this post was submitted on 29 Nov 2023
316 points (99.1% liked)
Technology
59378 readers
3713 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This is a bit of a weird justification given that they haven't made any significant changes to extensions on desktop. Why should mobile be different?
They refactored the app in 2020 and they decided that they didn’t want to build robust support for the extension architecture that they were going to migrate away from. And the new architecture was going to be more open and more secure.
It wasn’t that they were intentionally disabling a feature because of a security vulnerability. It was that they didn’t want to rebuild the old busted thing when a better solution was on the roadmap.
Although, the planning around this was shit. A three year gap wasn’t great.
I'm not sure that passes a sanity check. Third-party builds and nightly (after jumping through some arbitrary hoops) have been able to install extensions from AMO that aren't officially supported on mobile since fairly shortly after the refactor. While it was possible for extensions to have performance, battery consumption, and compatibility problems specific to Android, that was also true prior to the refactor.
Maybe there's something I'm missing - I'd welcome a link to something rich in technical details.