7 ms·

IMO, this thread is a great example of why Mozilla and Firefox are becoming irrelevant. Potential users are saying, "Here are things I want in Firefox," and a

IMO, this thread is a great example of why Mozilla and Firefox are becoming irrelevant. Potential users are saying, "Here are things I want in Firefox," and a Firefox/Mozilla advocate is telling them that's not what they really want, and Mozilla is going to work on something else. It's been this way for years, and at the end of the day users realize it's pointless to argue and switch to Chrome.

gfodor 6y ago
I never claimed there aren't unmet needs for Firefox users, or that their needs are invalid. My claim is that there's a good chance the strategy of trying to compete in the browser market is a failing strategy. That is backed up by the evidence. Mozilla has put a ton of resources into improving Firefox, and yet people are still, on-net, leaving. Executives have a tough decision to make in terms of where and how to place bets. The OP's approach is to just concede that Mozilla will be dead some day and they may as well just slow the decline. If you are the CEO, accepting this and acting in accordance with that would be a dereliction of duty. I am not claiming to know the answer. I worked on a team that tried to place a strong bet to backstop things if Firefox ultimately failed. But I don't think the confidence that it's self-evident that they should just go all-in on Firefox is justified.
- jacquesm 6y ago
  > If you are the CEO, accepting this and acting in accordance with that would be a dereliction of duty. Why is that dereliction of duty? Actually accepting the facts as they are is the hallmark of a good CEO. Trying to pretend reality and facts don't matter and that FireFox will win this battle is - pardon the word choice - delusional at this point in time. So if your choices are between fighting a losing battle as good as you can or accelerating the drop then I'd be all for fighting that battle and drawing it out as long as I could. Accelerating it with wild-ass gambles is what got Mozilla where it is today.
  - gfodor 6y ago
    The "facts" you are claiming are just your opinion. The opinion specifically being that there is literally no way for Mozilla to survive. Others in the thread think they can survive by focusing on Firefox (you disagree obviously.) Some (like me) think they can survive by building new things people will pay for. (you think they are a 'one trick pony.') A CEO who disagrees with your opinion isn't ignoring facts, and a CEO who doesn't charter a strategy towards something other than catastrophic failure is not a good CEO.
    - jacquesm 6y ago
      > The opinion specifically being that there is literally no way for Mozilla to survive. I note they just cut 25% of their workforce. That's not a sign of a healthy company, unless they had 25% excess people in the first place, and then it would be a sign of bad management. So I'm going on the assumption that they are letting go of people they could ill afford to miss. > Others in the thread think they can survive by focusing on Firefox (you disagree obviously.) I disagree because the writing has been on the wall for a long time. The diminishing market share tells a pretty clear story. What is happening now is that Mozilla will try to jump from one shrinking ice-floe onto another that they hope will be more stable and may even give them room to expand again. They fail to recognize - again, my opinion - that this lack of focus is one of the drivers of the exodus in the first place. > Some (like me) think they can survive by building new things people will pay for. (you think they are a 'one trick pony.') That's possible, but survival of Mozilla the software house making a lot of other stuff that generates revenue which is not the browser is none of my concern nor interest. I can see why as a Mozilla employee it would be your concern. But I see no difference between that work and that of any other software company. The browser is where the difference can be made. > A CEO who disagrees with your opinion isn't ignoring facts If that CEO has a great plan on making Mozilla survive and manage to stave off further decline of the browser market share then I haven't seen it. So either that plan does not exist or they have already given up but are just not telling you (or me, for that matter). > and a CEO who doesn't charter a strategy towards something other than catastrophic failure is not a good CEO. That depends on how avoidable the catastrophe is. Losing the browser would be a catastrophe, losing the rest would not even register, for everything else that Mozilla does that I'm aware of there are alternatives. But a browser with still some market share that is privacy focused and not beholden to some large advertising agency or hardware provider is a unique thing. I think the big difference between our points of view is that you are looking from the inside out and I'm looking from the outside in. You have by virtue of your position more information at your disposal, but your interests and mine are not necessarily 100% aligned. I would prefer for FireFox to be available as long as possible, you - apparently - would like Mozilla Inc as an entity to survive. Those two are not necessarily joined at the hip. Though obviously if Mozilla Inc survives FireFox may have a better chance of survival too. But it looks to me, reading between the lines here, that Mozilla effectively announces that they feel that the browser as a source of revenue is a dead end and that if they do not move into other markets that the company will go under.
- nxrabl 6y ago
  I think a point of confusion here is that there are different definitions of "failure" in this discussion. Others in this thread are defining failure as "Firefox no longer exists as a viable open-source browser", whereas you seem to be defining failure as "Mozilla no longer exists as a commercial organization". Diversification of Mozilla's focus is all well and good, so long as it continues to serve what I and evidently others see as its raison d'etre, which is to support Firefox. It may be insensitive of me to say so in this difficult time for Mozillians, and I certainly hope everyone caught up in this restructuring ends up all right, but I see no reason why Mozilla should outlive Firefox in the event that, as you suggest, it is doomed to failure.
- eitland 6y ago
  > Mozilla has put a ton of resources into improving Firefox, and yet people are still, on-net, leaving. They broke the plug-in API years ago and haven't bothered to fix the new one meaning I'm stuck with ugly tabs on the top even when I use Tree Style Tabs. Scrapbook extension hasn't worked for years etc. Today, the main reason I use it isn't technical superiority but stubbornness, idealism and rhe fact that the alternatives are just as bad. I.e. despite all the progress on speed etc nothing makes up for breaking the single reason why they were the work horse of browsers: the extensions ecosystem combined with cross platform and good baseline performance. FWIW: Mozilla can get money from me today - if they promise to use it to fix Firefox. They wont. Quite on the contrary they are quite clear that donation money goes to other projects. I understand this has something to do with Mozilla being a non profit and browsers development not being a thing in their charter, but sooner rather than later I hope they'll realize that providing a good, free browser is maybe the biggest thing they can do to secure an open web ecosystem. I already donate money directly to other projects, so I am not interested in that. I will be signing up for the VPN thing however once it becomes available and if I know the profits goes to Firefox (irony over irony is if I'll need to use a VPN to sign up for the VPN I want :-P)
  - majewsky 6y ago
    > I'm stuck with ugly tabs on the top even when I use Tree Style Tabs. When you install TST, it shows a message explaining to you how to get rid of the tab bar. It's also in their documentation: https://github.com/piroor/treestyletab/wiki/Code-snippets-for-custom-style-rules#for-userchromecss https://github.com/piroor/treestyletab/wiki/Code-snippets-fo... Since the doc is not super clear on this, the userChrome.css needs to go in ~/.mozilla/firefox/*.default/chrome/userChroms.css (you might have to create the "chrome" directory). It's not a super-nice process, but as someone who occasionally does tech support, I understand why they don't offer an API anymore that misbehaving addons could use to utterly destroy the browser UI.
    - eitland 6y ago
      I know. It is also clear that this is a hacky workaround that is not guaranteed to continue working.
- bscphil 6y ago
  > Mozilla has put a ton of resources into improving Firefox I think most Firefox users on Hacker News would dispute this. Judging by the average thread on Firefox, most of us think that Mozilla's efforts have mostly been to make Firefox worse. I don't know that I'd go that far, but the issue seems to be that most of the user facing changes have been the kind of pointless changes for the sake of change, and side projects most people don't use or want in their browser. A sibling comment mentions breaking the addon API. If the addons I want to use are broken for months at a time, that's going to get me to consider using a different browser, even one with less capabilities. (This doesn't have to be a rational process; ideally you want your users to never think "ugh, why isn't this working, hmm I haven't checked out Chrome in a while". Even if Chrome is worse, some of them are going to switch.) Then there's Pocket, which (let's admit) exists only because it's a direct source of revenue for Mozilla via advertisements placed in the browser chrome. Then there's the pointless change to the URL bar, which drew an absurd amount of outrage. That much anger over a small UI change is not justified of course, but that's not the point. Stuff like this breaks the cardinal rule of not pointlessly pissing off your dwindling user base. There's whatever the hell the mobile team is up to, with some new perpetual beta project every 12 months and putting an enormous amount of effort into a new Firefox for Android with a worse, slower UI that's not significantly faster for actual browsing and currently only has support for a handful of addons (which are the only reason anyone uses FFA). There's enhanced tracking protection, which in the good ol' days of Firefox would have been an addon. Granted, it seems like it's doing something genuinely useful. The RSS viewer got removed in version 64. Then there are the fiascos, like the time Mozilla broke all users' addons, the hotfix sideloading scandal, the Mr Robot thing... To be clear I do recognize that at least some parts of Mozilla are interested in improving Firefox, but the issue is that most of the improvements there are not obvious to anyone. Personally I've enjoyed the feature to automatically block notification permission requests (the UI for that is great). The addition of WebP support was nice, and ongoing work to support AVIF is also appreciated. The work on WebRender and introducing Rust code into Firefox is appreciated and has made Firefox noticeably faster. There have been some nice improvements to the developer tools too. The problem is that most of this stuff isn't visible to ordinary users, even to power users. That's a problem for attracting new users, to be sure. But the attempts Mozilla has made to attract new users seem to largely be failing. And so the worst thing they could possibly do is to piss off the dedicated users who remain, but that seems to be what they've mostly accomplished.

gfodor 6y ago

I never claimed there aren't unmet needs for Firefox users, or that their needs are invalid. My claim is that there's a good chance the strategy of trying to compete in the browser market is a failing strategy. That is backed up by the evidence. Mozilla has put a ton of resources into improving Firefox, and yet people are still, on-net, leaving. Executives have a tough decision to make in terms of where and how to place bets. The OP's approach is to just concede that Mozilla will be dead some day and they may as well just slow the decline. If you are the CEO, accepting this and acting in accordance with that would be a dereliction of duty. I am not claiming to know the answer. I worked on a team that tried to place a strong bet to backstop things if Firefox ultimately failed. But I don't think the confidence that it's self-evident that they should just go all-in on Firefox is justified.

jacquesm 6y ago
> If you are the CEO, accepting this and acting in accordance with that would be a dereliction of duty. Why is that dereliction of duty? Actually accepting the facts as they are is the hallmark of a good CEO. Trying to pretend reality and facts don't matter and that FireFox will win this battle is - pardon the word choice - delusional at this point in time. So if your choices are between fighting a losing battle as good as you can or accelerating the drop then I'd be all for fighting that battle and drawing it out as long as I could. Accelerating it with wild-ass gambles is what got Mozilla where it is today.
- gfodor 6y ago
  The "facts" you are claiming are just your opinion. The opinion specifically being that there is literally no way for Mozilla to survive. Others in the thread think they can survive by focusing on Firefox (you disagree obviously.) Some (like me) think they can survive by building new things people will pay for. (you think they are a 'one trick pony.') A CEO who disagrees with your opinion isn't ignoring facts, and a CEO who doesn't charter a strategy towards something other than catastrophic failure is not a good CEO.
  - jacquesm 6y ago
    > The opinion specifically being that there is literally no way for Mozilla to survive. I note they just cut 25% of their workforce. That's not a sign of a healthy company, unless they had 25% excess people in the first place, and then it would be a sign of bad management. So I'm going on the assumption that they are letting go of people they could ill afford to miss. > Others in the thread think they can survive by focusing on Firefox (you disagree obviously.) I disagree because the writing has been on the wall for a long time. The diminishing market share tells a pretty clear story. What is happening now is that Mozilla will try to jump from one shrinking ice-floe onto another that they hope will be more stable and may even give them room to expand again. They fail to recognize - again, my opinion - that this lack of focus is one of the drivers of the exodus in the first place. > Some (like me) think they can survive by building new things people will pay for. (you think they are a 'one trick pony.') That's possible, but survival of Mozilla the software house making a lot of other stuff that generates revenue which is not the browser is none of my concern nor interest. I can see why as a Mozilla employee it would be your concern. But I see no difference between that work and that of any other software company. The browser is where the difference can be made. > A CEO who disagrees with your opinion isn't ignoring facts If that CEO has a great plan on making Mozilla survive and manage to stave off further decline of the browser market share then I haven't seen it. So either that plan does not exist or they have already given up but are just not telling you (or me, for that matter). > and a CEO who doesn't charter a strategy towards something other than catastrophic failure is not a good CEO. That depends on how avoidable the catastrophe is. Losing the browser would be a catastrophe, losing the rest would not even register, for everything else that Mozilla does that I'm aware of there are alternatives. But a browser with still some market share that is privacy focused and not beholden to some large advertising agency or hardware provider is a unique thing. I think the big difference between our points of view is that you are looking from the inside out and I'm looking from the outside in. You have by virtue of your position more information at your disposal, but your interests and mine are not necessarily 100% aligned. I would prefer for FireFox to be available as long as possible, you - apparently - would like Mozilla Inc as an entity to survive. Those two are not necessarily joined at the hip. Though obviously if Mozilla Inc survives FireFox may have a better chance of survival too. But it looks to me, reading between the lines here, that Mozilla effectively announces that they feel that the browser as a source of revenue is a dead end and that if they do not move into other markets that the company will go under.
nxrabl 6y ago
I think a point of confusion here is that there are different definitions of "failure" in this discussion. Others in this thread are defining failure as "Firefox no longer exists as a viable open-source browser", whereas you seem to be defining failure as "Mozilla no longer exists as a commercial organization". Diversification of Mozilla's focus is all well and good, so long as it continues to serve what I and evidently others see as its raison d'etre, which is to support Firefox. It may be insensitive of me to say so in this difficult time for Mozillians, and I certainly hope everyone caught up in this restructuring ends up all right, but I see no reason why Mozilla should outlive Firefox in the event that, as you suggest, it is doomed to failure.
eitland 6y ago
> Mozilla has put a ton of resources into improving Firefox, and yet people are still, on-net, leaving. They broke the plug-in API years ago and haven't bothered to fix the new one meaning I'm stuck with ugly tabs on the top even when I use Tree Style Tabs. Scrapbook extension hasn't worked for years etc. Today, the main reason I use it isn't technical superiority but stubbornness, idealism and rhe fact that the alternatives are just as bad. I.e. despite all the progress on speed etc nothing makes up for breaking the single reason why they were the work horse of browsers: the extensions ecosystem combined with cross platform and good baseline performance. FWIW: Mozilla can get money from me today - if they promise to use it to fix Firefox. They wont. Quite on the contrary they are quite clear that donation money goes to other projects. I understand this has something to do with Mozilla being a non profit and browsers development not being a thing in their charter, but sooner rather than later I hope they'll realize that providing a good, free browser is maybe the biggest thing they can do to secure an open web ecosystem. I already donate money directly to other projects, so I am not interested in that. I will be signing up for the VPN thing however once it becomes available and if I know the profits goes to Firefox (irony over irony is if I'll need to use a VPN to sign up for the VPN I want :-P)
- majewsky 6y ago
  > I'm stuck with ugly tabs on the top even when I use Tree Style Tabs. When you install TST, it shows a message explaining to you how to get rid of the tab bar. It's also in their documentation: https://github.com/piroor/treestyletab/wiki/Code-snippets-for-custom-style-rules#for-userchromecss https://github.com/piroor/treestyletab/wiki/Code-snippets-fo... Since the doc is not super clear on this, the userChrome.css needs to go in ~/.mozilla/firefox/*.default/chrome/userChroms.css (you might have to create the "chrome" directory). It's not a super-nice process, but as someone who occasionally does tech support, I understand why they don't offer an API anymore that misbehaving addons could use to utterly destroy the browser UI.
  - eitland 6y ago
    I know. It is also clear that this is a hacky workaround that is not guaranteed to continue working.
bscphil 6y ago
> Mozilla has put a ton of resources into improving Firefox I think most Firefox users on Hacker News would dispute this. Judging by the average thread on Firefox, most of us think that Mozilla's efforts have mostly been to make Firefox worse. I don't know that I'd go that far, but the issue seems to be that most of the user facing changes have been the kind of pointless changes for the sake of change, and side projects most people don't use or want in their browser. A sibling comment mentions breaking the addon API. If the addons I want to use are broken for months at a time, that's going to get me to consider using a different browser, even one with less capabilities. (This doesn't have to be a rational process; ideally you want your users to never think "ugh, why isn't this working, hmm I haven't checked out Chrome in a while". Even if Chrome is worse, some of them are going to switch.) Then there's Pocket, which (let's admit) exists only because it's a direct source of revenue for Mozilla via advertisements placed in the browser chrome. Then there's the pointless change to the URL bar, which drew an absurd amount of outrage. That much anger over a small UI change is not justified of course, but that's not the point. Stuff like this breaks the cardinal rule of not pointlessly pissing off your dwindling user base. There's whatever the hell the mobile team is up to, with some new perpetual beta project every 12 months and putting an enormous amount of effort into a new Firefox for Android with a worse, slower UI that's not significantly faster for actual browsing and currently only has support for a handful of addons (which are the only reason anyone uses FFA). There's enhanced tracking protection, which in the good ol' days of Firefox would have been an addon. Granted, it seems like it's doing something genuinely useful. The RSS viewer got removed in version 64. Then there are the fiascos, like the time Mozilla broke all users' addons, the hotfix sideloading scandal, the Mr Robot thing... To be clear I do recognize that at least some parts of Mozilla are interested in improving Firefox, but the issue is that most of the improvements there are not obvious to anyone. Personally I've enjoyed the feature to automatically block notification permission requests (the UI for that is great). The addition of WebP support was nice, and ongoing work to support AVIF is also appreciated. The work on WebRender and introducing Rust code into Firefox is appreciated and has made Firefox noticeably faster. There have been some nice improvements to the developer tools too. The problem is that most of this stuff isn't visible to ordinary users, even to power users. That's a problem for attracting new users, to be sure. But the attempts Mozilla has made to attract new users seem to largely be failing. And so the worst thing they could possibly do is to piss off the dedicated users who remain, but that seems to be what they've mostly accomplished.