4 ms·

I agree generally with your points, but this doesn't really address the issues being criticised in comments here. I want to use Firefox (I do currently use Fire

I agree generally with your points, but this doesn't really address the issues being criticised in comments here. I want to use Firefox (I do currently use Firefox, despite a lot of limitations), but there comes a tipping point where the balance of privacy (and apparent "user-interest") and actual usability and power leads to a not-so-good proposition. Someone has commented above that it seems like Mozilla management may have been bought off by competitors and may be deliberately trying to run Firefox into the ground. I don't believe this, but given the recent decision-making it's not entirely implausible. Opera went a similar path ~5 years ago. Most Mozillans don't consider this comparable as Opera was closed-source (and there's this one-track tunnel vision people have around that term), but the similarities are stark. A company with a history of listening to its users and a massive level of contribution to open standards and interoperability, making a product that served a niche userbase extremely well, decided that aping it's mainstream competitor (Chrome) directly would somehow be a good move. Now there's no discernible difference between Opera and Chrome, and no reason whatsoever to choose the former over the latter.

exceptione 10y ago
I can't rule that out either. It might be that it is in Googles best interest to kill firefox. Here is an alternative view I have in mind. The strategy to mimick chrome makes sense, because the masses think this is how the browser -- or as they call it the "internet" -- should look like. Its imho feasible to launch a television and internet campaign promoting firefox after the transition by stressing the privacy qualities. Mozilla has a quality other venders don't have. By making it a pain free switch a big market share is possible for firefox. Still, i doubt the current board has this view really in mind. I am thinking if I should apply for a position :)
- CaptSpify 10y ago
  > The strategy to mimick chrome makes sense, because the masses think this is how the browser -- or as they call it the "internet" -- should look like. But that's what FF has been doing for the past ~5 years, and how has their share been doing? Not so well. Chrome has much more marketing behind it. And it comes from a name that people know and trust. Most people don't know who Mozilla is. And most people don't care about avoiding Google. So if I have two browsers, and the lesser known one is constantly following the other, why would I choose it? I'd rather take the leading browser. It seems as if the FF one is just playing catchup the whole time. I love Mozilla and FF because it respects me. But it often feels like they are losing that respect just to play follow the leader
  - exceptione 10y ago
    Everything you said is true. However, > And most people don't care about avoiding Google. ...if that changes, everything changes. Thats the same thing with Signal and WhatsApp. I am positively surprised how easy it is to convert people to Signal and the momentum they are gaining. Maybe they are betting on the very long term? Tbh, I would expect a more focused marketing from Mozilla if that would be the case. I am almost as much confused as you are.
    - CaptSpify 10y ago
      > ...if that changes, everything changes. That's a big "if". How likely is it to change? If history shows anything, not very. Don't get me wrong, I strongly hope they can knock Google off the top spot. But hope doesn't ship units.
      - exceptione 10y ago
        Exactly, that's why they should direct their (still huge) funds to create more awareness.
  - jasonkostempski 10y ago
    Is it still true you can't do extensions for Chrome on Android? If so, they should just do a commercial showing you can use uBlock Origin with it. That could get a good chunk to move on Android and if they use it there they might switch on desktop too.
    - shandor 10y ago
      Definitely. This is exactly the reason I switched from Chrome ro Firefox. I mean, when I'm on mobile it's even more important than on desktop that I have my adblocker in place, as both bandwidth and screen estate are more limited.
    - pjmlp 10y ago
      Most people, aka normal users, don't care for extensions other than themes, if at all. So I doubt it would get any new users other than geek folk.
- Certhas 10y ago
  Also remember that for years people have crucified Firefox for being technically inferior to Chrome. They claim to just use the better browser. And the technical argument they are making, that having so much of the browser exposed made keeping up so much harder (with multi process just rolling out now), makes a lot of sense. Looking at the decisions made maybe the problem is that they made the multiprocess jump first. If they had said two years ago: we are going multiprocess and we need to deprecate XUL plug ins to do so, it would have gone over a lot better.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

exceptione 10y ago

I can't rule that out either. It might be that it is in Googles best interest to kill firefox. Here is an alternative view I have in mind. The strategy to mimick chrome makes sense, because the masses think this is how the browser -- or as they call it the "internet" -- should look like. Its imho feasible to launch a television and internet campaign promoting firefox after the transition by stressing the privacy qualities. Mozilla has a quality other venders don't have. By making it a pain free switch a big market share is possible for firefox. Still, i doubt the current board has this view really in mind. I am thinking if I should apply for a position :)

CaptSpify 10y ago
> The strategy to mimick chrome makes sense, because the masses think this is how the browser -- or as they call it the "internet" -- should look like. But that's what FF has been doing for the past ~5 years, and how has their share been doing? Not so well. Chrome has much more marketing behind it. And it comes from a name that people know and trust. Most people don't know who Mozilla is. And most people don't care about avoiding Google. So if I have two browsers, and the lesser known one is constantly following the other, why would I choose it? I'd rather take the leading browser. It seems as if the FF one is just playing catchup the whole time. I love Mozilla and FF because it respects me. But it often feels like they are losing that respect just to play follow the leader
- exceptione 10y ago
  Everything you said is true. However, > And most people don't care about avoiding Google. ...if that changes, everything changes. Thats the same thing with Signal and WhatsApp. I am positively surprised how easy it is to convert people to Signal and the momentum they are gaining. Maybe they are betting on the very long term? Tbh, I would expect a more focused marketing from Mozilla if that would be the case. I am almost as much confused as you are.
  - CaptSpify 10y ago
    > ...if that changes, everything changes. That's a big "if". How likely is it to change? If history shows anything, not very. Don't get me wrong, I strongly hope they can knock Google off the top spot. But hope doesn't ship units.
    - exceptione 10y ago
      Exactly, that's why they should direct their (still huge) funds to create more awareness.
- jasonkostempski 10y ago
  Is it still true you can't do extensions for Chrome on Android? If so, they should just do a commercial showing you can use uBlock Origin with it. That could get a good chunk to move on Android and if they use it there they might switch on desktop too.
  - shandor 10y ago
    Definitely. This is exactly the reason I switched from Chrome ro Firefox. I mean, when I'm on mobile it's even more important than on desktop that I have my adblocker in place, as both bandwidth and screen estate are more limited.
  - pjmlp 10y ago
    Most people, aka normal users, don't care for extensions other than themes, if at all. So I doubt it would get any new users other than geek folk.
Certhas 10y ago
Also remember that for years people have crucified Firefox for being technically inferior to Chrome. They claim to just use the better browser. And the technical argument they are making, that having so much of the browser exposed made keeping up so much harder (with multi process just rolling out now), makes a lot of sense. Looking at the decisions made maybe the problem is that they made the multiprocess jump first. If they had said two years ago: we are going multiprocess and we need to deprecate XUL plug ins to do so, it would have gone over a lot better.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]