Hacker News Reader

Comment by lapcat | Hacker News Reader

> There’s quite a difference between a one time $5 fee and an annual $99 fee for the economics of publishing a free browser extension.

Yes? I didn't deny that. I said your initial comment didn't mention cost.

> Given almost 100% compatibility with the same Web Extension APIs that Chrome uses, I think you’d expect near-parity in extension availability between Chrome and Safari if that barrier didn’t exist.

It feels like you ignored the points I made in my last comment. Why would you expect near parity in extension availability when you can't even develop Safari extensions on Windows and Linux computers?

View on HN

“publishing them on the App Store” was intended as (perhaps imprecise for you) shorthand for all of these distribution issues.

You very much can develop Safari extensions on Windows or Linux because they use largely the same APIs as Chrome extensions as I already mentioned. Any differences are well documented. The only thing you need a Mac for is, again, distribution. If not for that it’s really not that different to developing a website that will open on Safari without access to an Apple device.

Once upon a time Apple had a separate Safari extensions website where they allowed extension developers to publish or sign extensions after registering for free as they recognised these barriers. They could either be distributed on Apple’s extensions gallery or you could distribute the files yourself.

> Any differences are well documented.

LOL, I wish.

I would note that I'm a professional browser extension developer and have a great deal of experience with this.

> The only thing you need a Mac for is, again, distribution.

Or, you know, testing your software. Or are you in the habit of shipping software without any testing?

> If not for that it’s really not that different to developing a website that will open on Safari without access to an Apple device.

Also a bad idea.

> They could either be distributed on Apple’s extensions gallery or you could distribute the files yourself.

You may have still have needed Safari to package the extension, though I don't recall for sure, because that was 15 years ago.

In any case, I'm glad you mentioned it, because there was not near-parity in extension availability back then either.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com