Since MV3 Chrome has not had better extension API support, although Apple’s insistence on publishing them on the App Store means availability is still restricted. I’ve found that using `xcrun safari-web-extension-converter` on almost any Chrome extension works fine and I’ve self-signed a few (eg. Bypass Paywalls Clean) with Xcode to run on my Mac and iPhone.

▲

lapcat 9 hours ago | parent [-]

> Apple’s insistence on publishing them on the App Store means availability is still restricted.

This is not true. You can distribute Safari extensions outside the Mac App Store.

While it's true that you can't distribute Safari extensions outside the iOS App Store, mobile Chrome doesn't even have extension support, so in this case, Safari has vastly better extension support.

▲

argsnd 8 hours ago | parent [-]

You do still need to notarise it with an Apple Developer membership, right? Else you have to enable unsigned extensions every time you open Safari. The cost barrier is still there even if the approval barrier isn’t.

▲

lapcat 7 hours ago | parent [-]

Yes, but your initial comment was kind of a strange way to phrase a cost complaint. After all, Google insists that extensions be published in the Chrome Web Store, and that requires Google's approval, a process that can often take much longer than App Store approval.

I suspect that the difference in extension availability is mostly due to desktop market share, since Safari is nonexistent on Windows and Linux.

▲

argsnd 7 hours ago | parent [-]

There’s quite a difference between a one time $5 fee and an annual $99 fee for the economics of publishing a free browser extension.

Given almost 100% compatibility with the same Web Extension APIs that Chrome uses, I think you’d expect near-parity in extension availability between Chrome and Safari if that barrier didn’t exist.

	▲	lapcat 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> There’s quite a difference between a one time $5 fee and an annual $99 fee for the economics of publishing a free browser extension. Yes? I didn't deny that. I said your initial comment didn't mention cost. > Given almost 100% compatibility with the same Web Extension APIs that Chrome uses, I think you’d expect near-parity in extension availability between Chrome and Safari if that barrier didn’t exist. It feels like you ignored the points I made in my last comment. Why would you expect near parity in extension availability when you can't even develop Safari extensions on Windows and Linux computers?