4 ms·

Your choice can well be firefox and chrome as a fallback when a website doesn't work and you care enough to bother opening chrome for it. Chrome has already dit

by Iolaum 7y ago

Your choice can well be firefox and chrome as a fallback when a website doesn't work and you care enough to bother opening chrome for it. Chrome has already ditched adblockers on mobile, firefox with adblockers and reader mode is a MUCH better mobile web experience.

jefftk 7y ago
> Chrome has already ditched adblockers on mobile nit: chrome has never had extensions (or ad blockers) on mobile (Disclosure: I work for Google)
- SquareWheel 7y ago
  That's not even a nitpick. The parent got it completely wrong. If Chrome mobile never supported extensions, then it's false to claim they "ditched" them.
  - michaelmrose 7y ago
    They being an ad company were smart enough not to ever allow the camel to get its nose under the tent.
  - awalton 7y ago
    From the original post, it's more like a language parsing issue - Chrome was original a desktop-only application and it had extensions. When it was ported to Android, they ditched extensions, as well as jettisoning numerous other features. Thus, not "completely wrong."
Ygg2 7y ago
> firefox with adblockers and reader mode is a MUCH better mobile web experience Oh, I fully agree. But just having a better, faster, less ad ridden browser is not enough. The sheer networking effect is propping up Chrome on Android. I only had a few issues with some videos playing.
clairity 7y ago
do you really need the fallback? i've yet to need chrome for anything, since i rarely use google products other than maps. i've found the use of google captcha on governmental, financial, and some commercial sites frustrating though. i'll abandon a site that has google captcha if usage is anything less than critical.
- ferzul 7y ago
  linkedin doesn't work for me on firefox, so i rarely even attempt to use it. but if someone a care about wants to link to me, i have to use chromium for that.
  - clairity 7y ago
    that's odd. does the whole site not load, or just certain features don't work? i use firefox with all kinds of privacy/blocking extensions and can access linkedin just fine (as long as first-party javascript can execute).
- Rebelgecko 7y ago
  Like you alluded to, some websites perform much better in Chrome (in particular Google's own websites, but there's some other offenders like roll20.net). There's an FF extension called Buster made someone here on HN that helps workaround Google's current generation of captchas. It doesn't work 100% of the time, but the success rate is still higher than doing it myself.
- iamnotacrook 7y ago
  Some sites need NoScript disabled to work. Even using the "temporarily trust everything" option doesn't work. Since it's easier to just paste the URL into chrome than disable a plug-in and remember to re-enable it later, I do that.

by Iolaum 7y ago

jefftk 7y ago

> Chrome has already ditched adblockers on mobile nit: chrome has never had extensions (or ad blockers) on mobile (Disclosure: I work for Google)

SquareWheel 7y ago
That's not even a nitpick. The parent got it completely wrong. If Chrome mobile never supported extensions, then it's false to claim they "ditched" them.
- michaelmrose 7y ago
  They being an ad company were smart enough not to ever allow the camel to get its nose under the tent.
- awalton 7y ago
  From the original post, it's more like a language parsing issue - Chrome was original a desktop-only application and it had extensions. When it was ported to Android, they ditched extensions, as well as jettisoning numerous other features. Thus, not "completely wrong."

Ygg2 7y ago

> firefox with adblockers and reader mode is a MUCH better mobile web experience Oh, I fully agree. But just having a better, faster, less ad ridden browser is not enough. The sheer networking effect is propping up Chrome on Android. I only had a few issues with some videos playing.

clairity 7y ago

do you really need the fallback? i've yet to need chrome for anything, since i rarely use google products other than maps. i've found the use of google captcha on governmental, financial, and some commercial sites frustrating though. i'll abandon a site that has google captcha if usage is anything less than critical.

ferzul 7y ago
linkedin doesn't work for me on firefox, so i rarely even attempt to use it. but if someone a care about wants to link to me, i have to use chromium for that.
- clairity 7y ago
  that's odd. does the whole site not load, or just certain features don't work? i use firefox with all kinds of privacy/blocking extensions and can access linkedin just fine (as long as first-party javascript can execute).
Rebelgecko 7y ago
Like you alluded to, some websites perform much better in Chrome (in particular Google's own websites, but there's some other offenders like roll20.net). There's an FF extension called Buster made someone here on HN that helps workaround Google's current generation of captchas. It doesn't work 100% of the time, but the success rate is still higher than doing it myself.
iamnotacrook 7y ago
Some sites need NoScript disabled to work. Even using the "temporarily trust everything" option doesn't work. Since it's easier to just paste the URL into chrome than disable a plug-in and remember to re-enable it later, I do that.