Why can't chrome support FF addons... It's the only reason I use it to begin with. The extensions on chrome are shit.

>>55354624
Hello newfag

>>55354543
Uh... that kind of sounds like Firefox is taking the advantageous position here?

Chrome extensions are just userscript. So Firefox is implementing native support for userscripts written for Chrome. Chrome would never be able to do the opposite because Firefox extensions can actually add code to Firefox's interface. That would require openness Chrome isn't willing to provide.

Anyway. Now Firefox will be truly omnipotent. GG OP, Chrome is really "winning".

>>55356117
>Chrome extensions are just userscript.
No they're not

>>55356581
No, you're right. Sometimes, they're just completely separate applications, written in javascript, that run through chrome.

How exactly are they being cucked by Chrome in this scenario?

>>55357313
that's the thing that no one understands
OP >>55354543 dare to explain?

>>55357516
uh oh, sorry, i meant „care”

>August 21, 2015
A multi million dollar company has been working on it for almost a year but it's still not implemented. Open source, everyone.

>>55357575
Congratulations, weakest bait today.

>>55356117
Did you not read the article? In particular:
>But the move is not without drawbacks.

>Mozilla say that many existing Firefox add-ons will need to be redeveloped from scratch.

>While they plan to “work with the community to improve and finalize the WebExtensions API, and […] help developers of unsupported add-ons make the transition to newer APIs and multi-process support,” the news of a reset is unlikely to go down well.

>Support for XPCOM- and XUL-based Firefox add-ons is to be phased out. This could see many popular Firefox themes and interface-based add-ons, like Classic Theme Restorer, no longer be able to do what they do at present.
They will be deprecating all of the old addons and the new Chrome compatible addons will be able to do everything that the old Firefox ones could do.

EXTERMINATE