Firefox desktop extensions coming soon for the upcoming Android release
blog.mozilla.org
blog.mozilla.org
I know there are other apps that support add-ons but the fact is that Firefox is __the only__ "mainstream" browser that does this (quotes because it's 0.25% in the US, as the 4th most popular, behind Samsung fucking Internet).
It's popular to hate on Firefox, but this is the nerdiest of nerd issues and if we're being honest, all this has accomplished in the last decade is a decrease in market share and keeping Safari and (more so) Chrome dictate the Internet and user experience. Firefox being so low puts no pressure on Chrome to add add-ons. Firefox being so low just means Chrome can continue pushing the ad first Internet.
Yeah, it's fun to complain, but which do you hate more? That Firefox only provides 80-90% of what you want (when major competitors provide __0%__), or Google dictating the Internet (like AMP)? Complain, but maybe tone it down a bit. This is not the holy war you want.
I'm not salty about the 6+ interviews or anything.
Where have they announced that they're focusing on "agenda pushing"? Mozilla's "agenda" feels like a very tiny part of what they do, it's just that people talk about it endlessly.
Just read their blog. Latest three: - EU's AI Act - Fakespot school supplies? - Making trustworthy chatbots to support women plagued by violence and abuse
The first one might make sense? Second one WTF? And third is disgusting (I know people effected and the LAST thing they want is some chatbot).
None of these are related strongly to Firefox. I quit donating to them years ago after it was obvious they have their priorities messed up.
There's definitely an agenda. It's one that's good for users IMHO though, as opposed to the agendas of the for-profit browser makers.
- they fired lots of good devs to cut on expenses but then keep paying more and more to top execs (and we're not getting any anomalous good results that justify it iyam)...
- from what i understood, they also "kind of" kicked Brendan Eich (yeah, Brave's CEO, the guy that invented JS, etc...) out over some "personal" things that had nothing to do with Mozilla (but then again... you should go read about this and take your own conclusions)
- Firefox, also start following the herd and that led to it cutting lots of features people loved (e.g.: Firefox had tab grouping addons - and then a native feature - way before we had Chrome browser... now everyone complains firefox is the only browser that does not support tab groups... kind of ironic!)
- some more .......
All in all it's a love-hate relation! We love and need Firefox because it's the only good thing left around, but people are very pissed up with "Mozilla's attitudes and decisions"
then again... this is just what i understand from the "news"!!! You should really go out and see what others think about it!!!
What else do you do with a billon dollars? Even a browser on FF's scale doesn't need a billion to operate properly. Most of that would go towards advertising and lobbying for stuff to secure their place.
Especially for non-tech-savvy people, who don't know what a browser is, if they need a certain feature then you just replaced their chrome with firefox + this feature and they were happy. But if Firefox is just another Chrome clone, then it is neccessarily an inferior one.
Their market share was dropping for a long time before, and it was dropping for a long time after. And to the extent that switching addon models helped them improve performance during their big marketing push in 2017, it probably got them a few users back if anything.
A full half of Firefox users (even at the time) didn't use addons, and the majority of the rest only used one or two adblockers.
Perhaps anecdotal, but whenever I ask a Chrome user why they don't use Firefox, that's the main two reasons they cite. I do ask often though.
What "certain features" do non-tech-savvy people need? I know lots of devs who rarely even know or care which browser they're using. Not to mention non-tech-savvy people..
A multi-process architecture is not an obscure technical goal, it's an essential for modern browsing, and something that Chrome had from the outset, and is a large part of the reason that Chrome originally clobbered Firefox in both security and perceived speed.
Speaking of mobile firefox where did Save as PDF vanish and why? and so on
edit: I have been told in a reply the save pdf feature still exists but has been changed for no reason to a different location in the menu
On mobile though... I switched back about a year ago, when I got sick of the ads on chrome.
If the choice is between being able to install uBlock Origin and Privacy Badger vs not being able to... I'll definitely stick with Firefox on mobile.
Today Mr. Firmwarrior stands in the public square shouting about Firefox some more.
There is no better vertical tab solution than FireFox + Sidebury.
If you are using horizontal tabs, you are not a "power-user" of a browser.
This is just such absurd, elitist, gatekeeping. WTF. How about just not have 400 tabs open? Am I really not a "power user" of my browser because I utilize the bookmark feature.
Get over yourself man
Even still works on newest Firefox, assuming you install a sketchy extension and disable signature checking. Thanks for your contribution, Firefox, I guess, though I can't help but notice that you spent the past decade trying your hardest to make this addon not work.
https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-Origin-works-b...
It also remains more blocking capable than Chrome, for those so inclined.
Supports adblock (addons) and shows tabs on top just like desktop so it's easy to switch, dark mode for all websites, etc. It's relative fast and lots of options. I use FF with no addons for some websites.
Honestly, I hate this on the phone. But I get it. I had that initial cognitive disruption when FF did this. But once that was gone (idk, like 30 minutes?) I realized it was a lot nicer because I could actually reach the address bar and tabs without needing to stretch my hand. Or if I have a bigger phone, use a second hand. I mean there's a reason navigation buttons on the phones (for the OS) were always on the bottom. It's just easier. But yeah, you gotta get through the initial cognitive disruption. But you know what? I also got used to when Android switched the time from being at the top right to top left and I'm willing to bet most people did too and don't really think about it anymore. As for the dark mode... well you got a point there. Though dark reader was one of the first add-ons on FF mobile. Though as much as I love dark mode, some websites are just unreadable with it and it drives me nuts. Specifically anything with a transparent background...
iOS and iPadOS Safari has supported extensions for a while now.
https://support.apple.com/guide/ipad/get-extensions-ipada7ca...
https://support.apple.com/guide/iphone/get-extensions-iphab0...
> For the past few years Firefox for Android officially supported a small subset of extensions
If you're referring to desktop, on the other hand, Safari has had extensions since 2010.
So I think that on the balance, I'm a supporter.
This decision, to finally re-enable add-ons on Android, is a good one and I applaud Mozilla for making it!
(~30y Mosaic/Netscape/FF user)
uBlock doesn't exist for iOS because it is made impossible by apple, their extension API is not a "full" API.
Precompiled declarative blocking is more performant and power efficient than running a content script in a JS VM at page load, which matters on a CPU and battery constrained device.
I was responding to a comment claiming that mobile Safari doesn’t support add-ons. Which is simply not true!
That's misinformation. It may not be as good as ublock origin (I don't know) but in my experience it removes practically everything.
Mozilla refuses to address how having no adblock is a security risk, so I have moved all my friends and family over to iOS Brave.
Firefox built its own demise by having a bizarre focus on woke stuff instead of features that users direly need.
all this has accomplished in the last decade is a decrease in market share
You are confusing cause and effect. We've been saying the same things as we watch Mozilla slowly strangle Firefox to death for a decade.
That said, this is great news. I'm very much looking forward to being able to capture embedded videos on Android and maybe even get back my precious DownThemAll.
Google is actively doing that every single fucking day with thousands of people working towards this goal, with Chrome being an essential tool in that process, as whatever chrome does, everyone else will be forced to do.
Why the fuck would you enable that, even for a little "convenience"?
That's called "Waterfox Classic".
Absolutely not true. I still hear people talking about FF as if it is pre-quantum. They complain about how slow it is. But quantum made it faster and more secure overnight. There's still a lot of people who are complaining and have just never tried it after the big issues were fixed. Or they try it, there's a small cognitive dissonance because checks notes "the interface is horrible", and so they call it slow attempting to justify why they dislike it rather than making an actual criticism or giving it a fair shot. Come on, the UI is almost identical across the board with browsers.
And we're doing this for what... to give Google more power over the internet? I'm sorry, I think it is you who are confusing cause and effect. You participated in the monopolization of browsers and are suffering the consequences of it. Because of a little convenience. The path to hell is indeed paved with "good intentions." Little steps is all it takes to make progress over decades. Unless you can tell me there's a huge major problem with FF that outweighs the ad focused internet, then you have it backwards.
Firefox has been my browser of choice since v1.5. If I didn't use it I wouldn't need to complain about it. Its slide ever-closer to Chrome-hood is why we're disappointed.
I'm sad that Vivaldi uses Chromium under the hood, but that the only thing that has UX I need (and I don't even care about its slow UI and random crashes every few days).
But I'm always happy to hear someone uses Firefox.
I don't hate Firefox, I hate Mozilla.
This might be the most real comment here. All our perceptions are some fictionalized version of <insert company/product here>. Doesn't matter if it is Apple, Google, Mozilla, or whatever. Our judgements are based on narrow experiences and highly affected by the PR generated around them.
When it comes to Firefox, a lot of users' judgements might be from actual experience using the product back in its heyday (before it was lobotomized), as opposed to PR?
However, bringing PR into the discussion is a good point. Mozilla turned from a browser/web tools maker into a PR agency with unclear profit motives that happens to make an increasingly-lackluster browser.
I've never had to use about:config on mobile before, but I just checked and it works fine for me.
And I mean sure, it's not a bad goal, but they are letting Firefox die in the process. And once you lost your place at the standards negotiating table, then what? They already capitulated when Google decided that browsers needed DRM, and I don't see them stopping WEI either.
I don't need yet another VPN. I need a strong browser to rival Chrome.
HN loves to simultaneously criticize Mozilla for
1) being financially dependent on Google
2) spending resources on literally anything except Firefox
3) doing anything that smells like monetizing Firefox, no matter how innocuous
Spoiler alert: They have essentially no hope of avoiding 1 without doing at least a little bit of 2 or 3. Unlike Google, Apple, and Microsoft, they don't have billions of dollars coming through the backdoor from other business units. The money can't just magically appear, so either they make it from Google, from Firefox, or from alternative services.
That’s a charitable interpretation. An uncharitable one would be that, due to flaws in American 501c3 legislation, at least some people involved in Mozilla view their job as a sinecure. Capture of a non-profit for personal benefit is a longstanding phenomenon in the USA.
- They are (recently) very top heavy for a non-profit foundation and are spending non-negligible amounts of money on C-level and execs
- Ideologically I disagree with them taking money with strings attached from Alphabet
- (Personally) their recent trends of UX with 'dummyfication' and mimicking chrome is a terrible loss
> Ideologically I disagree with them taking money with strings attached from Alphabet
How would they get more sources of funding if not exploring other projects? Firefox would never pay for itself.
I totally agree with the exec thing, however.
What are those strings, apart from being default search engine?
I am approximately as cynical as they come, and I'm not sure how Firefox could even exist if Google weren't keeping Mozilla alive (on life support), so I am intrigued by your criticism. I'd like to understand your viewpoint and what ideology is behind it, if any. In your view, what should be done?
But phones are so much faster now! And with MV3 chrome claims they have prevented a variety of ways extensions might be slow.
I don't know how Chrome can keep justifying this old old choice.
It's funny because, you know, I expect chrome to screw me over while I expect firefox not to screw me over but chrome has screwed me over fewer times than firefox over the years.
Firefox has been an amazing product since day one.
Meanwhile, Chrome has literally been developed to probe your ass for data they can sell to advertisers.
In that thread there are a few more examples, most of them somewhat recent: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36077683
Omg, firefox screwed me over by showing me an ad.
I see. I think no further illustration needed.
Hardly screwing us over, though. They’ve been doing even worse things, for example constantly opting us in for “anonymous statistics” etc.
If it one day comes out they’ve been sharing this data deanonymized with 3rd parties, then you can say you’ve been screwed over.
People tend to just judge Mozilla way more harshly.
It's very unfair: they do good, and we ask even more of them.
Can we seriously not even contemplate the idea that there might be a certain corporate entity out there with a vested interest in ensuring that Firefox usage is kept deliberately low while at the same ensuring they _just_ enough funding to keep going so they can point to it and say "look, we're not a monopoly!"
It doesn't take a lot of mental effort to realize that the userbase left doesn't want telemetry and third party partnerships; Mozilla knew this, they tried to get away with it and lost goodwill.
It's not the thing, it's the attempt to get away with it that irks me. No one except The Paid wanted pocket integration and Mr Robot promotions.
Meanwhile google is pushing an attempt to strangle the open internet to death, in the open, for all eyes to see.
But no, lets keep pretending that mozilla doing a poorly executed ad is comparable to THAT
What does this mean? My experience using tabs in firefox has not changed in like twenty years!
It's a self-inflicted problem though. Mozilla uses every opportunity to claim they're on your side and want to protect you from the evil guys.
The nagging itself is annoying to begin with (and incomprehensible - at least ads make sense from a business point of view - but why interrupt my workflow to let me know about Colorways?), but it's made even worse with all their self-righteous BS about privacy while the browser actually being pretty poor (and not GDPR compliant due to default-on telemetry) in its default configuration.
It's one thing to make a mistake or do user-hostile decisions inline with your business model. But it's another to loudly shout about how "good" you are (and everyone else is bad) and then do the exact same thing.
Same reason why a policeman or some law-enforcement figure gets more outrage for committing a crime than a normal citizen.
What are you all smoking?
Firefox on the other hand, despite having a lot of user-hostile functionality and design decisions, will constantly nag you pretending to be on your side, misleading you into a false sense of security.
Some facts:
One does not need Firefox Nightly to run more extensions than the "supported" ones.
Creating a "custom" collection of Add-Ons on addons.mozilla.org can be done using a disposable email address.
There is no visible Settings option to add a custom collection in Fennec from F-Droid. To make it visible, one has to go the About page under Settings and tap the Firefox logo three or more times.
One needs to enter an "ID" in Fennec to add a "custom" collection. The addons.mozilla.org site does not tell the user her ID, it's in the URL that points to her collection.
After a custom collection is added, one loses the default collection of Add-Ons "supported" by Mozilla. No way to easily switch between collections. Need to remove the current collection.
After installing a custom collection, whenever the user access the Add-Ons menu in Fennec, Firefox tries to connect to addons.mozilla.org. Mozilla's definition of user privacy excludes telemetry and data collection by Mozilla.
As another commenter mentioned, many of the Add-Ons that are not "supported" by Mozilla work just fine. They work just as well as uBblock origin, NoScript and the other "supporteed" ones.
I seriously don't get it. Why do I have to create a "custom collection" with an email address to install an extension. Why can't it work like it does on PC ?
I used to have a number of addons installed at that time, including Stylish (prior to the hostile changes), uBlock Origin and UnMHT.
You probably mean the Firefox Daylight release that happened in August 2020. Firefox Daylight or Fenix was a completely new browser, not an update. That completely new browser did not fully support add-ons at the time it was released, which is why Mozilla introduced the restricted list of "supported" add-ons. I'm not quite sure how this is ironic. You seem to think that Mozilla somehow did this to get one over on their users, but I can assure you that this isn't the case.
> which is based on Chromium.
unfortunately that's a dealbreaker for me.
This is great news. Can't wait to have a no-fuss paywall bypass on mobile again.
There is literally no ads nor external SDK or ad-tech or whatever you are referring to (before there was AdMob, but it didn't make much money anyway).
https://reports.exodus-privacy.eu.org/en/reports/com.kiwibro...
The way Kiwi makes money is by partnering with Bing / Yahoo.
You launch the browser, it starts with Bing or Yahoo (depending on your country), and... that's it.
Bing then pays back a revenue-share to the browser each time the user uses the search engine.
The same way that DuckDuckGo gets a revenue-share from Yahoo and Bing too when you use DuckDuckGo.
So, if you prefer Firefox and Google, or Kiwi and Bing, this is just a matter of choice.
Tbf the dev always sounds reasonable in their responses but was a little off-putting initially so I kinda understand the GP's impression.
[1] https://github.com/kiwibrowser/src.next/issues/91#issuecomme...
[2] https://github.com/Tobi823/ffupdater/issues/35
[3] https://web.archive.org/web/20210605191305/https://github.co...
Super stoked with this news this morning.
How can people complain about FF so much, when it's the only mobile browser that even gives you this option, and radically cleans up mobile browsing.
But no, it's "mozilla bad"
> No warranties or guarantees of security or updates
In general it's fine for users to fork software to scratch their own itches. But browsers are super security sensitive.
If uBlock Origin wasn't supported I would be on Iceraven, but I don't run a ton of extensions so I was willing to tolerate some inconvenience in order to be closer to the source.
The other thing is that Iceraven isn't a silver bullet, you can install any extension but if it's relying on an API that's not implemented yet it will break. Which is totally not their fault, but it gets back to -- Mozilla needs to actually implement full extension support beyond just flipping a switch on.
I'm glad Iceraven exists though :) I wouldn't not recommend them to someone who needs more extension support, it's just not right for my personal use case.
No? We only have this requirement of the only browser not tied to an advertising organization? Huh, that's very strange....
Which of those are you currently donating to?
Because apparently, I'm not allowed to embrace the full potential of my browser by installing any extensions that haven't been hand-delivered and serenaded by the majestic Firefox Marketplace.
Please share if you're familiar with a method. I'm contemplating the creation of my own customized version of Android Firefox, incorporating code to enable installation from XPI files.
Edit: Just tried it, not working: Tabbing on the xpi file -> Open with. Getting the toast "None of your Apps can open this file" even tough I just installed fennec.
coming They removed it. It was one good thing about Firefox mobile and they removed it.
Now please bring back the old UI and fix other issues you broke with that update (so the window that shows tabs so it doesn't forget where its position was, or make external video player work again) and I might switch back.
though it should be noted that i use browser on phone just to consume text. no video, no audio, and even picture is rarely the focus.
so, what do i miss?
So I can read Twitter links without dealing with the login modals.
* AdGuard - Annoyances
* uBlock filters – Annoyances
Also, for browsing Twitter anonymously, you could use nitter.net instead of the official Twitter site.
That's precisely what that extension's doing -for- them when twitter links show up somewhere else.
The others are missing for sure, though.
You don't need this. Just go to your uBlock Origin filter lists settings and enable these:
* AdGuard - Annoyances
* uBlock filters – Annoyances
1. OneTab 2. Unhook 3. Unclutter 4. Violentmonkey
Tampermonkey shows in Add-on manager list in android, but not in addons.mozilla.org!
* AdGuard - Annoyances
* uBlock filters – Annoyances
uBlock Origin also has an "element zapper" feature that lets you temporarily remove overlays that aren't covered by the lists.
I seriously can't live without it, anytime I'm trying to read a website and a fucking pop-up obscures the text I'm trying to read, I want to throw my device on the floor.
multi-containers.
How do you want to separate cookies/identities without that?
I mean I am happy enough with Firefox on android even with it quirks, and the main add-ons I use are already supported but this will fill in the last few gaps.
Very welcome!
It has been possible to use extensions on Android, but keeping them loaded on Android after OOM reclamation has been a pain up until now.
I wrote up a hack where I push Android Firefox extensions over Wireguard and OCR.
https://blog.plzat.me/2023-05-23-android-in-wireguardland-pu...
Hopefully this is the end of the need for this kind of hack. I love Firefox on all my platforms and having extensions on Android makes it even better.
By the way, seems like you could use inotify to detect new screenshots rather than polling the Syncthing API. Probably not enough of a functional difference to change something that is already working though.
Syncthing was necessary to get the files onto my desktop machine, and I don't know how I could have automatically pushed from my android phone otherwise. Syncthing was so ridiculously easy to use, I basically just started a docker container, and then added the backend on my Android device. Zero firewall configuration. So simple. I suppose I could have easily used inotify, but either way I needed a script to launch the OCR, and I don't really see a big value in using a filesystem watch over an API when the syncthing api is very simple.
Cheers!
You make a good point about Syncthing. It's just that polling kind of offends my sensibilities if there's something better. But.. I'm one of those hackers running multiple bash processes per second just to update my status bar... For about ten years now! So, don't mind me. ;)
Syncthing is great software and I'm using it on all my devices. I'm glad it provided an easy solution to your use case.
But then they decided they needed a mobile-specific experience and created the current dumbed down version with limited add-on support.
Because the typical user will ignore the warning and install the extension. Then down the line Firefox will be slow and they forget why. Then they uninstall Firefox.
Sure, you can avoid this trap personally. But the statistical behaviour is harmful to a healthy Firefox userbase.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/consent-o-mat...
One of the things might be putting cookies on your computer.
I'm fine with just blocking and not giving consent.
Wish you hadn't downvoted him.
That's very sad and weird mobile browsers usually don't have extensions. Firefox can probably repeat the history here - as I remember it was the first to introduce extensions (on desktop) and they are a cornerstone part of what have made it great in the first place.
Just in case anyone missed this, it seems that Android Firefox STILL will not allow anonymous installation of extensions. Even if you wrote the extension yourself, and want to install on your own device.
Only workaround is to only install approved extensions, or be forced into registering on AMO. if I am wrong I will be happy to hear it, but this upcoming release doesn't seem to offer any meaningful change in regards to user privacy and control.
> any meaningful change in regards to user privacy and control.
There's an enormous difference in user control between the 22 extensions that are currently allowed on Firefox Android and an open library of add-ons, even if Mozilla is retaining control of the add-on installation process for now. I don't usually jump to Mozilla's defense, but saying this is no "meaningful change" is rank hyperbole.
I think this mirrors the desktop behavior (now correct me if I'm wrong, I very well might be ;)). Firefox Developer Edition on Desktop has options for sideloading, but otherwise to sideload it needs to be signed. You can however temporarily load an extension to test it if you're a developer in I think any version of Firefox.
Their link (https://extensionworkshop.com/documentation/develop/developi...) suggests that Android will work (almost) the same -- you can temporarily load an extension to test it, but it needs to be signed unless you're on nightly.
I do think forcing every extension to be signed is a mistake and I wish they'd do away with that policy. But at least on first impression, it looks to me like mobile will be as open as desktop is? Which would be a huge improvement considering how locked down the current Firefox for Android is.
You also can sideload apps in Nightly, although I understand that is not ideal.
the backwards logic to justify this sentence is mind boggling. I wrote my own extension, I should be able to install it on my own device without getting permission from daddy Mozilla, period. I should not have to register for that, in the same way I dont have to register with Debian to install a program on Linux.
I wish Mozilla release altstore/sideload version of IOS app with all the feature available in android.
You can use Firefox extensions on iOS via Orion Browser.
[1] https://apps.apple.com/app/orion-browser-by-kagi/id148449820...
https://browser.kagi.com/updates/orion-iOS-release-notes.htm...
It wouldn't be that much more work to package it up and release it for side loading.
"AdGuard – Cookie Notices" and "EasyList – Cookie Notices"
The best one seems to be Consent-O-Matic as it actually tries to disable all trackers, but it doesn't work on some sites/popups.
I can replicate it with just a single tab and I have excluded Firefox from all my battery saving and memory saving features.
But that was already possible to do on regular Firefox Beta and Nightly. We just had to create our own collection, like Iceraven did.
It kinda did because it removed a reason to pick Firefox over its competitors.
If Firefox doesn't actually bring anything tangible to the table, why would people pick it over whatever they're currently using (which is likely to be Chrome)?
The average user doesn't hate Google like some people do, so a purely ideological argument of "it isn't Chrome" won't work (and didn't work as its marketshare kept declining). Users need tangible, non-niche features to switch.
Er, Mozilla marketshare on Android is low because of Google anti competitively bundling Chrome with the Play Store.
Chrome continues to defeat everyone, including Edge which is bundled with Windows.
Firefox's reason for irrelevance today has nothing to do with whether its competitors are bundled with operating systems.
To check if it was just me I used this site: https://www.accessibilitychecker.org/audit/?website=https%3A...
On the up side, at least it isn't stark white on a stark black background.
It's impossible that this hasn't already been seen so it's absurd it's still an issue.
Allowing access to about:config?
Nah, I'm dreaming. Will continue to use Nightly.
If so, that’s very generous of Mozilla to force users to segment themselves into an (even smaller) bucket so they can be easily tracked by fingerprint alone.
I have a wildly paranoid Firefox setup (hardened config, NoScript, Cookie AutoDelete, ClearURLs, uBlock). It basically runs everything off (js, custom fonts, cookies, etc) unless I whitelist it explicitly.
I was never quite able to replicate it on Android because some extensions didn't worked as expected or were clumsy on mobile.
Will give another try.
I suppose newer phones can handle it, but at the same time, I don't think many users realize the additional performance impact extensions can have on the browser.
We currently use playfab in work, and the admin panel is missing a few features on Firefox compared to chrome. Google Meets has been doing some nonsense over the last few weeks on FF causing it to break for our team (and pushed us back to slack huddles). My bank's search functionality doesn't work on FF (but the app works so I use that instead)
Ironically, the biggest source of website breakages for me is extensions. UBlock breaks _way_ more, and I just disable it on a site by site basis.
EDIT: It’s kiwi and yandex browser apparently.
E.g deep links. Which is very, very basic feature for mobile. Firefox on Android is unusable without it - and it seems like no one prioritize this, so excuse me for not being excited by any other feature.
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/54653641/app-links-not-w... https://github.com/mozilla-mobile/fenix/issues/15202 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1809264
The browser is a sandbox that I use specifically to protect me from this kind of predatory shit.
I had one for great gesture controls.
i don't know why and how people still use chrome on mobile. it is an awful web experience.
Chrome never even enters the equation. Even at work, when I've got a choice between Chrome and Edge, Edge has taken over for me because of the ability to "turn a site into an app" which lets me have work resources on the taskbar as unique icons I can easily access to switch between.
I think the one thing I keep Chrome installed on my desktop for (because I have all of them) is the superior Chromecast support if I feel like casting some streaming media to the TV in the other room from a site that isn't supported by the Roku TV.
I get the social and business issues with Mozilla, but I don't see it going anywhere for me on mobile. Probably not coming back on the desktop until they literally pay me to use it though.
https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2020/09/29/expanded-extensio... https://www.ghacks.net/2022/10/20/firefox-beta-for-android-n...
So Chrome and Firefox? I already have extensions. It's too little too late Mozilla, you burned me by removing them years ago.
Firefox accounts for 0.48% of the mobile browser market share
They’d have to add their own content blocking list, much like they did with Firefox Focus.
But, mostly, I just use Android so it doesn't really matter.
How can you have a content-blocking browser that only allows one single tab at a time?
It happens so many times that while browsing an ad-heavy page an ad gets opened in a new tab (since Firefox fails to block it), but since it's a mono-tab browser it simply replaces the one I was browsing.