Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

OS X El Capitan to Bring New Safari Extensions Gallery as Part of Unified $99 Developer Program

groovyd said:
True developers with a purpose will not think twice about such a small fee. Nothing is really free is it? I mean the person putting out a free extension does it to be able to say they did it
Click to expand...

$100 is not a small fee to everyone and Apple are essentially charging developers for the "privilege" of spending huge amounts of time creating extensions which are free to help Safari reach feature parity with its competitors.

For someone who only wants to develop extensions, the $99 fee is not worth it and they'll just redirect their energy to Chrome and Firefox. It these developers want to be able to say "they did it", they'll aim at the 60-70% combined marketshare of Chrome and Firefox rather than the 5% share that Safari has.

This is just another example of the supreme arrogance of Apple - that they think they can charge this and developers will still code for their single-digit-market-share browser is hilarious. They have totally misjudged the balance of power with this decision because for once it isn't with them, its with the developers
 
  • Like
Reactions: NuclearWasted and redheeler
KALLT said:
I wonder how lenient Apple will be on the content blocking. Will they refuse JSON submissions that block ads, including their own or the ones they have a financial interest in? I am not sure whether extension developers are really looking forward to this bureaucracy that Apple is bringing now and with the loss of auto-updates, Apple pretty much cripples extensions that are not distributed through Apple's gallery (and in turn Apple's control).
Click to expand...


Bring on Ghostery!!!!
 
Watabou said:
This is bad. This means that developers of extensions like RES and uBlock are now forced to pay Apple $99 to produce free extensions for Safari.

More here:

1. RES: http://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/397bn6/apple_wants_me_to_pay_100_to_continue_publishing/

2. uBlock: http://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/398fgq/apples_new_safari_extension_policy_100year_to/
Click to expand...
I believe it's only 99 if you want to be featured in the Safari Gallery. ublock and everyone can continue to offer their extensions for free however that are now. They just want get the added benefit of visibility through the new gallery. Just like anyone can sell and iPhone app on their own but if they want to get app store visibility and auto updates they have to sell through the store and pay accordingly.

I think this is great news since customers can choose to simply use the gallery and then not worry about hundreds of duplicate buggy unhelp software since if someone is paying 99 they are putting at least some effort into it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gasu E.
Darth.Titan said:
I believe you're the first person in this thread who understands. This is a good thing. Now just one fee gets you iOS, OS X, and Safari Developer programs. Nothing changes except having to be a paid dev to publish Safari Extensions to the Gallery.
Click to expand...

Except I would argue the majority of developers who produce safari extensions are not developers for the Apple ecosystem, they are browser extension developers who target Chrome, Firefox and Safari. They have no need or want to develop for iOS or OS X.
 
  • Like
Reactions: S G
redheeler said:
The way I understand it, the fee is required to obtain a dev cert required to develop and install the extensions. It's not just to put it on the Safari Extensions Gallery.
Click to expand...

Its similar to how Google does it - only signed extensions in their store and they have locked side-loading by default. The only way to side-load is to enable developer mode in Chrome.

Of course, the difference is that Apple is charging 20 times the $5 amount Google charge.

$5 paid to Google lets you develop for 40% of the desktop market.
$100 to Apple lets you develop for 5% of the desktop market.

Someone at Apple forgot to screw their head on properly.
 
Last edited:
SlCKB0Y said:
$100 is not a small fee to everyone and Apple are essentially charging developers for the "privilege" of spending huge amounts of time creating extensions which are free to help Safari reach feature parity with its competitors.

For someone who only wants to develop extensions, the $99 fee is not worth it and they'll just redirect their energy to Chrome and Firefox. It these developers want to be able to say "they did it", they'll aim at the 60-70% combined marketshare of Chrome and Firefox rather than the 5% share that Safari has.

This is just another example of the supreme arrogance of Apple - that they think they can charge this and developers will still code for their single-digit-market-share browser is hilarious. They have totally misjudged the balance of power with this decision because for once it isn't with them, its with the developers
Click to expand...

they don't think developers who care about $100 matter clearly to their target audience.
 
ryansimmons323 said:
It also means no more free developer accounts for us non-developers but interested users, which have so far given me free access to dev forums, WWDC videos, etc.
Click to expand...

This is not the case.

Actually now as a non-enrolled (free) Apple developer you can even install your apps on your iOS device for free. And of course do all the stuff you mention. To me this is a more exciting turn.

Now, it's time to donate to those people developing the extensions we love to use!
 
So Daring Fireball With Comments is in the gun. Gruber will be lobbying to get it not approved even if the dev pays.
 
reevans said:
If your extension is worth 99 cents to 100 people a year, you can make the cost back. Apple App Store will hopefully give you the ability to charge for your extensions if you want If your extension is more popular, you could even buy a coffee once and a while.
Click to expand...
Not quite. Since Apple keeps 30%, it must be worth ¢99 to around 143 people a year to make back the costs. ;)

Anyway this is bad for some really nice small extensions like Yays! (deactivates autoplay in YouTube videos and sets it to any resolution) or User CSS whose developers might not have apps on OS X or iOS so they certainly wouldn’t pay a hundred dollars a year just to put their tiny extension into the extension gallery.

TechRemarker said:
I believe it's only 99 if you want to be featured in the Safari Gallery. ublock and everyone can continue to offer their extensions for free however that are now. They just want get the added benefit of visibility through the new gallery. Just like anyone can sell and iPhone app on their own but if they want to get app store visibility and auto updates they have to sell through the store and pay accordingly.
Click to expand...
How can you sell iPhone apps if not via the iOS app store on a not jailbroken device?
 
  • Like
Reactions: SlCKB0Y
SlCKB0Y said:
Its similar to how Google does it - only signed extensions in their store and they have locked side-loading by default. The only way to side-load is to enable developer mode in Chrome.

Of course, the difference is that Apple is charging 20 times the $5 amount Google charge.

$5 paid to Google lets you develop for 40% of the desktop market.
$100 to Apple lets you develop for 5% of the desktop market.

Someone at Apple forgot to screw their head on properly.
Click to expand...
$5 once.
Where Apple requires $100 yearly
 
I think ultimately this is good news for consumers. Serious developers will happily stump up the $100 to continue to build great experiences in Safari. Others can raise funding through donations or whatever to continue to pay to play.

This will help weed out a lot of the junk and abandoned extensions and bring a much more vibrant Safari experience for the rest of us.
 
  • Like
Reactions: darkknight14
A lot of people like the safe environment apple creates for the apps.
So when it makes people happy, then it is a good thing.

That will not prevent developers to create extensions for safari outside this safe app environment.
 
Well I hope that if there is a fee they will help the developer make the extension actually work properly. I really like Safari but sometimes I just need to use chrome because adblock works SO much better on chrome, especially for those annoying video ads
 
I'm not sure this marks the downturn of Safari extensions people are predicting, because it also corresponds to the people being able to make iOS Safari extensions too, a previously unavailable market. It's entirely possible that this will result in more desktop Safari extensions being available even.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gasu E.
TechRemarker said:
I believe it's only 99 if you want to be featured in the Safari Gallery. ublock and everyone can continue to offer their extensions for free however that are now. They just want get the added benefit of visibility through the new gallery. Just like anyone can sell and iPhone app on their own but if they want to get app store visibility and auto updates they have to sell through the store and pay accordingly.

I think this is great news since customers can choose to simply use the gallery and then not worry about hundreds of duplicate buggy unhelp software since if someone is paying 99 they are putting at least some effort into it.
Click to expand...

I agree. As a consumer, this is good news. I hear some casual developers complaining; but frankly, as an end-user (the people who spend the money that underwrites the business), I like the idea of Apple-vetted extensions. And I would gladly pay an entire $2.99 (not just $.99 as for iOS) for a useful, reliable, safe Mac Safari extension.
 
aristokrat said:
I'm not sure this marks the downturn of Safari extensions people are predicting, because it also corresponds to the people being able to make iOS Safari extensions too, a previously unavailable market. It's entirely possible that this will result in more desktop Safari extensions being available even.
Click to expand...

That's an interesting observation, and possibly what Apple has in mind. But of course, 80% of people will react to any change with the most cynical and negative response.
 
I can see what Apple is trying to do to help developers that are interested in developing for the Mac and iOS platforms but seriously bad move to take free development of safari extensions away. I'm moving to Chrome and totally off Safari. I used ad blocking add ons and the like and I can imagine those developers aren't going to be renewing for my free ad block (although I did donate to the developer).
 
Gasu E. said:
I agree. As a consumer, this is good news. I hear some casual developers complaining; but frankly, as an end-user (the people who spend the money that underwrites the business), I like the idea of Apple-vetted extensions. And I would gladly pay an entire $2.99 (not just $.99 as for iOS) for a useful, reliable, safe Mac Safari extension.
Click to expand...
I'm sure that forcing me to charge for my work will do wonders for the quality of my code.
 
  • Like
Reactions: navaira
I can't speak for the rest of you but I prefer knowing the people who make Safari extensions are accountable. Safari extensions have access to ALL the data on your webpage. That includes all banking and shopping data. Scary stuff.
 
This could be a deal-breaker for me. If this breaks Click-to-Plugin, literally the only thing that makes the web bearable for me, I simply won't upgrade.

This is what you get for putting Kevin Lynch, The Anti-Jobs, in charge of all Apple technology. Steve ensured All Apple OSes were Flash-free. Lynch (Mr Flash) is not silly enough to just reverse that decision. It will be death by a thousand cuts and this looks to be one of them.

Adobe bought THE ad tracker, moved its servers literally nextdoor to the NSA's and offered to profile all internet users for intelligence services. Thats the mentality of the company. Then Cook employed Lynch, who made it his mission to attack Jobs over Flash, the embodiment of Adobe mentality. Every bit of good Cook does after that fatal decision is moral self-licensing for what he did to Apple users by folding to the surveillance state. Including encrypting iCloud with NSA "approved" encryption.

I tested betas for Yosemite. I'm the first to upgrade, bugs or no bugs, but THIS… could be the last straw.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back