6 ms·

This is pretty bad for Firefox. I wonder how much people straight up & left for Chrome as a result of it.

by wdr1 7y ago

user17843 7y ago
It will be possible to roughly deduct this from the following statistics during the next days/weeks: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/adblock-plus/statistics/?last=30 https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/adblock-plus/... https://data.firefox.com https://data.firefox.com
- floatingatoll 7y ago
  Note that these statistics would, presumably, exclude all users who disable telemetry in Firefox. Since many of those outraged at the interruption to addons seem to overlap frequently with those who object to and disable telemetry and studies on principle, their departure over this incident could well have no impact whatsoever on the metrics you linked above. It must be a nightmare for the Firefox team to have a minority group of quick-to-anger users that refuse to allow themselves to be taken into account by usage metrics, refuse to allow their browser to participate in studies, and then object loudly when decisions are made that discount them.
  - user17843 7y ago
    I doubt this. There are extension update pings, and my guess is that the number of users is deducted from the update pings, but I could be wrong.
    - floatingatoll 7y ago
      “How dare Firefox check for updates from a remote server” is a real thing that’s been said in support of many “privacy” guides that disable all Firefox and addons autoupdates, so I wouldn’t bet the farm either way.
      - lugg 7y ago
        Yea but there is valid reasons for controlling random network access with an iron fist. It's not usual user behaviour but it's one of Firefoxes many niche audiences. Alienating them will just fragment the base. Also remember these vocal niches bring in a lot of family and friends as well.
  - Karunamon 7y ago
    Who's fault is that, at the end of the day? Mozilla didn't have to structure their addon system in such a way that their (in)actions could disable the addons of every Firefox user on the planet. Mozilla did not have to abuse the studies mechanism (also on by default) to ship a workaround. Mozilla did not have to disable the option that would let me work around this problem by myself (which is going to cause me no end of fun when I get into work tomorrow). If the Firefox team thinks their development concessions are a pain in the ass, try being directly accountable for the repercussions, in the "I will be fired if I don't fix this", not the "I will be talked mean about on the internet if I don't fix this" senses. Mozilla didn't have to bundle junk like Pocket and the now-scuppered Hello, both of which could have just as easily been addons suggested on first run. Mozilla didn't have to push promotional addons (the Mr Robot thing) without my express prior consent. I grow exceedingly weary of this narrative that Firefox is above all reproach and criticism because they produce a web browser. How about this instead; if Mozilla wishes for its users to respect them, they can start by respecting their users. That means no opt-out telemetry period, no paternalism about what I can and cannot install, or what options I can change, and so forth. I am beyond sick of this shit. I would love nothing more than a true third option for browsers right now. Firefox hates its users, Chrome sees them as cattle - what's left? I have to use one of the two and take ridiculous steps to cover my own interests, because neither of these companies have them in mind.
    - kevingadd 7y ago
      So you're going to complain about the software breaking and also complain about them pushing a hotfix for it? This whole situation isn't ideal but it's absurd to me that people are upset about hotfixes for a bug that they found extremely inconvenient. Do you like the bug or not? The option to turn off the system they used for hotfixes is right there in the privacy settings and they even show you what it's currently being used for (and what it was used for in the past). Like it or not, as far as I know every major browser (maybe not Safari?) is doing the exact same thing except they're less transparent about it. I have literally no idea how to identify what experiments and rollout flags are quietly turned on for my install of Chrome and not for other people because it's not documented anywhere. At least in Firefox the option is right there and so is info on what the option does. "No opt-out telemetry" is a great idea that doesn't function in the real world. If you ship online-connected software with 1m+ users that doesn't have a way to deploy hotfixes or a killswitch for dangerous features or basic telemetry, that is incredible negligence because all it takes is a single bug or a single unanticipated act by a third party and you're DDoSing someone or causing other kinds of mayhem. I'm quite serious. This is why most vendors operating at Mozilla's scale have the same set of tools at their disposal, even if they don't tell you about it. You cannot deploy large-scale connected software in the real world without doing this. It's one thing to go 'Word shouldn't have any telemetry' (okay, sure) and another to go 'this app that connects to thousands of servers, is left open all the time, and runs remote code should not have any telemetry or automatic update mechanism'. The latter is naive on the level of 'just don't write any bugs and your software won't need updates'.
  - Semaphor 7y ago
    Their departure where? Considering the group in question I can't imagine them wanting to switch to Chromium or Opera.
    - chappi42 7y ago
      Where do you see issues with Brave or Vivaldi?
      - shadofx 7y ago
        Uses Blink and therefore dependent on Google for security updates.
ne0sapi3n 7y ago
I left for Chrome in a way via Brave. Brave is based on Chrome minus being owned by the All-Seeing-Eye Company in Mountainview.
- AtHeartEngineer 7y ago
  I really like brave, but right now FF is still my main. Brave is still needs some features. The whole syncing bookmarks and wallets thing is really annoying. I'm glad the way they devised is secure, and privacy sensitive, but it's still a pain in the ass.
- bscphil 7y ago
  Doesn't using Chromium solve the same issue, as long as you're not signed in to Google?
fraudsyndrome 7y ago
I was on the reddit thread when it happened - was super confused as I just updated my firefox and it happened at a very similar time frame so I assumed it was from the update I personally found the issue trivial, my main addon is ublock origin. There was a workaround using about:debugging and installing UBO on there which worked so it's not like the fix was a long process. Being committed to a single browser, if anyone was using firefox for as long as me, I can't fathom someone leaving their main browser over something like this. I haven't been using it for THAT long but what if Chrome did something like this too? Then they'd move to another browser that's not FF/Chrome?
- Santosh83 7y ago
  I too use only two extensions, uBlock Origin and HTTPS Everywhere and the hotfix pushed by Mozilla re-enabled them within half an hour of disabling. I do sympathise with those who apparently lost the settings of certain addons, notably Container based ones. Fortunately I always found the UX of Containers so clunky that I never bothered. Sticking with Firefox as an open competition to the browser monopoly is critical now more than ever before.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - chappi42 7y ago
    Mozilla fine tuning some of their practices is as critical. These hn threads might give good pointers by concerned, well-meaning users.
  - ntp85 7y ago
    > Sticking with Firefox as an open competition to the browser monopoly is critical now more than ever before. I think this fact cannot be emphasized enough. Or we'll have the 90s monopolized web again: "Optimized for Chrome" - not that there'd be a lack of websites already doing that as of now.
- _Donny 7y ago
  I have been on the tipping edge of switching from FF to another browser for a long time now. Short-lived bugs such as this one do not annoy me as much as the terrible performance of FF. It is not rare that FF uses 2 cores at full utilization all the time. I always end up installing a new browser out of anger, but I _always_ come back to FF for its great features that I have become addicted to.
onli 7y ago
Probably many, but don't forget that there are many firefox users that never install a single addon.
- contravariant 7y ago
  Which ironically means that the people most affected by this debacle have the most to lose by switching. Although that also means that firefox managed to piss off it's most loyal group of users. Again.
bluedino 7y ago
Or they just lived with it for a few days. They were probably using FF because the addon doesn’t exist for chrome in the first olace
- lugg 7y ago
  It was also over the weekend. All it did was cement how much I despise Chrome's inability to sandbox it's network config. Yay gotta close down all chrome instances to turn a proxy on and off.
lugg 7y ago
Probably fuck all because chrome still has no add-ons on mobile. People will bitch for a few days then they'll get over it. This is a shitty screwup but I'm not about to jump ship over it.
jazoom 7y ago
I took the opportunity to check out Vivaldi again. Wow. It's so polished compared to Firefox. The downside is I'm now supporting the Chromium monoculture.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
burtonator 7y ago
It's about 10-15% on my app but Firefox users are generally super smart so they provide great feedback. One thing Firefox ROCKS at is that they support extensions/addons on mobile! Chrome won't add them on mobile because they don't want adblock there.
yabatopia 7y ago
I've switched to Vivaldi on my desktop and Brave on my smartphone. For now. It's been three days and I'm still waiting for an official release with the add-on fix, can't wait forever.

This is pretty bad for Firefox. I wonder how much people straight up & left for Chrome as a result of it.

by wdr1 7y ago

This is pretty bad for Firefox. I wonder how much people straight up & left for Chrome as a result of it.

It will be possible to roughly deduct this from the following statistics during the next days/weeks: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/adblock-plus/statistics/?last=30 https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/adblock-plus/... https://data.firefox.com https://data.firefox.com

floatingatoll 7y ago
Note that these statistics would, presumably, exclude all users who disable telemetry in Firefox. Since many of those outraged at the interruption to addons seem to overlap frequently with those who object to and disable telemetry and studies on principle, their departure over this incident could well have no impact whatsoever on the metrics you linked above. It must be a nightmare for the Firefox team to have a minority group of quick-to-anger users that refuse to allow themselves to be taken into account by usage metrics, refuse to allow their browser to participate in studies, and then object loudly when decisions are made that discount them.
- user17843 7y ago
  I doubt this. There are extension update pings, and my guess is that the number of users is deducted from the update pings, but I could be wrong.
  - floatingatoll 7y ago
    “How dare Firefox check for updates from a remote server” is a real thing that’s been said in support of many “privacy” guides that disable all Firefox and addons autoupdates, so I wouldn’t bet the farm either way.
    - lugg 7y ago
      Yea but there is valid reasons for controlling random network access with an iron fist. It's not usual user behaviour but it's one of Firefoxes many niche audiences. Alienating them will just fragment the base. Also remember these vocal niches bring in a lot of family and friends as well.
- Karunamon 7y ago
  Who's fault is that, at the end of the day? Mozilla didn't have to structure their addon system in such a way that their (in)actions could disable the addons of every Firefox user on the planet. Mozilla did not have to abuse the studies mechanism (also on by default) to ship a workaround. Mozilla did not have to disable the option that would let me work around this problem by myself (which is going to cause me no end of fun when I get into work tomorrow). If the Firefox team thinks their development concessions are a pain in the ass, try being directly accountable for the repercussions, in the "I will be fired if I don't fix this", not the "I will be talked mean about on the internet if I don't fix this" senses. Mozilla didn't have to bundle junk like Pocket and the now-scuppered Hello, both of which could have just as easily been addons suggested on first run. Mozilla didn't have to push promotional addons (the Mr Robot thing) without my express prior consent. I grow exceedingly weary of this narrative that Firefox is above all reproach and criticism because they produce a web browser. How about this instead; if Mozilla wishes for its users to respect them, they can start by respecting their users. That means no opt-out telemetry period, no paternalism about what I can and cannot install, or what options I can change, and so forth. I am beyond sick of this shit. I would love nothing more than a true third option for browsers right now. Firefox hates its users, Chrome sees them as cattle - what's left? I have to use one of the two and take ridiculous steps to cover my own interests, because neither of these companies have them in mind.
  - kevingadd 7y ago
    So you're going to complain about the software breaking and also complain about them pushing a hotfix for it? This whole situation isn't ideal but it's absurd to me that people are upset about hotfixes for a bug that they found extremely inconvenient. Do you like the bug or not? The option to turn off the system they used for hotfixes is right there in the privacy settings and they even show you what it's currently being used for (and what it was used for in the past). Like it or not, as far as I know every major browser (maybe not Safari?) is doing the exact same thing except they're less transparent about it. I have literally no idea how to identify what experiments and rollout flags are quietly turned on for my install of Chrome and not for other people because it's not documented anywhere. At least in Firefox the option is right there and so is info on what the option does. "No opt-out telemetry" is a great idea that doesn't function in the real world. If you ship online-connected software with 1m+ users that doesn't have a way to deploy hotfixes or a killswitch for dangerous features or basic telemetry, that is incredible negligence because all it takes is a single bug or a single unanticipated act by a third party and you're DDoSing someone or causing other kinds of mayhem. I'm quite serious. This is why most vendors operating at Mozilla's scale have the same set of tools at their disposal, even if they don't tell you about it. You cannot deploy large-scale connected software in the real world without doing this. It's one thing to go 'Word shouldn't have any telemetry' (okay, sure) and another to go 'this app that connects to thousands of servers, is left open all the time, and runs remote code should not have any telemetry or automatic update mechanism'. The latter is naive on the level of 'just don't write any bugs and your software won't need updates'.
- Semaphor 7y ago
  Their departure where? Considering the group in question I can't imagine them wanting to switch to Chromium or Opera.
  - chappi42 7y ago
    Where do you see issues with Brave or Vivaldi?
    - shadofx 7y ago
      Uses Blink and therefore dependent on Google for security updates.

ne0sapi3n 7y ago

I left for Chrome in a way via Brave. Brave is based on Chrome minus being owned by the All-Seeing-Eye Company in Mountainview.

AtHeartEngineer 7y ago
I really like brave, but right now FF is still my main. Brave is still needs some features. The whole syncing bookmarks and wallets thing is really annoying. I'm glad the way they devised is secure, and privacy sensitive, but it's still a pain in the ass.
bscphil 7y ago
Doesn't using Chromium solve the same issue, as long as you're not signed in to Google?

fraudsyndrome 7y ago

I was on the reddit thread when it happened - was super confused as I just updated my firefox and it happened at a very similar time frame so I assumed it was from the update I personally found the issue trivial, my main addon is ublock origin. There was a workaround using about:debugging and installing UBO on there which worked so it's not like the fix was a long process. Being committed to a single browser, if anyone was using firefox for as long as me, I can't fathom someone leaving their main browser over something like this. I haven't been using it for THAT long but what if Chrome did something like this too? Then they'd move to another browser that's not FF/Chrome?

Santosh83 7y ago
I too use only two extensions, uBlock Origin and HTTPS Everywhere and the hotfix pushed by Mozilla re-enabled them within half an hour of disabling. I do sympathise with those who apparently lost the settings of certain addons, notably Container based ones. Fortunately I always found the UX of Containers so clunky that I never bothered. Sticking with Firefox as an open competition to the browser monopoly is critical now more than ever before.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- chappi42 7y ago
  Mozilla fine tuning some of their practices is as critical. These hn threads might give good pointers by concerned, well-meaning users.
- ntp85 7y ago
  > Sticking with Firefox as an open competition to the browser monopoly is critical now more than ever before. I think this fact cannot be emphasized enough. Or we'll have the 90s monopolized web again: "Optimized for Chrome" - not that there'd be a lack of websites already doing that as of now.
_Donny 7y ago
I have been on the tipping edge of switching from FF to another browser for a long time now. Short-lived bugs such as this one do not annoy me as much as the terrible performance of FF. It is not rare that FF uses 2 cores at full utilization all the time. I always end up installing a new browser out of anger, but I _always_ come back to FF for its great features that I have become addicted to.

onli 7y ago

Probably many, but don't forget that there are many firefox users that never install a single addon.

contravariant 7y ago
Which ironically means that the people most affected by this debacle have the most to lose by switching. Although that also means that firefox managed to piss off it's most loyal group of users. Again.

bluedino 7y ago

Or they just lived with it for a few days. They were probably using FF because the addon doesn’t exist for chrome in the first olace

lugg 7y ago
It was also over the weekend. All it did was cement how much I despise Chrome's inability to sandbox it's network config. Yay gotta close down all chrome instances to turn a proxy on and off.

lugg 7y ago

Probably fuck all because chrome still has no add-ons on mobile. People will bitch for a few days then they'll get over it. This is a shitty screwup but I'm not about to jump ship over it.

jazoom 7y ago

I took the opportunity to check out Vivaldi again. Wow. It's so polished compared to Firefox. The downside is I'm now supporting the Chromium monoculture.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

burtonator 7y ago

It's about 10-15% on my app but Firefox users are generally super smart so they provide great feedback. One thing Firefox ROCKS at is that they support extensions/addons on mobile! Chrome won't add them on mobile because they don't want adblock there.

yabatopia 7y ago

I've switched to Vivaldi on my desktop and Brave on my smartphone. For now. It's been three days and I'm still waiting for an official release with the add-on fix, can't wait forever.