4 ms·

Even if you were right about that, Firefox doesn't really have a say. Chrome is intent on rapidly adding more Web features. If Firefox doesn't keep up with th

by agwa 8y ago

Even if you were right about that, Firefox doesn't really have a say. Chrome is intent on rapidly adding more Web features. If Firefox doesn't keep up with the pace, websites will stop working in Firefox because they use the new Chrome-supported features. This is a huge threat to Firefox, and has been made even worse by Edge adopting Chromium. Chromium now has huge market share, making any feature adopted by Chrome essentially mandatory for all browsers. This is why Mozilla needs a stable source of revenue - both for the engineering work to remain competitive, and for marketing so they can persuade users to use Firefox and lessen Google's influence over the Web.

zzzcpan 8y ago
Is there a reason to keep doing that? I mean what is the point in reimplementing Chromium as Firefox? Shouldn't they just fork Chromium and stop wasting resources chasing it? And focus those resources on something that can give them competitive advantage over Google.
- zaarn 8y ago
  If they fork Chromium then Google has won and we enter the next IE-era of the web; one browser engine to rule them all, terrible for everyone involved except Google.
csande17 8y ago
I'm not sure I agree that Mozilla bears no responsibility for Web feature bloat. While you're right that Google currently appears to be stuffing every feature imaginable into their web browser at a breakneck pace in a desperate attempt to make it literally impossible for anyone else to write one, other browser vendors don't need to take it lying down. Imagine if Mozilla, Apple, and (pre-Chromium-fork) Microsoft all collectively agreed not to implement any more Web features: would websites really give up ~30% of their audience (including the lucrative iPhone crowd!) just to use some Chrome-only dingus? As a nonprofit, Mozilla is in a great position to lead a charge like that. But they've chosen instead to make the problem even worse. On top of everything Google does, Mozilla also creates and implements its own dubiously necessary features (WebVR comes to mind) and uses venues like the Mozilla Hacks blog to promote them to developers.
- btschaegg 8y ago
  > would websites really give up ~30% of their audience (including the lucrative iPhone crowd!) just to use some Chrome-only dingus? Websites? Maybe not that much (at first, at least). But from IE experience: There are many intranet-style tools that would most certainly go "well, our tool X is only supported on Chrome, deal with it"[1]. Which, of course, only further cements Chrome's monopoly because everyone would just go "well, I have to run Chrome anyway, so why bother installing another browser?" [1]: Yes, SAP, I'm looking at you.

by agwa 8y ago

zzzcpan 8y ago

Is there a reason to keep doing that? I mean what is the point in reimplementing Chromium as Firefox? Shouldn't they just fork Chromium and stop wasting resources chasing it? And focus those resources on something that can give them competitive advantage over Google.

zaarn 8y ago
If they fork Chromium then Google has won and we enter the next IE-era of the web; one browser engine to rule them all, terrible for everyone involved except Google.

csande17 8y ago

I'm not sure I agree that Mozilla bears no responsibility for Web feature bloat. While you're right that Google currently appears to be stuffing every feature imaginable into their web browser at a breakneck pace in a desperate attempt to make it literally impossible for anyone else to write one, other browser vendors don't need to take it lying down. Imagine if Mozilla, Apple, and (pre-Chromium-fork) Microsoft all collectively agreed not to implement any more Web features: would websites really give up ~30% of their audience (including the lucrative iPhone crowd!) just to use some Chrome-only dingus? As a nonprofit, Mozilla is in a great position to lead a charge like that. But they've chosen instead to make the problem even worse. On top of everything Google does, Mozilla also creates and implements its own dubiously necessary features (WebVR comes to mind) and uses venues like the Mozilla Hacks blog to promote them to developers.

btschaegg 8y ago
> would websites really give up ~30% of their audience (including the lucrative iPhone crowd!) just to use some Chrome-only dingus? Websites? Maybe not that much (at first, at least). But from IE experience: There are many intranet-style tools that would most certainly go "well, our tool X is only supported on Chrome, deal with it"[1]. Which, of course, only further cements Chrome's monopoly because everyone would just go "well, I have to run Chrome anyway, so why bother installing another browser?" [1]: Yes, SAP, I'm looking at you.