Firefox to become first mobile browser to support desktop extensions later this year

noodle , 10 months ago

It’s long overdue. I’ve been running Nightly to get around the shockingly limited number of addons available on Firefox for Android. Hopefully Mozzila don’t fumble the bag with this as its a great opportunity to steal users from Chrome.

raptir , 10 months ago

I do find it funny when people talk about how few extensions are supported, when it has the best extension support of any mobile browser.

Like I get it, but still.

noodle , 10 months ago

Relative to desktop, it is comparatively few.

Best on mobile, yes. The few they allow in FFfA stable is a tiny amount considering how many actually can work, but Mozilla arbitrarily decided they won’t allow.

NickNak , 10 months ago

It used to be able to support all desktop addons but they for some reason took that away a while back

raptir , 10 months ago

The reason was they completely rewrote the mobile browser.

NickNak , 10 months ago

I didn’t know it was a mass rewrite, I just assumed they ruined the UI and features to “keep” up with mobile chrome, as most of these big tech companies do

Lantern , 10 months ago

Not saying it’s a better implementation, but Safari already does this.

Xander_Meters , 10 months ago

Yeah the article specifies android but the lemmy post generalises it

Siliconic , 10 months ago

About time. I’m tempted to switch back to Mull from Bromite, but I’m worried about the security of Firefox compared to Chromium (that’s why I switched in the first place), I’ve heard that particularly Mobile Firefox has awful sandboxing and bad security, I’m pretty sure it was the GrapheneOS team saying this? I’m no security expert though…

randint , 10 months ago

Yes it was the GrapheneOS team who said that. See the paragraph just above https://grapheneos.org/usage#camera. I literally just skimmed their guides and saw this yesterday while considering getting a Pixel.

z3rOR0ne , 10 months ago (edited 10 months ago)

I use Mull and Vanadium on Graphene OS, and the experience on Vanadium is just okay by comparison. It is true that not having extensions does decrease the attack surface, and Vanadium does have a built in ad blocker, but it simply isn’t as all encompassing as ublock’s list.

I use Mull mainly but don’t log into anything with it, and have noscript extension on by default.

I also turn off JS by default in Vanadium. Both browsers have ways of making exceptions for certain sites in this case, but NoScript has more granular control.

I remember reading on reddit a convo that basically the GrapheneOS team was much more concerned with security than privacy. This isn’t to say they don’t care about privacy at all, just that they will always prioritize security first.

This makes sense considering their decision to only officially support the Pixel line of devices. You still are supporting Google by giving them your money (and a bit of your data in the process of purchase). Additionally, the decision to default to using the Google Play Store and sandbox the apps, rather than use the Aurora Store, also points to these underlying values.

randint , 10 months ago

Yeah, I can tell this just from skimming their FAQ and Usage Guides. When they talk about the applications they offer, they always sell it as the most secure thing ever. I still personally care more about privacy than security though.

JuvenoiaAgent , 10 months ago

Posted this above, but it might interest you as an alternative to Vanadium:

Bromite hasn’t been updated in a while, so you should at least switch to Cromite if you’re not switching to Mull. It’s a fork by a previous Bromite contributor and includes some improvements, like a bottom toolbar and adblock plus (so normal block lists, not Bromite’s less customizable ad blocker.

z3rOR0ne , 10 months ago

Is Vanadium just Bromite under the hood? I thought they were separate projects…

JuvenoiaAgent , 10 months ago

They’re different, but according to its readme, Cromite includes “security enhancement patches from GrapheneOS project”, so I assume it contains Vanadium’s changes as well as other improvements.

z3rOR0ne , 10 months ago

Thanks for the clarification! I’ll investigate.

JuvenoiaAgent , 10 months ago

Bromite hasn’t been updated in a while, so you should at least switch to Cromite if you’re not switching to Mull. It’s a fork by a previous Bromite contributor and includes some improvements, like a bottom toolbar and adblock plus (so normal block lists, not Bromite’s less customizable ad blocker.

Siliconic , 10 months ago

Thanks, I hadn’t noticed it wasn’t updating

pornhubfan , 10 months ago

There’s a good comparison here.

popemichael , 10 months ago

I’ve been using the nightly build, using the desktop extensions for a while now. It’s SO worth it. In particular, the YouTube “SponsorBlock” is super convenient.

NikkiDimes , 10 months ago

While I get it, sponsors are what enable the content you watch to even exist. It’s one thing if it’s youtube ads, but those sponsors are directly partnered with and paying content creators. On the other hand, Patreon is really the best way to go for content you truly care about.

popemichael , 10 months ago

I’m 100% not going to buy anything from those sponsored segments.

Also, there is a white list option for your favorite creators

NikkiDimes , 10 months ago

Oh is there? Maybe I’ll check it out then, that’s pretty cool

JTskulk , 10 months ago

I’m sure parent is totally fine being subsidized by all the people not running it.

Obi , 10 months ago

Do they actually lose anything from these sponsorships if you just skip that part? Because that’s basically what the addon does. I’m not sure these sponsorships go as far as looking at minutes watched or whatever, I assumed it’s a pre-agreed amount.

beanz00_ , 10 months ago

must be, because half of them have the sponsor segment as its own chapter in the video, making it super easy to skip. I don’t imagine they would make it as easy if they really wanted you to watch it.

MrNobody , 10 months ago

I find this take amusing. Blocking the ads means the content creator doesn’t get paid for those ads since they won’t get seen by those end users, but sponsor’s have already paid the creator for that part. Whether you watch it or not the money has already changed hands, all it does is automate you skipping those segments.

NikkiDimes , 10 months ago

While I agree in the short term, video analytics still come into play for future sponsorships and payouts. Do you think a sponsor will be willing to continue paying a creator if their sponsor segments receive no watch time?

rdeets , 10 months ago

Interesting bootlicker take amidst a content creator strike in Hollywood. Granted YouTube isn’t under those Unions, but the power dynamics are quite similar (#YouTubeUnion)

Sponsors don’t give a shit about creators, they are just an annoying necessity for the content creator.

Why give a shit about a sponsor who doesn’t give a shit about the YouTuber you enjoy?

jesus_talks , 10 months ago

Why not just install revanced youtube?

popemichael , 10 months ago

I have other tweaks and scripts that I have written for personal usage. Using nightly Firefox makes it so I can use those tweaks universally on desktop and phone.

vinyl , 10 months ago

Been using Iceraven, although it only supports a handful of extensions such as dark reader and uBlock

Leminator , 10 months ago

This sounds huge! This may be a dumb question, but: do extensions on mobile require any special security tools that don’t already exist?

crummysocks , 10 months ago

Test

fne8w2ah , 10 months ago

Didn’t their pre-version 79 app already support extensions?

ChaoticNeutralCzech , 10 months ago

Is still does, experimentally, if you enable developer settings, rather unintuitively through a Firefox Add-Ons account. Developer settings are not available in the official release but the Nightly builds as well as some forks, like 🦊Fennec, include them.

Gestrid , 10 months ago

I don’t know about pre-79, but their current version supports a very, very limited selection of extensions, many of which are to specifically improve the mobile version of Firefox. Currently, only a total of 22 extensions are supported, many of which share the same purposes.

Blackmist , 10 months ago

I mean, ad blocking is like 95% of the reason why I want extensions.

And the other 5% is blocking all those stupid consent popups.

Gestrid , 10 months ago

They actually have at least four adblockers available in mobile Firefox on Android: uBlock Origin, AdGuard AdBlocker, Ghostery, and AdNauseum.

nimitz1156 , 10 months ago

yeah I’m actually disappointed when they stop doing that

Ivanovabr , 10 months ago

Yes. It did.

theangryseal , 10 months ago

Oh my goodness that would be amazing. I’ll drop safari in an instant.

sebi , 10 months ago

Unfortunatly, this will not be the case on iOS as Apple doesn’t allow third-party browser engines and stores

Powerpoint , 10 months ago

The EU is working on opening that up at least so there is a light at the end of the tunnel for those users

theangryseal , 10 months ago

Bummer.

I might get me a damn android.

I’m just buried in their ecosystem. Gah. I’ve been using apple computers and phones since I was a kid. I started on the Quadra 650.

My last mac (which I still use for music recording) was a 2012 Mac Pro. I’ve pretty much gone all in on the phones these days with a Steam Deck as my primary computer but definitely my secondary device.

I have photos on iCloud going back to about 2014 when I stopped jailbreaking my phones. Moving all of that would be no fun at all. Getting used to a new OS wouldn’t be any fun either. I hate doing anything on my uncle’s Samsung.

I really wish there was a third alternative. A good Linux distro centered around phones or something.

vzq , 10 months ago

I’m an iPhone man, but if weren’t I would be using Google Pixels.

It’s the most polished Android experience I’ve seen so far, and you can do literally whatever you want with them as they have unlockable boot loaders.

sebi , 10 months ago

I also used iPhones for a long time until I had to switch to a temporary phone due to age-related hardware malfunction. Out of curiosity, I tried /e/ OS and was very pleasantly surprised.

The temporary phone is now in use for at least a year and I also get to enjoy other extraordinary features like USB-C and a headphone-jack. In the future, I may also give LineageOS a try.

AlexisFR , 10 months ago

It has been for years, no? Or was it mobile-tagged extensions?

blady_blah , 10 months ago

Limited to mobile add-ons.

bauhaus , 10 months ago

safari has been able to do this for years

mxcory , 10 months ago

Vivaldi I meant Kiwi (chromium) also uses the regular chrome web store.

Also, I thought there was a previous version of Firefox Mobile that had access to the desktop add-ons site.

bauhaus , 10 months ago

I thought add-ons were supported in ff mobile, too… I don’t use it, but I’m sure I’ve heard about it…

TheWildTangler , 10 months ago

It supports mobile extensions but not the same desktop browser extensions

bauhaus , 10 months ago

oh, I see. well, now it will, which is good

gammasfor , 10 months ago

Firefox mobile used to have mobile add-ons but it was separate and naturally therefore more limited.

Arthur_Leywin , 10 months ago

Maybe I’ll stop using Brave. Sounds cool af

257m , 10 months ago

Iceraven already has extensions so it’s not the first.

CifrareVerba , 10 months ago

I wish Mozilla listened to its users like it used to.

Vivaldi has been great on Android, desktop and iOS/iPadOS and even keeps the customization built in that Firefox used to have.

SnowdenHeroOfOurTime , 10 months ago

Vivaldi would be kind of cool if not for the chromium thing being a huge downer… but I gotta say, their featureset is slightly weird.

Firefox on android though? Is great.

CifrareVerba , 10 months ago

I know it’s a big issue for many given the bad news and crap Google does, but Mozilla is actively taking away features from Gecko whereas Vivaldi, Microsoft, Google and Samsung are improving chromium. I find it hard to make Firefox behave how I want it to when browsers like Vivaldi or even Edge make it easy.

I know a common sentiment I hear (at least on Reddit) is “Why didn’t so and so’s browser use Gecko?” but when a company or person does, a lot of /r/Firefox and /r/Linux users will get upset that they are forking Firefox instead of adding to Firefox/Gecko.

danielton , 10 months ago

Remember when different browsers used to have different rendering engines?

Pepperidge Farm remembers.

CifrareVerba , 10 months ago

For sure. Chromium, Gecko, WebKit, Trident, Presto… I also remember people then telling users to ditch other browsers… and the same people who said it 10-15 years ago are now the same people who are worried about the duopoly (WebKit and Blink) and lack of Gecko and browser/rendering engine innovation(s).

mishimaenjoyer , 10 months ago

i hope mozilla is already working on an iOS version for the EU market ;)

aquarisces , 10 months ago

This is the only reason why I keep using Safari on iOS. If Firefox can get extensions working for iOS I’ll switch over the day it’s available.

mishimaenjoyer , 10 months ago

i miss(ed) exactly two things on iOS: a proper imageboard reader (fixed, there are now chance and janchan) and stand alone firefox, wich is now just a matter of time.

sab , 10 months ago

I don’t see how they would, since ios Firefox doesn’t use the same rendering engine it uses on other platforms, Gecko. Instead it has to use Safari, just like any other browser on there.

Duplicating support for all existing extensions would be pretty much impossible if you don’t control the rendering engine.

lustyargonian , 10 months ago

That’s going to change in EU as Apple will be forced to allow side loading apps.

mishimaenjoyer , 10 months ago

this. they simply have to port the version they're developing for android now and we're golden. i guess it might find it's way on non-eu-devices by community builds and testflight.

lustyargonian , 10 months ago

Yeah it’ll be a big task nonetheless. Firefox for Android needed gecko components to be ready to make use of gecko view, their rendering “engine”. iOS may be need its own version of gecko view, at least the bindings for it, as well as a new set of components for all the UI elements a full fledged browser may need.

sab , 10 months ago

I heard about allowing alternative app stores, but I’m not sure if that also removes the browser engine restrictions. (would make sense though, from an anti-monopoly pov)

lustyargonian , 10 months ago

The restriction is from App Store, and bypassing it removes that hurdle. Microsoft faced the same issue when they were trying to launch their cloud streaming service within their app, not because they technically couldn’t, but because Apple wouldn’t let them to.

sab , 10 months ago

Ahhh, that makes sense. Thanks!