The fact that a company can't deal with a scheduled-far-in-advance, highly-public-if-failed event does tell you some things about their priorities / how well they do things they need to do.
So yes, I think this is one of many signs that they're not paying enough attention to extensions, not a totally isolated "accidents happen" event. Were I an extension author, I'd see that event as reason to be more concerned.
You're misinformed. Many extensions work, they are progressively being re-enabled over time, and on the nightly version they are all available, although whether they actually work or not depends on the state of the underlying APIs. The reason for the whitelist model, is that when they swapped to the new mobile browser engine, the underpinnings of many of the extension APIs had to be reimplemented, and they are not all online or bug-free yet.
And no, I don't consider a small custom list to be "support". It's a high-value list and a solid sign that they're not wholly abandoned, and I do expect it to come eventually, but it's very much not the same as general availability. General availability did exist before.
[1]: https://www.ghacks.net/2020/10/01/you-can-now-install-any-ad...
---
Edit: I broadly agree with their breaking of NPAPI stuff, WebExtensions (as a concept, not necessarily the specifics we have now) has a LOT of very real benefits, and does not inherently prevent equal or better capabilities. But it too is still a loss in control, as it stands today.
Since I left, I understand that they've fully automated, and mandated, all certificate generation and rotation, but there have still been cert expiration events, albeit rare.
Cert expiration events happen. It's zero indication of the intelligence or capability of the engineering skills or maturity of a company. It's a thing that just works until it doesn't, with zero warning.
You can't verify anything internal unless you're internal or it has already failed publicly, so you of course have to draw on patterns seen elsewhere. Critical-process failures in one area correlate heavily with failures in others.
Plus, Epic has not exactly shown themselves to be producing consistent quality in anything related to their store, or many internet-connected properties. If they were, this might be more attributable to "accidents happen, it's impossible to prevent them all". It could still be an abnormality, but they're edging further towards "... maybe not though" territory.
---
Edit: lets add a concrete "kinda example, kinda counter-example". Google is a tech company that is pretty good at consistently renewing its many certificates. They recently failed to do so for Google Voice: https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/google/recent-google-v...
I think there's a reasonable argument to be made that this reinforces claims that Google Voice is low priority / at higher risk of future issues due to lack of care, i.e. systemic issues, compared to other Google properties. I have no proof, but that doesn't mean it's automatically unreasonable.
Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying there aren't problems at Epic Games (most companies have them). What I'm saying is, we're just speculating: how is that helpful? Either to them or to this discussion?
We're either casting vague and hand-wavy aspersions or citing more specific examples where we actually have no idea whether they have any relevance to Epic Games.
It's just noise because, as you've pointed out, we're not internal.
It was illustration of though process - that seems to make sense to me.
> It's just noise because, as you've pointed out, we're not internal.
Yes, it is noisier than direct info from inside but you may learn something.