Hacker News Reader

Adopting the extension model doesn't mean that the capabilities available to extension developers are the same.

You can take a look at Firefox, which has extensions that in Chrome are not currently possible. Or extension features that aren't possible, like the ability to block first-party analytics in uBlock Origin, as a small example.

I am, however, glad that all of them are adopting more or less the same APIs, because extension developers can now target all 3 major browsers with ease.

> the discussion on macOS browsers is going to come back to UX, speed, and battery usage

The biggest, most relevant component of a browser has always been the browser engine, because it dictates available features, and yes, speed and battery usage.

People keep talking about the UI as being an important differentiator. But I don't believe that's true, because the UI of all major browsers is decent. Of course, power users can cling on to features, like the Tree Style Tabs in Firefox, but for the most part, I don't think it's the UI that makes most people switch browsers.

> People keep talking about the UI as being an important differentiator. But I don't believe that's true, because the UI of all major browsers is decent.

UI is the differentiator of the Mac itself. Otherwise, why not just use Windows, which is "decent".

TBH, I don't know why other people use Macs, but speaking in my own name, no, I'm not using it for its UI.

I use macOS because things usually just work, because it's a Unix, and because the available apps are good. I don't have a problem with the Windows 10 UI, I have a problem with everything else.

In fairness, switching from Linux to macOS because of the UI is an acceptable viewpoint.

The UI is probably what got people to switch from IE to Firefox.

Because Firefox had tabs!

But I agree, browser UI is irrelevant in 2020.

It depends on people to people, for instance I use Mac because it has a Unix terminal with great commercial software support and decent GPU drivers something that is missing on Linux. UI is the last thing, in fact I would say the choice of UI on linux is far and beyond any other OS can even dream to offer.

Maybe it's just familiarity, but I strongly prefer Windows over MacOS. And I don't even like Windows.

Safari doesn’t have profiles yet, does it? That’s a pretty big deal for my workflow. Though I could get by with Safari’s Beta and Safari. Two sets of profiles is the bare minimum I like.

—-

For extensions, wont it be a while before enough preferred extensions move over to Safari? A solid amount might never? Unless there’s some initiative where some consortiums publish extensions on behalf of open source extension developers. Otherwise many made with no money in mind don’t have a good reason to pay $100/year.

Now for my bit of day dreaming and fantasizing:

(1) If this began a trend to begin charging for good extensions, I wouldn’t mind that. We pay for so much stuff, but extensions are assumed to be free. There’s less oversight on the data mining they do than almost any other niche. Then unfortunate part is how much of the revenue would be eaten by Apple’s 30% cut and $99/year. Since the developer fee is yearly, if this can also lead to yearly charges for extensions, but at very low rates, that would be awesome too.

(2) if some extensions are subscriptions at $1-5 a year or $1 for 2-3 years as the main price points for good extensions. It doesn’t come close to subscription saturation issues. At those low numbers, it would take a whole ton of extensions to get to $60/year. Which is a completely average price charged for apps these days that used to cost a fraction for one time payment.

Note that Safari Technology Preview and Safari share iCloud Keychain and occasionally share history as well.

Ah. Okay Keychain isn’t so bad. I use 1Password more than keychain. Sharing history occasionally is annoying, but if just occasionally, not so bad. Thanks for the heads up and info.

I agree that's a big deal, but there are many good things in safari like it is very efficient, even with many tabs Safari ends up consuming very low processing power and thus longer battery life, chrome on the other hand is just a memory hog constantly recording every move and sending it to Google, it really feels like a spyware. Which is why I use Safari 99% of the time except when it is not supported or I need a special extension for which I use Firefox.

Yeah. Really happy I can stay on macOS 10 for at least two years with Safari 14 if macOS 11 continues the trend of new mac OSes slowing MacBooks down.

NoScript and uBlock Origin will not be happening for Safari. The API is missing and won't be implemented. Safari does not have the same full API as Chrome or Firefox. Instead, Safari relies on a more limited, Apple-specific content blocking API.

Isn't it along the lines of what Chrome's been talking about moving to, where you basically get to tell the browser what to block but not get at the requests in the way you can now?

Pretty much.

It is still open for discussion within Chromium, and unlike Safari Chromium is open source so it can be forked to implement whatever features you want.

If it's the same API as iOS' NetworlExtension, then I don't see why uBlock couldn't happen. uBlock doesn't "phone home" for each request/site, does it?

It doesn't phone home, but it does depend on access to the DOM for at least some of its functionality like being able to block particular elements in a page based on pattern matching. If the new API allows more or less equivalent functionality without having to give an extension access to every page I open I'm all for it though.

Accessing and modifying the DOM based on some rules, in a sandbox without leaking data, seems technically feasible.

Which incidentally sucks terribly. Ad blocking on iOS and macOS is a complete turd.

It's actually pretty good and gets you 95% of the way there with a static blocker API that doesn't give any privileges to the ad-blocker, and that's a big deal.

If you really think something like https://1blocker.com/ is a "turd", then you must be hung up on something rather inconsequential to most people.

95% probably isn’t good enough.

1blocker is fairly awful I find and rather expensive because you’re a captive audience that doesn’t have access to working uBlock.

This situation is one of several reasons I recently dumped macOS and went back to windows and am using edge and doing all my unixy stuff in VMs.

95% is good enough to the vast majority of people.

To get 100%, you use NoScript or turn Javascript off. Not many HNers even go that far.

You don't have to use 1blocker, it's just an example of a well-crafted solution that has made it so I haven't seen an ad since I started using it. There are free solutions.

The point is that you need to temper "ugh $thing is a turd!" when you're talking about fringe expectations, else you're completely disconnected from the conversation everyone else is having.

You could call uBlock Origin a "turd" for its privacy violation of having access to every website you visit and request you make, but that's not a good way to have that conversation, either.

Sounds like there was more to your decision than this situation though. Chrome + uBlock work fine on macOS.

> The point is that you need to temper "ugh $thing is a turd!" when you're talking about fringe expectations

I wouldn't call it a fringe expectation. uBlock Origin in safariextz format was quite popular for Safari, until Safari 13 removed all support for it.

As a result, many users were forced to move from something that worked very well for them to something that didn't work as well. Nobody likes to be forced to adopt something worse. Imposing the "power user" vs. "normal user" dichotomy here is not an accurate story of the history of Safari extensions.

I run Brave on Android with scripts blocked. It's such a joy. It blocks most ads and even allows allows you to read articles that otherwise would require payment. I'm not exactly saying it bypasses paywalls, though.

If I browse the same sites on Chrome for Windows my CPU goes to 100%. It's awful.

I don't understand why you'd dump an OS over limitations of its default browser. Edge even has a MacOS version if that's your browser of choice.

More than that. General direction was negative. They’re removing kernel extensions (bye bye corp vpn), terrible historical direction on browser extensions, bugs galore, crazy expensive hardware. I’m done.

I agree it was only a matter of time, the previous arrangement was pointlessly arcane. But make no mistake, Apple still wants to remain firmly in control.

The development of these extensions is eased, but you still need to pay Apple tax to give them to users. If your extension generates revenue maybe that's fine. If it doesn't Apple is asking you to give them money so that you can help their users, how about No?

I don’t know if it was arcane so much as it was very conservative in what it allowed.

Browser extensions can seek very wide permissions and are extremely powerful because they can automate requests from a user’s IP address.

I’d guess Apple only did this because they had to.

This isn't really any more powerful.

I’m saying it doesn’t need to be.

Even Chrome-style extensions will have limits compared to what they can do in Chrome.

You can publish free extensions, as long as you have a developer account.

Since the account costs $100 a year, this makes more sense for apps who want to offer a Safari extension, e.g. a Japanese learning aid with a website translation extension.

Yes and that is why a lot of extensions cost money on Safari, while the Chrome and Firefox counterpart are free.

Does ublock origin actually work? Saw on the github a couple of months ago that safari had some potentially problematic resource limits.

It does not. There is a handful of APIs that are blocked.

https://developer.apple.com/documentation/safariservices/saf...

I think a more charitable interpretation is "not implemented".

From what Apple say for Content Blocker API on iOS, I suspect that they really avoid to implement those API.

> In addition to blocking unwanted content, a Content Blocker extension protects privacy. For example, the extension doesn’t have access to users’ browsing activity and it can’t report activity to your app.

https://developer.apple.com/library/archive/documentation/Ge...

I've moved away from ublock origin to Ad Nauseam on firefox and it's such a huge improvement I can't imagine going back

> it's such a huge improvement I can't imagine going back

In what way ?

It actually blocks everything and the kitchen sink but also seems to break less stuff? It's just a more seamless experience

AdNauseam is a good way to get your account banned or your whole IP banned.

It also doesn't do anything for privacy. It is based on uBO, so just use UBO.

> your account banned or your whole IP banned

Getting banned from ads sounds like an amazing thing...

Unless the ad company is also your e-mail, maps, photos and whatnot provider.

(Why would...? Ha.)

Here’s a crazy idea: don’t use that ad company.

Are you saying sites shouldn't use Google Ads, or users shouldn't use Google Products?

You get banned from recaptcha and youtube too.

They don't stop showing you ads. They just don't register your clicks as part of impressions.

Open TOR. You get ads on all sites. But do a google search, you'll get a infinite captcha.

Banned from where? What does AdNauseam do differently than uBO that would incentivize people to use it?

AdNauseam clicks on all the ads it blocks in the background, getting your IP/browser flagged for clickfraud in the ad networks

That sounds really good. Supports websites you visit without seeing ads. Dishonesty isn't really a topic if we are talking ads.

Click fraud can actually get the website banned if the ad network thinks it’s responsible, so no it’s not really good.

Did that happen to any site already? Wonder how they could detect it and if that detection can be circumvented. It is a natural visit in this case. Click fraud should be taught at school or in self defense courses to be honest.

Yes. Many sites on HN have complanied about Google 'detecting fraud on your site' and banning it.

You can get your competitor's site banned this way. Just run bots on his site.

'Pay us, or we'll get Google to ban your ads' -https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22348568

Supports them by getting them banned from Ad networks, taking their revenue away? Or at the very least reducing ad conversions for their advertisers, meaning they become a less valuable place to advertise on.

What is "Dishonesty isn't really a topic if we are talking ads" supposed to mean?

Advertisers have zero scrutiny in tracking me and extracting as much personal info as they can, so accusations about dishonesty about faking an incentive to buy something doesn't really reach my conscience too much.

Do we have examples were sites were banned for this behavior? I think "click fraud" doesn't actually fit, since it is not the operator of the site who is responsible. I would be more open to call that behavior fraudulent. I mean cases where users fake their activity.

edit: And if true, why wouldn't I go to google.com and let it run there for a while? Just researched the Google really put effort in banning it.

Many sites were banned from running ads.

Google.com ads are search specific. They'll ban you first, before stopping ads.

It decreases your privacy. Not using an adblocker is better than using it for privacy.

However, if your wish is to stop seeing ads, but click them, use it.

Don't be surprised when your IP is banned, or the website is banned

Again, where is my IP being banned from? Have been using it for over a year and never banned. Captchas also work just fine.

What is your click through percentage?

What do I care?

It will be in the Extension itself. Higher the percentage, higher the chances of Google thinking you are a bot.

At which point I answer a captcha and move on with my life? Seems like an OK trade

My primary issue with Safari is that I practically need an OSX device to test against it.

Indeed. I keep an old MacBook Pro in a drawer for such times.

If you're fine with testing the engine itself try GNOME Web–it's based on WebKit.

IMO they’re all pretty much the same. Firefox lets you see where a link goes without clicking it. Safari has minimalist chrome. It’s just speed.