3 ms·
Webpage owners need a way to make money. A whole class of webpages, those that are financed by ad revenue, would stop being tested/built against Firefox. They m
by Sylos 9y ago
Webpage owners need a way to make money. A whole class of webpages, those that are financed by ad revenue, would stop being tested/built against Firefox.
They might even block Firefox users from accessing their webpage, so that people switch to other browsers which do make them money. They have no real reason not to block them.
There's a whole load of politics like this in being a browser vendor. Just because users demand a change, does not mean that it's the best for users. Users want broken webpages even less than they want ads, they are just too short-sighted to realize that blocking ads will lead to that.
And Mozilla really is already gambling hard with such things as Tracking Protection or this referrer blocking when Chrome has no such restrictions in place and has the majority market share. For many webpage owners, blocking Firefox users would probably not even drop their revenue by 10%. Leaving it unmaintained much less so, in the short term.
So, unless Mozilla manages to create perfect compatibility with Chrome, they cannot afford to block revenue from webpages. And creating perfect compatibility with Chrome would also mean blindly following all of Chrome's webstandard choices, ingraining tracking- and ad-supporting technologies into the web, which again would be shit for users in the long run. And really, just use a Chromium-fork, if this is what you're looking for. You don't need Firefox for that.