Solved Support Extensions
-
Japanese Staff @ahojo said "the reason Vivaldi don't have Extension is that Chromium don't support it". And "We know that many user hope to add Extension to Vivaldi. So, We are examining various approach."
Quotation Source : Androidη: ε°ζ₯γζ‘εΌ΅ζ©θ½γδ½Ώγγγγγ«γͺγε―θ½ζ§γ―γγγΎγγοΌ
-
Actually the only thing I need from mobile browser is to normally (without ruining the pages DOM) and less traffic usage. So the thing that helps to achieve that is ad blocker. For example Brave is way faster and less traffic hungry because they did native ad blocker. I know that ads are good for favorite websites to live, I always turn off ad blocker on the websites I want to support, but overall its a good tool to have, because web is full of crappy 5MB banners
So: there is not actually much need in full extensions support for mobile browser, but some built in functionality extension is probably welcomed, not just visual. -
@0x49D1 said in Support Extensions:
So: there is not actually much need in full extensions support for mobile browser, but some built in functionality extension is probably welcomed, not just visual.
... for you. On Firefox I've got 11 extensions installed, not counting themes.
-
I think the priority of most people here, including myself, is to have extensions that can strip off adds and other trackers. So if you can add this natively, like "Bromite browser" and other does, most people will not ask for full extension support.
-
Why don't start a poll and choose 3 or some more features to develop inside Vivaldi, instead of external addon? I say this because I read few posts ago that Chrome won't support extentions on Android...
-
fyi ,yandex browser had extensions and that browser based on chromium too. Hope the developer team use that to develop this feature.
-
I would suggest adding support for userscripts. Many extensions are available as a script
Doctor Flay β’
-
@TMSxVivaldi said in Support Extensions:
I think the priority of most people here, including myself, is to have extensions that can strip off adds and other trackers. So if you can add this natively, like "Bromite browser" and other does, most people will not ask for full extension support.
Ok, let's put this to bed. People who want to block ads need to vote for this feature. The only way you'll be able to block ads in Vivaldi is with extensions. Vivaldi Android is not going to implement ad blocking, Jon has made this clear. However, the core of Vivaldi's mission statement is user choice. "A browser that adapts to you, not the other way around." Vivaldi clearly understands that people want to block ads, and enables users to do so through extensions.
This is actually preferable, let me explain. No browser, mobile or desktop, has built-in ad blocking functionality that is as effective as what can be done with existing extensions.
One thing we should define at the top is what do we mean by ad blocking? Jon is making the distinction between blocking ads and blocking trackers. However, I think many if not most users mean both. To the common user not well-versed in this technology, ad blocking doesn't mean solely the visual ads that are annoying but includes the trackers and scripts that are a threat to privacy and security. You're explicitly bundling these two separate functions into one feature ("adds [sic] and other trackers"). Additionally your example, Bromite, sells itself as having some tracker blocking added, while the dev refers users to Brave if they are seeking better ad blocking. Unless specificity is noted, the term
"ad blocking"means both ads and trackers for the rest of this post, as it is the common understanding.The reality is that neither of those browsers is as good as the solutions available from extensions; in fact, no desktop browser has built-in blocking features that compare to extensions. It is unrealistic to think that Vivaldi Android would build blocking functionality that matches what is already available from extensions, even if they were going to try.
Vivaldi is not a large team, especially compared to the Chrome or Firefox dev teams. Some much-needed revenue is generated through partnerships, that's why the Speed Dial is populated with certain links upon installation of Vivaldi.ΒΉ While I trust Vivaldi, their customer focus is top-notch and they've never given any reason to lose the trust we've placed in them, this fact does create at least a perception of conflict of interest. Jon is aware of this and that's part of the reason why Vivaldi will not include ad blocking (specifically).
These are just some of the reasons, with the current state of technology, extensions are preferable to built-in ad blocking. But there are further reasons for Vivaldi to focus development efforts on support for extensions. Given the limited resources of Vivaldi and their obvious commitment to quality, it takes a good bit of time to create the browser its user base expects. Let's not forget the patience we had to exercise for Vivaldi Android, this beta isn't even a month old. Vivaldi rewards our patience with a stable browser that provides a unique level of flexibility & control.
In conclusion, extensions philosophically align with the core of Vivaldi's raison d'Γͺtre. They bring a wide spectrum of additional functionality that users already enjoy on the desktop without having to dedicate resources to all the different features individually. Supporting extensions has the most votes out of all the feature requests for Vivaldi Android, even more than the explicit request for native ad blocking. Additionally, existing extensions provide superior ad blocking compared to any current native implementation on any platform.
Please vote for this feature if you want to have ad blocking on Vivaldi Android.
"A browser should adapt to you, not the other way around."
1: Not all the included default bookmarks are from sponsors. Vivaldi chooses bookmarks added with a new installation that they believe provide value, only some of them are sponsored.
-
@Baltasar Not totally true.
Yandex support Adguard - which is already a great thing - and some extensions from its store. Ublock didn't work when I tried.
Kiwi, on the other side, support most chrome store extensions, but a total compatibility can't be guaranteed due the differences between chromium on desktop and on android - but "most useful ones" seems to be working correctly.
So, even if an extension support will appear - and I hope so - we have to accept the compromise that something might not work as chromium actually don't officially support any extension on mobile. -
I really need extensions, at least user script engine (Violentmonkey, or Greasemonkey, or Tampermonkey) and user CSS engine (Stylus).
They exist in all extension environments (Chrome, Firefox, Presto) so if Vivaldi enables one of them, I'm saved.
In the meantime, I use Firefox for Android with Violentmonkey and many many user scripts as well as Stylus and some other extensions too.
Update: After Firefox abandoned add-on support, I've been using Kiwi Browser since December 2021, for years, it works great.
-
This post is deleted! -
@S_Paternotte I fully agree. This would be ideal.
-
@MrNoName said in Support Extensions:
regardless of the claim above vivaldi both mobile and desktop will have to eventually create and include their own adblocker like brave has. with google ultimately blocking the installation of adblockers in the future it will be up to the various browser creators to circumvent what google wants so the enduser gets what they want and expect.
Jon has explicitly said they will not develop an ad blocker. Should Manifest v3 actually remove the webRequest functionality that extensions like uBlock Origin and others rely on, Vivaldi has said they will likely expose the necessary functionality to extension developers so they can continue to provide the same level of ad & tracker blocking they do today. This is the Vivaldi way, providing users the flexibility to configure & extend the browser as they desire. That said, it remains to be seen how all this will play out. The changes to the API effect more than just blockers, and the final functionality is not set in stone. I don't have faith that Google in the end will make things easy for blocking extension developers, though I do have faith that Vivaldi will respond to any changes and enable users to have the features the want.
-
@MrNoName said in Support Extensions:
glad to hear vivaldi will be proactive where the code is concerned if google should follow through with their threat, and before you comment yes many of us consider it a threat.
Oh, I agree. Raymond did what he could to explain why a wholly declarative API is insufficient to support what UBO and other powerful blocking extensions are doing in the official issue. Google's response was nothing more than lip service to the extension devs, suggesting the issue was only opened as a PR tool - they can say the listened to the devs and tell the public their solution offers enough protection.
-
This post is deleted! -
This post is deleted! -
This post is deleted! -
This post is deleted! -
@Hadden89 said in Support Extensions:
@lonm Chrome never supported extensions on mobile.
And always been quite heavy on cpu/ram on my phone, like Firefox (even without extensions).
But most useful extensions may actually work on android.Hmm, that's strange. Kiwi browser is a Chrome fork on Android, even in the Play Store and last time I checked, it allows you to install Chrome extensions as if you were on desktop.
Right now Kiwi is the only mobile browser for me that is worth using.
-
@Deyirn Yeah, I said that in a later post
