5 ms·

So, if browser diversity is important, how do we keep it? We’re at the point that Firefox’s market share is quite small on desktop, and effectively zero on mobi

So, if browser diversity is important, how do we keep it? We’re at the point that Firefox’s market share is quite small on desktop, and effectively zero on mobile. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_browsers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_browsers) What will plausibly change that? It’s not privacy. I know we like to pretend people care about privacy, but people don’t actually care about privacy, or they care about privacy in that they pay lip service to privacy, and go right ahead and keep using Facebook and TikTok. Chrome got ahead of Internet Explorer because it was appreciably faster, and had features like tabs. Is it possible to differentiate on features these days? I’d like to think so, but momentum is such a force.

cxr 6y ago
> So, if browser diversity is important, how do we keep it? The same way it happened 10 years ago. If your non-techie family and friends for some reason have desktops or notebooks and not just phones and tablets, then ask them to use Firefox (or install it for them yourself). If they don't want to use Firefox but they have a MacBook, check if they're using Chrome, and if so, ask them to use Safari instead. If they're interested in getting a computer and want a recommendation, suggest they get a Mac instead of a Windows machine, and get them to use Safari or Firefox instead of Chrome. If they're trying to decide between an Android device and something from Apple, tell them that either is acceptable, but if they go for Android, ask them to install and use mobile Firefox instead of Chrome. If a techie friend is thinking about starting a project and there's a chance that they'll choose Electron, ask them to consider building on top of WebKit instead. In general, spread the word far and wide that WebKit exists and avoid feeding into the popular misconception that the only choices are Firefox or Chrome. If you yourself are interested in alternative, non-mainstream browsers, look first for a WebKit-based one, and maybe consider contributing yourself. However, if you're already using Firefox and consider it acceptable, try to keep using it instead of switching to WebKit. If you're looking to switch, try holding on as long as possible, but make sure your criticism is clear. (And it should be well-informed, too; as Frank Hecker mentioned, albeit more politely, there are too many people talking out of their ass when it comes to Mozilla. That goes for detractors and advocates. The level of uninformedness every time Mozilla comes up—including the tweets quoted in the article—is pretty unreal.)
- saagarjha 6y ago
  WebKit has a problem that nobody of consequence ships it on Windows and Android, the two largest operating systems by usage share. Until someone fixes this, Firefox is the only meaningful alternative.
  - ckcheng 6y ago
    Right, and it makes me wonder if it'd be better for Firefox and diversity of browser engines for FF to use WebKit. Looking at the StatCounter Aug 2020 stats [1], ignoring browsers less than 2% usage share (because I'm lazy), it looks like: Chromium based = 74.53%. Safari = 16.82%. Firefox = 4.09% (but effectively 0 on mobile). And that's with Apple forcing WebKit on Apple mobile devices. Throwing Firefox's 4% into WebKit could be like strategic voting to strengthen the opposition, stop splitting the vote, and reduce Mozilla's cost of maintaining FF (keeping their recent layoffs in mind). [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_browsers#Summary_tables https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_browsers#Su...
    - saagarjha 6y ago
      I remain unconvinced that a Blink-WebKit duopoly would be a better situation than what we have now. For one, Apple has more than enough money to fund WebKit development, and I am not sure the sudden addition of the Firefox team would be welcomed or beneficial there. And while Gecko and WebKit share many of the same goals, they diverge in parts of the browser I consider critically important, such as extensibility. Even if Firefox has low market share I consider their contribution to the browser space to be much more than their usage share would imply.
      - ckcheng 6y ago
        > such as extensibility That's a fair point. I very much value FF's extensibility.
    - userbinator 6y ago
      if it'd be better for Firefox and diversity of browser engines for FF to use WebKit. Of course not. If all browsers effectively turn into slightly different UIs for WebKit, that is zero diversity.
yuvalr1 6y ago
I think that the general guideline here should be to enable good features that are disabled on chrome due to dark design patterns, and to emphasize and focus on these differences. For example the differentiation between Firefox sign in and website sign in, the mobile extensions, ad blocking, background playing in YouTube etc... Things that Mozilla can do but Google can't.
CivBase 6y ago
> Chrome got ahead of Internet Explorer because it was appreciably faster, and had features like tabs. People say this all the time, but I'm not sure I 100% believe it. I suspect Chrome's current dominance was mostly fueled by Android and G-Suite. For many people, it became the default browser at work (thanks to enterprise adoption of G-Suite) and on their smartphone. People like familiarity and the incumbent (IE) had a terrible reputation, so Chrome logically became the new normal. I think for the average user performance and features were just bonuses. It's not like Firefox performance or feature parity has historically been bad compared to Chrome. If performance and features were what people craved, Firefox would be doing fine.
- untog 6y ago
  As someone who was around at the time, it was absolutely because Chrome was a faster and better browser. If I recall Gmail was still in private beta then and Android hadn’t made a big mark yet.
  - CivBase 6y ago
    I was also around at the time. Chrome's performance and features were what made it popular with "power users", but they're only a fraction of the market. Businesses were slow to transition thanks to dependence on IE features and, in my experience, most "casual" users could not be bothered to install a new browser. When I'm talking about Chrome's dominance, I'm talking about their dominance across the whole market. It took a long time for me to convince my parents to switch to Chrome. Now I'm running into the same difficulty trying to convince them to switch away from it. I really think that kind of dominance had less to do with performance and features, and more to so with familiarity.
  - Mediterraneo10 6y ago
    I think you and the GP are talking about two different things. Chrome’s early adoption on desktop was partly due to people finding it a faster browser, and partly users switching browsers without particularly thinking about it because they were exposed to incessant advertising for Chrome on Google properties. But Chrome definitely went to a whole new level of dominance with the rise of mobile, where a substantial number of people around the world use primarily Android phones for browsing, and thus they start off with the stock browser and never think to change it.
stekern 6y ago
For regular consumers, I'd say the biggest value proposition for Firefox on mobile, at least on Android, is the support for browser extensions such as uBlock Origin, and thus mobile ad-blocking. As an example, there's currently no straight-forward way for the average Joe to set up ad-blocking on a mobile device (excl. DoH/DoT using PiHole, NextDNS, etc.). Many non-technical users are, however, familiar with the usage of ad-blocking extensions in their desktop browsers. They might not know the nitty gritty of how ad-blocking works, but most people seem to have one installed. Installing and using such an extension is just as seamless on Firefox for Android as it is on a regular computer.
- limitedmage 6y ago
  Edge on both Android and iOS has Adblock built in and Safari on iOS can have ad blocking very easily enabled with a content blocking app like AdGuard. Firefox is arguably harder to set up for ad blocking than either of these.
  - stekern 6y ago
    Yeah, I was only speaking to Android in my post, and iOS is a different beast with different restrictions when it comes to browser implementations. Is Microsoft in any way competitive or innovative in the browser sphere? I haven't used Windows for ages so I'm out of the loop there. If AdBlock is a built-in feature in Edge on Android, I assume you still need to opt-in through the settings (e.g., Settings -> Enable AdBlock), no? In which case the setup is Firefox is similarly easy: Addons -> uBlock Origin. Perhaps a bit less intuitive for an average user, but still very straight-forward to set up.
untog 6y ago
One big thing would be Apple actually allowing full third party browsers on iOS. But no sign of that, 13 years into the platform.
forgotmypw17 6y ago
I am helping keep it by taking the time to test my websites in all the browsers I can get my hands on, including classics such as Netscape, IE, Mosaic, Lynx, and Opera (pre-WebKit). It takes a bit of work, but I am not under any deadlines, because I only work on personal projects. HTML is very special in its flexible parsing without compilation errors, and I want to do as much as I can to preserve it. JavaScript is different, because it evolved when browser competition was already in effect, so there was motivation to display errors when the page was written in the wrong flavor, as was practiced by Netscape from the beginning, and joined by IE in this practice. HTML and HTTP is also special in that they are both human-readable and human-writeable, the former even by non-specialists. There are not many computer languages out there that have a loose grammar like HTML and HTTP. We have a real gem on our hands, and it would be smart to hold on to it.

cxr 6y ago

> So, if browser diversity is important, how do we keep it? The same way it happened 10 years ago. If your non-techie family and friends for some reason have desktops or notebooks and not just phones and tablets, then ask them to use Firefox (or install it for them yourself). If they don't want to use Firefox but they have a MacBook, check if they're using Chrome, and if so, ask them to use Safari instead. If they're interested in getting a computer and want a recommendation, suggest they get a Mac instead of a Windows machine, and get them to use Safari or Firefox instead of Chrome. If they're trying to decide between an Android device and something from Apple, tell them that either is acceptable, but if they go for Android, ask them to install and use mobile Firefox instead of Chrome. If a techie friend is thinking about starting a project and there's a chance that they'll choose Electron, ask them to consider building on top of WebKit instead. In general, spread the word far and wide that WebKit exists and avoid feeding into the popular misconception that the only choices are Firefox or Chrome. If you yourself are interested in alternative, non-mainstream browsers, look first for a WebKit-based one, and maybe consider contributing yourself. However, if you're already using Firefox and consider it acceptable, try to keep using it instead of switching to WebKit. If you're looking to switch, try holding on as long as possible, but make sure your criticism is clear. (And it should be well-informed, too; as Frank Hecker mentioned, albeit more politely, there are too many people talking out of their ass when it comes to Mozilla. That goes for detractors and advocates. The level of uninformedness every time Mozilla comes up—including the tweets quoted in the article—is pretty unreal.)

saagarjha 6y ago
WebKit has a problem that nobody of consequence ships it on Windows and Android, the two largest operating systems by usage share. Until someone fixes this, Firefox is the only meaningful alternative.
- ckcheng 6y ago
  Right, and it makes me wonder if it'd be better for Firefox and diversity of browser engines for FF to use WebKit. Looking at the StatCounter Aug 2020 stats [1], ignoring browsers less than 2% usage share (because I'm lazy), it looks like: Chromium based = 74.53%. Safari = 16.82%. Firefox = 4.09% (but effectively 0 on mobile). And that's with Apple forcing WebKit on Apple mobile devices. Throwing Firefox's 4% into WebKit could be like strategic voting to strengthen the opposition, stop splitting the vote, and reduce Mozilla's cost of maintaining FF (keeping their recent layoffs in mind). [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_browsers#Summary_tables https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_browsers#Su...
  - saagarjha 6y ago
    I remain unconvinced that a Blink-WebKit duopoly would be a better situation than what we have now. For one, Apple has more than enough money to fund WebKit development, and I am not sure the sudden addition of the Firefox team would be welcomed or beneficial there. And while Gecko and WebKit share many of the same goals, they diverge in parts of the browser I consider critically important, such as extensibility. Even if Firefox has low market share I consider their contribution to the browser space to be much more than their usage share would imply.
    - ckcheng 6y ago
      > such as extensibility That's a fair point. I very much value FF's extensibility.
  - userbinator 6y ago
    if it'd be better for Firefox and diversity of browser engines for FF to use WebKit. Of course not. If all browsers effectively turn into slightly different UIs for WebKit, that is zero diversity.

yuvalr1 6y ago

I think that the general guideline here should be to enable good features that are disabled on chrome due to dark design patterns, and to emphasize and focus on these differences. For example the differentiation between Firefox sign in and website sign in, the mobile extensions, ad blocking, background playing in YouTube etc... Things that Mozilla can do but Google can't.

CivBase 6y ago

> Chrome got ahead of Internet Explorer because it was appreciably faster, and had features like tabs. People say this all the time, but I'm not sure I 100% believe it. I suspect Chrome's current dominance was mostly fueled by Android and G-Suite. For many people, it became the default browser at work (thanks to enterprise adoption of G-Suite) and on their smartphone. People like familiarity and the incumbent (IE) had a terrible reputation, so Chrome logically became the new normal. I think for the average user performance and features were just bonuses. It's not like Firefox performance or feature parity has historically been bad compared to Chrome. If performance and features were what people craved, Firefox would be doing fine.

untog 6y ago
As someone who was around at the time, it was absolutely because Chrome was a faster and better browser. If I recall Gmail was still in private beta then and Android hadn’t made a big mark yet.
- CivBase 6y ago
  I was also around at the time. Chrome's performance and features were what made it popular with "power users", but they're only a fraction of the market. Businesses were slow to transition thanks to dependence on IE features and, in my experience, most "casual" users could not be bothered to install a new browser. When I'm talking about Chrome's dominance, I'm talking about their dominance across the whole market. It took a long time for me to convince my parents to switch to Chrome. Now I'm running into the same difficulty trying to convince them to switch away from it. I really think that kind of dominance had less to do with performance and features, and more to so with familiarity.
- Mediterraneo10 6y ago
  I think you and the GP are talking about two different things. Chrome’s early adoption on desktop was partly due to people finding it a faster browser, and partly users switching browsers without particularly thinking about it because they were exposed to incessant advertising for Chrome on Google properties. But Chrome definitely went to a whole new level of dominance with the rise of mobile, where a substantial number of people around the world use primarily Android phones for browsing, and thus they start off with the stock browser and never think to change it.

stekern 6y ago

For regular consumers, I'd say the biggest value proposition for Firefox on mobile, at least on Android, is the support for browser extensions such as uBlock Origin, and thus mobile ad-blocking. As an example, there's currently no straight-forward way for the average Joe to set up ad-blocking on a mobile device (excl. DoH/DoT using PiHole, NextDNS, etc.). Many non-technical users are, however, familiar with the usage of ad-blocking extensions in their desktop browsers. They might not know the nitty gritty of how ad-blocking works, but most people seem to have one installed. Installing and using such an extension is just as seamless on Firefox for Android as it is on a regular computer.

limitedmage 6y ago
Edge on both Android and iOS has Adblock built in and Safari on iOS can have ad blocking very easily enabled with a content blocking app like AdGuard. Firefox is arguably harder to set up for ad blocking than either of these.
- stekern 6y ago
  Yeah, I was only speaking to Android in my post, and iOS is a different beast with different restrictions when it comes to browser implementations. Is Microsoft in any way competitive or innovative in the browser sphere? I haven't used Windows for ages so I'm out of the loop there. If AdBlock is a built-in feature in Edge on Android, I assume you still need to opt-in through the settings (e.g., Settings -> Enable AdBlock), no? In which case the setup is Firefox is similarly easy: Addons -> uBlock Origin. Perhaps a bit less intuitive for an average user, but still very straight-forward to set up.

untog 6y ago

One big thing would be Apple actually allowing full third party browsers on iOS. But no sign of that, 13 years into the platform.

forgotmypw17 6y ago

I am helping keep it by taking the time to test my websites in all the browsers I can get my hands on, including classics such as Netscape, IE, Mosaic, Lynx, and Opera (pre-WebKit). It takes a bit of work, but I am not under any deadlines, because I only work on personal projects. HTML is very special in its flexible parsing without compilation errors, and I want to do as much as I can to preserve it. JavaScript is different, because it evolved when browser competition was already in effect, so there was motivation to display errors when the page was written in the wrong flavor, as was practiced by Netscape from the beginning, and joined by IE in this practice. HTML and HTTP is also special in that they are both human-readable and human-writeable, the former even by non-specialists. There are not many computer languages out there that have a loose grammar like HTML and HTTP. We have a real gem on our hands, and it would be smart to hold on to it.