - LiroXIV 12y ago
    Completely missing the point here.
- themartorana 12y ago
  Gave you an up-vote, not sure why you're being down-voted for making a perfectly logical assumption. It's annoying if in fact it's very specifically Firefox Mobile and nothing else, but I agree, if the app has the better experience, they likely want to funnel everyone that way. Edit: aaaand down-voted. What is the actual problem here?
  - gareim 12y ago
    Because as qntmfred said, you can access the store from Chrome.
    - TuringTest 12y ago
      Which, as LiroXIV said, is missing the point. If they publish the Google Play store as a web site, it should work on all standard-compliant web browsers. If they want it to be accessed only from the Android app, fine, but then don't make it available to the Chrome browser either. That kind of "only-works-with-products-from-the-same-vendor" bundling is what got Microsoft convicted for monopolistic practices back in the day.

98Windows 12y ago

Nobody uses firefox anymore anyway so who cares?

madez 12y ago
I use firefox and I care.
51Cards 12y ago
As do I. Edit: realizing this was a very short out of context comment. I use Firefox exclusively on Desktop and >50% on Mobile. Seeing the browser market start to fragment again is quite concerning.
blablablaat 12y ago
I switched back to firefox after google turned evil.
vetinari 12y ago
I'm using Firefox and I care to have a browser, that does not spy on me.
- bighi 12y ago
  Oh no, not the spying argument again...
  - madez 12y ago
    I would like to understand you but I don't yet. Why do you refuse an argument just because it was used in another occasion? That appears to me to be a logical fallacy. Please correct me if I'm wrong. The heart of the argument - that is the demand not to be spied upon - seems to be to be perfectly reasonable and justified due to economic and security aspects. Care to weigh in?
    - bighi 12y ago
      Looking at English dictionaries I found two main meanings of spying: 1) Observing a target with hostile intents. 2) Acquiring and tracking information. Google has never been hostile towards me. I've never lost money because of Google, or had health damage, or had naked pictures of me released to the web, etc. No "harm" done to me by Google, either literal harm or figurative harm. So, number 2. If people are complaining of Google tracking information, 99% of things in your computer track your information. Even a simple 'sudo ls' in linux is tracking SOME information to allow you to run other sudo commands without inputting your password again for a while. A computer software that does not store information is usually quite limited. What harm (and I accept a loose definition of harm here) comes from Google remembering what search you did yesterday or when was the last time you logged on to gmail?

marak830 12y ago

That is quite disappointing. I do wonder if there is a valid reason. In which I mean I hope there is one.

mariusz79 12y ago
Yes, there is a valid reason - market share wars
- TheCapn 12y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor Without evidence its not really worthwhile to sling mud like that. Chances are they implemented some feature in the Play store that FF mobile doesn't support. When a FF mobile user goes to the site and its broken who would they blame most likely? Google? or Firefox? Experience tells me they'd blame Google.
  - VlijmenFileer 12y ago
    And rightly so, because it was Google that fucked up by implementing crap only supported by their proprietary crap browser.
  - arca_vorago 12y ago
    I just wanted to say, as I have said before, that Hanlon's razor is a rhetorical reference tool that should be relegated to the dustbin of conversational history. It is by definition a logical fallacy, is not conducive to intellectual conversation, and should not be used by any logic respecting person. Every time I see it referenced almost in the exact same way, eg, as an excuse to cover someones ass for them. Stop using Hanlons razor as lead in to why someone isn't malicious when you aren't in a position to know one way or the other! edit: I would appreciate a response along with the downvote.
- zanny 12y ago
  I don't see how mobile browser access to play.google.com constitutes a significant portion of the Firefox Mobile user bases core competencies. I don't think I've ever tried going to the store via browser on my Android phone just because its slower than using the native app.

interdrift 12y ago

I wonder what caused this. That would be a step back...

captn3m0 12y ago

The Chrome Webstore used to act similarly (I believe it was because of WebP support, but I might be wrong). It works now, though.

jdalgetty 12y ago

Title should specify this is on android and not desktop. Firefox is accessing the store fine for me on OSX.

gphilip 12y ago
Fixed, thanks.

josteink 12y ago

Hi Google. Remember those non-evil days where you said you cared about web-standards and actually acted according to those claims? Those days were great. Feel free to get back to those.

k-mcgrady 12y ago
Although I don't support what they're doing I can guess the response here based on past responses: They are using new technology that's currently only available in Chrome but available to other browsers to implement and therefore they are pushing the web forward. I'm not sure if that applies to this specific case but that's usually the excuse.
- Galanwe 12y ago
  Yeah, that's also how ActiveX were sold...
  - Justsignedup 12y ago
    Cannot agree more. At least they need to justify this statement. If there is a legitimate critical missing feature in FF, I am sure the FF devs will get on it pronto. But this lack of communication is worrisome.
    - bzbarsky 12y ago
      Yeah, the communications piece is awesome. We (Mozilla) have run into Google properties that send Firefox on Android degraded content because "it's missing some features our mobile site relies on, so it's not Tier 1". When we ask them what these features are, the response is "we can't tell you what things need to be supported to be Tier 1".
  - rburhum 12y ago
    and flash
    - 12y ago

engendered 12y ago

Is this a reasonable complaint? Why would you be browsing the play store from Android in a browser? If you try to open it in the Chrome browser, it just forces you to the play store app, which rather makes sense. Every platform and browser requires support and attention, and in this case they chose not to support an edge case that really makes no sense, and simply causes usability issues (so how do you install an app from the Play Store in Firefox?). But cue the typical "don't be evil" sorts of comments. EDIT: Wow, five downvotes within 2 minutes. The Google hate is strong in this case (and is probably a coordinated effort), where an app ignoring Android URL intents is used in a comically irrelevant fashion....don't be evil, hurr durr. And the decline of HN continues.

wlesieutre 12y ago
> Why would you be browsing the play store from Android in a browser? Because you're browsing the web in your web browser (that's what I do with mine, anyway), you end up on a webpage with an app review, so you click the link to check out of the official screenshots and reviews, and all of a sudden you're browsing the Play Store in your browser! What a crazy random happenstance! It's almost like that's how webpages work or something.
- tuxone 12y ago
  It's not crazy, it's Intent Filters [0], IMHO the Android killer feature as an open platform. As an Android user I love the ability to select my default app in order to open an image, share an image, share a text/link and, of course, open a Play Store app record. It's the Android way and Firefox is breaking it. [0] http://developer.android.com/guide/components/intents-filters.html http://developer.android.com/guide/components/intents-filter...
  - wlesieutre 12y ago
    As a recent iPhone switcher, yes, I love intents. It's great to be able to set what I open mailto: links in, etc. Not sure I understand the connection here though, could you explain? What intent is Firefox breaking, and why is it OK that Chrome can go to play.google.com (in the browser, it doesn't bounce me to the Play Store app) while Firefox is blocked?

nfriedly 12y ago

That's a shame. I love Firefox mobile and use it pretty much exclusively, so this just means I'll spend less time browsing the Play Store.

dinesh_babu 12y ago
why in god's name would you browse the play store in Firefox instead of the app?
- madez 12y ago
  I don't use the app because of the permissions it demands. Firefox works with just access to the internet.
- Touche 12y ago
  The great thing about the web is links. Some times you click them and they take you places. If the place it takes you asks you to open an app instead... that's a bad experience.
  - zanny 12y ago
    It only asks you once and you can set play URLs to open in the app. I've never browsed into the store on my phone.
  - ntlve 12y ago
    I'm curious as to why you think it is a bad experience?
    - rev_bird 12y ago
      Off the top of my head: The back button doesn't work right, saved passwords don't move over, clicked links (if they work at all) keep you in the new application instead of your browser, the places you're taken are left out of your browsing history, you can't bookmark the destinations. Basically all browser functionality that isn't "render the page" gets lost -- it's the same problem you'd run into if you use Chrome for everything and a link from Outlook pops up the page in IE: It _works_, but the ecosystem you've built up for yourself is gone.

ottoflux 12y ago

wow. hope --Maemo--, er... --Meego--, er... Tizen can gel, or I guess we can wait on Firefox OS to show up on a device that isn't terrible in the US.

sp332 12y ago
This isn't about Firefox OS. It's about the Firefox browser app on Android. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.mozilla.firefox https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.mozilla.fi...
morganvachon 12y ago
Take the Nexus 4, a device with decent specs even by today's standards, and load up Firefox OS. It's mostly a usable (if slightly buggy) experience, but it still isn't "good enough" to replace Android, iOS, or Windows Phone in my testing even on good hardware. I would call it something between a modern feature phone and a smartphone. It's getting better, but it's still not there yet.
vetinari 12y ago
Why throwing baby with the bathwater? Android is a good os, with many existing apps and libraries... why redo everything? Just cut the bad bits.
sospep 12y ago
Blackberry 10

phireal 12y ago

Working for me now (14.08 GMT).

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

cognivore 12y ago

I sometimes wonder if browsers are going to become runtimes. For Google services you obviously use Chrome. For others they choose to support runtimes Chrome and Firefox. Microsoft supports IE as the runtime for there services. It's awful, but it seems like the direction things are going.

sp332 12y ago
It used to be that way, but it's been getting better over time. The browser teams are working on standardizing more seriously and more quickly than before. Each team has their own experimental stuff, but they all aim for standardization instead of proprietary features.
- gcp 12y ago
  It used to be that way, but it's been getting worse over time. Seriously, the last 5 years have undone much of the "web standards web" that took a decade to accomplish. If you use Google services, you're going to suffer if you don't use Chrome. Thinking about it, maybe it's only Google that has "regressed" because IE and MS have been getting better at it.
VlijmenFileer 12y ago
"For Google services you obviously use Chrome" What makes you say that? It is like saying that for going to work you need a red car, but for going to the shop you need a blue car. It's insanity. It is how internet and the web were supposed to not be. It is what shitty companies like Google try to push for the greater glory of their profit margins. It is /very/ bad for customers in the mid- to long term. It is what we should put serious effort into to kill off. For browsing, I use Firefox, and Firefox only. If it does not work in Firefox, it is /broken/ and I walk away within less than a second. I might return in a few months to see if the particular site has already been repaired.
- cognivore 12y ago
  "...companies like Google try to push for the greater glory of their profit margins. It is /very/ bad for customers in the mid- to long term." Oh, I'm right there with you. I just think that, as a company, you spend millions of dollars making a web browser, making a great Javascript runtime, and your web sites run better when you use this browser, there isn't a lot of incentive to make it work on other browsers.

andrewgjohnson 12y ago

Can you browse the App Store on iOS using Firefox? Seems like a bit of a red herring issue to be honest.

Aissen 12y ago
No. You can browse the Play Store in any browser except Firefox for Android. You cannot browse App Store with any browser (also you cannot run an alternative browser engine on iOS)
0942v8653 12y ago
As one commenter said, you can use it in Chrome on android. And until recently (it's in development now) it was mozzila's decision not to make Firefox for iOS.
- venomsnake 12y ago
  Did apple allowed foreign engines? Or everyone still pretends that re skinned safari is a different browser? What about asm.js and the likes
- Steuard 12y ago
  What would it mean to make Firefox for iOS? My understanding was that iOS requires all browsers to use the same rendering engine under the hood, so "Firefox" there wouldn't be much more than a different skin for Safari. (Has that changed?)
  - untog 12y ago
    No. It will be a skin around the Webkit runtime - but with Firefox Sync and similar enabled. Maybe a few extra APIs, too...
    - fpgeek 12y ago
      In other words, more of a SafariFox than a Firefox.

Brakenshire 12y ago

Now might be a good time to mention that Firefox on Android has a built-in marketplace which allows you to install most FirefoxOS Apps as full Android Apps, with access to most of the device APIs. Unfortunately, I find that most of the apps aren't very good at all (and in no way is it a replacement for Google Play) but it's something interesting to keep an eye on.

matthewmacleod 12y ago

Sloppy user-agent matching. This string: (Android) Gecko triggers the message, with both "Android" and "Gecko" being required components. I don't see any benefit to this. It's just stupid.

venomsnake 12y ago

Dear firefox, please make built in user agent switcher. Thanks.

o0-0o 12y ago
You can use about:config for this. There are useragent overrides.
gcp 12y ago
Firefox for Android supports extensions, and Phony provides this.

RyanMcGreal 12y ago

The same message comes up on the default Android browser. I'm using Android 4.4.2 on a Galaxy S3.

jsight 12y ago

On Android, clicking a link in the browser generally takes you to the default application for that type of url. If there is no default set, then it will give you the choice of what to use to go there (possibly including the browser in the case of a link like this). Firefox doesn't support that, and would instead take you to the play website, that really doesn't perform well on a lot of mobile devices. I'm guessing this factored into their decision to discourage its use. I don't necessarily agree with this decision, but I think it is an exaggeration to imply that there is some evil intent here. It's not keeping you from doing anything that you could do before, and if you are really eager to get to the site just tap "Request Desktop Site" and it will still load.

gcp 12y ago
that really doesn't perform well on a lot of mobile devices Maybe not on their default browsers, but you're trying to show the site in Firefox, which worked fine, until they intentionally blocked it. In fact, that's one excellent reason to use Firefox for Android in the first place.
- jsight 12y ago
  I switched user agents on Firefox on my mobile to see. It was not a good experience (it was actually quite slow, and I have a relatively fast device).
fpgeek 12y ago
This isn't true. As I mention in a comment below, Firefox gives you two nicer ways to switch from the web to an app: 1. The droid in the URL bar once the page has loaded. 2. The "Open in an app" alternative in a link's long-press menu, which often tells you which app when the destination is clear.
- tuxone 12y ago
  The point here is that it's not a lack of feature but a lack of user experience. Android Intent Filters [0] should work like that: the user starts an action and the system executes the default behavior (or prompt a choice list). Think about the average user, both ways you described seem poorly user friendly. Sure Google solution is crap, right now following a link to a Play Store app generates this [1], you really need to be a Firefox Power User in order to tap the droid in the URL bar (on this point Firefox should prompt a tip, at least the first time). [0] http://developer.android.com/guide/components/intents-filters.html http://developer.android.com/guide/components/intents-filter... [1] http://i.imgur.com/X43Izy3.png http://i.imgur.com/X43Izy3.png

sz4kerto 12y ago

I suppose this way they can control access to the store of users coming from AOSP devices. Firefox is available in 3rd party app stores, Chrome isn't. So AOSP users who are not aware of other browsers (=average non-techies) can simply not browse the Play Store.

andreastt 12y ago

For reference, this is being tracked by Mozilla's webcompat group in https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1131601 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1131601.

eginhard 12y ago
And it was apparently "blocked by mistake and will be fixed very soon": http://venturebeat.com/2015/02/10/google-play-no-longer-supports-firefox-for-android-did-the-browser-war-just-get-ugly/ http://venturebeat.com/2015/02/10/google-play-no-longer-supp...
- kapok 12y ago
  Come one, don't be naive... https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=668275 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=668275 The whole point of web standards is to create a - you know - "standard" basis everybody can build upon. If your webapp doesn't work on a given recent browser (firefox latest is both recent and decent), you're doing it wrong. And Google has been doing it wrong for years (since 2011 for Gmail). Not only is it wrong in the sense that it's poorly developed, but it's also wrong in any other sense of the word (evil, bad,...). We're talking about a company that develops a web browser and that, in 2015, serves barely usable version of their services when the UA doesn't match its own. Edit (for the sake of completeness): if you don't spoof the UA of firefox mobile, you can't use gmail except for painfully reading e-mails.

oblio 12y ago

This is a dangerous slope. And I'm sad seeing many of the arguments here - a wild guess is that they've been made by people who weren't here (or have forgotten) the Microsoft/IE story. Soon it will become: "Why would they invest resources? Firefox is a niche browser, the return on investment is not justified". After all, Firefox's market share is dwindling. I really hope we're not slowly being boiled like the proverbial frog, by Google.

drzaiusapelord 12y ago
Weren't we all applauding some startup that had a douche-bagy "We dont support IE" message on their site and everyone here was so excited about it. Now that the bell is tolling for Firefox, its a different story, eh? There's been this largely ridiculous "revenge of the geeks" after the IE6 days. Now we've fed so much fuel into that fire, that casually telling people to use different browsers is the norm. I'm not saying I told you so, but.. I told you so. Instead of focusing on your customers' needs, we just ran with what's popular. That's always going to be a losing strategy.
- jimktrains2 12y ago
  “Anyone who slaps a ‘this page is best viewed with Browser X’ label on a Web page appears to be yearning for the bad old days, before the Web, when you had very little chance of reading a document written on another computer, another word processor, or another network.” – Tim Berners-Lee (in Technology Review, July 1996)
  - johnkpush 12y ago
    It's browser vendors that are bearing the torch of interoperability and standards compliance. Unfortunately, most vendors are companies with their own agenda. To add to that, all companies and people interpret standards differently. Given this, it's no wonder we don't see consistent api implementation and behaviors between browsers. The aftermath of all of this falls on the developer's shoulders, which is why so many hours are poured into getting a modern webapp to work across all browsers. Resources are limited, and at some point, developers have to throw their hands up and resign from having support across all browsers. When you start using a seemingly mature HTML5 api, and find that it doesn't work as expected in all browsers, what recourse does one have? Should we continue to stifle innovation while we wait for the browser vendor to reach compliance? History shows you're going to be waiting for a while, or for ever.

jagtesh 12y ago

I think we're just making a big deal out of this. As someone pointed out, they're likely using technologies not implemented in other browsers yet. Has the OP tried using play store on Aurora? In any case, I feel Google has the ethical and moral right to use whatever they see fit for their own web applications. And let this be said people, this isn't something new. Not even from Google. Inbox doesn't work on non-chrome browsers. Even apple restricts using iCloud anything other than Safari. So, why the commotion?

jagtesh 12y ago
For the person who just downvoted me, I'd like to know why. Since when is making our opinions heard a bad thing on HN? I never said agree with me. Shouldn't downvoting be restricted to offensive posts?
- sphink 12y ago
  I am not that person, but I can probably explain anyway. The whole point of the web is to be a common runtime. You can use it from any browser and any device. You avoid the situation where you prefer browser X because it has some feature that is critical to you, but you have to use browser Y for some web sites. (So in the end, you'll use browser Y for all sites so that your user agent can actually be your agent by eg remembering your history/passwords. Or worse, you will be forced to use multiple browsers due to multiple incompatible websites.) You also avoid the situation where a new hardware platform or browser engine can never be released because there's no way to make it compatible with the current web. In short, if a "web site" does not work in a strictly standards-compliant browser, then it's not part of the Web. It may be linked to from the web, and it may almost be part of the web, but it's really something else hanging off of it. There are many such things. Flash apps are a common type. Heck, PDFs are too and until recently all videos were. There's nothing inherently wrong with them existing, as long as they aren't claiming to be part of the Web. In this case, it may only be a QA shortcoming with respect to a 0.7% market share device. Inbox is not so benign, since the compatibility delay is a pretty strong indicator of corporate priority and policy. And that's the danger, and the probable reason for the downvote. If you accept non-web things on the web, only thinking of the convenience and added functionality you gain (because your particular user agent is fine with it and makes it appear to be part of the web), then lockin will gradually set in, standards will lose their meaning, browser makers will start having to implement each other's half-baked experimental features that don't interoperate with everything else, cats and dogs will start living together, and there will be no reason not to gain the extra 10% in performance and functionality you get from a native app because your web sites don't run universally anymore anyway. So developers get to start maintaining half a dozen separate code bases because we've pissed away our opportunity to make a single codebase work everywhere. The blasé acceptance of that possibility is what earns downvotes. The movement in this direction is already well under way on the mobile web, so I'm not just dreaming up imaginary hypothetical scaremongering. (disclaimer: I am a Firefox platform developer)

droopybuns 12y ago

This seems consistent with the other poor design decision in the play store: no anonymous app reviews. A team that forces you to compromise your anonymity in order to write a positive app review has no qualms about forcing you to use a different browser. That team must be filled with former MS employees.

a3n 12y ago
> That team must be filled with former MS employees. Nah, just people. People are the same everywhere. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Upton_Sinclair https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Upton_Sinclair

jMyles 12y ago

Is this payback for the Mozilla - Yahoo deal? Or am I reading too much into things?

eestrella 12y ago
I think so... http://uk.businessinsider.com/google-search-market-drop-mozilla-2015-1?r=US http://uk.businessinsider.com/google-search-market-drop-mozi...
calbear81 12y ago
Surprising that you're the first to mention the most obvious answer which is that with the search deal ended, there is less affordance to "play nice" with competitive browsers. This is not at all unusual and perhaps before there was more consideration given to have their mobile offering work on one of their largest commercial search partners. Also, lot's of people are lamenting the seeming betrayal of "don't be evil" but I think it really hasn't been about that for a while. Google has bigger ambitions to change the world now as their investment in driverless cars, medical devices, VR, etc. has shown. Those ideas require large capital investment and anything they can do to generate more revenue to fund those truly game-changing ideas are probably seen as fair (regardless of whether they adhere to an open internet/standards based approach). One day, we'll all see that the "ends justify the means" or so we hope.

whizzkid 12y ago

This was an unexpected move from Google. I am guessing they are trying to have singleton system around their app market but this is not how it is supposed to be done. They can give users a unique email address with play store domain and ask them to sign in if they want to give a different user experience to Google users. And you need to have installed Google OS or Chrome in order to get that email address. With this way, Google is no different than the 90s enterprise companies whose sites were only supporting IE in order to function. This is not the first time Google is doing this, and I am guessing this will not be the last one either. Since they got Eric Schmidt on board, they are focusing more on revenue than being the Internet hero. I can not really blame them though..

gsnedders 12y ago
> This was an unexpected move from Google > This is not the first time Google is doing this Really, this should be no surprise precisely because it's far from the first time; numerous Google properties use UA-sniffing (many in combination with whitelists, which is nothing but badness for the open web, where any standards compliant browser should be fine!). An increasing number are supporting Chrome only at initial launch, which really is sad. The fact that Opera, who nowadays build on top of the Chromium Content API, have a comment in browser.js after dodging the UA-sniffing saying the following says a lot: > Google, please make sure your obfuscator does not change class names, so our patch continues working (or stop browser-sniffing as we both use and contribute to Blink!) - love, Opera. (from https://github.com/operasoftware/browserjs/blob/ceef10b34f63259c1aea2edb7d0f35f2b29ab4c4/OPRdesktop/browserjs-25.0.js#L252 https://github.com/operasoftware/browserjs/blob/ceef10b34f63...)
ProAm 12y ago
Im surprised we dont have to sign in to Google+ to use the Play Store.

callahad 12y ago

Why this is bad: Google is saying "I don't care whether or not your browser can view this site, I won't even let you try." If more online properties go this way, we effectively give Google the exclusive ability to develop and drive the Web platform at a fundamental level. For instance, Servo, an experimental, highly-parallel rendering engine written in Rust, won't be able to improve the efficiency or security of the Web as a whole if it's not allowed access to the Web in the first place.

sabret00the 12y ago
What makes this so bad for consumers is that if you search for an app via Google, you can't even open links directly.

chrismarlow9 12y ago

Chrome deleted. Default search engine in firefox set to duckduckgo. Will be moving all my gmail/gdocs to a self hosted solution this weekend. If anybody can recommend an open phone or a cheap/throwaway I would appreciate it.

gioi 12y ago

Sightly off-topic but: Do we really need user agent? What are good reasons we should keep on using them? I could find none...

hrjet 12y ago
Disabling the user-agent breaks quite a few websites as of today, but I agree, it's a good way forward to break the hegemony of certain websites and browsers.

eitland 12y ago

For twitter users: Google play seems to be @GooglePlay. Tag with #ChromeIsTheNewIE and ask if it is malice or incompentence (those are the only two I can come up with : )

myfonj 12y ago

For those lazy but curious, hurl: http://hurl.eu/hurls/75bc3ea92343cf38b3711597c5bd4a2e25bed842/7e0dd3048409eaaa4f8b1ef95db7cebefb926ede http://hurl.eu/hurls/75bc3ea92343cf38b3711597c5bd4a2e25bed84... (GET of `https://play.google.com/store` https://play.google.com/store` with User-Agent header of Fx 35 on Android)

felipc 12y ago

Jeff Atwood's App-pocalypse Now gets more relevant every day http://blog.codinghorror.com/app-pocalypse-now/ http://blog.codinghorror.com/app-pocalypse-now/

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

ifdefdebug 12y ago

Is it just me, or did anybody else see here a comment from a Google dev just one minute ago, stating this was "just a simple bug", going to be "fixed in short time"? I refreshed the page and now it's gone. Edit: well I don't really know if the comment came from a Google dev, I guessed so because it looked very authoritative.

myko 12y ago
It was published on an Android fan site but didn't identify a specific developer: http://www.androidcentral.com/heres-whats-google-play-store-being-blocked-firefox-mobile http://www.androidcentral.com/heres-whats-google-play-store-...

ocfx 12y ago

Who the hell browses the google play store from firefox anyways

brudgers 12y ago

Google broke Youtube with IE mobile years ago by simply refusing to serve up HTML5 to it. It's just the way they do business. Relevant items on HN: https://hn.algolia.com/?query=youtube%20windows%20phone&sort=byPopularity&prefix&page=0&dateRange=all&type=story https://hn.algolia.com/?query=youtube%20windows%20phone&sort...

davidgerard 12y ago

> Update 9:05 a.m. PT: Google has informed VentureBeat that the issue experienced by Firefox users on Android is a bug, and a fix will be issued “very soon.” i.e. "whoops, we got caught"

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

imnes 12y ago

Doesn't appear to be related to Firefox. I tried it from Chrome on my desktop (with dev-tools emulating a Nexus 5). See screenshot. Looks like if you're on a mobile device at all they want you to use the app instead of your browser. http://snag.gy/Dl0ay.jpg http://snag.gy/Dl0ay.jpg

gcb0 12y ago

have you seen firebox for android? it's years ahead of chrome. you can have extensions to begin with. from ad blockers to stylish, which let people with poor vision actually use the browser. also it allows you to disable all sort of asinine tracking that is forced in chrome. expect Google to play a Microsoft on Mozilla harder and harder now.

omaranto 12y ago
Firefox for Android also has nicer default fonts and MathJax works! (MathJax on Chrome for Android renders with parts of formulas overlapping other parts and overlapping surrounding text.)

_lce0 12y ago

time to switch to f-droid, as an open-source app store. http://f-droid.org/ http://f-droid.org/

squiros 12y ago

luckily, firefox has a useragent plugin. you can change it to 'i hate chrome because chrome is stupid, and so is google play' and you can access the google play store again. or you can simply use apkleecher and bypass that as well. this is why firefox is king. adaptability for whatever idiocy plagues you.

squiros 12y ago

staircasebug 12y ago

If you visit Gmail with Firefox on Android, Google will serve up a low-fidelity, non-ajax version of the site/app... a very poor user experience vs Android Chrome. I feel like this is done intentionally as Safari on iOS gives the same user experience as Android Chrome. Also, Google search omits many filters and feature options in Firefox and again, it seems intentional since Safari on iOS offers the same UX as Android Chrome.

Sesetamhet 12y ago

Just a bug :P. http://www.androidcentral.com/heres-whats-google-play-store-being-blocked-firefox-mobile http://www.androidcentral.com/heres-whats-google-play-store-...

telany 12y ago

Nothing happens right away.

Mandatum 12y ago

"Embrace, extend and extinguish" comes to mind. They've played the long con. Personally not against it, I see Chrome as a better product.

jaxonb 12y ago

I'm not jumping on this bandwagon. What are you looking for - plugins for the Firefox browser? Go to the Firefox store. And hey, Firefox is my backup browser. But I haven't seen any anti-Firefox campaigns from Google, though I've certainly seen anti-Google campaigns from Firefox, and I thought, they need to choose their battles a little more carefully. You start a war, there's always a chance you'll become a casualty.

Anilawasarmol 12y ago

8078725882

Chahat 12y ago

Plz gogel play store working right now

9927984798 12y ago

Fackook

lcedp 12y ago

Works for me: https://s3.amazonaws.com/pushbullet-uploads/ujvlIvV7Mia-fXRnH1aX5UsBdzGcThKC60devQbBjjaJ/Screenshot_2015-02-11-20-45-25.png https://s3.amazonaws.com/pushbullet-uploads/ujvlIvV7Mia-fXRn...

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

wenderson 12y ago

Ooiiiii

Too 12y ago

Clickbait headline. As bad as this is, the headline make it sound like Firefox was removed from the play store all together, which is far far worse.

masto 12y ago

The bug has been fixed: https://twitter.com/ficus/status/565234296294625280 https://twitter.com/ficus/status/565234296294625280