That's the Android permission model at play. But Firefox does incorporate extensions safely and thoughtfully.īrowser extensions can't do anything the browser itself isn't allowed to do.Ī browser extension can't act on the operating system in any way that the browser itself can't also do. Firefox uses its own rendering engine so things can get a little wonky, the app can be sluggish, and the settings are just as confusing as Chrome's. I hate saying that as much as a lot of you hate hearing it, but it's true. However, one company is doing it right and takes the time to fully document everything: Mozilla.įirefox for Android isn't the best browser. I say probably because there isn't much documentation about private APIs that extensions might be using or how the extension permission model fits into Android's overall permissions.
Most web browsers that include extensions probably do it the wrong way. It only means there are two ways to do it - the right way and the wrong way. Google can collect more than enough data about you and your habits through all the apps you use, so missing a bit of extra data through Chrome isn't really going to put much of a dent in Google's business.Īndroid's permission and file access rules are a bit of a mess, but that doesn't mean there isn't a safe way to include browser extension support. It can make life difficult for individual websites that depend on ad revenue to stay afloat.
I'm in a third camp and think both are incorrect answers.īlocking ads in the browser can hurt the website you're visiting but has minimal effect on Google's bottom line.Īdblocking software in Chrome doesn't hurt Google on mobile. The second is Android's permissions, and file access rules make including extensions impossible. The first is Google is afraid that uBlock Origin would kill its business model. There are two camps when it comes to why.