Is there a reason why the extension is not available for Safari?

[locksoft]

Prerequisites

• I verified that this is not a filter list issue. Report any issues with filter lists or broken website functionality in the uAssets issue tracker.
• This is not a support issue or a question. For support, questions, or help, visit /r/uBlockOrigin.
• I performed a cursory search of the issue tracker to avoid opening a duplicate issue.
• The issue is not present after disabling uBO in the browser.
• I checked the documentation to understand that the issue I am reporting is not normal behavior.

I tried to reproduce the issue when...

• uBO is the only extension.
• uBO uses default lists and settings.
• using a new, unmodified browser profile.

Description

Sorry, I can't find a way to contact directly developers and I have not a reddit account. I used uBlock Origin on Chrome and it's honestly the only blocker that really works. I'm desperately looking for something similar for Safari with no luck.
Is there a reason why there's not a plugin for this browser?
Is it planned?
Thanks.

A specific URL where the issue occurs.

www.apple.ocm

Steps to Reproduce

I can't simply find the extension

Expected behavior

Well, work like on Chrome

Actual behavior

No extension available

uBO version

no one

Browser name and version

Safari 17.0

Operating System and version

MacOS Sonoma

[gwarser]

uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home#52

[ivansavra1]

@locksoft Hey, so sorry for not answering before, I forgot. Good news is that, at the time, I was using Wipr 1, since then I decided to buy Wipr 2 mainly to support the sole developer, I think the price is reasonable, especially when other paid solutions are subscription-based (Like 1Blocker and AdGuard)

The main difference I noticed, is that YouTube ads are now blocked flawlessly, and Wipr 2 (Unlike the original) is an universal app, you buy it once and it covers iOS and macOS.

[ivansavra1]

@locksoft You should not solely trust that test.

It's a good indicative, of course it's best to do your own testing to see, but synthetic tests/benchmarks are faster, and easier to do, since you get a "score" to estimate.
If you're aware of better adblocking testing tools, please share.

[MasterKia]

It's a good indicative

No it's not. Even a PiHole with "proper" filters can get a full score.

And by the way that test site is now dead.

[ivansavra1]

It's a good indicative

No it's not. Even a PiHole with "proper" filters can get a full score.

And by the way that test site is now dead.

Technically speaking, maybe it's not foolproof, but in my own experience, these kind of tests were indicative (With the exception of Brave, which for some reason gets imperfect scores, with no noticeable difference in terms of ads)

In the context of this thread, I think it's more productive to make tests and take them into account (Knowing full well it's just an indication), instead of just criticizing their use without providing a comparable alternative. Always remember that not everyone has the time or knowledge to make in-depth comparisons to find the best adblocker, some of us want something with reproducible scores that you can just "Install, enable, and forget about it", and I think that's fine.

[Yuki2718]

The test was just totally broken https://brave.com/blog/adblocker-testing-websites-harm-users/. It's not at all indicative of anything - even the linked article doesn't explain all.