Mostly so, it's got all the limitations of Manifest V3 which prevents it from doing a good bit of blocking, https://ublockorigin.com/#manifest-v3-section

In particular:

* Cannot use all filter lists simultaneously (rule limits apply)

* No cosmetic filtering in the default mode

* No scriptlet injection by default

* Limited dynamic filtering capabilities

* Requires broader host permissions upfront

But it's definitely still better than no adblockers

FYI uBlock Origin Lite on iOS is inferior to AdGuard and (I think) Wipr as it's just a WebExtension, so it'll only block ads within Safari itself.

AdGuard and Wipr use both the Web Extension and Content Blocker APIs, so they'll block ads in all web views system wide on top of within Safari itself.

However as far as trustworthiness goes, uBlock is (imo) #1.

  “wBlock runs entirely within Safari's content blocking API. There's no data collection, no tracking, and no system-level extensions that can monitor your browsing.“

    uBOL doesn't work in apps, it works only in Safari, it's a pure browser extension, the "app" part of uBOL is an Apple requirement just for the sake of installing the extension.

    Copied from #408:

    uBOL will stay a webextensions-based browser extension, I do not plan to go further than this, I do not have the time and motivation to take on more work than I already do.
    What people may ask though is that Apple maybe supports webextensions in WebApp, if that is possible at all.

This is not a true uBlock Origin. It's a best effort attempt at converting UBO rules to Apple's declarative blocking framework, but is nowhere near as capable as actual UBO.

Also, if you use Orion Browser, they did implement the full Manifest v2 extension spec on top of WebKit, which lets you use full uBlock origin directly.

Love Firefox. But I always thought it was terribly misguided product direction of them to ever release this as a separate iOS app.

If you search the App Store and don’t find it, it’s called Firefox Klar in some markets

Yes and not only that, one can enable that as a safari extension and get an ad-free experience on safari too.

UBlock lite extension on Safari blocks ads on YouTube? Is Brave not better?

Challenger appears, one positive feedback so far: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49321078

"Firefox blocks many types of advertising at the network level. It uses a filter list based on EasyList to block many ads before they load."

I guess still all DNS it seems? For which NextDNS is much more useful.

Cross platform bookmark support is my favourite feature.

Using Brave on desktop and Vanadium on my phone. They are more secure and private which is why I like them.

I've been using it for 20 years and switched 4 yearso ago to something else. My life is fine, thanks.

EDIT: so, the downvotes are because what, exactly?

Ads are bad! Blocking ads on our own homepage? How do you expect us to keep the lights on?

> Sponsored content on the Firefox Home or New Tab page

Not ideal, but (at least on desktop) you can set the Home page to a blank page, and there is an extension called 'Blank New Tab' that I've been using for quite a while.

The correct way to avoid ads is to not visit pages that use them.

> You can manage the sponsored content on the Firefox Home and New Tab page in your Homepage settings.

Mozilla knows not to bite Google’s hand, who is the one that actually feeds them hundreds of millions of dollars.

"better than nothing"

It doesn't have those limitations on Windows or Android, so it must be an Apple requirement or limitation.

> unless you move to the EU or Japan

Not only that, but the "entitlement" (Apple lingo for code-signature flag that grants capabilities) needed to publish a browser effectively requires to be an established company, ensuring hobbyists can't really get there with an open-source project even though the sources of Firefox are available and could technically be ported.

> Firefox addons target gecko, not webkit.

Are they? I've built a few Firefox extension and I cannot recall any part of the API that is Gecko-specific. While parts of the API aren't entirely browser-agnostic, they definitely seem to be engine-agnostic.

Can you please expand on why what Orion does is hacky and may cause issues with other add ons?

*EU is not one country

Not all markets or manufacturers will have the same degree of vertical integration and that's ok.

While technically allowed, Apple's terms are extensive: https://developer.apple.com/support/alternative-browser-engi...

My current excuse? Android (the only current realistic alternative; I don't have the time nor care to fiddle with technical details on a device that I need to be a reliable tool. I'm not afraid of going deep on something less standard, Linux has been my daily driven OS for literally decades) is trash and untrustworthy in my experience. Browser extensions alone are not nearly enough to tip the scale for me to go back to it. As mentioned I use something that provides extension support already (from a browser that has far fewer developers working on it!), which is why I find it stupid that Mozilla won't figure out a way to do it themselves.

Where do I buy this device that does let me run any software I want?

Most Android phones don't even let users unlock the bootloader anymore. And if you do unlock the bootloader, now Google Pay doesn't work, among other things. I don't really feel like being in control of what software I use when the software I actually want refuses to run. F-Droid homepage is also concerning.

Linux phones barely handle the basic functions.

1. Not wanting to.

2. Caring about other aspects of the device.

I don't personally agree with Apple's decisions, but you "vote with wallet" people need to have at least some modicum of empathy before you start demanding that people have a lot for you and join your cause.

As a mobile device? There are like 3 of them on the market right now and you'll run into huge headaches at every turn if you try and use them.