Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

The add-on ecosystem of Chrome currently dwarfs Firefoxes. Firefox extensions used to be more capable, but there's just more and certainly more NEW ones for Chrome.

(I'm sure this was an important consideration for Mozilla as well - it reduced the supposed value of their "more powerful" XUL extension system, as in practice you can often find a Chrome extension to do what you want, but not a Firefox one)



But Firefox can already run WebExtensions (aka Chrome extensions).

So how does this change anything?


It can.

But it can't keep XUL compatibility and do major overhauls of the browser.

If XUL compatibility doesn't even get you a clear advantage in the add-ons area, should it block modernizing the browser?

Firefox can't be the browser that people use only because they're stuck on it because they have extensions that changes how the browser works. Think about that for a bit.


I know all about the issues with Firefox, the new WebExtensions and how the "old" XUL extensions which let you do "anything" are being phased out.

I just don't see how any of that is relevant to the original comment I replied to:

> But will Google allow this to happen, as it would strip them a huge selling point for Chrome?

In what way would standardizing WebExtensions, which are already supported by all modern browsers (sans Safari), strip Chrome of selling points?

Why should Google have to "allow" this?


Chrome currently has the largest amount of extensions, which is an advantage for that browser.

Standardized WebExtensions dilute that, because they allow easy ports to the other browsers.


I think the point is more, in what way does google have any power to stop other browsers from implementing this API?


They don't. Unless you want to claim API's are copyrightable, but there are some downsides to that :-)




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: