
Firefox for Mobile now supports NoScript, PrivacyBadger, HTTPS Everywhere - kibwen
https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2020/04/14/april-extensions-for-firefox-preview/
======
Yizahi
So many people complain about Firefox (current) being "slow", "clunky", have
"bad performance" etc. I feel like I'm the only one who is completely fine
with performance of this app? I've switched to FF on android fully 3 years
ago, first on a phone with SD821, now with SD855. I realize that these are
flagship SoCs, but I see people with high-end phones complain about it too. As
a control - I also use old and modern iPads with stock Safari. I honestly
don't get what the complaints are exactly, it opens as fast as any similar
app, all UI controls are responsive (there are some animations, but they are
intentional), scrolling is always smooth.

~~~
TuringTest
If you think Firefox for Android is fast, have you tried Firefox Preview? It's
like twice or three times faster.

~~~
dTal
Sadly, Firefox Preview is not currently free software, which is a showstopper
for many. In particular it cannot be obtained through F-Droid:

[https://github.com/mozilla-
mobile/fenix/issues/162](https://github.com/mozilla-mobile/fenix/issues/162)

~~~
COGlory
There is an unofficial repo, if you simply care more about using F-Droid/de-
Googling than it being free software, specifically.

[https://gitlab.com/rfc2822/fdroid-firefox](https://gitlab.com/rfc2822/fdroid-
firefox)

~~~
dTal
Thanks. I haven't downloaded it to check, but from the GitHub issue I
mentioned above that repo just contains a copy of the official Mozilla .apk,
which contains com.google.android.gms and com.google.firebase. So it's not so
good for "de-Googling".

I'm a lot less interested in the mechanics of using F-Droid than I am in the
no-malware guarantee that F-Droid effectively provides.

------
TheAdamAndChe
Holy cow - I am a regular user of Firefox on Android, and I just installed
Firefox Preview - it's obviously a stark improvement. The lack of noscript and
darkreader kept me from trying it before, but now I'm wishing I had tried it
earlier.

~~~
hnick
Mine has an annoying quirk. When I switch to Firefox and type something in the
address bar it doesn't work. It still seems to be trying to load the page from
last time I was in the browser and forgets my query entirely until it has
finished whatever is on its todo list then I can use it. Hopefully this is
fixed soon, it makes casual searches annoying.

~~~
zith
I had this problem as well. After I cleared out my old tabs (99+) it
disappeared. Might have been correlated.

~~~
hnick
Unfortunately this has happened since I installed it, and I rarely open many
tabs on my phone. It's mostly for quick lookups when I'm out or cooking which
makes it a problem.

------
newscracker
Tangential comment for those using iOS:

It sucks that this cannot be available on iOS because of Apple’s restrictions.

But I’m happy with Firefox Focus, which is my daily driver browser on iOS (and
what I’m using to write this too). It has a built in content blocker. It
doesn’t upgrade HTTP requests to HTTPS, like Brave does.

For ad and tracker blocking at the DNS level, I use NextDNS with some blocker
lists enabled for my account (I recommend you check it out). It has made
things better on other apps too.

~~~
enriquto
> It sucks that this cannot be available on iOS because of Apple’s
> restrictions.

Apple users have exactly what they want. It doesn't "suck": it's the very
definition of walled garden. Your device is not yours, you are just allowed to
play in there, under adult supervision. If you do not want walled gardens,
just stop paying for them.

~~~
jlokier
No, not all Apple users have what they want.

There is no "just stop" for people who need or want capabilities that only
Apple devices have, but don't want the walled garden. It is not a free choice,
not what those people want, and therefore sucks.

The brutal fact is there are only two mobile OSes where essential apps are
available (such as banking), and Android being the other one, is not suitable
for all users and has its own walled garden issues.

------
fireattack
So they are hand-picking extensions now? Is this trend going to continue (i.e.
they continue to add more but still with a manual process) or they're aiming
to be on par with the old Firefox (supports most of extensions automatically)?

~~~
kibwen
AFAICT the intent is to eventually support the full WebExtensions API, i.e.
every extension that runs on Firefox 57 or later. From an older blog post
discussing this:

 _" We’re happy to confirm that GeckoView is currently building support for
extensions through the WebExtensions API. This feature will be available in
Firefox Preview, and we are looking forward to offering a great experience for
both mobile users and developers. Bringing GeckoView and Firefox Preview up to
par with the APIs that were supported previously in Firefox for Android won’t
happen overnight. For the remainder of 2019 and leading into 2020, we are
focusing on building support for a selection of content from our Recommended
Extensions program that work well on mobile and cover a variety of utilities
and features."_

[https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2019/10/23/fx-preview-
geckov...](https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2019/10/23/fx-preview-geckoview-
add-ons-support/)

~~~
realharo
The answers here seem to suggest otherwise.

[https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2020/02/11/faq-for-
extension...](https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2020/02/11/faq-for-extension-
support-in-new-firefox-for-android/)

My guess would be that they'll try to make it curated-only unless users
complain too much. Or maybe allow other extensions behind serious warning
screens.

If that ends up being the case, depending on their review process, it kinda
sucks for any potential new extensions created _after_ the ecosystem lockdown,
that won't get a chance to attain enough popularity to be relevant - unless
Mozilla agrees to do a review for any project that asks, which doesn't seem
likely.

~~~
fwn
Would also be bad for all extensions Mozilla does not allow in their extension
store.

All software stores can be pressured to remove content. Keeping the ability to
load non-store extensions fixes that specific deplatfoming problem.

~~~
realharo
The basic assumption is that users are dumb when it comes to security, and if
there is a way to install malware, they _will_ be tricked into installing
malware (even with no vulnerabilities in the host software itself). Especially
since there is such a thing as warning screen fatigue, which makes people not
pay attention and just click through due to the sheer amount of benign(ish)
warning screens they regularly deal with
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alarm_fatigue](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alarm_fatigue)).

Making them explicitly type out "YES I AM AWARE THIS EXTENSION COULD EASILY
CONTAIN MALICIOUS CODE AND I TRUST THE SOURCE: " \+ the domain name, in all
caps before proceeding could be enough to catch most cases (unless too much
legit software gets forced behind such warnings, where it would lead to that
fatigue problem again).

Desktop Chrome doesn't let you have an outside extension without showing a
warning on every single startup (even if it's an extension you are currently
developing), but that could be because on a desktop OS, other applications
could add such extension into Chrome without a user action. On mobile, where
apps are isolated from one another, that problem doesn't exist, so maybe such
strict restrictions shouldn't be necessary.

~~~
fwn
I don't think any of this is necessary.

I know we often say "the user is dumb, therefore software should patronize
them", but that really only goes so far.

On hindsight it looks like a balancing act where single features are evaluated
for their danger, etc.

Then, at some point, there's no software left that allows users to achieve
their goals, because "you wouldn't want to do that", "stupid people could
accidentally use it", "your use case is too fringe to justify catering to it
anymore", etc.

We're pretty much at this point now regarding browsers on Android, where
there's only Chrome and it's skins (that let you do nothing) and Firefox.

I can't believe the sensible thing to do would be to cut uncurated, non-store
extensions from Firefox as well.

It would be a huge loss for the whole ecosystem just to make a few Firefox
installs (from an already small install base) a tiny bit less compromisable.

~~~
realharo
_> I know we often say "the user is dumb, therefore software should patronize
them", but that really only goes so far._

It's not just a saying, it's supported by real-world situations that actually
happened, and that you can be pretty sure will happen again. That's the
context for the decisions that platform owners have to make.

E.g. not too long ago, Dark Reader users received this notice
[https://darkreader.org/blog/attention/](https://darkreader.org/blog/attention/)
about malware clones of the real extension that apparently thousands of people
had installed (from the stores). It is events like this that influence these
decisions.

 _> Then, at some point, there's no software left that allows users to achieve
their goals, because "you wouldn't want to do that", "stupid people could
accidentally use it", "your use case is too fringe to justify catering to it
anymore", etc._

That's basically the Apple mindset. It's a well known fact (e.g. his
biography) that Steve Jobs didn't even want _any_ third party apps (other than
super limited web-"apps") on iOS initially, and had to be convinced otherwise.

~~~
fwn
But I didn't argue that they shouldn't do it because we don't know whether
people will compromise themselves.

I argued they shouldn't do it despite knowing that people will have the
ability to compromise themselves.

~~~
realharo
Well, their goals are clearly different. From the FAQ linked above, it is
clear they want to have some control over "the experience", which is mentioned
a lot.

If too many users install a crappy, buggy extension that slows everything
down, they know _they_ will get a reputation for being a buggy and slow
browser, regardless of whether it's their fault or not. It also creates
incentives for extension authors to follow best practices where possible.

For people who really care about choices _for themselves_ , it's an open
source project, it's not that hard to make an unrestricted fork under a
different name that automatically tracks the upstream (as long as Android
sideloading stays intact, plus it could also be published in Play Store as
long as you don't use any of their trademarks). As far as I know there is
nothing unique in the official branch that you would miss out on (when
compared to e.g. missing out on Netflix or voiding warranty with custom ROMs -
there are no such tradeoffs with simply using a fork of a browser).

It only creates a much higher barrier to adoption for unapproved extensions
(because you now have to convince users to install another browser), so many
developers simply won't bother, but that's not an issue if I understand your
argument correctly.

~~~
fwn
> Well, their goals are clearly different. From the FAQ linked above, it is
> clear they want to have some control over "the experience", which is
> mentioned a lot.

Even without the linked FAQ it appears to be pretty straightforward that
Mozilla values control given that they're about to change an open, decentral
system to a tightly controlled curated app store.

It's just that this wasn't always the case. See, for example, point 5 of their
manifesto where Mozilla states: "Individuals must have the ability to shape
the Internet and their own experiences on the Internet." or in point 6 where
they emphasize: "decentralized participation worldwide"

> If too many users install a crappy, buggy extension ... they will get a
> reputation for being a buggy and slow browser ...

I have two concerns with this argument: The first is practical:

Is that a big problem? Are there numbers about large amounts of sideloaded
extensions causing the reputation of firefox for android to drop? AFAIK
sideloading is neither very common nor particularly rich of scandals. And even
your earlier example was concerned with malicious extensions in Mozillas own
extension store.

The old "Firefox for Android" enjoys a 4,4 star Play Store rating, compared to
Previews also excellent 4,2 Star rating.

The second one is ethical:

Mozilla does not try to be the most successful browser _at any cost_. They
provide valuable capacities to the Android ecosystem and drastically increase
software freedom on the platform. If their goal were popularity, they would be
much more successful by adopting Chrome under the hood and spending all their
money on marketing.

Even your later argument features the condition "as long as Android
sideloading stays intact" which itself already shows how dependent on a few
central features the platforms freedom already is.

> it's not that hard to make an unrestricted fork under a different name

I don't see how trusting users to recompile an unrestricted firefox fork goes
well together with not trusting users to sideload a browser extension.

> As far as I know there is nothing unique in the official branch that you
> would miss out on.

Right now it's soft paywall blockers that are left out. (They just change
referrers and cookies for specific sites.) But potentially it's all
extensions, since Mozilla the corporation can be pressured into legal
compliance.

In the future this might very well interfere with peoples ability to avoid
censorship.

At the time at which centralizing a system is suggested it's almost never
problematic, because problems only get apparent after centralization went into
effect.

~~~
realharo
_> Are there numbers about large amounts of sideloaded extensions causing the
reputation of firefox for android to drop?_

I'm not aware of any, but that could be because alternative browsers are not
that popular on mobile in general.

The reputation of Android itself has definitely suffered due to sub-par apps
(battery draining, slowdowns etc.) and downright malware (sometimes promoted
via Google's own ad network).

 _> And even your earlier example was concerned with malicious extensions in
Mozillas own extension store._

It seems they disabled sideloading on their desktop browser some time ago, so
that was the only way it could've happened anyway.

[https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2019/10/31/firefox-to-
discon...](https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2019/10/31/firefox-to-discontinue-
sideloaded-extensions/) [https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2020/03/10/support-
for-exten...](https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2020/03/10/support-for-
extension-sideloading-has-ended/)

I don't know whether they currently do any review for extensions in the store
(even automated one), or just manually ban bad actors.

(There is an additional reason to disable sideloading on desktop that I
mentioned in a previous comment - other destkop apps installing shit without
user action/approval, which cannot happen on mobile due to app isolation).

 _> I don't see how trusting users to recompile an unrestricted firefox fork
goes well together with not trusting users to sideload a browser extension._

\- Their name wouldn't be on it. To publish in Play Store, a fork would have
to scrub all Firefox branding from the app (see Iceweasel), and would then
assume all responsibility.

\- Let's be honest, in practice, such a fork would be mostly used by highly
technical users who are more likely to know what they're doing. Non-technical
users would be far less likely to install it than some random 3rd party
extension they come across. The Firefox name is fairly well known outside of
tech circles. The name of some random fork would not be.

 _> In the future this might very well interfere with peoples ability to avoid
censorship._

I agree that there is a risk that their official binary distribution could
gain exclusive abilities in the future which are not part of the open source
version (at which point Firefox would technically no longer be open source,
e.g. Chrome vs. Chromium). Care should be taken that that doesn't happen.

Anyway, at the moment I'm far less concerned about extensions that they
specifically want to ban/censor, and far more about 3rd party developers
potentially losing the ability to innovate, _if the review process is only
practically available to popular established players_ (who got popular while
the ecosystem was still open) - because then how would a new project even get
to that phase? That may or may not be an issue though, we'll see how it turns
out.

~~~
realharo
Update (can't edit the comment on HN anymore):

So I misunderstood (only skimmed through) those 2 links about desktop Firefox
sideloading, they use a different meaning of that term than what it commonly
means on Android.

They only blocked 3rd party apps from installing extensions by themselves
(which is good). User-installed extensions from outside of the Mozilla store
are still allowed on desktop Firefox.

------
greggman3
I read "for mobile" and was hopefully this would be for iOS as well but really
it's "Firefox for Android"

And now all the Apple fans can tell me why it's so great that only WebKit is
allowed on iOS. I'd like to run those extensions an on iOS browser and others
but to do that I'd have to actually be able to ship a different browser
engine.

~~~
jorvi
I would be fine with Firefox for iOS not having access to extensions (after
all, Mozilla can't help it Apple's app store policies won't allow that), but
they could at least have some mercy on iOS users and just build in
adblocking.. the web is borderline unusable without it.

~~~
michaelbrooks
This is the exact reason why I use Brave on IOS, it has built-in adblocking
that works really well.

------
bzb3
I'm frustrated by the amount of versions of the Firefox browser that there are
in the play store: five. It's not immediately clear which one is the closest
to trunk.

Beta? Nightly? Preview? Preview Nightly? (The other one is the stable branch)

~~~
jml7c5
It'll be simpler once the switch to the rewrite (currently called "Firefox
Preview") is done. Then _presumably_ we'll just have:

"Firefox" / "Firefox beta" / "Firefox nightly for developers"

"Firefox Focus"

~~~
input_sh
The private windows in Firefox Preview behaves exactly like Firefox Focus. You
can open links by default in a private window in settings.

I'm not sure if this means that Focus will be deprecated in favour of Preview,
or will it remain a stripped down version of Preview.

~~~
jlokier
Exactly like?

I'm under the impression Firefox Focus on Android uses the native (Chrome)
renderer, not the the Gecko engine.

~~~
input_sh
That was accurate until Focus v6. Since then, Focus switched to GeckoView,
which is somehow different than Gecko, though I don't know how.

------
kibwen
I was one of the people criticizing Mozilla for forcing Mobile Firefox users
to upgrade to the newly-rewritten codebase while it still lacked support for
any extension other than uBlock Origin, so I was pleased to see that they're
making progress on supporting other highly-requested extensions.

~~~
mappu
The normal mobile Firefox still supports all extensions, you are not forced to
run a GeckoView one yet.

~~~
StavrosK
They just transitioned Firefox Beta over to GeckoView, so the next version of
non-beta will be GeckoView too, AFAIK.

------
freakcage
For someone who want firefox to success, I still am not happy with the
performance of firefox preview.

Currently there is kiwi browser on Android not sure if they have for ios as
well, which is chromium based and support extensions.

Recently the developer also make it open source. Shout out to the devs.
[https://github.com/kiwibrowser/android](https://github.com/kiwibrowser/android)

~~~
mjayhn
Kiwi is the only one I'm aware of with a real dark/night mode for the entire
browser. I was sold just on that.

~~~
0x49d1
Opera has the same functionality for dark mode.

------
jedberg
I got super excited until I realized this was only for Android.

~~~
aidenn0
An actual firefox for iOS is disallowed from by the app-store rules.

~~~
kccqzy
There is a Firefox Focus though: [https://apps.apple.com/us/app/firefox-focus-
privacy-browser/...](https://apps.apple.com/us/app/firefox-focus-privacy-
browser/id1055677337) I use Firefox Focus almost every day, mainly for
"focused" browsing, i.e. one page at a time, no tabs; without tabs and the
urge to open links you really get to focus on the current page more. It has
some content blockers capable of blocking ads and trackers too, although in my
regular browsing I use 1Blockers for configurability (say, disable cookies on
news sites).

~~~
toyg
_> There is a Firefox Focus though_

It's still built on WebView.

~~~
kccqzy
Yes. But this article is about the browser called Firefox, not the rendering
engine called Gecko. It is somehow common for HN commenters to conflate these
two, or think that the rendering engine is the "soul" of the browser, a view I
do not agree with.

------
akerro
I'm lost now, there is firefox, firefox klar, firefox preview, firefox
focus... what's going on there?

~~~
lucideer
There are currently 3 Firefox browsers on Android

1\. Firefox: end-of-life browser built on legacy Firefox engine

2\. Firefox Preview: work in progress, soon to replace the old Firefox,
rebuilt from scratch on new engine

3\. Firefox Focus: a minimal/reduced/simplified browser first developed to
pilot the new engine

Klar is just the German name for Focus.

~~~
mappu
There are more than these 3.

For example Firefox Lite:
[https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.mozilla.ro...](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.mozilla.rocket&hl=en)

~~~
lucideer
Thanks for this. I'd never heard of "Firefox Lite".

It appears to be an "Emerging Market Experiment" run by Mozilla Taiwan[0]

It also appears to be heavily based on or be a fork of Firefox Focus/Klar[1]

[0] [https://github.com/mozilla-tw/FirefoxLite](https://github.com/mozilla-
tw/FirefoxLite)

[1] [https://github.com/mozilla-
tw/FirefoxLite/pull/2/files](https://github.com/mozilla-
tw/FirefoxLite/pull/2/files)

------
swrobel
I so wish we could have this on iOS...

~~~
Polylactic_acid
Its incredible how microsoft got in loads of legal trouble for bundling IE
with windows but Apple got away with banning alternative browsers.

~~~
hnra
There are viable alternatives to Apple devices while Windows absolutely
dominated. However, I kinda wish that there were some antitrust laws around
vertical integration.

~~~
realharo
Also, commercial browser vendors were much more of a thing back then, so there
was someone to complain.

------
trog
Confused, I have been running NoScript in Firefox on Android for months now.
What has changed?

~~~
dblohm7
This is referring to the rewritten Firefox for Android, codenamed “Fenix.”

~~~
surround
Firefox preview.

~~~
dmix
Which features a more Rust-heavy rewrites included in GeckoView via their
Project Quantum work on desktop.

[https://www.infoq.com/news/2019/08/geckoview-firefox-
preview...](https://www.infoq.com/news/2019/08/geckoview-firefox-preview/)

[https://old.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/ep3tbx/eli5_what_h...](https://old.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/ep3tbx/eli5_what_happened_to_the_gecko_rendering_engine/feh2h2c/)

~~~
dblohm7
That stuff was also included in Fennec (the current Firefox for Android).

GeckoView is completely orthogonal to Project Quantum. (I work on the
GeckoView team).

------
lbeltrame
Does anyone know if this version of Firefox for Mobile can use self-hosted
sync servers (even if using Firefox accounts)?

According to this GH issue[1] it is possible at least for the sync server part
(not for the full account management), but I don't know if it made it into a
stable release.

[1] [https://github.com/mozilla-
mobile/fenix/issues/3762](https://github.com/mozilla-mobile/fenix/issues/3762)

------
guug
Will this new firfox support the full web extension API? That is, will it
eventually run any web extension currently on addons.mozilla.org?

~~~
kibwen
That appears to be the intent, yes.
[https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2019/10/23/fx-preview-
geckov...](https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2019/10/23/fx-preview-geckoview-
add-ons-support/)

------
vinay427
I got my hopes up a little too quickly.

Turns out "now" => "soon". The extensions in question, linked in the post,
still display the same message of not being available for Android, and the
article says the change will be within a few weeks:

"These add-ons will be available in Firefox Preview within the next 2 weeks."

~~~
kibwen
Note that this blog post was from April 14, I (the submitter) went looking for
it after my copy of Firefox notified me of the change a few days ago. I am
indeed using the nightly branch, but I find it to be quite stable.

~~~
vinay427
Thanks, I didn't notice the date of the blog post and certainly didn't mean it
as a personal affront because I appreciate the post. I'm going to switch to
the nightly branch to try it out!

------
DubiousPusher
Firefox is my browser of choice on desktop and the new mobile version is
brilliant but I badly need an extension that will reverse light background
websites to be dark. This is the only thing blocking me adopting it as mobile
browser of choice.

~~~
iamkroot
Have you tried dark reader?

[https://addons.mozilla.org/en-
US/android/addon/darkreader/](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-
US/android/addon/darkreader/)

------
kelnos
I'm pretty confused as to what I'm running, then. I always had Firefox Beta
installed, and a month or so ago it got updated to what I think is Preview --
different UI, URL bar on the bottom, only uBlock Origin supported. Just
checked right now, and the last update was April 21, but in my Addons list,
it's still showing Privacy Badger and HTTPS Everywhere in the Unsupported
list.

~~~
mintplant
Wait a bit for the roll-out to complete. I find it's usually a couple days
between announcement and an update hitting my phone.

~~~
kelnos
Ah, I see. Seems like that announcement was three weeks ago, though.

------
SanchoPanda
Will search shortcuts be fully operational before 1.0?

------
nootropicat
I fear they're going to force it as the release version while supporting just
1% of most used extensions, forgetting that it's a fat-tailed distribution. I
use video background fix to play youtube with a minimized browser (no I don't
want to use a separate app if I don't have to).

At that point I'm just going to switch to Brave.

~~~
jraph
You don't have to, but using YouTube through the NewPipe app is light years
ahead in terms of experience. You can listen to videos and playlists, program
which videos will play next, reorder videos that are going to play, no ads.
When playing on the background only the audio track is downloaded which is
easier on your battery and internet connection. The UI is smooth. The app
itself is lightweight. It remembers your history and search history but this
happens locally on your device. It also supports PeerTube and SoundCloud. You
can watch videos in popup mode though I never do that. The fullscreen player
has vlc-like controls to easily change the brightness and volume level. I
could go on and on. All that with completely free software.

Experience on the mobile website is shit in comparison especially on slow
devices. I use Firefox mobile with the same extension + ublock origin but, as
someone who hates installing apps when websites should do, do yourself a favor
and don't ditch Firefox for Brave, try NewPipe, it's worth it :-)

Same thing for the Slide app to go to Reddit by the way.

------
antman
I think I have a PTSD and I get scared of Firefox announcements. I feel like
it is a Russian Roulette of speed improvements or random removal of features.

This looks very positive but I don't understand it, I have the extensions
installed on my mobile since ages. So I look at the text and it says that it
is based on recommended extensions. Recommended on what criteria I always
wondered ? Business or security friendly? Or user friendly? How come uBlock is
not recommended? That means that "recommended extensions" is not only a label
for user assistance but also part of Firefox strategic decision making, oh my.

Is it a ploy to finally embed them to the severely limited IPhone experience
as preexisting features rather as extensions, a long con to bypass Apple
restrictions through initial Android introduction?

As I said I don't see what will change for me, I have already installed them
for years. And they will stay installed until they become unavailable due to
one strategic decision or another.

~~~
jml7c5
This is for Firefox Preview (preview as in "for testing"), a rewrite of
Firefox for Android. It will eventually be renamed to Firefox for Android.

~~~
antman
Yes it is clear that it will replace Firefox for Android, and as I said my
main hope is that it will do so without deprecating parts of current
functionality (especially regarding extensions) as it happened with previous
main updates.

------
aasasd
Need Stylus to make ‘collapse comment’ buttons on HN adequately sized and quit
sniping them.

------
kbumsik
Tried Search by Image extension and it is great!

My major complaint is the tab management and the New Tab page. To be honest it
is the worst I've ever seen. I hope that Mozilla invest much more on UI/UX.

~~~
edjrage
Your comment isn't worth much if you don't say what you don't like about it.
It's not perfect but to me it's pretty good.

------
thiht
The HN title is misleading, this is specifically about Firefox Preview, not
Firefox Mobile which has supported these extensions for a while now. It should
be edited.

------
dependenttypes
No uBlock Origin? It is much better compared to NoScript.

~~~
Multicomp
uBO was previously and is currently available. These are newly added addons

------
jml7c5
Oh dear, they really shouldn't use a gif[1] to demonstrate performance. The
low frame-rate makes it look like the UI is stuttering.

[1]: [https://microsoft.github.io/microsoft-ui-
xaml/img/performanc...](https://microsoft.github.io/microsoft-ui-
xaml/img/performance2-min.gif) (drawing a heart over a picture of a dog)

------
jzer0cool
Any plans for any of these features without installing extension? Possibly by
enabling menu option.

------
def8cefe
Anyone know where to get the APK without building yourself or using Google
services?

~~~
wazoox
Use F-Droid. Firefox (and FF Klar) is available there.

[https://search.f-droid.org/?q=firefox](https://search.f-droid.org/?q=firefox)

(edit: confusion)

~~~
dTal
I don't see FF Preview in there. Nor would I expect to, as it is not currently
Free Software:

[https://github.com/mozilla-
mobile/fenix/issues/162](https://github.com/mozilla-mobile/fenix/issues/162)

~~~
wazoox
Sorry, my bad, I get confused between the various versions :)

~~~
dTal
Easily done! This comment should be pinned to the top or something:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23089413](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23089413)

------
lukaa
Finally complete Dark mode with addon for mobile. Now I can forget Chromiums.

~~~
yjftsjthsd-h
That's worked in the non-preview (old) version of Firefox on Android for ages.
(Speaking as a happy user)

------
franczesko
Mobile browser development should be the actual focus of Mozilla team.

------
ComodoHacker
I like Firefox' design philosophy where you're bragging about how many third-
party extensions a new version of your app supports.

Another vendor would be bragging about how much of third-party functionality
they have built in.

------
ta17711771
Does it have per-site process isolation yet?

------
nromiun
It is much more polished compared to the regular Firefox for mobile. But it is
still very slow (network, the UI is very smooth) compared to all other
browsers. And I can't force myself to just a handful of extensions when other
browsers support all of them. So more waiting I guess.

------
surround
For iOS users wanting _similar_ functionality: use Safari’s content blocker
API.

The app HTTPS4All uses the same rule set as HTTPS everywhere:

[https://github.com/bouk/HTTPS4All](https://github.com/bouk/HTTPS4All)

For script blocking, AdGuard for iOS supports custom rules. Try:

    
    
      *$script
    

And to whitelist:

    
    
      *$script,domain=~example.com,~example2.com
    

Kind of a hassle. Mozilla _could_ just include something like this in their
iOS browser skin of Safari.

~~~
bad_user
Afaik Safari's content blockers don't work in iOS's Firefox.

Has this changed?

Also browser extensions aren't allowed on iOS due to Apple's policy. AFAIK you
can't build your own browser engine that does JIT, you can't do remote code
execution.

~~~
surround
Correct, Safari’s content blockers only apply to the Safari app. But Mozilla
_could_ use their own content blockers in the Firefox iOS app (which is just a
skin of Safari).

And yes, Safari’s content blocking is very limited. You couldn’t inject any of
no-script’s neutered scriptlets, for example.

In this sense, Android has an advantage over iOS because it isn’t so
restrictive.

------
sloshnmosh
Hmm. Every Firefox browser I've downloaded from Mozilla and sideloaded onto my
LineageOS devices has always supported uMatrix, HTTPSEverywhere and NoScript.

~~~
NikolaeVarius
non-firefox preview browsers are on life support.

