Ok, the method of installation is a big one. And it must be solved. But beyond that ?

If it is only a number of highlighted add-ons, let’s put it as a parameter… Any other difference should be handled as a parameter. Not as different account or site.

IMHO, all AMO sites should have different style sheets but the same functions (installation method apart).

So, please share the same database, the same pages, and just pass the name of the software (FF, TB, SB or whatever) as a parameter for each page, that triggers the displayed addons, the style sheet, and the installation method. And even with doing that, you still can have separate URLS like firefox.addons.mozilla.org, or thunderbird.addons.mozilla.org

And solve the installation method issue. This is the biggest issue to me for other apps than Firefox.

This being said, I like the mockups. But please, just add a visible link to other apps, and as already said, apply the same changes that you propose to all applications.

The needs are the same.. except some manageable by parameters… and bloody installation method

Thank you.

PS: and a last thought: could a similar feature be included in every product that has an addons.mozilla.org page, like a built-in notifier for new addons (not updated ones) ? Not an RSS flows, there are ones but they need to be set up. But something set at software installation: “Do you know that tons of addons are available there ? Do you want to be notified of newly created addons” ?
This is pretty obvious in the post-installation page of Firefox, but not for other products.
But maybe it is a silly proposal

I’m absolutely appalled at how incredibly Firefox-centric the new AMO would become. Yes, Firefox is a great product. I acknowledge that. Yes, I use Firefox and its extensions. But here Mozilla wants to portray that I actually have to scrutinize every single *fine print* to find the extensions for my email client / calendar?

It was mentioned that there were *only* three extensions … But by citing this as a reason, extension authors all the more no longer have an incentive to write extensions since there’s virtually no easy way to navigate to download the extensions.

It should be made easier to access add-ons for the other products, not harder. This way, there is actually a step back for add-ons sites. Is there really going to be multiple add-on sites? Whatever happened to the concept of one site for all?

app designers:
Where the hell is our space now, are we completely excluded from the Mozilla vision now? That would be a point to increase the hatred some community folks are seeing against MoCo currently.

users:
Damn, I can’t find Thunderbird or Sunbird extensions. They probably don’t exist anyways. Thunderbird sucks because it doesn’t have X. Sunbird sucks because Y doesn’t work. (He couldn’t find that extensions exist that do those things).
What the f*** do those damn SeaMonkey devs tell me when I come to a Firefox Add-Ons page when I use their suite? SeaMonkey sucks. Firefox is annoying because it shows up everywhere even if I don’t use it. (he accessed addons.mozilla.org, btw.)

extension devs:
Why should I upload my extension that works for all of SeaMonkey, Thunderbird and Firefox to three Add-Ons sites? I probably will only upload to one of them, matching the product I like best or use. Mozilla sucks.

Ville

Looks great!

What kind of heads-up time are you planning on giving the localizers? I suspect there’s some new string work there…?

So far no string changes. We’ll give localizers a heads up as soon as possible if we make any changes.