Comment on Mozilla tells extension developers to get ready to go mobile • The Register

nevemsenki@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

• elbarto777@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  As if extensions is the reason of Firefox faltering on mobile. Do Chrome and Safari allow extensions on mobile?

  source

  • ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Safari does. I think they’re the same as desktop Safari but it seems like a different and smaller ecosystem from the Chrome/FF one and the good ones tend to cost a dollar or two (or six). Still, I have an ad-blocker, a dark mode one, a Userscripts one, one to get rid of AMP links, and a few others.

    source

    • elbarto777@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Oh nice! I didn’t know.

      source
  • nevemsenki@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    It’s a bunch of things. Not having extensions however removed a potentially differentiating feature, which certainly didn’t help.

    source

    • elbarto777@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      But mobile Firefox does have extensions. It’s just not a big number.

      source

      • nevemsenki@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        I just counted, it’s 22… and there a lot of redundancy in there. So I’d say that FF on mobile had extensions technically. Want something as extreme as RES or some video downloader? You have with fiddle with nightly… which barely any average user would.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • bingbong@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Safari actually has a pretty good extension system (for mobile)

    source