19 ms·

Personally and strictly my own ignorant and informal opinion, Firefox and by extension Mozilla Corp. was doomed the moment it decided to compete with Chrome by

Personally and strictly my own ignorant and informal opinion, Firefox and by extension Mozilla Corp. was doomed the moment it decided to compete with Chrome by being more like Chrome. Firefox built its userbase by being different than the dominant browser, then decided the only way to not die was to be exactly like the dominant browser except with less icky behind-the-scenes privacy behavior. That was a fundamental mistake. The who's-got-the-biggest-version-number dick-measuring, the constant deprecation of power features and customizability, everything that was intended to beat Chrome in a contest Google couldn't lose is the reason Firefox can't hold onto a decent market share. The 25% of internet users who wanted what Firefox offered ten years ago still want the same thing now, but Firefox decided it was worth losing that 25% trying to chase the 75%, and they lost.

cel1ne 6y ago
I don't think so, i switched to Firefox about two years ago, after the major upgrades, and I think it's way snappier, faster and more usable than chrome.
MattGaiser 6y ago
The challenge with not competing with Chrome is that websites are now mostly developed with Chrome as the dev-tool. Even large companies are just optimizing for that one browser: https://thenextweb.com/dd/2017/11/28/please-build-websites-web-not-just-google-chrome/ https://thenextweb.com/dd/2017/11/28/please-build-websites-w... How many users are going to be willing to put up with stuff not working until they switch?
- causality0 6y ago
  Functioning like Chrome in rendering and page features doesn't mean Firefox has to behave like Chrome in the UX. For example, why gut the ability of people to skin and customize their browser as they see fit? Why is Mozilla involved in a running battle against users who want the tabs below the address bar? Why entirely prevent us from sideloading extensions instead of letting us turn the ability on and off?
  - afiori 6y ago
    I guess that for the first two the answer is in part managing complexity
    - asddubs 6y ago
      and the last one is to reduce attack vectors
      - dependenttypes 6y ago
        Ah yes, the good old walled garden approach. Not very "open", is it?
        asddubs 6y ago
        i mean I don't like it either, but I do believe them in this instance that it's mostly in service of not letting installers just sneak in a toolbar
        dependenttypes 6y ago
        I think that this is misguided. If a malicious installer sneaks in toolbars it can also install a keylogger/send all of your data to a server/install a firefox fork with the toolbar preinstalled/etc. If anything this kind of thing only hurts the users that know what they are doing (such as someone wanting to install a 3rd party addon or someone wanting to install addons via nix).
        notriddle 6y ago
        > If a malicious installer sneaks in toolbars it can also install a keylogger/send all of your data to a server/install a firefox fork with the toolbar preinstalled/etc. If it's totally rogue malware, sure. The toolbars, on the other hand, were coming from companies like Oracle that operated entirely within the bounds of the law.
- TimSchumann 6y ago
  This is the main thing I’m concerned with. Instead of adhering to an open standard, everything becoming ‘whatever google says goes’.
- cotillion 6y ago
  The Firefox bug report for a websocket message inspector was opened 7 years ago. It took 6 years before it got implemented. Its no wonder they lost marketshare among developers.
  - TimSchumann 6y ago
    Agree with this sentiment 100% - it’s not better, it’s just less evil.
  - pjmlp 6y ago
    I can find similar examples in Chrome, yet that doesn't detain some devs to worship it.
    - MattGaiser 6y ago
      Yes, but Chrome is considered the default. If something doesn't work in Chrome, I will get in trouble with my boss for implementing it. If something doesn't work with Firefox, we tell the users to use Chrome.
      - pjmlp 6y ago
        So just like IE 6, some things never change in spite people telling otherwise.
- xxs 6y ago
  Make better and paid/subscription based(!) dev tools, instead screwing the UI and disabling add-ons. People are buying jetbrains products even though free ones exist. I do use firefox but all the auto-update features are off on desktop. On mobile I am/will be stuck with 68 forever, I suppose as well.
  - usrusr 6y ago
    Perhaps FF developer edition was meant to test the waters for this approach? Do web people actually use that? I never got to the point of making it part of my process, but I'm not doing enough web to really have a process. In any case, a dev browser can only be relevant if it's representative of end user browsers. The history of browser wars has shown that a superior dev experience can be a decisive factor in winning users, but it can never be more than a supporting role. These days a far more plausible dev level monetization angle would be Mozilla's unique position as the origin of Rust. Spin out a Rust subsidiary that sells service and perhaps also some premium tooling/SaaS in the open market while doing work on Rust/Servo/FF for a nominal fee that allows both sides to keep the lights on. But that (just like paid browser dev tools) would be B2B and apparently Mozilla Corp completely fails to see itself as a B2B actor outside of consumer eyeballs deals like the Google deal and the increasingly outbrainy start tab fillers. But failure to go that way is hardly surprising. Where would the business skillset come from when the entire organizion outside the tech teams has more in common with the great money furnaces of Wikimedia than with anything else? The only way I can see for that kind of transition to go well would be some form of merger/acquisition with someone already existing in those fields (consultancy and/or tooling). "you take the engineers, we'll be buying services". But the successful ones would be very reluctant to suddenly load themselves with the entirety of Rust. It would probably take someone owner-managed who brought a decent amount of idealism into the equation. Total number of candidates might amount to zero.
- pjmlp 6y ago
  The anti-IE generation is mostly to blame for that, they ended up adopting the behaviours they criticized so much.
  - MattGaiser 6y ago
    IE made life miserable for developers. I am not sure we would have cared if it were not moribund.
    - ohgodplsno 6y ago
      Whereas Chrome makes life miserable for users not using Chrome, because of the sheer amount of non-standard, Chrome-only features used in current webdev.
      - harshitaneja 6y ago
        Which non-standard features?
        ohgodplsno 6y ago
        Using google properties is a bit of an easy jab, but: Youtube using polymer/shadowdomv0 and absolutely destroying performance on Firefox is a an easy example. Google Earth used non-standard APIs. Otherwise, have a quick search for "non-standard" on MDN, and see how many of those Chrome implements.
        eyko 6y ago
        But both of those are Google products. Yet here we are in a thread blaming an entire generation of web creators and users.
        pjmlp 6y ago
        Ah, so only when Microsoft does it is bad, but when that generation worships Google for doing the same it is suddenly alright.
nikitaga 6y ago
Lack of good built-in RSS reader is puzzling. Could have been their way into offering paid web services as the cross platform browser is so perfectly positioned for this feature.
TimSchumann 6y ago
I find it hard to disagree with this sentiment. I don't use firefox as my main browser because it's better than Chrome, I use it because it's not google.
- bickeringyokel 6y ago
  I find I am not missing anything in terms of features or stability since the quantum engine except perhaps bookmark management being a bit clunky. If you truly prefer chrome why not use a chromium browser that is not Google? (Brave for example)
  - TimSchumann 6y ago
    I question the longevity and/or motives of institutions maintaining any of those builds other than possibly Microsoft. And believe me, if you would have asked me if trusting Microsoft was the safe bet 20 years ago, I would have said you were nuts. But here we are.
    - riffraff 6y ago
      I understand questioning the motives, but does the longevity matter? I have a ton of bookmarks and some extensions, but those carry over easily across chrome variations. If Brave died next year you could switch back to chromium relatively easily, I think. I guess, I may be missing something, and would like to know what.
- lrem 6y ago
  Seeing Google from the inside, I have way more trust in it than the general public. But I do use Firefox as my personal browser because I like what they're doing with the tech stack. Having everyone just slap their logo on Chromium sounds like a way towards eventual stagnation.
  - glenstein 6y ago
    This is the reason why I was initially excited about, and then disenchanted with Vivaldi. I initially had the impression that they weren't going to use Chromium, and that their return to Opera's roots meant returning to the spirit of innovation that made Opera so compelling back in the day (I will never stop singing the praises of Opera Unite). But then I learned that Vivaldi, too, would be based on Chromium.
ulfw 6y ago
Who cares about the version number? Come on. People don‘t pick a browser based on a too high or too low version number.
- causality0 6y ago
  Exactly my point. Mozilla used a rational numbering scheme where the larger the change, the larger the increment, with full integers being reserved for major changes. Then Chrome started changing its integer every few weeks and Firefox upended its own scheme to keep from looking unfashionable.
  - ansible 6y ago
    Between auto-updates and the numbers changing very often, I'm not even slightly aware of the current version numbers for Chrome or Firefox.
  - forgotpwd16 6y ago
    For a rolling-release model like this a scheme could include the date released, e.g. Firefox 20.07.x which is also used by Linux distros. Right now version numbers are pretty useless.
    - gspr 6y ago
      Version numbers aren't useless. It's just that there's an insane fad going around that only the latest iteration of something is suppose to be used.
Brakenshire 6y ago
25% seems like much too high a number for the group you’re talking about. I’d be interested to see some data on level of technical engagement and knowledge, but in my experience a large percentage of users don’t even have a clear idea of what a browser is. The reason Firefox has lost market share in my opinion is because: i) Chrome is pushed by Google.com, which has a near monopoly on search ii) Chrome was bundled and installed alongside other software iii) Chrome is built into Android and Chromebook iv) Chrome has a huge advertising budget And all of these factors combine to make Chrome feel like the default portal to the web. Also for a period of time Chrome was undeniably a better, more stable browser. It’s only relatively recently with Electrolysis and Firefox Quantum that Firefox has regained a technical parity or superiority. And those changes depended on specifying a proper UI and Extension API which is the reason why the browser is no longer so customisable. But Firefox Quantum only exists because of Servo, and vital parts of Servo (parallel layout in particular) have not been integrated into Firefox. It’s bizarre to see Mozilla sabotaging its long term chance at technical leadership not only by scrapping Servo but firing the engineers who built it. I had an untechnical family member say unprompted last week they want to move away from Chrome but couldn’t use Firefox Mobile because it’s too slow. At the same moment Mozilla leadership was sacking its staff working on parallelising the browser engine.
- KingOfCoders 6y ago
  I left FF several times for being slow, being a memory hog, dropping extensions, not adding power features (vertical tree tabs) and come back from Chrome for ideological reasons. I might not be the core audience or user group, but I have not left because of i.) - iv.).
  - ohgodplsno 6y ago
    > not adding power features (vertical tree tabs) https://addons.mozilla.org/fr/firefox/addon/tree-style-tab/ https://addons.mozilla.org/fr/firefox/addon/tree-style-tab/ ?
    - stekern 6y ago
afiori 6y ago
what was 25% ten years ago is closer to 5% now
outadoc 6y ago
> the constant deprecation of power features and customizability They made ONE switch to a superior and standard extension model, and HN loses its minds. Do you really think you're in the majority here? Making it a more secure, faster and just better browser is just the only way forward. Without that Firefox would just be slow as hell, wouldn't play YouTube or Netflix videos, and not have any extensions left because no one wants to create an extension from scratch just for Firefox. They tried their best and I hope it's been enough, even though the future looks bleak.
- KingOfCoders 6y ago
  "Firefox would just be slow as hell" Why is that? The problem is they get into to web standards game which is driven by Google to create pressure everyone else to spend millions on the newest standards. I don't need the newest standards, 2000 web works perfectly fine for me (except HTTPs). Firefox is slow with many tabs open on Win10, Ryzen X3900 with 32gb of RAM (writing this from FF) They broke exetensions several times without any benefit to users, but losing extensions on the way. One of the core features for power users dropped for nothing - well for their own fun rewriting the browser and rendering engine several times, I guess it was fun at least doing "interesting things".
  - tester756 6y ago
    >Firefox is slow with many tabs open on Win10, Ryzen X3900 with 32gb of RAM (writing this from FF) How many is many? I'm using up to 10-20 and it never felt slow on worse setup.
    - dependenttypes 6y ago
      I would consider 500+ as "many". 10-20 would be considered as "very few".
    - eitland 6y ago
      10-20 are so few you can get away with it in Chrome or even old IE. Many is somewhere north of 200. Many of us are routinely on 400 and more. As for why, I at least consider the computer an extension of my mind. What it remember, I don't have to. Edit: Chrome can handle way more than that, it just becomes very tedious when you cannot see the tabs. Also I don't know if omnibar can search for open tabs like awesomebar?
kanox 6y ago
> constant deprecation of power features and customizability Can you be more specific? Advanced customization is provided by extensions and they're as well supported as ever.
- gvjddbnvdrbv 6y ago
  They really are not. Even Mozilla would not make that claim.
  - gvjddbnvdrbv 6y ago
    So would anyone care to explain how vimperiator style customization is possible with webextensions? Newer Firefox explicitly does not support that level of customization.
    - remexre 6y ago
      Never used Vimperator, but I'm happily typing this message in an embedded Vim using SurfingKeys on Firefox 97.
      - gvjddbnvdrbv 6y ago
        Yes I also use the various attempts at vim emulation in the newer Firefox versions. The attempts are commendable given the limitations of the APIs. None of them are anywhere near as powerful in terms of vim like behaviour. If you never used any of the really powerful old style extensions you have no point of comparison. But this is irrelevant. Previously extensions could do anything to alter Firefox. Webextensions are deliberately limited in scope - this is explicitly stated by the Firefox developers. So to say extensions as well supported as ever is factually wrong. The support is much more limited now.
        causality0 6y ago
        It's like going from a pad and paper to a typewriter. Sure, you can write much faster, more precisely, and everybody to the same standards, but you're fucked if what you wanted to do was draw a spaceship. Then there's always the apologists who come in to say that their ASCII-art spaceships are basically fulfilling the same function of the ones you used to draw and you should stop complaining.
alcoholic_byte 6y ago
Google entered the game later. So according to your logic one should always drop dead the moment s.o. else enters the game. Besides, without having read all responses to your post, FF is different, or do you think Alphabet would condone a browser that has container tabs and disables a lot of advertisement/tracking out of the box. Also offering what I had 10years ago, means not being able to to implement new features as quickly, it stagnates development;and on top of that, it will mean less innovation, so you could turn around, crying foul, and say that not enough has been done to be innovative. In my opinion, it is a void argument, a friend to all is a friend to none so to speak. And let's not forget, Google/Alphabet had Chrome support an old protocol that was deprecated to make youtube work best only on their browser. A move in itself qualifying as sabotage of a competing product. It is only possible because Alphabet controls a lot of the infrastructure, people use(more on that a few paragraphs down). Mozilla needs money so they make a deal with Google keeping it as the default search-engine, which means giving revenue to their competitors since Alphabet also produces the Chrome-Browers. IMHO, Mozilla is not at fault here. The everything is free mentality and the economic playing field is. Alphabet, Facebook, Microsoft and Apple are the Robber Barons of the 21st century. Just like Rockefeller et all were a hundred some years ago. We now see first hand what happens if they are not reeled in and not split up. There is an eerie similarity to what happened with the old barons. Thankfully that process gained some tracking in some countries and I do hope it will continue. Yes I am aware there is Chromium, Iron, Brave, Opera, but I am cautious and wouldn't want to touch them with a 10 foot pole, because the rendering-engine is provided by Alphabet which thrives on information gathered against the users will. All nice products, but my argument here is the same as the one against foreign chips in domestic security products. There is always this hint of doubt. One only has to look at the development-frameworks e.g. Facebook offered for free turning every app based on them into a data gathering tool. So I can only agree with posters below: FF is superior and more innovative and secure than Chrome and most people wanna be hip, not have to think and that is where the bigger advertisement-budget comes in. If one screams loud enough, people apparently do believe it is healthy to eat a certain brown excrement while being part of that a huge surveillance botnet that is Google. //Edit: Here is the source of my claim regarding Youtube https://www.zdnet.com/article/former-mozilla-exec-google-has-sabotaged-firefox-for-years/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/former-mozilla-exec-google-has... //Edit2: And regarding security and innovation in that area. Google was very innovative. It dropped Certificate Pinning for their Chrome-Browser. The only thing that alerts one do MITM-Attacks if an attacker gains access to a key for signing a certificate. IMHO one more reason to stick with FF or move over. These days people think what Chrome provides is everything there is. I for myself vote with my wallet. Adblocker(because Alphabet also runs an ad-provider, also for other sides), I do not use Google as search-engine and if I must hooktube instead of youtube :)
fastball 6y ago
I don't use FF because I still find SpiderMonkey (its JS engine) to be slower than V8.
- alcoholic_byte 6y ago
  Firstly, the question of browser superiority and choice is not just about speed. You wouldn't want to choose an operation procedure A) over B) simply because A is faster as A has a mortality rate 30%higher that B. Secondly, the web is not high-end-gaming so a few ms more or less don't really matter IMHO. Also note that Alphabet might slow their service down deliberately, because you are not using their browser. Lastly, to finish off with a strong argument, I want you to look at https://arewefastyet.com/win10/overview?numDays=60 https://arewefastyet.com/win10/overview?numDays=60 . It always depends on the benchmark and circumstances, as I havn't checked other OSs on that site.
- MaxBarraclough 6y ago
  You mean you find the browser to be slower? There's more to a browser than its JavaScript engine. Firefox and Chrome also use entirely different rendering engines. As for which browser really is faster, it depends on the workload. Someone already linked to https://areWeFastYet.com/ https://areWeFastYet.com/
ptx 6y ago
> Firefox built its userbase by being different than the dominant browser To be fair, part of what distinguished Firefox from the original Mozilla browser was that it was more similar to Internet Explorer, e.g. supporting alt+D to focus the location field and that kind of thing. But I agree that becoming too much like Chrome is a bad idea - if I wanted Chrome, I would use Chrome.
Certhas 6y ago
Pretty much every Firefox discussion on Hacker news you have commenters that say they just can't stand Firefox because it's 10ms slower than Chrome. Google also has been advertising Chrome heavily for the last ten years. And there was a time when Firefox was undeniably significantly behind on performance.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- jansan 6y ago
  On our Javascript heavy app Chrome is still about twice as fast as Firefox. Admittedly it is not your average app, but I cannot confirm claims that Firefox is almost as fast as Chrome.
  - matsemann 6y ago
    How much is that biased because everything has been optimized to Chrome? From frameworks to your implementation.
slim 6y ago
firefox lost it's market share because chrome was a better, faster, more complete browser. Mozilla didn't need to develop any strategy other than building and even better browser. So they tactically designed a safer language, then used it to build a better browser. It was working as planned, but they just abandoned it. Now they don't have a better browser and I wonder if they'll ever have one.
- alcoholic_byte 6y ago
  No. Bigger marketing-budget and better positioning in reaching users. If they use google with a non-Chrome browser they will be prompted to install Chrome because it is better. Some people might have just installed it so Alphabet would stop nagging them. Youtube supported some old deprecated protocol that only Chrome still supported so the users perceived youtube as performing better more reliable on Chrome, and it also gave Alphabet an excuse to say:" This does not happen with Chrome". Slyly withholding the information that Alphabet created this unpleasent user-experience in the first place. So that smells of deceit, and manipulation to me. Thus, even if it were true that Chrome is more performant than any other browser, I would not put my trust and security in a company resolved to use these types of actions. //Edit Just because I mentioned the Youtube thing twice already. In case you want to have a source: here it is https://www.zdnet.com/article/former-mozilla-exec-google-has-sabotaged-firefox-for-years/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/former-mozilla-exec-google-has... // Edit 2 Well I just found out that Chrome is dropping/has dropped Certificate Pinning. How is that for improvement of the security of you user-base? FF still supports it. //Edit 3 There was also a paper trending on HN on how QUIC aka HTTP2 threatens a user's privacy. The design-decision was explained with performance in the paper; I can get that talking about a protocol concerned with speeding up the internet, but coming from a company monetizing surveilance and targeted advertisement, is very disquieting.
1vuio0pswjnm7 6y ago
"That was a fundamental mistake." I have the same opinion. Yet multiple times I have been "corrected" on HN by former/current Mozilla employees that this strategy of trying to match every new feature in Chrome was the only option. Seems like there are some fundamental disagreements between Firefox developers and Firefox users. Whenever I read the Firefox developer discussions I always feel the tone is that "we know best". Other users do not have a voice. Sure you can donate to the Foundation, but as stated in the OP Firefox developers are employed and paid by the Corporation. I sincerely doubt they are interested in any constructive feedback from other users, even if they are supporters.
Krasnol 6y ago
As one of those conservatives who always whined about major changes: Nah, that's not the moment of doom. The moment of doom came when google chose to spread their browser bundled with freeware and people all around ended up just having it as their major browser. Many not even knowing how that happened because they never remove the check marks on the installers. I'm still pissed that people where I installed Firefox now use Chrome as their main browser without having even realised when that changed....I wish there would be a way to block just google/Chrome installers. Most of the people don't know/care about where Chrome comes from or that it's good to un-google or whatever. It's just a minority caring about this. This minority is not relevant to the overwhelming dominance of google.
slightwinder 6y ago
> Firefox built its userbase by being different than the dominant browser Not really. firefox rose tu domination as bland copy of the Internet Explorer, the dominating Browser that time. They also added parts of their own like tabs and addons, but that were just gadgets for those who knew about them. > The 25% of internet users who wanted what Firefox offered ten years ago still want the same thing now, What 25%? Addons are hardly used by anyone, except Adblockers. Even the most well known addons are only used by around 1-2% of the users. Adblockers are more popular, but even they seem to stuck by just 20 or 30% of firefox-users.
xg15 6y ago
I don't know if that was really Mozilla's fault or that Google was always in a position where they could force Mozilla's hand. When Firefox was at its absolute maximum market-share, Google was already the "start page of the internet" thanks to its search page. They used this and other marketing/bundling strategies (which were possible thanks to Google's resources) to aggressively grow Chrome's market share at an unprecedented rate. Compare Firefox' incredibly heroic battle against IE which, after a decade of advocacy, archived an unbelievably-seeming 30% global market share - with the rise of Chrome, which went from 0% to 50% in a few years and completely obliterated IE. [1] Sorry, but that was never an even playing field. It's amazing what they did manage to archive in their position - but with Google dominating both the browser and the way web sites are discovered, they have far more leverage to influence web standards than Mozilla has. I think Mozilla's choice was one of "copy Chrome and keep at least some amount of influence on the web" or "do your own thing and become incompatible with the web that actually exists". [1] https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share
- ukyrgf 6y ago
  I don't remember Google throwing any marketing at being the start page of the internet. That was a Reddit campaign trying to get users to switch from Digg.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
squarefoot 6y ago
I think Firefox lost users to Chrome mainly because Google advertises their product constantly. What you point out about trying to imitate Chrome is right though; when they dumbed down the very complete and functional settings window into an almost empty HTML page that forced to resort to about:config to do anything non trivial, or when they literally copied the terrible Chrome main window structure, I literally wanted to puke. I'm not sure however this is the reason why normal users distanced from the product. Firefox back then was the alternative to Internet Explorer and its load of security and privacy problems, so it started in a context where a good number of users actually wanted to switch to a different browser, despite some lock-ins such as Active-X and the like, I believe even Opera had some well deserved success at a moment for that reason, but none of them could compete anymore when the new kid in the block was a strongly and pervasively advertised product like Chrome. Firefox today is faster and more user privacy friendly than Chrome; to me if most people don't use it is simply because they don't know. Small personal example: of the many people I installed it, the number of those that went back to Chrome is a single digit percentage, which should suggest they didn't choose Chrome initially, but rather they didn't know about the alternatives. Now it's the time for all Firefox users to tell others that they chose Firefox, and why, then for Mozilla to invest some damn money in advertising!
antisthenes 6y ago
I can't speak for the other 25%, but this is certainly true for me. I stopped using the official Firefox when they decided to throw away the entire plug-in ecosystem and moved to Quantum or whatever. After they did, it's been a long, but very stable slide down in power user functionality and what made it Firefox.
giancarlostoro 6y ago
It's really a shame, and I've mentioned this before. If Mozilla sells a 'Developer' version of Firefox that is technically fully open source, but the idea is that it will directly support Firefox development, I will pay, you can add tiers, a VPN (since they're going to offer this anyway) and other goodies (maybe I can finally have a cool @firefox / mozmail.com / foxmail.com email or whatever) and I would probably subscribe to pay for higher tiers if it brings me other benefits, the email bit I mention because they do already provide an email client, it's a shame they never produced their own email service to subsidize their efforts elsewhere. Mind you they already have Firefox Developer edition, they can keep it free and add a Firefox Professional Developer Edition that guarantees funds go to better funding Firefox development and I will be one of the first to pay for it, if it's got a monthly subscription or yearly. No "discount" tactics either, please, it makes no sense for someone trying to maintain a lot of non-profit open source projects.
craftinator 6y ago
Sometimes, a group makes no poor decisions, or no none that actually matter, but their goals are overcome by events, and they fail. It's not about what Mozilla did, it's about what Google did; Firefox is simply not going to win against Chrome in terms of marketshare. Of course they can still win in terms of making their browser more awesome for the people who actually use it!
takeda 6y ago
Agree the same thing started with Opera, previously they were known from inventing many features (some of them actually Chrome copied when it first appeared). Once Chrome started gaining traction they started be the ones that were copying Chrome. Ultimately dropping the Presto engine and becoming just another skin for Chrome. I didn't use Opera and later Firefox to get Chrome experience.
john4534243 6y ago
The future of Rust language from Mozilla is also uncertain.
blablabla123 6y ago
> Firefox built its userbase by being different than the dominant browser, then decided the only way to not die was to be exactly like the dominant browser except with less icky behind-the-scenes privacy behavior. Yes, that's also were Mozilla lost me. Also since last year's questionable privacy problems, I really see no point in continuing to use Firefox. Just going for maximum performance/best integration which is Safari. For sure alternative implementations will come, Kosmonaut looks promising. Actually KHTML/Konqueror which Webkit is based on also came out of nowhere, when the Web standards where already considered sufficiently complex for nobody to do a new implementation. So I think this is fertile ground for new efforts...

cel1ne 6y ago

I don't think so, i switched to Firefox about two years ago, after the major upgrades, and I think it's way snappier, faster and more usable than chrome.

MattGaiser 6y ago

The challenge with not competing with Chrome is that websites are now mostly developed with Chrome as the dev-tool. Even large companies are just optimizing for that one browser: https://thenextweb.com/dd/2017/11/28/please-build-websites-web-not-just-google-chrome/ https://thenextweb.com/dd/2017/11/28/please-build-websites-w... How many users are going to be willing to put up with stuff not working until they switch?

causality0 6y ago
Functioning like Chrome in rendering and page features doesn't mean Firefox has to behave like Chrome in the UX. For example, why gut the ability of people to skin and customize their browser as they see fit? Why is Mozilla involved in a running battle against users who want the tabs below the address bar? Why entirely prevent us from sideloading extensions instead of letting us turn the ability on and off?
- afiori 6y ago
  I guess that for the first two the answer is in part managing complexity
  - asddubs 6y ago
    and the last one is to reduce attack vectors
    - dependenttypes 6y ago
      Ah yes, the good old walled garden approach. Not very "open", is it?
      - asddubs 6y ago
        i mean I don't like it either, but I do believe them in this instance that it's mostly in service of not letting installers just sneak in a toolbar
        dependenttypes 6y ago
        I think that this is misguided. If a malicious installer sneaks in toolbars it can also install a keylogger/send all of your data to a server/install a firefox fork with the toolbar preinstalled/etc. If anything this kind of thing only hurts the users that know what they are doing (such as someone wanting to install a 3rd party addon or someone wanting to install addons via nix).
        notriddle 6y ago
        > If a malicious installer sneaks in toolbars it can also install a keylogger/send all of your data to a server/install a firefox fork with the toolbar preinstalled/etc. If it's totally rogue malware, sure. The toolbars, on the other hand, were coming from companies like Oracle that operated entirely within the bounds of the law.
TimSchumann 6y ago
This is the main thing I’m concerned with. Instead of adhering to an open standard, everything becoming ‘whatever google says goes’.
cotillion 6y ago
The Firefox bug report for a websocket message inspector was opened 7 years ago. It took 6 years before it got implemented. Its no wonder they lost marketshare among developers.
- TimSchumann 6y ago
  Agree with this sentiment 100% - it’s not better, it’s just less evil.
- pjmlp 6y ago
  I can find similar examples in Chrome, yet that doesn't detain some devs to worship it.
  - MattGaiser 6y ago
    Yes, but Chrome is considered the default. If something doesn't work in Chrome, I will get in trouble with my boss for implementing it. If something doesn't work with Firefox, we tell the users to use Chrome.
    - pjmlp 6y ago
      So just like IE 6, some things never change in spite people telling otherwise.
xxs 6y ago
Make better and paid/subscription based(!) dev tools, instead screwing the UI and disabling add-ons. People are buying jetbrains products even though free ones exist. I do use firefox but all the auto-update features are off on desktop. On mobile I am/will be stuck with 68 forever, I suppose as well.
- usrusr 6y ago
  Perhaps FF developer edition was meant to test the waters for this approach? Do web people actually use that? I never got to the point of making it part of my process, but I'm not doing enough web to really have a process. In any case, a dev browser can only be relevant if it's representative of end user browsers. The history of browser wars has shown that a superior dev experience can be a decisive factor in winning users, but it can never be more than a supporting role. These days a far more plausible dev level monetization angle would be Mozilla's unique position as the origin of Rust. Spin out a Rust subsidiary that sells service and perhaps also some premium tooling/SaaS in the open market while doing work on Rust/Servo/FF for a nominal fee that allows both sides to keep the lights on. But that (just like paid browser dev tools) would be B2B and apparently Mozilla Corp completely fails to see itself as a B2B actor outside of consumer eyeballs deals like the Google deal and the increasingly outbrainy start tab fillers. But failure to go that way is hardly surprising. Where would the business skillset come from when the entire organizion outside the tech teams has more in common with the great money furnaces of Wikimedia than with anything else? The only way I can see for that kind of transition to go well would be some form of merger/acquisition with someone already existing in those fields (consultancy and/or tooling). "you take the engineers, we'll be buying services". But the successful ones would be very reluctant to suddenly load themselves with the entirety of Rust. It would probably take someone owner-managed who brought a decent amount of idealism into the equation. Total number of candidates might amount to zero.
pjmlp 6y ago
The anti-IE generation is mostly to blame for that, they ended up adopting the behaviours they criticized so much.
- MattGaiser 6y ago
  IE made life miserable for developers. I am not sure we would have cared if it were not moribund.
  - ohgodplsno 6y ago
    Whereas Chrome makes life miserable for users not using Chrome, because of the sheer amount of non-standard, Chrome-only features used in current webdev.
    - harshitaneja 6y ago
      Which non-standard features?
      - ohgodplsno 6y ago
        Using google properties is a bit of an easy jab, but: Youtube using polymer/shadowdomv0 and absolutely destroying performance on Firefox is a an easy example. Google Earth used non-standard APIs. Otherwise, have a quick search for "non-standard" on MDN, and see how many of those Chrome implements.
        eyko 6y ago
        But both of those are Google products. Yet here we are in a thread blaming an entire generation of web creators and users.
        pjmlp 6y ago
        Ah, so only when Microsoft does it is bad, but when that generation worships Google for doing the same it is suddenly alright.

nikitaga 6y ago

Lack of good built-in RSS reader is puzzling. Could have been their way into offering paid web services as the cross platform browser is so perfectly positioned for this feature.

TimSchumann 6y ago

I find it hard to disagree with this sentiment. I don't use firefox as my main browser because it's better than Chrome, I use it because it's not google.

bickeringyokel 6y ago
I find I am not missing anything in terms of features or stability since the quantum engine except perhaps bookmark management being a bit clunky. If you truly prefer chrome why not use a chromium browser that is not Google? (Brave for example)
- TimSchumann 6y ago
  I question the longevity and/or motives of institutions maintaining any of those builds other than possibly Microsoft. And believe me, if you would have asked me if trusting Microsoft was the safe bet 20 years ago, I would have said you were nuts. But here we are.
  - riffraff 6y ago
    I understand questioning the motives, but does the longevity matter? I have a ton of bookmarks and some extensions, but those carry over easily across chrome variations. If Brave died next year you could switch back to chromium relatively easily, I think. I guess, I may be missing something, and would like to know what.
lrem 6y ago
Seeing Google from the inside, I have way more trust in it than the general public. But I do use Firefox as my personal browser because I like what they're doing with the tech stack. Having everyone just slap their logo on Chromium sounds like a way towards eventual stagnation.
- glenstein 6y ago
  This is the reason why I was initially excited about, and then disenchanted with Vivaldi. I initially had the impression that they weren't going to use Chromium, and that their return to Opera's roots meant returning to the spirit of innovation that made Opera so compelling back in the day (I will never stop singing the praises of Opera Unite). But then I learned that Vivaldi, too, would be based on Chromium.

ulfw 6y ago

Who cares about the version number? Come on. People don‘t pick a browser based on a too high or too low version number.

causality0 6y ago
Exactly my point. Mozilla used a rational numbering scheme where the larger the change, the larger the increment, with full integers being reserved for major changes. Then Chrome started changing its integer every few weeks and Firefox upended its own scheme to keep from looking unfashionable.
- ansible 6y ago
  Between auto-updates and the numbers changing very often, I'm not even slightly aware of the current version numbers for Chrome or Firefox.
- forgotpwd16 6y ago
  For a rolling-release model like this a scheme could include the date released, e.g. Firefox 20.07.x which is also used by Linux distros. Right now version numbers are pretty useless.
  - gspr 6y ago
    Version numbers aren't useless. It's just that there's an insane fad going around that only the latest iteration of something is suppose to be used.

Brakenshire 6y ago

25% seems like much too high a number for the group you’re talking about. I’d be interested to see some data on level of technical engagement and knowledge, but in my experience a large percentage of users don’t even have a clear idea of what a browser is. The reason Firefox has lost market share in my opinion is because: i) Chrome is pushed by Google.com, which has a near monopoly on search ii) Chrome was bundled and installed alongside other software iii) Chrome is built into Android and Chromebook iv) Chrome has a huge advertising budget And all of these factors combine to make Chrome feel like the default portal to the web. Also for a period of time Chrome was undeniably a better, more stable browser. It’s only relatively recently with Electrolysis and Firefox Quantum that Firefox has regained a technical parity or superiority. And those changes depended on specifying a proper UI and Extension API which is the reason why the browser is no longer so customisable. But Firefox Quantum only exists because of Servo, and vital parts of Servo (parallel layout in particular) have not been integrated into Firefox. It’s bizarre to see Mozilla sabotaging its long term chance at technical leadership not only by scrapping Servo but firing the engineers who built it. I had an untechnical family member say unprompted last week they want to move away from Chrome but couldn’t use Firefox Mobile because it’s too slow. At the same moment Mozilla leadership was sacking its staff working on parallelising the browser engine.

KingOfCoders 6y ago
I left FF several times for being slow, being a memory hog, dropping extensions, not adding power features (vertical tree tabs) and come back from Chrome for ideological reasons. I might not be the core audience or user group, but I have not left because of i.) - iv.).
- ohgodplsno 6y ago
  > not adding power features (vertical tree tabs) https://addons.mozilla.org/fr/firefox/addon/tree-style-tab/ https://addons.mozilla.org/fr/firefox/addon/tree-style-tab/ ?
  - stekern 6y ago

afiori 6y ago

what was 25% ten years ago is closer to 5% now

outadoc 6y ago

> the constant deprecation of power features and customizability They made ONE switch to a superior and standard extension model, and HN loses its minds. Do you really think you're in the majority here? Making it a more secure, faster and just better browser is just the only way forward. Without that Firefox would just be slow as hell, wouldn't play YouTube or Netflix videos, and not have any extensions left because no one wants to create an extension from scratch just for Firefox. They tried their best and I hope it's been enough, even though the future looks bleak.

KingOfCoders 6y ago
"Firefox would just be slow as hell" Why is that? The problem is they get into to web standards game which is driven by Google to create pressure everyone else to spend millions on the newest standards. I don't need the newest standards, 2000 web works perfectly fine for me (except HTTPs). Firefox is slow with many tabs open on Win10, Ryzen X3900 with 32gb of RAM (writing this from FF) They broke exetensions several times without any benefit to users, but losing extensions on the way. One of the core features for power users dropped for nothing - well for their own fun rewriting the browser and rendering engine several times, I guess it was fun at least doing "interesting things".
- tester756 6y ago
  >Firefox is slow with many tabs open on Win10, Ryzen X3900 with 32gb of RAM (writing this from FF) How many is many? I'm using up to 10-20 and it never felt slow on worse setup.
  - dependenttypes 6y ago
    I would consider 500+ as "many". 10-20 would be considered as "very few".
  - eitland 6y ago
    10-20 are so few you can get away with it in Chrome or even old IE. Many is somewhere north of 200. Many of us are routinely on 400 and more. As for why, I at least consider the computer an extension of my mind. What it remember, I don't have to. Edit: Chrome can handle way more than that, it just becomes very tedious when you cannot see the tabs. Also I don't know if omnibar can search for open tabs like awesomebar?

kanox 6y ago

> constant deprecation of power features and customizability Can you be more specific? Advanced customization is provided by extensions and they're as well supported as ever.

gvjddbnvdrbv 6y ago
They really are not. Even Mozilla would not make that claim.
- gvjddbnvdrbv 6y ago
  So would anyone care to explain how vimperiator style customization is possible with webextensions? Newer Firefox explicitly does not support that level of customization.
  - remexre 6y ago
    Never used Vimperator, but I'm happily typing this message in an embedded Vim using SurfingKeys on Firefox 97.
    - gvjddbnvdrbv 6y ago
      Yes I also use the various attempts at vim emulation in the newer Firefox versions. The attempts are commendable given the limitations of the APIs. None of them are anywhere near as powerful in terms of vim like behaviour. If you never used any of the really powerful old style extensions you have no point of comparison. But this is irrelevant. Previously extensions could do anything to alter Firefox. Webextensions are deliberately limited in scope - this is explicitly stated by the Firefox developers. So to say extensions as well supported as ever is factually wrong. The support is much more limited now.
      - causality0 6y ago
        It's like going from a pad and paper to a typewriter. Sure, you can write much faster, more precisely, and everybody to the same standards, but you're fucked if what you wanted to do was draw a spaceship. Then there's always the apologists who come in to say that their ASCII-art spaceships are basically fulfilling the same function of the ones you used to draw and you should stop complaining.

alcoholic_byte 6y ago

Google entered the game later. So according to your logic one should always drop dead the moment s.o. else enters the game. Besides, without having read all responses to your post, FF is different, or do you think Alphabet would condone a browser that has container tabs and disables a lot of advertisement/tracking out of the box. Also offering what I had 10years ago, means not being able to to implement new features as quickly, it stagnates development;and on top of that, it will mean less innovation, so you could turn around, crying foul, and say that not enough has been done to be innovative. In my opinion, it is a void argument, a friend to all is a friend to none so to speak. And let's not forget, Google/Alphabet had Chrome support an old protocol that was deprecated to make youtube work best only on their browser. A move in itself qualifying as sabotage of a competing product. It is only possible because Alphabet controls a lot of the infrastructure, people use(more on that a few paragraphs down). Mozilla needs money so they make a deal with Google keeping it as the default search-engine, which means giving revenue to their competitors since Alphabet also produces the Chrome-Browers. IMHO, Mozilla is not at fault here. The everything is free mentality and the economic playing field is. Alphabet, Facebook, Microsoft and Apple are the Robber Barons of the 21st century. Just like Rockefeller et all were a hundred some years ago. We now see first hand what happens if they are not reeled in and not split up. There is an eerie similarity to what happened with the old barons. Thankfully that process gained some tracking in some countries and I do hope it will continue. Yes I am aware there is Chromium, Iron, Brave, Opera, but I am cautious and wouldn't want to touch them with a 10 foot pole, because the rendering-engine is provided by Alphabet which thrives on information gathered against the users will. All nice products, but my argument here is the same as the one against foreign chips in domestic security products. There is always this hint of doubt. One only has to look at the development-frameworks e.g. Facebook offered for free turning every app based on them into a data gathering tool. So I can only agree with posters below: FF is superior and more innovative and secure than Chrome and most people wanna be hip, not have to think and that is where the bigger advertisement-budget comes in. If one screams loud enough, people apparently do believe it is healthy to eat a certain brown excrement while being part of that a huge surveillance botnet that is Google. //Edit: Here is the source of my claim regarding Youtube https://www.zdnet.com/article/former-mozilla-exec-google-has-sabotaged-firefox-for-years/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/former-mozilla-exec-google-has... //Edit2: And regarding security and innovation in that area. Google was very innovative. It dropped Certificate Pinning for their Chrome-Browser. The only thing that alerts one do MITM-Attacks if an attacker gains access to a key for signing a certificate. IMHO one more reason to stick with FF or move over. These days people think what Chrome provides is everything there is. I for myself vote with my wallet. Adblocker(because Alphabet also runs an ad-provider, also for other sides), I do not use Google as search-engine and if I must hooktube instead of youtube :)

fastball 6y ago

I don't use FF because I still find SpiderMonkey (its JS engine) to be slower than V8.

alcoholic_byte 6y ago
Firstly, the question of browser superiority and choice is not just about speed. You wouldn't want to choose an operation procedure A) over B) simply because A is faster as A has a mortality rate 30%higher that B. Secondly, the web is not high-end-gaming so a few ms more or less don't really matter IMHO. Also note that Alphabet might slow their service down deliberately, because you are not using their browser. Lastly, to finish off with a strong argument, I want you to look at https://arewefastyet.com/win10/overview?numDays=60 https://arewefastyet.com/win10/overview?numDays=60 . It always depends on the benchmark and circumstances, as I havn't checked other OSs on that site.
MaxBarraclough 6y ago
You mean you find the browser to be slower? There's more to a browser than its JavaScript engine. Firefox and Chrome also use entirely different rendering engines. As for which browser really is faster, it depends on the workload. Someone already linked to https://areWeFastYet.com/ https://areWeFastYet.com/

ptx 6y ago

> Firefox built its userbase by being different than the dominant browser To be fair, part of what distinguished Firefox from the original Mozilla browser was that it was more similar to Internet Explorer, e.g. supporting alt+D to focus the location field and that kind of thing. But I agree that becoming too much like Chrome is a bad idea - if I wanted Chrome, I would use Chrome.

Certhas 6y ago

Pretty much every Firefox discussion on Hacker news you have commenters that say they just can't stand Firefox because it's 10ms slower than Chrome. Google also has been advertising Chrome heavily for the last ten years. And there was a time when Firefox was undeniably significantly behind on performance.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
jansan 6y ago
On our Javascript heavy app Chrome is still about twice as fast as Firefox. Admittedly it is not your average app, but I cannot confirm claims that Firefox is almost as fast as Chrome.
- matsemann 6y ago
  How much is that biased because everything has been optimized to Chrome? From frameworks to your implementation.

slim 6y ago

firefox lost it's market share because chrome was a better, faster, more complete browser. Mozilla didn't need to develop any strategy other than building and even better browser. So they tactically designed a safer language, then used it to build a better browser. It was working as planned, but they just abandoned it. Now they don't have a better browser and I wonder if they'll ever have one.

alcoholic_byte 6y ago
No. Bigger marketing-budget and better positioning in reaching users. If they use google with a non-Chrome browser they will be prompted to install Chrome because it is better. Some people might have just installed it so Alphabet would stop nagging them. Youtube supported some old deprecated protocol that only Chrome still supported so the users perceived youtube as performing better more reliable on Chrome, and it also gave Alphabet an excuse to say:" This does not happen with Chrome". Slyly withholding the information that Alphabet created this unpleasent user-experience in the first place. So that smells of deceit, and manipulation to me. Thus, even if it were true that Chrome is more performant than any other browser, I would not put my trust and security in a company resolved to use these types of actions. //Edit Just because I mentioned the Youtube thing twice already. In case you want to have a source: here it is https://www.zdnet.com/article/former-mozilla-exec-google-has-sabotaged-firefox-for-years/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/former-mozilla-exec-google-has... // Edit 2 Well I just found out that Chrome is dropping/has dropped Certificate Pinning. How is that for improvement of the security of you user-base? FF still supports it. //Edit 3 There was also a paper trending on HN on how QUIC aka HTTP2 threatens a user's privacy. The design-decision was explained with performance in the paper; I can get that talking about a protocol concerned with speeding up the internet, but coming from a company monetizing surveilance and targeted advertisement, is very disquieting.

1vuio0pswjnm7 6y ago

"That was a fundamental mistake." I have the same opinion. Yet multiple times I have been "corrected" on HN by former/current Mozilla employees that this strategy of trying to match every new feature in Chrome was the only option. Seems like there are some fundamental disagreements between Firefox developers and Firefox users. Whenever I read the Firefox developer discussions I always feel the tone is that "we know best". Other users do not have a voice. Sure you can donate to the Foundation, but as stated in the OP Firefox developers are employed and paid by the Corporation. I sincerely doubt they are interested in any constructive feedback from other users, even if they are supporters.

Krasnol 6y ago

As one of those conservatives who always whined about major changes: Nah, that's not the moment of doom. The moment of doom came when google chose to spread their browser bundled with freeware and people all around ended up just having it as their major browser. Many not even knowing how that happened because they never remove the check marks on the installers. I'm still pissed that people where I installed Firefox now use Chrome as their main browser without having even realised when that changed....I wish there would be a way to block just google/Chrome installers. Most of the people don't know/care about where Chrome comes from or that it's good to un-google or whatever. It's just a minority caring about this. This minority is not relevant to the overwhelming dominance of google.

slightwinder 6y ago

> Firefox built its userbase by being different than the dominant browser Not really. firefox rose tu domination as bland copy of the Internet Explorer, the dominating Browser that time. They also added parts of their own like tabs and addons, but that were just gadgets for those who knew about them. > The 25% of internet users who wanted what Firefox offered ten years ago still want the same thing now, What 25%? Addons are hardly used by anyone, except Adblockers. Even the most well known addons are only used by around 1-2% of the users. Adblockers are more popular, but even they seem to stuck by just 20 or 30% of firefox-users.

xg15 6y ago

I don't know if that was really Mozilla's fault or that Google was always in a position where they could force Mozilla's hand. When Firefox was at its absolute maximum market-share, Google was already the "start page of the internet" thanks to its search page. They used this and other marketing/bundling strategies (which were possible thanks to Google's resources) to aggressively grow Chrome's market share at an unprecedented rate. Compare Firefox' incredibly heroic battle against IE which, after a decade of advocacy, archived an unbelievably-seeming 30% global market share - with the rise of Chrome, which went from 0% to 50% in a few years and completely obliterated IE. [1] Sorry, but that was never an even playing field. It's amazing what they did manage to archive in their position - but with Google dominating both the browser and the way web sites are discovered, they have far more leverage to influence web standards than Mozilla has. I think Mozilla's choice was one of "copy Chrome and keep at least some amount of influence on the web" or "do your own thing and become incompatible with the web that actually exists". [1] https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share

ukyrgf 6y ago
I don't remember Google throwing any marketing at being the start page of the internet. That was a Reddit campaign trying to get users to switch from Digg.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

squarefoot 6y ago

I think Firefox lost users to Chrome mainly because Google advertises their product constantly. What you point out about trying to imitate Chrome is right though; when they dumbed down the very complete and functional settings window into an almost empty HTML page that forced to resort to about:config to do anything non trivial, or when they literally copied the terrible Chrome main window structure, I literally wanted to puke. I'm not sure however this is the reason why normal users distanced from the product. Firefox back then was the alternative to Internet Explorer and its load of security and privacy problems, so it started in a context where a good number of users actually wanted to switch to a different browser, despite some lock-ins such as Active-X and the like, I believe even Opera had some well deserved success at a moment for that reason, but none of them could compete anymore when the new kid in the block was a strongly and pervasively advertised product like Chrome. Firefox today is faster and more user privacy friendly than Chrome; to me if most people don't use it is simply because they don't know. Small personal example: of the many people I installed it, the number of those that went back to Chrome is a single digit percentage, which should suggest they didn't choose Chrome initially, but rather they didn't know about the alternatives. Now it's the time for all Firefox users to tell others that they chose Firefox, and why, then for Mozilla to invest some damn money in advertising!

antisthenes 6y ago

I can't speak for the other 25%, but this is certainly true for me. I stopped using the official Firefox when they decided to throw away the entire plug-in ecosystem and moved to Quantum or whatever. After they did, it's been a long, but very stable slide down in power user functionality and what made it Firefox.

giancarlostoro 6y ago

It's really a shame, and I've mentioned this before. If Mozilla sells a 'Developer' version of Firefox that is technically fully open source, but the idea is that it will directly support Firefox development, I will pay, you can add tiers, a VPN (since they're going to offer this anyway) and other goodies (maybe I can finally have a cool @firefox / mozmail.com / foxmail.com email or whatever) and I would probably subscribe to pay for higher tiers if it brings me other benefits, the email bit I mention because they do already provide an email client, it's a shame they never produced their own email service to subsidize their efforts elsewhere. Mind you they already have Firefox Developer edition, they can keep it free and add a Firefox Professional Developer Edition that guarantees funds go to better funding Firefox development and I will be one of the first to pay for it, if it's got a monthly subscription or yearly. No "discount" tactics either, please, it makes no sense for someone trying to maintain a lot of non-profit open source projects.

craftinator 6y ago

Sometimes, a group makes no poor decisions, or no none that actually matter, but their goals are overcome by events, and they fail. It's not about what Mozilla did, it's about what Google did; Firefox is simply not going to win against Chrome in terms of marketshare. Of course they can still win in terms of making their browser more awesome for the people who actually use it!

takeda 6y ago

Agree the same thing started with Opera, previously they were known from inventing many features (some of them actually Chrome copied when it first appeared). Once Chrome started gaining traction they started be the ones that were copying Chrome. Ultimately dropping the Presto engine and becoming just another skin for Chrome. I didn't use Opera and later Firefox to get Chrome experience.

john4534243 6y ago

The future of Rust language from Mozilla is also uncertain.

blablabla123 6y ago

> Firefox built its userbase by being different than the dominant browser, then decided the only way to not die was to be exactly like the dominant browser except with less icky behind-the-scenes privacy behavior. Yes, that's also were Mozilla lost me. Also since last year's questionable privacy problems, I really see no point in continuing to use Firefox. Just going for maximum performance/best integration which is Safari. For sure alternative implementations will come, Kosmonaut looks promising. Actually KHTML/Konqueror which Webkit is based on also came out of nowhere, when the Web standards where already considered sufficiently complex for nobody to do a new implementation. So I think this is fertile ground for new efforts...