7 ms·

Just when I thought Firefox was going to emerge as the most pro-consumer browser... Why can't there be a browser that is just... a browser?

by junon 6y ago

ohgodplsno 6y ago
Because it quite literally takes hundreds of millions of dollars to make a browser. So, you can either: * Eat the costs because you're so wealthy you don't care (Apple, Google) * Use the work of those who ate the costs (Waterfox, Icecat, Edge, Firefox-Fork-Of-The-Month-Whose-Only-Purpose-Is-To-Shit-On-Firefox-Lol-Palemoon) * Find a way to actually make money (Firefox, Brave) Needless to say, you entire lifeline being depending on Google when you're Firefox is horribly bad.
- panpanna 6y ago
  Here is a crazy idea: Maybe web technologies have gotten too complicated. Maybe they need to be replaced with something that does not cost hundreds of millions to support?
  - hjek 6y ago
    Lynx was always the best browser.
- Teever 6y ago
  What is so different about browsers? Why can we have the whole galaxy of free software with the various distributions and desktop environments and entire kernel ecosystems and device drivers free of this kind of monetization yet somehow this is impossible with browsers? I don't think twice about using Debian, Freebsd, Openbsd, or Openwrt. What the hell is going on with Mozilla and Firefox?
  - themacguffinman 6y ago
    The consumer marketshare of desktop Linux/BSD and its ecosystem is tiny, something like 2% AFAIK. Mozilla is probably not happy for Firefox to occupy a similar browser marketshare, that would likely mean the end of Mozilla's influence on web standards. A lot of the remaining OSS ecosystem benefits corporate software development and is already supported by corporate backers.
  - marcthe12 6y ago
    Browsers scope is so huge(and none of them is sufficiently modular). FOSS Software of that size and scope is usually require at the minimum donation from companies use it.
- tinus_hn 6y ago
  > Waterfox, Icecat, Edge, Firefox-Fork-Of-The-Month-Whose-Only-Purpose-Is-To-Shit-On-Firefox-Lol-Palemoon Many of these ‘forks’ emerged because of the Firefox trademark policy which prevented distributions from packaging Firefox under that name.
parsimo2010 6y ago
Because developers need to be paid for their time and there isn’t enough charity in the world to pay them without advertising, nor is the general public willing to pay $10 for an ad-free Firefox. I probably prefer this compared to Mozilla’s deal with Google to be the default search engine- sponsored tiles can go to a variety of sites, but the search engine deal pushed even more market share to a single player.
- panpanna 6y ago
  Mozilla is getting hundreds of millions of dollars to set Google as the default search engine. You can change that in 10 seconds. How are these stupid additions better for anyone? Consumers find them more annoying and they probably don't result in any significant month for Mozilla. Anyway, we need another open source browser, one that is controlled by the community and not some SV company.
  - parsimo2010 6y ago
    You can also turn off sponsored tiles, so this isn’t different in that respect. Plus, while Mozilla the corporation is technically a for profit entity, they operate under the direction of the not for profit Mozilla Foundation. They are already the best choice for a browser that is free from an SV company’s influence. But they do have to pay their employees and keep the lights on. How are they supposed to pay for things if they don’t do stuff like this? At least they are honest about which things they are making money from.
    - panpanna 6y ago
      > You can also turn off sponsored tiles, so this isn’t different in that respect. The point is, I should not need to keep a close eye on Mozilla and disable stuff regularly. I should not need to fight my browser.
      - bllguo 6y ago
        There are a lot of "should"s in the world. People should not feel entitled to something they use extensively but do not pay for, yet here we are.
RedComet 6y ago
Pro-consumer? Only weeks ago the CEO came out in favor of censorship and deplatforming.
- junon 6y ago
  I don't type "somesite.com" into the CEO's address bar. I type it into my browser's.

Just when I thought Firefox was going to emerge as the most pro-consumer browser... Why can't there be a browser that is just... a browser?

by junon 6y ago

Just when I thought Firefox was going to emerge as the most pro-consumer browser... Why can't there be a browser that is just... a browser?

ohgodplsno 6y ago

Because it quite literally takes hundreds of millions of dollars to make a browser. So, you can either: * Eat the costs because you're so wealthy you don't care (Apple, Google) * Use the work of those who ate the costs (Waterfox, Icecat, Edge, Firefox-Fork-Of-The-Month-Whose-Only-Purpose-Is-To-Shit-On-Firefox-Lol-Palemoon) * Find a way to actually make money (Firefox, Brave) Needless to say, you entire lifeline being depending on Google when you're Firefox is horribly bad.

panpanna 6y ago
Here is a crazy idea: Maybe web technologies have gotten too complicated. Maybe they need to be replaced with something that does not cost hundreds of millions to support?
- hjek 6y ago
  Lynx was always the best browser.
Teever 6y ago
What is so different about browsers? Why can we have the whole galaxy of free software with the various distributions and desktop environments and entire kernel ecosystems and device drivers free of this kind of monetization yet somehow this is impossible with browsers? I don't think twice about using Debian, Freebsd, Openbsd, or Openwrt. What the hell is going on with Mozilla and Firefox?
- themacguffinman 6y ago
  The consumer marketshare of desktop Linux/BSD and its ecosystem is tiny, something like 2% AFAIK. Mozilla is probably not happy for Firefox to occupy a similar browser marketshare, that would likely mean the end of Mozilla's influence on web standards. A lot of the remaining OSS ecosystem benefits corporate software development and is already supported by corporate backers.
- marcthe12 6y ago
  Browsers scope is so huge(and none of them is sufficiently modular). FOSS Software of that size and scope is usually require at the minimum donation from companies use it.
tinus_hn 6y ago
> Waterfox, Icecat, Edge, Firefox-Fork-Of-The-Month-Whose-Only-Purpose-Is-To-Shit-On-Firefox-Lol-Palemoon Many of these ‘forks’ emerged because of the Firefox trademark policy which prevented distributions from packaging Firefox under that name.

parsimo2010 6y ago

Because developers need to be paid for their time and there isn’t enough charity in the world to pay them without advertising, nor is the general public willing to pay $10 for an ad-free Firefox. I probably prefer this compared to Mozilla’s deal with Google to be the default search engine- sponsored tiles can go to a variety of sites, but the search engine deal pushed even more market share to a single player.

panpanna 6y ago
Mozilla is getting hundreds of millions of dollars to set Google as the default search engine. You can change that in 10 seconds. How are these stupid additions better for anyone? Consumers find them more annoying and they probably don't result in any significant month for Mozilla. Anyway, we need another open source browser, one that is controlled by the community and not some SV company.
- parsimo2010 6y ago
  You can also turn off sponsored tiles, so this isn’t different in that respect. Plus, while Mozilla the corporation is technically a for profit entity, they operate under the direction of the not for profit Mozilla Foundation. They are already the best choice for a browser that is free from an SV company’s influence. But they do have to pay their employees and keep the lights on. How are they supposed to pay for things if they don’t do stuff like this? At least they are honest about which things they are making money from.
  - panpanna 6y ago
    > You can also turn off sponsored tiles, so this isn’t different in that respect. The point is, I should not need to keep a close eye on Mozilla and disable stuff regularly. I should not need to fight my browser.
    - bllguo 6y ago
      There are a lot of "should"s in the world. People should not feel entitled to something they use extensively but do not pay for, yet here we are.

RedComet 6y ago

Pro-consumer? Only weeks ago the CEO came out in favor of censorship and deplatforming.

junon 6y ago
I don't type "somesite.com" into the CEO's address bar. I type it into my browser's.