Nov 15, 2018 - Version 63.0.3, first offered to Release channel users on November 15, 2018. Games using WebGL (created in Unity) get stuck after very. Versions of Firefox 56 for macOS, Windows, and Linux are available now. The new user interface -- but not the improvements to the browsing engine -- will appear on iOS and Android in time. Mac requirements are relatively light, requiring macOS 10.9 or greater, and 512MB of RAM.
I would hope however browsers will not have to be distributed through the App Store if it limits them in other ways. Supposedly there are workarounds for linking the iCloud Keychain and the local one. This is not about macOS only, Linux also has password managers Firefox users were counting on. It all comes down to Mozilla providing a new login storage manager api. If Firefox will not officially support Keychain, letting extensions help (and multiple platforms will benefit from it) should still be an option. So at least the second bugzilla case deserves some attention.
Perhaps the most effective way to draw attention to it is to use the Firefox form (quick and doesn't need any account). Honestly, it's a very small thing that makes a huge difference. If I were to use a third party password manager, I'd go for an opensource one like keepass, but having to configure Mono and letting it take up some GB for one tiny feature that is already there is just so unnecessary. And it's great when it works like it used to. Opening Safari and seeing it takes the passwords saved on Firefox and the other way round. My guess, security reasons. Gatekeeper was introduced to encourage App Store apps which can be tested prior to release by Apple to ensure they don't give away yet keys to the kingdom.
Keychain is the key to the kingdom, so this makes a lot of sense. Surprised this didn't happen sooner.
No reason Mozilla and Google not to consider going the MAS route for their browsers unless they are bending other security guidelines. There are still other password alternatives such as 1Password, and LastPass which seem to work just fine with these browsers. No reason Mozilla and Google not to consider going the MAS route Oh, plenty of reasons. Apart from the additional technical burden of caring for special deployment rules on a single platform (of the 3 or 4 they support), they would become dependent for distribution on Apple’s whim. This is unacceptable for players of that size.
Say tomorrow Apple decide MAS will go the way of iOS store and block reimplementations of provided capabilities, basically forbidding other browsers? They would disappear from the platform.
To avoid that situation, they will always have to provide an independent download. Which means you would have a version of FF for mac that uses the keychain and one that doesn’t: a support nightmare. The keychain version would still have to be able to sync with non-mac, so the actual data would be duplicated anyway and the current system would have to be maintained even there.
It’s more reasonable to just stay where they are, with no effort. Mozilla are not a moonlighting developer, they have a battle-tested and safe solution that works, they don’t really need anything keychain provides. Also, I challenge OP’s belief that “native is better than 3rd party”. FF’s secrets handling is open source, so it is constantly reviewed by the security community at large — unlike Apple’s.
As far as I know, in almost 20 years that component has never suffered a hole as massive as “can logon without password” and other keychain mishaps Apple has seen recently. Vlc player version 2.2 for mac download. Even at the peak of FF’s popularity, when malicious extensions were all the rage, secrets were not compromised. I actually trust Mozilla’s code over Apple’s, since they have less commercial pressure to ship tons of code every September to sell phones.
Mostly security but some of both: in general but especially for something as sensitive as password storage the App Store restrictions are a big safety win for most people (think about your relatives who install things from banner ads) but Apple also gets a cut so they have a conflict of interest recommending it. The thing to remember is that browsers are also an odd case clashing with the App Store rules. Most software doesn’t need anywhere near the level of complexity to run, so the restrictive security model is more reasonable — something like dynamic code generation is necessary for a high performance JavaScript runtime but in most apps that’d be a sign of malware activity. What I wish is that they’d consider a test-in approach where Mozilla or Google could get whitelisted because they’ve demonstrated top notch security competence and response times.