Add-ons in 2017

A little more than a year ago we started talking about where add-ons were headed, and what the future would look like. It’s been busy, and we wanted to give everyone an update as well as provide guidance on what to expect in 2017.

Over the last year, we’ve focused as a community on foundational work building out WebExtensions support in Firefox and (AMO), reducing the time it takes for listed add-ons to be reviewed while maintaining the standards we apply to them, and getting Add-ons ready for e10s. We’ve made a number of changes to our process and products to make it easier to submit, distribute, and discover add-ons through initiatives like the signing API and a revamped Discovery Pane in the add-ons manager. Finally, we’ve continued to focus on communicating changes to the developer community via direct outreach, mailing lists, email campaigns, wikis, and the add-ons blog.

As we’ve mentioned, WebExtensions are the future of add-ons for Firefox, and will continue to be where we concentrate efforts in 2017. WebExtensions are decoupled from the platform, so the changes we’ll make to Firefox in the coming year and beyond won’t affect them. They’re easier to develop, and you won’t have to learn about Firefox internals to get up and running. It’ll be easier to move your add-ons over to and from other browsers with minimal changes, as we’re making the APIs compatible – where it makes sense – with products like Opera, Chrome, and Edge.

By the end of 2017, and with the release of Firefox 57, we’ll move to WebExtensions exclusively, and will stop loading any other extension types on desktop. To help ensure any new extensions work beyond the end of 2017, AMO will stop accepting any new extensions for signing that are not WebExtensions in Firefox 53. Throughout the year we’ll expand the set of APIs available, add capabilities to Firefox that don’t yet exist in other browsers, and put more WebExtensions in front of users.

There’s a lot of moving parts, and we’ll be tracking more detailed information – including a timeline and roadmap – on the WebExtensions section of the Mozilla Wiki. If you’re interested in getting involved with the add-on community and WebExtensions, we have a few ways you can do that. We’re looking forward to the next year, and will continue to post updates and additional information here on the Add-ons blog.

For more information on Add-ons and WebExtensions, see:

Note: Edited to better identify specifics around Firefox 53

85 comments on “Add-ons in 2017”

  1. Charles wrote on

    Ugh, no mention of SDK-based add-ons? I though that they would survive, at least for a time, after the death of XUL-based add-ons.

    > …we’ll stop accepting new extensions that are not WebExtensions in Firefox 53…
    Care to explain it? Who is “we”? AMO? It is about that new non-WE extensions will no be accepted anymore as listed public add-ons in AMO? or not accepted in AMO at all (Not even like unlisted)?

    1. Kev Needham wrote on

      I’ve updated the post to better address what happens in 53, which is that we won’t accept submissions to AMO for new add-ons other than WebExtensions.

  2. Ben Bucksch wrote on

    Hey kev,

    extensions are the one main argument that Firefox has left going for it. Security, standards support, speed and features – which originally used to be the arguments for Firefox – are all out the door as arguments, because other browser have caught up with Firefox, and sometimes left it behind in the dust. The argument of privacy / data protection (Metrics), freedom and open-source has been going out of the door due to decisions on the side of Mozilla.

    Extensions, extensibility, stabilizability is *the* one remaining primary, argument that Firefox has going for it. It’s something people love, and it’s the reason why many use Firefox.

    Please do not throw that out.

    I understand that you have to make changes, because you’re changing the underlying technology. XPCOM is being replaced. XUL is still so much better than HTML, and it could reasonably be supported by any new engine, with some leeway. Some technologies were just bad, e.g. XBL and translation via DTDs, and need to be replaced. Others are highly useful and could be reimplemented, like the concept of overlays, it’s just brilliant as an idea.

    In general, I understand the need to replace some of them. BUT if you replace tech A with tech B, you better make really sure that B is 1. as capable and comfortable as A was, and 2. B is at that level of functionality 3-5 years *before* you kill tech A. These years are needed for all the personal effort, money and investment that went into A to be migrated into B. That needs a lot of time. You cannot expect that to happen within months. That’s lunatic.

    At this point, even criteria 1. is very very far from being met. WebExtensions are comfortable to write, that’s true. But they are nowhere near the capabilities of XUL extensions. The functionality has to be restored first. That’s step 1. We’re maybe 10% of the way.

    Just a few examples. Please note that these are just the basics, from the top of my head:
    * Do I get raw TCP sockets, so that I can implement IMAP, POP3 in an extension, and offer a generic mail check extension for all providers at once, without sending the user’s password to an intermediate server? (pretty obvious example of an extension)
    * Can I set the default search engine and homepage in Firefox? Can I do the opt-in as part of the setup dialog UI that I wrote to set up the other parameters of my extension, and avoid that the user gets 3-4 popups in a row, for my setup, for search, for homepage, for newtab (abmyssal UI)?
    * Can I change what happens when the user closes the last tab (but not the window), and open my UI?
    * For the Firefox newtab page, can I add certain additional UI elements for my extension, without removing the Firefox newtab page?
    * Can I make sure that my toolbar button with the “new messages” badge actually stays on the toolbar, even if the user installed 4 other extensions, and it doesn’t get pushed into to the overflow menu, which would defeat the entire purpose of the extension?

    These are just some of the questions of the top of my head that *all* need to be answered in a satisfactory way before I can even investigate migrating my extension to WebExtensions. My extension has a few million users, and has a whole team behind it, with about 7 people who work on it full time and have their income depend on it.

    As a matter of fact, our entire development team has been fired this week.

    This is not a smart move. This is suicide for Firefox. I see the need for Rust, Servo and it all. I see the need to transition extension technologies. But, and I’ve told you before again and again, FIRST make sure that your replacement is BETTER than the old tech before you kill the old one.

    1. Jan Niklas Hasse wrote on


    2. Kevin Cox wrote on

      I agree completely. What is the difference between two browsers that only support WebExtensions? Nothing, I will have no reason to use firefox over chrome. What if the old raw access method existed with the relevant warnings both to the user (for security reasons) and the developer (for compatibility and maintainability reasons). I think WebExtensions are awesome but they aren’t nearly as powerful as traditional extensions are so it would be incredibly valuable to must most developers to WebExtensions but also provide the case where true, whole browser customization is required.

      The only reason I use firefox is because of incredibly invasive extensions that simply aren’t possible with WebExtensions, and many people I know are in the same situation.

  3. Stephan Sokolow wrote on

    I kept trusting Mozilla but, with the native.js idea watered down into WebExtensions experiments and this plan to retire non-WebExtensions in 2017, it looks like 2017 might be the year I move to one of those Firefox forks I always laughed at.

    Having poked at WebExtension development, I can personally attest to it still being FAR too crippled an API to implement some of the extensions I can’t live without, like downThemAll!, and I’d be VERY surprised to see developers willing to invest so much effort into porting their hobby/itch-scratching projects in such a short span of time… especially when they’d have to get WebExtensions Experiments approved and merged into mainline within that time span too.

    1. Stephan Sokolow wrote on

      I just realized I got a couple of points muddled together and I should have clarified.

      It’s not that I think that Mozilla is planning to kick the extensions I need off AMO, but, rather, that it will incentivize developers to give up on maintaining them since they’re just living on borrowed time anyway.

      The developers of downThemAll! have already said that the crippling that WebExtensions represents is the end of dTA. It’s also an involved enough codebase that it does occasionally get broken by Firefox updates.

      My concern is that, if their extension is on death row anyway, why would they care so much about keeping it functional as some sort of legacy listing on AMO and, with new XUL extension blocked, signing enforced, and WebExtensions being a suitable replacement, nobody else can fork it and post their new version to AMO the way extensions like Beef TACO came to be in the past.

      As a result, If their interest wanes, my only option will be to start riding the trains down from Aurora, through Beta, Stable, and then ESR before finally turning off automatic updates.

      I CAN’T justify the extra time expenditure involved in going back to doing this stuff manually.

      1. Stephan Sokolow wrote on

        “and WebExtensions being a suitable replacement”

        Ugh. “and WebExtensions NOT being a suitable replacement”

    2. Natalie G wrote on

      Andy McKay quietly killed native.js today, on a Friday afternoon in the middle of a holiday weekend.

      No “intent to close” declaration this time. “Open and transparent” indeed. As open and transparent as the Iron Curtain, I’d say.

  4. Joe wrote on

    Guys, based on personal experience, I believe these comments have no voice and nobody at Mozilla even cares to read them; anyway, this one is going to be my last one! Discovery Pane was a bad idea. There was a plan to change the extension list frequently and yet we see only a single change over the time! I just pointed this out to emphasize nobody at Mozilla really cares about the comments placed here.

    This new timeline is the worst of all. Do you really think developers are going to migrate their work to the naive WebExtension system in a year! Why not using the mature Chrome API instead and dumping Firefox altogether? Do you really think developers are so in love with Firefox that keep spending time just to support a browser that decides to change everything once per year? First XUL, then SDK and now WebExtension.

    I really do like the idea of WebExtension, but forcing people to adapt over a year is not rational. You need to keep supporting SDK for at least a few years until “new” developers gradually replace the old useful add-ons.

    Guys note that a huge time and effort has been spent over years through hundreds of developers to create these extensions. You really should respect the time people had spent. Seeing a post like this is a clear message that Mozilla does not care for its developer. There has been many discussions about the usefulness of WebExtension ecosystem, and yet another blog post that seems to ignore all the comments. If you really don’t care about comments what is the purpose of this section. Just disable the commenting system and post your announcement.

    The WebExtension system that is going to replicate Chrome (at least for a short period until it gets mature) cannot fulfill the need for this community. The ONE and ONLY reason people are still on Firefox is because it is more customizable. You cannot remove it and expect to keep your users. At least check the stats of how many people are migrating to Chrome over the past year. I really would like to thank all the effort that has been put in Firefox for the recent changes like e10s, … but the output is a disaster. People are really moving to other browsers as the “extension” (not the browser itself) ecosystem in Firefox is not functioning anymore.

    Believe me or not, Firefox is Firefox just because of its reach extensions…

    1. Shell wrote on

      Hi Joe,

      Thank you for the clear feedback. We plan on doing more posts that go deeper into the topics you brought up- since it is very good information to share. There’s lots of details behind the what’s driving change and expansion on our web extension plans, but that would have over-complicated a first announcement.

      I can tackle your Disco Pane comment though. The plan is definitely to change the list frequently. However, the first few releases we needed to work out flow bugs because of timing with e10s. In 49, only webextensions and a few trial add-ons had been tested in Beta for Performance and Stability – which really limited options for Disco Pane. In Release 50 (Nov 15th) all webextensions and add-ons marked compatible (MPC=true) qualify to run with e10s.

      Now we have more flexibility to change up add-ons, so you’ll see more what was initially intended.

  5. Bruce Dackler wrote on

    Firefox’s powerful extension model is a key point of differentiation. Limiting extensions to using a subset of Chrome’s extension APIs turns them from being a limitless opportunity for innovation with powerful tools into a hobbled set of building blocks for making uninspired samey toys for predefined use cases. I remember when the Add-on SDK was supposed to be the future, and now it’s being thrown under the bus.

  6. Anonymous wrote on

    Looks like Mozilla want to loose more and more user base with their changes and ideas,
    as extensions were the only reason for using this browser for old attached Firefox users.

    I wonder what Firefox will become in the future, especially with these statements.
    Just the niche Chrome clone or …

  7. VEG wrote on

    It is not possible to implement most Firefox exclusive extensions using WebExtensions API. Firefox will lose its main advantage over other browsers.

  8. aleth wrote on

    Will there be a clear indication in the addon manager that gives the user an early warning which of the installed addons are living on borrowed time?

    It also doesn’t appear to be visible on AMO which addons are webextensions. It seems this should happen soon to give users enough time to switch.

  9. JustOff wrote on

    Firefox is about addons. There are no other reasons for preference over other browsers. The ruining of legacy extensions ecosystem will mean the end of Firefox.

  10. Master-Tealc wrote on

    If i would want to use Chrome inspired extension technology, then i would use Chrome.

    Nothing more to be added. Happy that i removed Firefox years ago, as it was clearly visible that you guys have no ideas on your own anymore and just following Google’s lead.

    But yeah, i can understand it is more simple to abandon own creations and just jump on the bandwagon someone else created.

    Anyway, the more you are relying on Google based or Google created technology instead of your own creations, the more people will get the opinion that Mozilla has just become another Google look-a-like or work-a-like with just a different engine.

    From time to time i install your old Firefox 22 version and remember the great times when Mozilla honored and supported customization, being different, being about options and user choice and last but not least you have been valuing being “multi-culturalism” technology wise (alternatives to Chrome based technology).

    Today Mozilla values being “mono-culturalism” technology wise (Chrome based technology), minimalism, simplicity, one-design-fits-everyone. Mozilla is is all about being like Chrome so that Chrome users are switching towards Firefox. Still, Chrome is not the answer.

    But that is something you are unable to understand.

  11. Tupik wrote on

    Addons that can completely change visual of browser like “Tree style tabs” are the only reason why I use Firefox. Without them, I have no reason to use Firefox.

  12. Gerd Neumann wrote on

    Aren’t most of the current system add-on also not based on WebExtensions (, e.g. the upcoming Autofill ( These will need to be rewritten from scratch?

  13. Laurent wrote on

    Please, don’t go so fast.
    WebExtension lacks important features (such as F1/F2/etc. Function key shortcuts, or access to about:config, or access to HTML5 storage, etc.).
    Implement powerful WebExtension APIs, and leave us at least one year to migrate our old add-ons.
    Without those powerful APIs, Firefox is not better than Chrome, and you’ll loose all your users.
    Thank you.

  14. Cassy wrote on

    ^ Listen to your users, Mozilla =) Thank you.

  15. Petr wrote on

    Addons are the only reasons I still use Firefox. I want to have freedom to set up visual style. Otherwise I leave Firefox (after many, many years).

  16. Tom wrote on

    Please listen to the above comments. The extension ecosystem is critical for differentiation. WebExtensions are not a substitute.

  17. old user of firefox wrote on

    This is the beginning of the end. Another stupid chrome way.
    Without normal extensions, you will lose everything.
    Many of my colleagues (and I’m including) will go out firefox because that won’t work such as Custom Buttons extension, Greasemonkey, Stylish, etc…
    Firefox = Powerfull Extensions, not a chrome.

    p.s. listen to your users.

  18. Kent wrote on

    I don’t mind Mozilla replacing the old API with the WebExtension API but at least cooperate with current developers to make sure their addons will continue working after the transition and also be open to letting developers decide how WebExtensions for Firefox will evolve.

  19. Ron Hunter wrote on

    This is suicide. There will be no reason for me to continue using Firefox if it is to be limited to what can be done to the Firefox user interface. I will NOT continue to use it if that happens, because any, or all, of the competition also has a fixed interface, and most of them are more consistent at being able to load pages, and play videos. This is giving up the advantage Firefox has had for decades. Sad.

  20. Wojtek wrote on

    Uhm… as said before – if I wanted to use toys I would switch to Chrome ages ago (and it’s extensions are still, uhm… ‘limiting’ – yay to euphemisms…). While having a single standard for extensions seems nice, what WE offers now is darn limiting!

  21. Adam wrote on

    Funny, just a few hours ago I submitted my first Firefox extension to AMO, a fork of an old extension that was hijacked by a money-grubber who put adware in it (and 3 years later, the adware-infested, *signed-by-Mozilla* version is still on AMO–nice job protecting your users with extension signing, Mozilla).

    As others have said, there are only two reasons to prefer Firefox over Chrome: reduced memory usage, and XUL-based extensions. The former will probably go away with e10s (a mixed blessing, because the pauses that come with the single-process model are indeed annoying–yet tolerable), and the latter will go away with Firefox 57 (well, let’s be real: Mozilla will extend it by several versions, just like they did with extension signing; yet their obstinance will prevail in the end).

    And so, when XUL extensions are killed, Mozilla will kill the goose that laid the golden egg. They will have turned Firefox into a poor imitation of Chrome–so then who would use it instead of Chrome?

    The handwriting is on the wall, and Mozilla has penned it. They have loaded the nail gun and aimed it at their coffin.

    Thankfully, Pale Moon exists. We should consider donating to it immediately, and begin migrating our own browsing to it.

    It’s sad. I started using Firefox when it was Phoenix. I remember being amazed at how I could edit the browser UI with CSS and XUL. After the Phoenix->Firebird->Firefox transition, Firefox’s battle cry was user empowerment, taking back the web. And it worked! IE was dethroned, everyone had heard of Firefox–even grandmas!

    But money is a powerful temptation, and Mozilla has become addicted to it. Perhaps it was inevitable that the millions that helped make Firefox so great back in the day would become its ultimate demise. There are too many employees to pay, and user numbers are declining. Their solution? Chase Chrome users, who are already happy using Chrome. Mozilla used to lead, but now it follows, chasing former users like a jilted lover, promising to change and be like their ex’s new flame.

    You cannot heal this way, Mozilla. You must move on. You must let go. You must be you and let people love you for who you are. You will never find true love trying to be someone else.

    Or you can run your only remaining successful project into the ground and kill the entire thing, MoFo, MoCo, and all. Firefox will live on, thanks to the MPL, but you–you are just a caretaker, a gardener who keeps the Firefox Community Garden clean and watered. You can be replaced. It’s up to you.

    1. Elren Raminov wrote on

      Can’t help but agree to that. Too bad Mozilla no longer listens to its existing users for the sake of potential but quite unsure potential new users.

  22. Nils Maier wrote on

    I honestly hate you right now.

    1. Elren Raminov wrote on

      DownThemAll FTW!

      Too bad Mozilla exchanged listening to its avid users for a chance for additional market share and didn’t even quite succeed.

      Why Mozilla? Why?

    2. Eduard Braun wrote on

      Hi Nils, I feel with you and I wondered where you’d got the motivation for working on DownThemAll again…

      Since the blog post from last year that announced the plans for deprecation of XUL add-ons I stopped working on my Firefox add-ons almost completely and moved on to other projects where my precious time won’t go down the drain and were I won’t be at the mercy of some people of the Mozilla foundation with more than doubtful aims.

      In secret I had hoped you’d have received some information on how XUL add-ons will continue to work when you put notable effort into DTA recently, but your reaction seems as if it hit you just as hard as everyone else… :-(((

  23. Daniel.Jackson wrote on

    It is not necessary to destroy XUL and replace it with something simple and less powerful like Webextensions.

    This is just necessary in Mozilla kind of narrow minded way of thinking to bring a big part of Chrome users over to Firefox. But that will not happen. People loved Firefox because it was able to customize it like no other browser (except Opera perhaps).

    But what Mozilla loves today: simplicity and minimalism (and killing-off powerful customization methods and replacing it against something very much limited), will not save them.

    So far none of Mozilla’s actions to bring Firefox closer to how Chrome looks and works has brought them the amount of users to be at least a small more serious-to-take contender to Google Chrome. Deciding against features and choice has limited their user base. This is just more of the same.

    Mozilla was a serious contender as long as they valued native features and choice, but discarding both is doing no one a favor.. except Google with Chrome, they are laughing already that Mozilla still is unable to understand that different programs have different kind of users with different needs.

  24. Martin wrote on

    The king is dead, but who is the new one?

  25. Elren Raminov wrote on

    Sad, sad day.

    Why would Mozilla keep on on paralyzing their own browser to incompetence?

    I stick with Firefox because of how powerful its addons was compared to its competition and now this.

    If only WebExtensions API would allow these powerful addons to exist as is, but as it is, I don’t think so.

    I tolerated the addon extension signing that made it harder to test new extensions on the stable channel but at its current form, I won’t tolerate this. I guess I have to move a Firefox fork who actually knows what made Firefox great to begin with.

    Such a disappointing move from an organization who said that they put their users first.

  26. Jan Elznic wrote on

    OMG?! Why? XUL basend addons/extensions are only reason why I’m using Firefox. You are making suicide.

    What about Tab Mix Plus, All-in-One Sidebar and others?

  27. Zach C wrote on

    Firefox becoming a worse Chrome is only going to kill this browser.

  28. Eduard Braun wrote on

    It’s fascinating how Mozilla manages to always find the exactly right words — to make their most avid browser enthusiasts feel absolutely miserable!

    Trying to support WebExtensions for better cross-browser compatibility is one thing. Dropping support for XUL extensions – the heart of many Firefox installs – and stabbing their most loyal add-on developers in the back is just plain wrong.

    If you hadn’t noticed Mozilla: Firefox market share is declining [1]! (I’m almost certain you know…)
    What I can’t understand is how you suppose that stripping the one distinguishing functionality that still makes Firefox stand out against its competitors – almost complete customizability – should improve upon that situation?

    If you plan to kill Firefox there are easier ways… Otherwise I can’t understand how any sane human being can set such an obvious course into perdition. 🙁


  29. Sausage wrote on

    This reminds me of how the Opera blog looked before it killed itself off and all its users vanished overnight.

  30. sketch wrote on

    Last nail in coffin of open web. Web is commercialized. Google has commercialized Chrome Store. I often see pay for additional functionality in many extensions in there. I just cannot live in the world where every little thing needs to be purchased. Little things and their subscription will add to thousands of US dollars. Is this the future we have imagined? Every piece of software asking me to upgrade for more features or showing the advertisements. It is in free softwares of macOS, MS brought it to Windows by UWP apps, Android had it since day one, Chrome also has it. These nagging offers to upgrade, recommending more useful services, changing my default search engine, installing toolbar without my consent, tricking me into paying for useless software, consuming my screen space by showing advertisements, selling my browsing history, tracking me, what not. I hate Firefox to even think off and agreeing to make such a decision.

  31. Kyle wrote on

    If you drop extensions, I’m switching browsers.

  32. Wizardgoat wrote on

    Since becoming a Firefox user nearly three years ago, I’ve supported Mozilla on a number of initiatives that other users grumbled about. For example, the Aurora browser styling, and e10s multiprocessing. Even creating a new Web Extensions technology, so that developers can create cross-browser extensions, is an idea that has merit. In other words, I’m not a habitual nay-sayer.

    But this mandate to kill all the older extension technology, in my opinion, is cultural suicide for Mozilla, and will spell the death-knell for Firefox.

    Over the past two years I’ve developed several extensions, and have a few thousand users already. Some, including the two most popular ones, are utterly dependent on XUL overlay. No APIs exist in bootstrapped or SDK technology that will accomplish the same things, and so I’m confident that none will show up in Web Extensions.

    I’m quite certain that many other developers are in the same boat, and if this goes through, I will also lose several very important extensions developed by others, as well as my own.

    I don’t think that the issue is even the time frame (one year). Extending it by a year or two just delays the impending disaster.

    XUL is the most powerful extension development technology that has ever existed in Firefox. It’s continued use does not impede the e10s effort, as it’s easy enough to make XUL extensions multi-process compatible. Mine already are.

    I sincerely hope that Mozilla realizes that the merit of Web Extensions is the ability to create cross-browser capability, but that tossing the other existing technologies, even a few years in the future, is going to send Firefox straight into an enormous black hole in the center of the galaxy. What a very sad waste!

  33. JR wrote on

    None of your users want this change.

    None of your users benefit from this change.

    So why are you doing it?

  34. Alvin Lee wrote on

    To be honest, I just want to hurl expletives at Mozilla right now for this kind of move. You’re Firefox, not Chrome, so start remembering what made you great rather than following the “market share leader”.

    It’s just sad.

  35. David wrote on

    I’m sorry, but why should we proceed using Firefox then?

    If you’ve got Firefox on a computer, you have everything nowadays: Bittorrent client, chat client, download manager, irc client… There is everything, cache lookup addons and much more. Only made possible with XUL.

    You think you lose users because of your own browser and its features. That is not the case. You lose users because other browser manufacturers like Google can advertise much better and everywhere.
    Here, where I live, in germany, we have had chrome advertisements on billboards outside. No wonder there are more Chrome users! There are suggestions on lots of Google sites that push users into downloading and installing Chrome browser, which then syncs their user data by asking them upfront and easy. Users love that.
    Streamline Firefox sync and fix its bugs instead of falling into headless reactionism.

    Do not misinterpret your numbersheets and start understanding your core userbase.

    Get rid of XUL when you switch to servo. Before that, don’t fiddle with what’s making millions of users happy for no reason.

  36. Anon-a-moose wrote on

    For 8-9 years now from roughly just before the time they switched to Google’s moronic versioning scheme, Mozilla has made a seemingly unbroken chain of bad decision after bad decision. It started way back when they decided to merge bookmarks with the entire sqlite profile, rendering bookmark synching across operating systems or users a huge pain in the ass. Now for running on 5-6 years, literally every time I update Firefox something good about the interface or an add-on is fundamentally broken and I have to spend hours searching obscure forums to restore functionality. Over the past years, Nightly Tester Tools’s ability to force add-on compatibility has gone from a nice novelty to an absolute necessity. I now have to use an add-on to re-add the customization that drew me to Firefox in the first place (“Classic Theme Restorer”). Will you kill this add-on next, Mozilla?

    Firefox’s wealth of useful add-ons have gone from just another great tool in a power user’s suite to now its only saving grace. These are the very last things keeping users like myself tied to this browser. Kill enough add-ons and I’ll finally have the right reason to switch to a fork and never come back. None of your middle fingers to power users have done anything so far to regain the user share you’ve lost from Google. This really is the last straw, proceed at your own peril.

  37. Angry add-on developer wrote on

    Unfortunately nobody at Mozilla cares about Firefox users, add-on developers or browser market shares. Mozilla developers always did, do and will continue to do what they want independent of how many users they lose or how many complain about unwanted changes.

    Mozilla still fails to provide proper replacements for current features and customization power, so future Firefox versions will offer much less than current do.

    It is time to look forward and get used to another browser. There will be no benefit in using Firefox 57+ over any other browser (in about a year). Chrome, Opera, Vivaldi, Seamonkey or a Firefox fork like Palemoon, the choice is yours.

  38. DimTim wrote on

    Seems, Fireefox goes the Opera way. Google moles in Mozilla management, intentionally destroying the last big “independent” competitor?

    Well, at least a year we can use Firefox 52 ESR, then we shall see, maybe some good forks appear. Comodo IceDragon?

  39. Billy Bob wrote on

    Why does Mozilla hate Firefox so much?

  40. Synonymous wrote on

    Reading these blog posts feels like the Windows Metro announcements…

  41. John wrote on

    This is irresponsible. Mozilla is the only FOSS competitor to Google in the browser arena. This is a bad move, your users don’t like it, and you need to keep every user you have unless we want a Google monopoly.

    1. DimTim wrote on

      Maybe they DO want Google monopoly. Like it was with Opera (I was an Opera fan until last Presto version). And, to look wider, with Nokia, now Apple tries to ruin Samsung, etc. Big capitalist sharks “games”. But with an open source software we can hope for a decent fork. Palemoon is a bit old, though…

      1. ralphus wrote on

        “Pale Moon is a bit old”?

        Are you being fooled by the versioning scheme? Don’t be. v27 is brand new. It’s being maintained and updated constantly. Security fixes aside, it diverged significantly from FF a few years ago and is truly its own browser. It is THE refuge for disgruntled Firefox users and all of you, especially extension developers, need to embrace it. There’s simply no alternative if you want sophisticated (XUL) extensions and customizability.

  42. Natalie G wrote on

    So Kev, how many WebExtension are there on AMO now, and how many XUL and bootstrapped extensions that haven’t started down the migration path? Surely you wouldn’t set a drop-dead date without having those figures in hand.

    I think we’d all like to know how many extensions will be available to Firefox users 12 months from now. If that’s a small number, Mozilla should make it possible to install extensions from the Chrome store, the way Opera users can.

  43. ClassicThemeRestorer_indanger wrote on

    You know, i am posting quite often at Mozillazine and we over there are very worried what will happen with the add-ons we love.

    Even famous Aris is questioning their Classic Theme Restorer add-on.

    You are really allowing that the last piece of customization resource which enabled us to completely change the UI the way we want is going to die?


    If you do that, you lose a big bunch of users.

    Stop idolizing Google with Chrome. NO ONE should idolizing Google with Chrome, they are your enemy. They lead you only to a dark place where you do not want to be.

    Our thread here is:

  44. acw wrote on

    are you freaking nuts mozilla? firefox’s current add-ons method is the only thing keeping it alive. you drop this mozilla, all your users will switch to chrome.

  45. Mukunda Modell wrote on

    I’ve been with you for 10 years. I’ve brought countless people with me. I’ve introduced something like 50 people to Firefox and most of them still use it to this day. Addons are THE reason I loved Firefox, they are the reason my family and friends loved Firefox. They are the reason I still stick with Firefox despite the alternatives which are better in so many ways. Mozilla, I’ve been a loyal friend, but you have not. You are betraying my friends and family and betraying my trust.



    Why oh why would you do this to us? We’ve begged you to reconsider. You don’t care.


    Mozilla is dead to me.

  46. NightsoN wrote on

    Goodbye Firefox. Say hello to ChromeFox.

    It’s very very sad to see all these shit.

  47. Alexander wrote on

    Are you serious? Addons were the main feature of Firefox. Why are you trying to conver it into the one more Chrome-like browser? What happened with this browser?

    1. Alexander wrote on

      And why do you add various useless stuff like Fireffox Hello, Pocket and Australis Interface and get rid of really important things like XUL addons and NPAPI support?

  48. Nick wrote on

    I’ve been using and advocating Mozilla products since ~2000. Suite, Firefox, Thunderbird, Sunbird, and more. Extensions are 100% of the reason I haven’t switched to Chrome.

    If you kill Extensions prematurely, without assisting in porting the most popular across to WebExtensions, you kill Firefox.

    More proof?
    “WebExtensions” is a Wikipedia redlink, e.g. in
    Yet there is a list of “notable” Extensions

  49. fgsfds wrote on

    If that really happens it will be the end of Fx.

  50. Guest wrote on

    Well, well, well. Now that Firefox is on suicide watch I hope more people migrate to Brave and give Brandon Eich the last laugh.

More comments:1 2