3 ms·
> devs will not optimize of it. Yep. I have been a FF user since.. well, Netscape. Yet, FireFox-specific bugs have always been a lower priority. Because, it'
by beavis2 8y ago
> devs will not optimize of it.
Yep.
I have been a FF user since.. well, Netscape. Yet, FireFox-specific bugs have always been a lower priority.
Because, it's "a bug effecting 100 users" vs "a bug effecting 900 users"
When you consider FF users are harder to monetise (admit it, we generally are), you can start saying "a bug effecting ~50 potential customers, vs ~800".
*(fortunately, now that IE/Edge is out of the picture, those types of issues are rare)
- simias 8y agoWe might be harder to monetize with ads but are we harder to monetize beyond that? I'm a Firefox user and you'll have to pry ublock from my cold, dead hands but I do pay for a bunch of online services. I think the main problem with Firefox is the tiny user share, not the composition of said share. We need to make Firefox more mainstream and the problem will solve itself. Unfortunately it's an uphill battle, Firefox is not cool anymore.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- n42 8y agoWebsites work best in the browsers that the developers use to build it, and that will be the only way Chrome can fail.
- beavis2 8y ago"Sorry boss, I won't be fixing BUG-332 - I don't use that browser"
- n42 8y agoThat was not what I was suggesting. Fact of the matter is that it is easier to get it right the first time in the browser you work in than the browser you don’t. A growing backlog of Chrome bugs and a shrinking backlog of Firefox/whatever else browser front end developers switch to with product teams pushing feature development over bug fixing and then suddenly Chrome is the “unreliable” one.
- beavis2 8y agoSorry for being flippant. I knew what you meant, and I do agree with you.