[dstillman]

Requiring app-based distribution feels like a perversion of the entire premise of WebExtensions. I understand why Apple wants to reuse its existing development, review, and distribution platforms, and it makes sense for some apps, but it's simply not reasonable to expect cross-platform browser extension developers to go through the hassle of building and distributing Mac apps just to support Safari users.

If you have an existing Mac app, it might be worth it, but personally, there's no chance that I would bother porting my own standalone WebExtensions to Safari under the current system, whereas I went to the trouble of doing so ($99/year fee and all) for the legacy framework, even though I don't really use Safari. Maybe Apple is OK losing large numbers of smaller extensions, but for me, it just means I'd never seriously consider Safari as an alternative to Firefox or Chrome.

[asiando]

I hate pooping where I eat since I’m trying to finally move to Safari, but all the writers saying how easy it is to port an extension now still have no idea.

Here’s what I need to port Chrome extension to Firefox:

  1. Upload a zip file
  2. Fill in very few additional details
  3. Wait for review

Here’s what it takes for Safari:

  1. Own a Mac
  2. Download 12GB of XCode
  3. Run the conversion tool (this is the point that everyone talks about)
  4. Well done, now you have an XCode project you’ll have to maintain
  5. Pay $99/yearly
  6. Fill pages of senseless details and read scary-sounding notices about encryption because your extension is enabled on HTTPS
  7. Wait for review
  8. Get denied because of an “entitlement” that the conversion tool added for you
  9. Wait for review
  10. Fix a number of slight incompatibilities you’ll find over time, from basic features that other browsers have had for a long time to the APIs actually not being standard.