this post was submitted on 28 Feb 2024

13 points (60.7% liked)

Firefox

18626 readers

72 users here now

A place to discuss the news and latest developments on the open-source browser Firefox

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

k_o_t@lemmy.ml

Why does not firefox care more about the android version? (lemy.lol)

submitted 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) by King@lemy.lol to c/firefox@lemmy.ml

30 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Firefox for Android does not support Material UI, has a low minimum API level, and generally seems lacking in features. Why is that?

Edit 1: also the downloading function is super unstable, I lost several files due to firefox starting the download then stopping and removing the download for no reason.

all 31 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] eager_eagle@lemmy.world 39 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Every app has a minimum API level. The older the Android version, the more expensive it becomes to maintain it. What features do you miss?

[+] King@lemy.lol -32 points 11 months ago (2 children)

My question is why they don't bump their min api.

For example brave support android 8 and up while firefox supports android 5 and up.

[–] PM_ME_YOUR_CODE@sh.itjust.works 76 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Supporting old api versions means the app is supported by more phones. International android versions can be quite old. While supporting old api versions may seem bad, it doesn't mean that Firefox cannot take advantage of new api features too. The code can simply check if the new features are available and use them.

Why do you care what the supported api version is?

[–] sab@kbin.social 12 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I think people can be running pretty old versions of Android everywhere, assuming they don't change their phones every two years when support for their current device ends. They might still want to use an up-to-date web browser.

There's just no reason we shouldn't expect 99% of new apps to run on older phones, and to hell with the entire industry for normalizing it.

[–] taladar@sh.itjust.works 2 points 11 months ago

Well, there is a reason and that reason is lack of security support but that is not inherent to the old hardware.

[+] King@lemy.lol -25 points 11 months ago (1 children)

This link would explain to you why supporting old versions of android is bad

[–] kbal@fedia.io 48 points 11 months ago (2 children)

The topmost answers there are basically explaining why it's sometimes convenient for developers to drop support for old versions. I don't see any of them making a case for the zany idea that "supporting old versions is bad."

[–] Max_P@lemmy.max-p.me 5 points 11 months ago

Also when you start on an old version of Android it's much easier to incrementally add support for the newer features with API version checks. But if you start a brand new app with a target of Android 14, it's gonna be feel like you're just throwing compatibility hacks all over the place to support older versions. Similar end result, but the perspective of the second one makes it look much dirtier than it really is.

Firefox was around when Android 5 came out, so it makes sense that they'd keep up with new features without rewriting the old stuff, so no need for them to raise the minimum SDK, only the target SDK.

A lot of apps also rely on frameworks like React Native, Cordova, Ionic, Xamarin and whatnot that also only target some ranges, so a good chunk of apps could run fine on older versions if the framework hadn't dropped support for it.

But from a code perspective, you could build for minSdk=1 and targetSdk=34 and run well on both without sacrificing anything for the modern versions.

[–] GolfNovemberUniform@lemmy.ml 24 points 11 months ago

Bruh because then the app will not work on older phones and it can even be slower

[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 24 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Chromium browsers are much worse in my experience. They don't even support extensions

[–] FriendBesto@lemmy.ml 11 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Internet without full on uBlock Origin is crazy full of ads.

[–] leanleft@lemmy.ml 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

fyi cromite and bromite allow to disable cookies, javascript, popups, ads, and autoplay. (per site and global)
similar to noscript maybe.
i would rather have more or full control like ublock or umatrix.

[–] drawerair@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

I've been using Firefox and Ublock origin on my Samsung a70 for a long time. I'm :).

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 4 points 11 months ago

Ad block alone is a big performance boost, which is especially noticeable on mobile. I can't stand using my wife's phone (iPhone) because of the ads on the browser.

[–] Quintus@lemmy.ml 23 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I'm pretty sure the reason why it doesn't use Material Design is to protect it's own branding. Material Design is Google's after all.

[–] Fake4000@lemmy.world 21 points 11 months ago (5 children)

Firefox for Android might not be that great in terms of performance, but is a viable option out of the Chrome eco system. Firefox Sync works. The only thing its lacking at the moment is universal support for all existing Firefox plugins.

[–] maiskanzler@feddit.de 27 points 11 months ago

That kind of changed recently, hasn't it? There's been an explosion of available plugins as if late.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 6 points 11 months ago (1 children)

How is performance not great? About 2-3 years ago, they made a huge amount of improvements to Firefox performance, to the point where it's plenty fast. I have it set as my default browser and have actually disabled Chrome so Firefox is used for everything.

Performance is more than sufficient for me, and I've done a mix of playing browser games and regular browsing and haven't had any issues. And this isn't on a flagship phone or anything, it's just a Moto G Power. I don't really notice any performance issues, and it's probably actually faster than Chrome on average because my ad blocker means i have to render far less stuff.

[–] drawerair@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago

No performance issue on my Firefox too. I have Ublock origin.

[–] leanleft@lemmy.ml 4 points 11 months ago

if performance isnt great, then there are 1000 settings to help you fix it.

[–] LinkOpensChest_wav@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 11 months ago

Forks like Mull and Fennec technically have access to all avaliable plugins, but it a bit annoying to set up. I don't know why they don't add an option to enable adding all plugins, with a disclaimer that some of them might not function as intended on Android.

All of the plugins I've tried in Fennec have worked just fine.

[–] MrPhibb@reddthat.com 1 points 11 months ago

It particularly sucks for desktop use on phones that support it, no right click, no keyboard short cuts, and it clips a bit off the bottom of pages, and they've apparently said they have no plans to support desktop on Android.

[–] Swarfega@lemm.ee 13 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I actually prefer Chrome over Firefox. But fuck Google and fuck Chrome.

I'm happier since leaving Chrome and Google for Firefox and DuckDuckGo. I no longer have to use Incognito to do regular searches to prevent seeing that search as a recommendation in feeds and videos.

[–] isVeryLoud@lemmy.ca 4 points 11 months ago

That's really creepy, I forgot Google did that. Been with Kagi for a while.

[–] frankpsy@lemm.ee 8 points 11 months ago

I'm just glad that it exists at all. Google has Chrome tied down on Android because they feel they can.

[–] dessalines@lemmy.ml 7 points 11 months ago (1 children)

No horizontal tabs makes it useless for tablets and larger screens.

[–] rorschah@lemdro.id 5 points 11 months ago

The following PR actually implements a desktop like UI for firefox android.Hope it will be in atleast beta soon.

https://github.com/mozilla-mobile/firefox-android/pull/5218#issuecomment-1966233109