Comment by rayshan | Hacker News Reader

Comment by rayshan | Hacker News Reader

I was really excited to try this after the WWDC announcement. Apple was not joking about how easy the conversion is [1]. It took me 15 minutes and 1 command to port my extension [2], and I didn't even need to install Big Sur!

But when the Safari 14 GM release came around, I couldn't justify spending $100 per year just to get my extension on Safari. My goal is to test my product ideas. Chrome gives me plenty of installs to do that, and Safari's user base is too small on the desktop. Adding Safari also means that I have to manage another release system, deal with all of Apple's app store approval quirks, and support customers on a new platform. The added $100 / year just adds to the trouble.

I still think Safari supporting WebExtensions is a big win for the web platform. When I do scale and when Apple sorts out the new platform quirks, I think I will pay the $100 per year and all the added time and technical costs.

[1] https://twitter.com/rayshan/status/1292270249362956288

[2] https://finance.shan.io/stock-inspector-discover-new-compani...

I similarly have an iPhone app I built and have been enjoyably using on my iPhone for years and slowly iterating on. I'd happy give it away for free and pay the associated increase in web service costs just so others can enjoy it. But the thought of paying $100/year (and having to deal with App Store review) is a bit much for a hobby app...

I'm surprised Apple put this barrier up since it certainly would have scared me away from iOS development as a poorer/newer developer. I guess Apple's happy with amateurs building but doesn't want to deal with their apps in the store. Maybe a compromise would be letting people self-distribute free apps without paying the $100?

Google's webstore for extensions charges a one-time fee of $5 to mitigate the abuse problem. I think it's a reasonable compromise. Apple's $100 per year is also keeping my hobby extensions off Safari as well.

I was more than happy to pay $5, but I don't think it helps with abuse at Chrome's scale. The abuse got so bad that Google is forcing Manifest v3 [1] on developers to seriously limit what extensions can do. Beyond the abuse, most of the extensions in all the stores, Chrome, Firefox, Edge and especially Opera, are not designed and maintained well.

[1] https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/mv3/intro/

Is the abuse because $5 is too little or because the initial permissions and policies too lax?

Not sure what you mean about poor design or maintenance. The lower barrier to entry means there are many more options and often unmaintained extensions get forked. (If their license is permissive, which is more often the case when the creator doesn't have to pay $100 per year.)

Nothing stops you putting the code on GH and let people self deploy it.

However I’d also wondered if there’s a scenario where several independent devs might band together and use a single organisational dev account to ship their own apps. Obviously trust (between devs who are otherwise strangers to each other) is an issue here but I’m sure you’re not the only one in that scenario.

I'm into the shared account / shared cost idea for small side projects. But the reality is that managing an app store account for a popular app can be its own full time job. I spent weeks tinkering with account settings, exchanging dozens of app store support emails, and managing the release process. A lot of unexpected things. A lot went wrong. And it's not just Apple. The Chrome Web Store has plenty of quirks too. I trust my fellow devs but I don't trust myself to not screw up a shared account.

Agree with the $100/year just to be able to do what other browsers allow for free (AFAIK). Used to be that Apple offered free extension hosting, even with a free certificate.

Forcing developers to pay is the most developer- and user-hostile thing they could do, and is the main reason I don’t use Safari anymore (there just isn’t any worthwhile extensions for it).

IMHO, it is the reason to use Safari. The $100 and the registration process is a high barrier that helps keep out junk extensions. Even better, in some cases I can pay the creators of the extensions I rely on which makes the ecosystem more sustainable.

I’m sure as a percentage of extensions you’re probably right, but who installs extensions by browsing the entire catalog of extensions?

What I’d bet most people (including myself) do is search for extensions (assuming you don’t already know the exact one you want). My experience has almost always been that the extension I want isn’t available for safari (just chrome and Firefox), or is a shitty/old version of the chrome one.

So even if the $100 keeps some more junk out than on chrome, I still don’t get to use the extensions I want and the ones that are available aren’t great (albeit better than junk).

I'd be happy to pay a $100 1-time fee, but Apple's $100 is recurring.

> free (AFAIK)

Google requires developers to pay them $5, once, before they can upload extensions to the web store.

So, basically free. I mean most coffees cost more.

They’re just covering the fees to prove you’re a person/developer, and basically nothing more.

FWIW your homepage looks super distorted on my iPhone (11 Pro). I realize this is a web browser extension for desktop, but if folks get linked to it on social media or something, there’s a good chance they’ll be on mobile.

Would you please share what you see? This is what I see: https://imgur.com/a/xv6LQkQ

Thank you!

The top part also looks fine for me. It's the screenshots below the fold that are distorted: https://imgur.com/a/eNOtGu0

Thank you! Fixed!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com