[fauigerzigerk]

Not that I know of, but since Chrome supports loading extensions from a local directory it shouldn't be too hard to make an app store based on github (and other source code repositories).

Using Firefox seems easier though. It also helps to prevent a future where a handful of global platforms have a veto on what software we are allowed to use.

[exikyut]

Well, every manifest.json contains the line

  "update_url": "https://clients2.google.com/service/update2/crx",

which I think is present so that enterprise-distributed internal extensions can point at an internal update system.

This being said, Chrome won't install .crx files from anywhere nowadays, only the official store. I'm not sure if this can be overridden - the way I think it works is that Chrome can be told to install extensions via group policy or some other admin-centric mechanism, and that once the extensions are installed this is when update_url comes into play.

[fauigerzigerk]

You can always load unpacked extensions in developer mode, but maybe it's not such a good idea to promote this option as a mass distribution mechanism for regular users.

[ehsankia]

> handful of global platforms have a veto on what software we are allowed to use.

Wouldn't Mozilla count in one of those global platforms? I'm not sure what this "handful" includes and why it doesn't include Mozilla. It is by many metrics the 2nd most used browser.

[larkeith]

Mozilla has nowhere near the scale of Google. Google could, if they wanted, functionally kill a website or business by blocking their site, removing them from maps, disabling their Gmail addresses, and kicking them off Google Docs, and even in the unlikely event of massive public backlash (realistically only possible if the story goes viral), they have the resources and userbase to easily weather the storm - it is infeasible for most people to abandon Google's services, even should they be so inclined, and there is no other real way to impact their decision-making.

Meanwhile, Mozilla has a single browser with a minority of the userbase. Negative user feedback is much more important, as Firefox is much more easily replaced (no Google login or linked services), and they have nowhere near the scope of potential impact that Google does, let alone resources to back it up.

[jjeaff]

And don't forget that Mozilla is also a non-profit organization that doesn't have quite the same goals as Google/alphabet, the for profit mega Corp.

[drb91]

Mozilla should be counted, but we need as many players in the space as we can find.

They also seem do have more transparent interests and incentives—they don’t run an ad network (and i don’t begrudge them the google royalties in the least).

[fauigerzigerk]

Mozilla is not one of the dominant players and Mozilla has a different agenda.

So they bring a bit of diversity to the table that makes us less dependent on one specific type of vested interests.