9 ms·

Firefox for mobile is an excellent browser, and the only one I use. It supports extensions, such as uBlock without rooting the phone. The user interface is good

Firefox for mobile is an excellent browser, and the only one I use. It supports extensions, such as uBlock without rooting the phone. The user interface is good, the browser is responsive and reasonably fast. Honestly, I don't know why people aren't using it. I think most people just don't care, and just use what the system provides. As Google gets more invasive and evil, I hope that people will start to care, and Firefox and other browsers start to flourish again.

PurpleRamen 8y ago
> The user interface is good, the browser is responsive and reasonably fast. Ever used chrome or some other browser on android? The droidfox is quite infamous for it's slowness and backward interface.
- Yizahi 8y ago
  I used Chrome and Samsung one and Firefox. There is no perceptible difference in speed of the browser, only in speed of mobile internet. I switched to FF a year ago as a main mobile browser and it works just fine.
  - StyloBill 8y ago
    > There is no perceptible difference in speed of the browser No difference that maybe you can perceive, but I for one find the scrolling a lot more sluggish on FF than on Chrome, and that's on a SD 845 device, which is the latest and supposedly greatest Qualcomm chip. I just can't use FF on Android, and that's a shame because the desktop version is very good.
    - Spivak 8y ago
      Tumblr was the site that got me to switch away from Firefox on Android to Brave. Firefox scrolling was like watching a slideshow, the animations would happen 5 or so seconds after you tap but Chrome/Brave was as smooth as the native app.
- adimitrov 8y ago
  Yes. Yes, actually, I have. It's neither slow, nor do I find its interface bad. Actually, I think it's way better than Chrome on Android, because I like the way the new tab functionality works (and I sometimes keep around 20-30 tabs open on mobile.) My phone isn't even some flagship. It's an OP3T, and it copes very well with FF.
Y_Y 8y ago
It also syncs nicely with the desktop version sharing tabs and passwords and whatnot. Even if Chrom* was as good as firefox there, the mobile aspect would make the difference
- zeveb 8y ago
  Sadly, the sync functionality is gated behind an insecure authentication system, so one really shouldn't use it. This is a pity, because Chrome's sync is even less secure. Compounding the pity, Firefox used to have a more secure auth system, which they threw away. I'm still appalled by that.
  - Steltek 8y ago
    While I really liked the old sync system, it was never going to be user-friendly because it entrusted key management/safety to users. People just aren't ready for that and Mozilla maintaining two systems would compound the user issues. I would accept running my own server for Sync as a solution and I believe this was even possible with the old system? Then power users could have that extra layer of security if they desired but regular users don't have to worry so much.
    - zeveb 8y ago
      If they would simply get rid of all HTML submissions pages where users may enter their passwords, then the system would probably acceptable. If the Firefox Account UI were entirely browser-managed, it'd be okay. I'd still prefer a system in which it's impossible for users to accidentally leak their secure data through use of a poor password, but that's life. As an aside, I don't see that user key management was really an issue. The UI of the old system was perfectly fine, and one could have added a QR code or similar if one really wanted to. The number of folks doing TOTP auth these days prove that it works. There's only one reason to use dynamically-downloaded JavaScript to ensure user privacy: because one wishes to silently and undetectably undermine user privacy at some point in the future.
SamWhited 8y ago
> I don't know why people aren't using it. Like the article said: no one cares (more or less) about how good the browser is. If you have to go install a new browser, that's more work than just using the builtin one, and Google can force every Android phone to install Chrome out of the box. Also, though I use Firefox mobile out of a desire to not be a part of the Chrome problem (even though I know it's useless and I'm not actually helping by doing so), it's not fast, and it's not nice to use. It's painfully slow, crashes much more frequently than the other browsers, has confusing settings and constantly promotes garbage like Pocket (which you can disable if you dig through the confusing settings, but you can't actually uninstall it), etc. Until Mozilla gets the performance problems under control (and they're finally attempting to do this with Quantum et al.) they won't stop the bleeding. Unfortuantely, stopping the bleeding is the easy part: getting new users is the hard part and I tend to agree with the article that they don't have a way to do that on mobile (though I know nothing about marketing, so hopefully I'm wrong and just spouting nonsense here).
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- akavel 8y ago
  Uh, crashing??? I, like, never actually switched to Chrome in the first place (only using it sometimes for sites that "only work in IE^H^HChrome"), am using Firefox on multiple computers on Linux and Windows, and absolutely don't remember it crashing, for years at least! (edit: tweaked to clarify) edit 2: using Firefox on mobile (Android) too, for ~2 years now (i.e., since I have a smartphone), cannot recall a single crash over that timeframe either.
  - SamWhited 8y ago
    Chrome or Firefox? I meant that Firefox mobile crashes more frequently than the others (in fact, specific sites make it crash consistently and have done for years; I could probably dig some up, but I gave up reporting them since none of the bugs have been fixed for years to my knowledge). For the most part it's still not a frequent occurrence I suppose, but it only has to happen once or twice on a popular website to make someone switch away.
nmeofthestate 8y ago
I have tried using Firefox mobile on Android, but didn't enjoy it - it suffered from sluggish UI interaction. If it was technically on a par with Chrome I would consider going to make the effort to migrate. Firefox has never been bundled with a mainstream OS, mobile or desktop, as far as I know, it's always been something that people sought out. I think since you can install it on Android, if it's any good it has a chance of success.

PurpleRamen 8y ago

> The user interface is good, the browser is responsive and reasonably fast. Ever used chrome or some other browser on android? The droidfox is quite infamous for it's slowness and backward interface.

Yizahi 8y ago
I used Chrome and Samsung one and Firefox. There is no perceptible difference in speed of the browser, only in speed of mobile internet. I switched to FF a year ago as a main mobile browser and it works just fine.
- StyloBill 8y ago
  > There is no perceptible difference in speed of the browser No difference that maybe you can perceive, but I for one find the scrolling a lot more sluggish on FF than on Chrome, and that's on a SD 845 device, which is the latest and supposedly greatest Qualcomm chip. I just can't use FF on Android, and that's a shame because the desktop version is very good.
  - Spivak 8y ago
    Tumblr was the site that got me to switch away from Firefox on Android to Brave. Firefox scrolling was like watching a slideshow, the animations would happen 5 or so seconds after you tap but Chrome/Brave was as smooth as the native app.
adimitrov 8y ago
Yes. Yes, actually, I have. It's neither slow, nor do I find its interface bad. Actually, I think it's way better than Chrome on Android, because I like the way the new tab functionality works (and I sometimes keep around 20-30 tabs open on mobile.) My phone isn't even some flagship. It's an OP3T, and it copes very well with FF.

Y_Y 8y ago

It also syncs nicely with the desktop version sharing tabs and passwords and whatnot. Even if Chrom* was as good as firefox there, the mobile aspect would make the difference

zeveb 8y ago
Sadly, the sync functionality is gated behind an insecure authentication system, so one really shouldn't use it. This is a pity, because Chrome's sync is even less secure. Compounding the pity, Firefox used to have a more secure auth system, which they threw away. I'm still appalled by that.
- Steltek 8y ago
  While I really liked the old sync system, it was never going to be user-friendly because it entrusted key management/safety to users. People just aren't ready for that and Mozilla maintaining two systems would compound the user issues. I would accept running my own server for Sync as a solution and I believe this was even possible with the old system? Then power users could have that extra layer of security if they desired but regular users don't have to worry so much.
  - zeveb 8y ago
    If they would simply get rid of all HTML submissions pages where users may enter their passwords, then the system would probably acceptable. If the Firefox Account UI were entirely browser-managed, it'd be okay. I'd still prefer a system in which it's impossible for users to accidentally leak their secure data through use of a poor password, but that's life. As an aside, I don't see that user key management was really an issue. The UI of the old system was perfectly fine, and one could have added a QR code or similar if one really wanted to. The number of folks doing TOTP auth these days prove that it works. There's only one reason to use dynamically-downloaded JavaScript to ensure user privacy: because one wishes to silently and undetectably undermine user privacy at some point in the future.

SamWhited 8y ago

> I don't know why people aren't using it. Like the article said: no one cares (more or less) about how good the browser is. If you have to go install a new browser, that's more work than just using the builtin one, and Google can force every Android phone to install Chrome out of the box. Also, though I use Firefox mobile out of a desire to not be a part of the Chrome problem (even though I know it's useless and I'm not actually helping by doing so), it's not fast, and it's not nice to use. It's painfully slow, crashes much more frequently than the other browsers, has confusing settings and constantly promotes garbage like Pocket (which you can disable if you dig through the confusing settings, but you can't actually uninstall it), etc. Until Mozilla gets the performance problems under control (and they're finally attempting to do this with Quantum et al.) they won't stop the bleeding. Unfortuantely, stopping the bleeding is the easy part: getting new users is the hard part and I tend to agree with the article that they don't have a way to do that on mobile (though I know nothing about marketing, so hopefully I'm wrong and just spouting nonsense here).

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
akavel 8y ago
Uh, crashing??? I, like, never actually switched to Chrome in the first place (only using it sometimes for sites that "only work in IE^H^HChrome"), am using Firefox on multiple computers on Linux and Windows, and absolutely don't remember it crashing, for years at least! (edit: tweaked to clarify) edit 2: using Firefox on mobile (Android) too, for ~2 years now (i.e., since I have a smartphone), cannot recall a single crash over that timeframe either.
- SamWhited 8y ago
  Chrome or Firefox? I meant that Firefox mobile crashes more frequently than the others (in fact, specific sites make it crash consistently and have done for years; I could probably dig some up, but I gave up reporting them since none of the bugs have been fixed for years to my knowledge). For the most part it's still not a frequent occurrence I suppose, but it only has to happen once or twice on a popular website to make someone switch away.

nmeofthestate 8y ago

I have tried using Firefox mobile on Android, but didn't enjoy it - it suffered from sluggish UI interaction. If it was technically on a par with Chrome I would consider going to make the effort to migrate. Firefox has never been bundled with a mainstream OS, mobile or desktop, as far as I know, it's always been something that people sought out. I think since you can install it on Android, if it's any good it has a chance of success.