4 ms·

>Won't argue that Mozilla/Firefox has been comprehensively out-manouvered by Google/Chrome. And sometimes without being at fault really. I remember a key momen

>Won't argue that Mozilla/Firefox has been comprehensively out-manouvered by Google/Chrome. And sometimes without being at fault really. I remember a key moment when firefox was bleeding users was when google decided that H264 would be the standard after switching for a while and mozilla having to run after it trying to get implementations going and then still having a laggy af experience on youtube and the like because the implementation google went with was proprietary. >I'm still puzzled why Moz haven't tried a paid-for Firefox option. and what functionality would the paid version of firefox have? Chances are it would cause an outrage and user-loss due to cries that functionality would be premium only tbh. It would also probably make not much of a dent in the budget.

spinningslate 6y ago
> and what functionality would the paid version of firefox have? Maybe it's what it _doesn't_ have. No ads for Pocket/VPN/whatever. Maybe it comes with DDG as the default search engine. Or maybe it's pre-configured with a set of tested privacy-focused extensions. Pro-privacy advocates might be in the minority, but it's a growing and generally vociferous minority. Mozilla's VPN offering suggests they see privacy as a market. FF is still by far their most popular offering; so I'm simply wondering why there's been no effort I'm aware of to explore the intersection of FF, privacy and revenue. Recognising Google would most likey challenge that.