5 ms·

Why do you think Firefox isn't an option? Firefox is great.

by jstanley 6y ago

bryanrasmussen 6y ago
for the purposes of anti-trust law somewhere around 3% market share isn't really considered an option.
- Jaxkr 6y ago
  Firefox when combined with Safari are a formidable opponent to Google’s monopoly. The First Party Sets standard couldn’t be forced through because Firefox and Safari wouldn’t accept it.
  - ysavir 6y ago
    Until Google implements the behavior and applies it to their sites. Then Google services stop working smoothly on Firefox and Safari because the shared session on those sites is only functional on Chrome. Imagine having to log into gmail, calendar, drive, etc. individually each time. In theory it's not that big of a deal, but in practice could end up driving the casual users to Chrome since the tools they use work better in that browser, and ultimately they don't care which icon they click to check their email. And it'll be worse if other services decide to apply the new cookie strategy to their services, though they are definitely less inclined to do so than Google would be.
    - Semaphor 6y ago
      Even Google probably doesn’t want to fuck over 33% of users in Germany. And considering iPhone market share in the US, the same might go there. And as a fun fact: Edge (12.62%) moved past Safari (11.24%) on Desktop in Germany.
      - ysavir 6y ago
        Hopefully! But I also have to look at how well Google Hangouts works in Firefox, and how well Zoom meetings work in browsers at all, and consequently limit my faith that marketshare is a heavy determinant in client behavior.
  - dmitriid 6y ago
    Google doesn't care if Safari and Firefox don't accept something. See https://webapicontroversy.com https://webapicontroversy.com They will release it and then will engage their network of developer advocates and business representatives to try and make developers pressure Apple and Mozilla. Just some examples of one such rhetoric: https://twitter.com/slightlylate/status/1191027005342404608 https://twitter.com/slightlylate/status/1191027005342404608 and https://twitter.com/slightlylate/status/1369773901610250240 https://twitter.com/slightlylate/status/1369773901610250240 and don't forget, what's missing is your advocacy: https://twitter.com/slightlylate/status/1360364259088027655 https://twitter.com/slightlylate/status/1360364259088027655
    - Jaxkr 6y ago
      These are add-on features, not core cookie functionality. I’m glad Google pushed a Web USB and Web Bluetooth. I use Web USB / Serial for a browser based microcontroller debugger. I use Web Bluetooth through the Bluefy app to control some Bluetooth devices without App Store apps. Firefox’s excuse that “security risks of exposing USB devices to the Web are too broad to risk exposing users to them or to explain properly to end users to obtain meaningful informed consent” is infantilizing its users. I’m a Firefox user, but I have Chrome installed for Web USB. I’d rather a feature exist controversially than not at all.
      - dmitriid 6y ago
        > "excuse", "infantilizing users" Where have you been for the past decade? Users provably don't understand security implications of their choices The entire ad industry in its current form, the entire tracking industry exist solely because of that. Users routinely allow malicious apps full-system access just because those apps ask nicely. I'd rather not have features than have them rammed through by a company whose only claim on profitability is running ad networks in a web they increasingly control. And yes, the "core cookie technology" that Google proposes only makes tracking easier.
- ziml77 6y ago
  They have a low market share now, but there's really not much of a barrier to switching. So if Chrome does still go through with implementing this, people can hop right on over to Firefox.
  - danso 6y ago
    The barrier isn't just on the user side. The initial phase of government sites – i.e. web sites where the vast majority of the public are required to use to do official things — were designed with Internet Explorer in mind exclusively. Now many gov sites officially support Chrome as the default, and sometimes mobile Safari. Right now Firefox is at 2.7% [0] of us.gov visitors, almost half that of Microsoft Edge. The average user, especially those in business/professional settings, are going to keep Chrome as their default for a long time, even if FF becomes equivalent or even superior. [0] https://analytics.usa.gov/ https://analytics.usa.gov/
datavirtue 6y ago
So is Opera
- ajdude 6y ago
  Unfortunately Opera is also Chromium-based now, as are a growing number of browsers (edge was the nail in the coffin)
  - stjohnswarts 6y ago
    It's also owned by a Chinese company so no guarantee about backdoors for the CCP since it's not fully open source.
    - dbrgn 6y ago
      Chrome is owned by a US company, so no guarantee about backdoors for the NSA since it's not fully open source.

Why do you think Firefox isn't an option? Firefox is great.

bryanrasmussen 6y ago

for the purposes of anti-trust law somewhere around 3% market share isn't really considered an option.

Jaxkr 6y ago
Firefox when combined with Safari are a formidable opponent to Google’s monopoly. The First Party Sets standard couldn’t be forced through because Firefox and Safari wouldn’t accept it.
- ysavir 6y ago
  Until Google implements the behavior and applies it to their sites. Then Google services stop working smoothly on Firefox and Safari because the shared session on those sites is only functional on Chrome. Imagine having to log into gmail, calendar, drive, etc. individually each time. In theory it's not that big of a deal, but in practice could end up driving the casual users to Chrome since the tools they use work better in that browser, and ultimately they don't care which icon they click to check their email. And it'll be worse if other services decide to apply the new cookie strategy to their services, though they are definitely less inclined to do so than Google would be.
  - Semaphor 6y ago
    Even Google probably doesn’t want to fuck over 33% of users in Germany. And considering iPhone market share in the US, the same might go there. And as a fun fact: Edge (12.62%) moved past Safari (11.24%) on Desktop in Germany.
    - ysavir 6y ago
      Hopefully! But I also have to look at how well Google Hangouts works in Firefox, and how well Zoom meetings work in browsers at all, and consequently limit my faith that marketshare is a heavy determinant in client behavior.
- dmitriid 6y ago
  Google doesn't care if Safari and Firefox don't accept something. See https://webapicontroversy.com https://webapicontroversy.com They will release it and then will engage their network of developer advocates and business representatives to try and make developers pressure Apple and Mozilla. Just some examples of one such rhetoric: https://twitter.com/slightlylate/status/1191027005342404608 https://twitter.com/slightlylate/status/1191027005342404608 and https://twitter.com/slightlylate/status/1369773901610250240 https://twitter.com/slightlylate/status/1369773901610250240 and don't forget, what's missing is your advocacy: https://twitter.com/slightlylate/status/1360364259088027655 https://twitter.com/slightlylate/status/1360364259088027655
  - Jaxkr 6y ago
    These are add-on features, not core cookie functionality. I’m glad Google pushed a Web USB and Web Bluetooth. I use Web USB / Serial for a browser based microcontroller debugger. I use Web Bluetooth through the Bluefy app to control some Bluetooth devices without App Store apps. Firefox’s excuse that “security risks of exposing USB devices to the Web are too broad to risk exposing users to them or to explain properly to end users to obtain meaningful informed consent” is infantilizing its users. I’m a Firefox user, but I have Chrome installed for Web USB. I’d rather a feature exist controversially than not at all.
    - dmitriid 6y ago
      > "excuse", "infantilizing users" Where have you been for the past decade? Users provably don't understand security implications of their choices The entire ad industry in its current form, the entire tracking industry exist solely because of that. Users routinely allow malicious apps full-system access just because those apps ask nicely. I'd rather not have features than have them rammed through by a company whose only claim on profitability is running ad networks in a web they increasingly control. And yes, the "core cookie technology" that Google proposes only makes tracking easier.
ziml77 6y ago
They have a low market share now, but there's really not much of a barrier to switching. So if Chrome does still go through with implementing this, people can hop right on over to Firefox.
- danso 6y ago
  The barrier isn't just on the user side. The initial phase of government sites – i.e. web sites where the vast majority of the public are required to use to do official things — were designed with Internet Explorer in mind exclusively. Now many gov sites officially support Chrome as the default, and sometimes mobile Safari. Right now Firefox is at 2.7% [0] of us.gov visitors, almost half that of Microsoft Edge. The average user, especially those in business/professional settings, are going to keep Chrome as their default for a long time, even if FF becomes equivalent or even superior. [0] https://analytics.usa.gov/ https://analytics.usa.gov/

datavirtue 6y ago

So is Opera

ajdude 6y ago
Unfortunately Opera is also Chromium-based now, as are a growing number of browsers (edge was the nail in the coffin)
- stjohnswarts 6y ago
  It's also owned by a Chinese company so no guarantee about backdoors for the CCP since it's not fully open source.
  - dbrgn 6y ago
    Chrome is owned by a US company, so no guarantee about backdoors for the NSA since it's not fully open source.