4 ms·

Why do you think it doesn't add up? Before the removal you have "usefulness of firefox" + "usefulness of extensions" > "usefulness of chrome" after removal "

by chr1 6y ago

Why do you think it doesn't add up? Before the removal you have "usefulness of firefox" + "usefulness of extensions" > "usefulness of chrome" after removal "usefulness of firefox" < "usefulness of chrome" And that's not counting disappointment/animosity towards firefox for breaking the implicit contract. I am not arguing that this was the main issue that have caused firefox usage to drop, as according to stats on AMO, extensions never had very large usage. But i personally have stopped using firefox after this, and stopped installing it on computers of friends and coworkers, so there must have been some small effect.

The_Colonel 6y ago
> "usefulness of firefox" < "usefulness of chrome" This was the missing hidden variable not explained in the narrative. Firefox was previously significantly behind Chrome in the technical design, now it's getting better but there is still some lag. And as explained in the article, this lag has been historically to a large degree caused by the extension model (need to keep backwards compatibility on a huge API surface, impossibility to introduce multi process architecture, need to always negotiate with extension devs on what can be changed and what not...). There were two options: 1) specialize on power users with XUL extension but lag even more behind Chrome - leads quite certainly to drop of users, slide to irrelevancy and the eventual death 2) try to catch up with Chrome in technical design, but drop historical baggage, including XUL based addons - does not guarantee success but still provides at least hope > ... and stopped installing it on computers of friends and coworkers, so there must have been some small effect. It's sad to see people supporting monopoly this way ...
- jabirali 6y ago
  > It's sad to see people supporting monopoly this way... The realistic way to avoid monopolies and retain free-ish markets is to actively enforce anti-trust legislation. (And in the case of social media companies: force all players of a certain size to provide federation APIs, so people can leave the service and still talk to their friends and family.) There will always be some people that try to avoid monopolies for ideological reasons; but 90% of the population won't care, they just want things to work and move on with their lives, and capturing that segment still makes you a monopoly.
  - The_Colonel 6y ago
    > but 90% of the population won't care, they just want things to work and move on with their lives Yes, I meant it more specifically that people here on HN who should know and should care are actively propagating and helping a monopoly. (these people often also have disproportionate influence)
    - chr1 6y ago
      What do we get from supporting Firefox against the "monopoly" though? Chromium is as open source as Firefox, and users have as much influence on features Firefox implements as on features Chrome implements, which is zero. I would wholeheartedly support federation apis, as parent comment suggests, standardization of browser sync api, etc. But i don't see what does Firefox accomplish now about which i should care.
      - The_Colonel 6y ago
        This is mainly about web platform standards. When google controls the only remaining browser engine, it effectively controls web standards (or in other words, independent standard documents lose meaning since Blink is the standard). Google is then free to push the web technologies in the direction which benefits mainly Google (think AMP) and which further tightens their grip on the web.
- FeepingCreature 6y ago
  > specialize on power users with XUL extension but lag even more behind Chrome - leads quite certainly to drop of users, slide to irrelevancy and the eventual death Ah yes, if you're reduced to power users your death is inevitable. Which is why Linux, of course, is a myth and does not exist.
  - The_Colonel 6y ago
    Comparing incomparable. Linux (as a kernel) is alive and thriving because of the server market not because of power users tweaking their bash powerlines.

by chr1 6y ago

The_Colonel 6y ago

> "usefulness of firefox" < "usefulness of chrome" This was the missing hidden variable not explained in the narrative. Firefox was previously significantly behind Chrome in the technical design, now it's getting better but there is still some lag. And as explained in the article, this lag has been historically to a large degree caused by the extension model (need to keep backwards compatibility on a huge API surface, impossibility to introduce multi process architecture, need to always negotiate with extension devs on what can be changed and what not...). There were two options: 1) specialize on power users with XUL extension but lag even more behind Chrome - leads quite certainly to drop of users, slide to irrelevancy and the eventual death 2) try to catch up with Chrome in technical design, but drop historical baggage, including XUL based addons - does not guarantee success but still provides at least hope > ... and stopped installing it on computers of friends and coworkers, so there must have been some small effect. It's sad to see people supporting monopoly this way ...

jabirali 6y ago
> It's sad to see people supporting monopoly this way... The realistic way to avoid monopolies and retain free-ish markets is to actively enforce anti-trust legislation. (And in the case of social media companies: force all players of a certain size to provide federation APIs, so people can leave the service and still talk to their friends and family.) There will always be some people that try to avoid monopolies for ideological reasons; but 90% of the population won't care, they just want things to work and move on with their lives, and capturing that segment still makes you a monopoly.
- The_Colonel 6y ago
  > but 90% of the population won't care, they just want things to work and move on with their lives Yes, I meant it more specifically that people here on HN who should know and should care are actively propagating and helping a monopoly. (these people often also have disproportionate influence)
  - chr1 6y ago
    What do we get from supporting Firefox against the "monopoly" though? Chromium is as open source as Firefox, and users have as much influence on features Firefox implements as on features Chrome implements, which is zero. I would wholeheartedly support federation apis, as parent comment suggests, standardization of browser sync api, etc. But i don't see what does Firefox accomplish now about which i should care.
    - The_Colonel 6y ago
      This is mainly about web platform standards. When google controls the only remaining browser engine, it effectively controls web standards (or in other words, independent standard documents lose meaning since Blink is the standard). Google is then free to push the web technologies in the direction which benefits mainly Google (think AMP) and which further tightens their grip on the web.
FeepingCreature 6y ago
> specialize on power users with XUL extension but lag even more behind Chrome - leads quite certainly to drop of users, slide to irrelevancy and the eventual death Ah yes, if you're reduced to power users your death is inevitable. Which is why Linux, of course, is a myth and does not exist.
- The_Colonel 6y ago
  Comparing incomparable. Linux (as a kernel) is alive and thriving because of the server market not because of power users tweaking their bash powerlines.