6 ms·

While Firefox is better than Chrome... Mozilla is becoming more and more Google Like as time progresses, where a few years ago I would have believed it would

by syshum 6y ago

While Firefox is better than Chrome... Mozilla is becoming more and more Google Like as time progresses, where a few years ago I would have believed it would be unthinkable for Mozilla do so something like this to an extension, today I am not so sure I would trust them either

JTbane 6y ago
Mozilla doesn't have the conflict of interest google does with ads... That alone makes me use Firefox over Chrome.
- msla 6y ago
  It does: https://www.theverge.com/2018/5/7/17326184/firefox-ads-sponsored-content-pocket-suggestions https://www.theverge.com/2018/5/7/17326184/firefox-ads-spons...
  - bromonkey 6y ago
    Yep, the three clicks it takes to disable that really drives me nuts.
    - smnthermes 6y ago
      They should not do it in the first place. Don't be so dismissive.
- pbhjpbhj 6y ago
  Doesn't Mozilla get nearly all its money from Google; I've assumed that actions by Mozilla have been coloured by not wanting to ditch its multi-hundred-million dollar benefactor. Google has apparently paid Mitchell Baker personally multiple millions of dollars too. Seems Google know how to manage their risks. Mozilla seem perhaps even more beholden to ad revenue than Google.
  - roca 6y ago
    > Google has apparently paid Mitchell Baker personally multiple millions of dollars too. What are you talking about?
    - pbhjpbhj 6y ago
      Google fund Mozilla, it's not a secret, you can use a search engine and find such information. Or did you mean to contradict me rather than ask a question?
      - roca 6y ago
        I know that Mozilla has historically been paid by Google to make Google search the default search provider in Firefox. But you just claimed "Google has apparently paid Mitchell Baker personally multiple millions of dollars too" which is something different that I have heard nothing about. So, what is that claim about?
strken 6y ago
I agree to some extent, e.g. the pocket integration and Mozilla burning cash on things that aren't related to Firefox, but Chrome's decision to limit/break key adblocking APIs across their whole ecosystem is much worse. I'd be willing to ignore almost any number of removed extensions to continue using a browser that's not owned by a glorified adtech company.
- skinnymuch 6y ago
  What do they burn cash on? They’ve mostly stopped Phone stuff right? Is there other stuff?
  - strken 6y ago
    Some of the previous discussion when they had layoffs earlier this year: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22057737 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22057737
- smnthermes 6y ago
  Browser extensions are going to be turned into a web standard, and W3C is controlled by Google, so Firefox will probably lose its adblocking API: http://browserext.github.io/ http://browserext.github.io/
skinnymuch 6y ago
Can you give a few examples of how Mozilla/Firefox have changed? We all know about FF Quantum. Yeah it sucks what happened. Maybe there was an alternative, but any one saying Firefox should’ve just stuck to not being compatible with Chromium extensions is kidding themselves on how badly that would’ve continued hurting Firefox’s market share. The XUL powered extension I’m sure were powerful so the outcry in certain places was huge. Vocal minority. The Pocket integration got lots of outcry which seemed pretty silly to me. It’s one product they own. Mozilla doesn’t have a ton of products. Yes that is Google like. Much like any synergy or integrating is Google like. Which is really just being a modern internet corporation. If this is one of the reasons. Why would Mozilla of 5 years ago not have done that vs the Mozilla of today and whenever they did do it. 1-2 years ago I think?
- fwn 6y ago
  I'm not the previous commenter, but on Android Mozilla is removing the ability to install extensions from third parties (think GitHub, etc.) and will trim the only left official extension store down to a few extensions. (I think it's below 20 right now.) An ecosystem where all extensions need to be channelled through one central power broker is pretty much the main requirement to allow them to do what Google is doing in the linked Pushbullet case. edit: this is all factual, sadly downvotes won't change it.
  - mintplant 6y ago
    This is temporary while the Android team builds out and stabilizes the add-on APIs supported in the new Firefox for Android. Otherwise it'd be a total crapshoot whether an add-on you tried to install worked or broke randomly (potentially in gnarly ways).
    - fwn 6y ago
      If locking down on the extension ecosystem were only temporary they could just defer the nearing downgrade of their main line browser until their replacement is fully functional. But that's not what they do. Instead we do have a clear announcement on a feature removal and a vague hint that they might add it again in the future. It's absolutely not sure that disabling non-store extensions is only a temporary defect. If you have evidence that suggests otherwise, feel free to add it. It does not help that their marketing language feels designed to consistently avoid any meaning whatsoever.
MattGaiser 6y ago
Have they done it or is it just an uneasy feeling?
the_jeremy 6y ago
Who do you trust? Certainly not Chromium-Edge. That leaves "only browse the internet on a Mac with Safari" or browsers with such tiny market share that they'll never be tested against, and sites will routinely be broken for you. My company doesn't do any non-Chrome compatibility testing, so all our intranet sites require Chrome.
- laumars 6y ago
  Plus any smaller browser likely just another Chromium or Blink fork. There is very little out there these days that is truly independent.
- SahAssar 6y ago
  Why not firefox?
  - colejohnson66 6y ago
    In the past, it used to be (at least for me) because of Gecko. Websites didn’t render the same as in WebKit.
    - SahAssar 6y ago
      Not sure when that was but I have no rendering issues with firefox. As a webdev I can say that FF's rendering these days is pretty much spot on.
  - dingo_bat 6y ago
    I have a very silly reason but it just irritates me so much that I cannot use Firefox. It does not support win10 precision gestures to zoom and go back/forward.
  - the_jeremy 6y ago
    I use firefox. The parent comment said they didn't trust firefox or chrome.
- derefr 6y ago

by syshum 6y ago

JTbane 6y ago

Mozilla doesn't have the conflict of interest google does with ads... That alone makes me use Firefox over Chrome.

msla 6y ago
It does: https://www.theverge.com/2018/5/7/17326184/firefox-ads-sponsored-content-pocket-suggestions https://www.theverge.com/2018/5/7/17326184/firefox-ads-spons...
- bromonkey 6y ago
  Yep, the three clicks it takes to disable that really drives me nuts.
  - smnthermes 6y ago
    They should not do it in the first place. Don't be so dismissive.
pbhjpbhj 6y ago
Doesn't Mozilla get nearly all its money from Google; I've assumed that actions by Mozilla have been coloured by not wanting to ditch its multi-hundred-million dollar benefactor. Google has apparently paid Mitchell Baker personally multiple millions of dollars too. Seems Google know how to manage their risks. Mozilla seem perhaps even more beholden to ad revenue than Google.
- roca 6y ago
  > Google has apparently paid Mitchell Baker personally multiple millions of dollars too. What are you talking about?
  - pbhjpbhj 6y ago
    Google fund Mozilla, it's not a secret, you can use a search engine and find such information. Or did you mean to contradict me rather than ask a question?
    - roca 6y ago
      I know that Mozilla has historically been paid by Google to make Google search the default search provider in Firefox. But you just claimed "Google has apparently paid Mitchell Baker personally multiple millions of dollars too" which is something different that I have heard nothing about. So, what is that claim about?

strken 6y ago

I agree to some extent, e.g. the pocket integration and Mozilla burning cash on things that aren't related to Firefox, but Chrome's decision to limit/break key adblocking APIs across their whole ecosystem is much worse. I'd be willing to ignore almost any number of removed extensions to continue using a browser that's not owned by a glorified adtech company.

skinnymuch 6y ago
What do they burn cash on? They’ve mostly stopped Phone stuff right? Is there other stuff?
- strken 6y ago
  Some of the previous discussion when they had layoffs earlier this year: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22057737 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22057737
smnthermes 6y ago
Browser extensions are going to be turned into a web standard, and W3C is controlled by Google, so Firefox will probably lose its adblocking API: http://browserext.github.io/ http://browserext.github.io/

skinnymuch 6y ago

Can you give a few examples of how Mozilla/Firefox have changed? We all know about FF Quantum. Yeah it sucks what happened. Maybe there was an alternative, but any one saying Firefox should’ve just stuck to not being compatible with Chromium extensions is kidding themselves on how badly that would’ve continued hurting Firefox’s market share. The XUL powered extension I’m sure were powerful so the outcry in certain places was huge. Vocal minority. The Pocket integration got lots of outcry which seemed pretty silly to me. It’s one product they own. Mozilla doesn’t have a ton of products. Yes that is Google like. Much like any synergy or integrating is Google like. Which is really just being a modern internet corporation. If this is one of the reasons. Why would Mozilla of 5 years ago not have done that vs the Mozilla of today and whenever they did do it. 1-2 years ago I think?

fwn 6y ago
I'm not the previous commenter, but on Android Mozilla is removing the ability to install extensions from third parties (think GitHub, etc.) and will trim the only left official extension store down to a few extensions. (I think it's below 20 right now.) An ecosystem where all extensions need to be channelled through one central power broker is pretty much the main requirement to allow them to do what Google is doing in the linked Pushbullet case. edit: this is all factual, sadly downvotes won't change it.
- mintplant 6y ago
  This is temporary while the Android team builds out and stabilizes the add-on APIs supported in the new Firefox for Android. Otherwise it'd be a total crapshoot whether an add-on you tried to install worked or broke randomly (potentially in gnarly ways).
  - fwn 6y ago
    If locking down on the extension ecosystem were only temporary they could just defer the nearing downgrade of their main line browser until their replacement is fully functional. But that's not what they do. Instead we do have a clear announcement on a feature removal and a vague hint that they might add it again in the future. It's absolutely not sure that disabling non-store extensions is only a temporary defect. If you have evidence that suggests otherwise, feel free to add it. It does not help that their marketing language feels designed to consistently avoid any meaning whatsoever.

MattGaiser 6y ago

Have they done it or is it just an uneasy feeling?

the_jeremy 6y ago

Who do you trust? Certainly not Chromium-Edge. That leaves "only browse the internet on a Mac with Safari" or browsers with such tiny market share that they'll never be tested against, and sites will routinely be broken for you. My company doesn't do any non-Chrome compatibility testing, so all our intranet sites require Chrome.

laumars 6y ago
Plus any smaller browser likely just another Chromium or Blink fork. There is very little out there these days that is truly independent.
SahAssar 6y ago
Why not firefox?
- colejohnson66 6y ago
  In the past, it used to be (at least for me) because of Gecko. Websites didn’t render the same as in WebKit.
  - SahAssar 6y ago
    Not sure when that was but I have no rendering issues with firefox. As a webdev I can say that FF's rendering these days is pretty much spot on.
- dingo_bat 6y ago
  I have a very silly reason but it just irritates me so much that I cannot use Firefox. It does not support win10 precision gestures to zoom and go back/forward.
- the_jeremy 6y ago
  I use firefox. The parent comment said they didn't trust firefox or chrome.
derefr 6y ago