Naturally, complaining about it here isn't going to change anything. Apple launched the iTunes Store before the selection was as big as it is now. The same goes for iPhone apps, widgets, etc.
- If they wait until there's a robust selection, people complain that they're taking too long to open the gallery.
- If they release what they have, people complain that there isn't a better selection.
- If they release everything they get their hands on, without thoroughly testing, people complain that the quality sucks.
Apple does plenty of things for which they are to blame, but this isn't one of them. They have what they have. They'll have more in the future. There it is.
"Any customer can have a car painted any colour that he wants so long as it is black"
- Henry Ford
No, it probably won't change anything, but it will stimulate discussion on what may be causing this delay (and why it's important for Apple that it be resolved quickly). 99.9% of the posts on this website won't change anything, does that mean we should cease all discourse?
You do make a good point, though. People will always complain and this is no exception. The difference, though, is that this complaint seems justified. Why would you tout Safari 5 as the most advanced web browser when the poor selection of extensions severely limits its productivity/functionality (not to mention the other bugs)? Personally, I think Apple really should have waited another month or two before making any of these wild claims; they didn't live up to their own hype. Notice that if the end-user isn't aware of the coming feature, then they can't complain it's taking too long to come to market. Apple made a strategic decision that, in my opinion, was misguided.
Sure, Apple is free to determine what criteria to use when determining when a product is ready for launch, but judging by the majority of responses to the selection (or lack thereof) of extensions, perhaps they should have waited a bit longer.
All developers receive a digital certificate when they download the resources required to develop the extensions regardless if they are distributed via the official gallery or elsewhere.
This just makes each extension identifiable to the developer such that a malicious extension would be tied to an individual. This is done to promote accountability.
All extensions are also sandboxed to limit exploitability. So, in terms of security, there is no difference between official and unofficial extensions. The level of sandboxing for safari extensions is supposedly greater than that of firefox extensions.
From what I understand, official extensions are the ones that meet the requirements defined by apple that specify that extensions do not crash and meet user interface standards.
I don't fully understand 'sandboxing', but thanks for the clarification. That said, I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make.
Only extensions available from Apple's official extensions gallery are supported/secure. In other words, if the extension does not meet the UI/Crash standards set by Apple, then it is neither supported nor secure.
All I'm saying is that Apple needs to get a better selection of
approved extensions ASAP. Otherwise, Safari is going to crash and burn... especially with the release of Firefox 4 not too far away.
