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?