Manifest V3, webRequest, and ad blockers
-
If Firefox is keeping adblockers functional, would it make long term sense to base a version of Vivaldi under their engine, rather than Chrome's?
-
@Aijo , no, see comments above. Change Vivaldi to Gecko would mean throwing away 7 years of development, because this required developing Vivaldi again from scratch. With a small company like Vivaldi it would be the end.
-
@cqoicebordel: Probably not all of it. If it was just the API itself, it wouldn't be an issue, but there is underlying code and architecture that need to remain in place to allow keeping the API around. I suspect somethings will be rearchitectured in chromium once Manifest V2 is gone and then those parts of the API will be unmaintainable. webRequest just happens to be in a position where it doesn't look like the underlying architecture is likely to change.
-
@julien_picalausa a question: Firefox users already experience websites not working or not working the proper way because they are optimized for chromium only, with FF "saving" V2 estensions this situation is not going to worsen? thanks
-
@TalGarik Probably not. The extension API doesn't affect websites themselves, only extensions.
-
Given that the Vivaldi team has already written plenty of custom software that interfaces with Chromium, has the team given any thought to implementing WebExtension support on top of Chromium? Aside from the adblocker issue, there are many other APIs included in WebExtensions that Chrome simply doesn't have, especially those used to interface with the sidebar which would be very interesting in Vivaldi.
Either way, if Vivaldi does go ahead and implement Manifest V3, I'm afraid I'll have to move back to Firefox. I'd really rather not, but ublock origin is simply the only trustworthy content blocker available, including the one in Vivaldi that "may or may not break" with a chromium update.
-
@Daktyl said in Manifest V3, webRequest, and ad blockers:
implementing WebExtension support
WebExtensions won't be dropped. WebRequest blocking will (which is the main issue for blockers)
APIs [...] sidebar
Probably too soon. We need a Vivaldi store before.
implement Manifest V3
They could decide not to drop V2 until chromium allows it. The point is no more extensions for V2 exist in the store or keep the support until is not too hard to do.
I'm afraid I'll have to move back to Firefox.
There UBO and others could work after the deadline. My guess is several chromium will improve their blockers. But until the deadline comes all we say or we can do is pretty much theoretical.
-
@Hadden89 , Just because I use Portmaster on Desktop and Invizible Pro on Android, with these I am already well served against ads and trackers of any kind and more.
-
Vivaldi doesn’t have WebExtension support currently. WebExtensions is the name given to Firefox’s extension apis. While initially based heavily on the Chrome manifest v2 apis to make it easier for developers, the WebExtensions apis go way further in what they allow: for instance, adding extension interaction with the sidebars.
If Vivaldi implemented WebExtension support, they wouldn’t need their own extension hub, as they could just use addons.Mozilla.org.
They wouldn’t even be the first 3rd party browser to add support. Gnome Web (aka Epiphany) browser is adding support in the next version to come out.
-
I just want to say..
Julien Picalausa and the whole Vivaldi team - Thank you!
Just like this guy here: https://www.reddit.com/r/vivaldibrowser/comments/xpcbs9/i_am_just_so_proud_and_happy_that_vivaldi_is/
-
-
@barbudo2005 , yes, way better with more features.
-
@Jknapp1208 said in Manifest V3, webRequest, and ad blockers:
You should switch to rust adblock by Brave to conserve memory. It is closely based on Ublock and integrates directly into the browser engine itself.
"closely based?" not even close I'd say, uBlock Origin is way more than an ad-blocker but not many people seem to know it
-
@julien_picalausa: Thanks !
From my POV, keeping as much of the API as easily possible would be a very good plus for V : beyond just the few advertised extensions needing webRequest, you will also have a lot of the backlog of abandoned but still working extensions that will not be updated to Mv3 available for V.
That's a huge ecosystem already there.
(but of course, I'm aware of the problematics of doing it, UI/UX wise, and store wise, beyond just the implementation) -
This post is deleted! -
@TalGarik said in Manifest V3, webRequest, and ad blockers:
it seems quite obvious that the users who will notice how crippled will be their privacy extensions once V3 will kill V2 are users of uBlock Origin and other similar extensions, people liking a granular control of what is going on.
If we look at the download numbers of these extensions - in Chrome, Firefox and Opera's extensions stores - we can notice that these users represent a very small niche, so IMHO the damage to the performance of the extensions brought by V3 is a side effect, it would be ridiculous to think that Google created a complex novelty like V3 to bother 20 millions users (at best)
At the same time that same niche of users - which for Chrome is a drop of water in an ocean - is vital for small companies like Vivaldi.
I guess Vivaldi needs to elevate the level of its internal ad-blocker to uBO levels, this is the only way not to lose users to Firefox.
Frankly I do not know what I will do myself, there are two browsers having features that I consider essential and both of them are chromium based browsers and Firefox cannot match those features.
Alas all of this was sadly predictable: who owns the engine owns the browser.This is spot on. I know for a fact one way or another I will not be having my privacy infringed on. I can pretty much guarantee that if Vivaldi doesn't step up someone else will.
-
In Reddit of uBO:
"June 2023 is the deadline for manifest v2 (for stable chromium version) according to this article"
https://www.reddit.com/r/uBlockOrigin/comments/xrvw9q/june_2023_is_the_deadline_for_manifest_v2_for/
https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/mv3/mv2-sunset/
-
@barbudo2005 . I don't know, but I don't get rid of the suspicion that with Mv3 Google is going to shoot itself in the knee.
-
@Catweazle said in Manifest V3, webRequest, and ad blockers:
@barbudo2005 . I don't know, but I don't get rid of the suspicion that with Mv3 Google is going to shoot itself in the knee.
while these days we are seeing a sort of psychodrama on various social platforms, most of it is due to the misunderstanding that with Manifest V3 Google will ban/eliminate ad-blocking extensions. IMHO the number of users who will see a dramatic change in their desktop internet experience is very limited: people who simply install uBO and don't use its advanced features will not notice much of a difference with uBlock Lite.
If ad-blockers - and particularly uBlock Origin - were a factor capable of moving people to another browser then Firefox' android market share should not be around 0%
-
The pertinent question based on this information (https://developer.chrome.com) is, will we be able to continue using uBO until June 2023?