
By Extension, Chrome Battles Firefox - fjabre
http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/12/10/chrome-firefox/
======
zargon
I wrote a Firefox extension that has (significantly) more than a million
downloads. I turned over maintenance to another developer because the Firefox
extension platform is so difficult to work with. If Google has really made
extension development comparatively easier, it will be a great boon for
Chrome.

I have only glanced over the docs, but I suspect that the Chrome extension
APIs don't have comparably extensive access to internal browser code as
Firefox extensions do. For most extensions this won't matter, but for certain
uses Firefox will probably stay ahead in this area, at least for a while.

~~~
qeorge
XUL is a double-edged sword. It allows deep integration between extensions and
the browser, but you pay for it in performance.

Chrome has positioned itself towards performance at the cost of extensibility.
Thus I expect it will be difficult for them to allow true extensions in the
way Firefox does without giving up some of their trademark speed.

~~~
zargon
In addition to XUL, Firefox exposes many internal APIs to javascript
extensions via XPCOM. These hooks allow for powerful modifications to browser
behavior.

So this also shows a trade-off with Google simplifying extension development
at the cost of lowering the degree of customization that is possible.

------
willwagner
Another big win for Chrome is that there is no approval process to get on
their addon site as opposed to Mozilla. Mozilla can take weeks to months to
get out of the sandbox (although to be fair, Mozilla is trying quickly to
better the experience with a new self hosting option and making it somewhat
easier for users to find sandboxed addons), and unless your addon gets some
secondary approval, you need to go through the process again to push up
updates.

------
chaosprophet
I don't know how easy this would be in Chrome, but with Firefox + Jetpack, you
get a full fledged Image Editor in 14 LOC.

However, the extension review process is the real pull for me. I've waited
between 2 weeks and 2 entire months for my Firefox extension to get accepted,
so I'll take instantaneous anyday.

------
ErrantX
The only thing they haven't nailed is the Extensions site: which isn't
wonderful to navigate quite yet.

~~~
charlesmarshall
They haven't got extensions working on mac yet either.

~~~
ErrantX
They are, just disabled for the moment due to a security risk

Try:
[http://asia.cnet.com/blogs/sinobytes/post.htm?id=63015336...](http://asia.cnet.com/blogs/sinobytes/post.htm?id=63015336&scid=rvhm_ms&y=1)

~~~
aboodman
Not due to a security risk, just a release management mistake.

[https://groups.google.com/group/chromium-
extensions/msg/6247...](https://groups.google.com/group/chromium-
extensions/msg/6247d2b4e89f2bc9)

------
vegai
Chrome's TOS states that Google retains the right to uninstall any extensions
in the clients' computers.

------
sid0
I'm amazed there isn't a single mention of Jetpack in the article.

Neither does it mention how ultimately gimped Chrome extensions are. UI
modifications like vertical tabs, for instance, would be _impossible_ in the
Chrome model.

Ultimately, I think a combined full-fledged extension mechanism + Jetpack is
the best way. Provide the ease for those that can do with a limited API, and
the power for those that need it.

~~~
Daishiman
Yes. I've dabbled a bit with Jetpack and I think it has incredible potential.
Mozilla's plan is for Jetpack to eventually replace the current extension
mechanism once ir reaches full functionality.

