I think in each step the choices Firefox made usually made sense. As Firefox removed or changed features at each juncture they really tried to choose what would

I think in each step the choices Firefox made usually made sense. As Firefox removed or changed features at each juncture they really tried to choose what would work for the most people. A kind of utilitarian product design. And yet it declined, and the critique here isn't entirely wrong (but I think it's mostly wrong). Neither the path Firefox took, nor the path described here, would be enough to stop that decline. A bunch of hidden and obscure features that don't make sense in totality is not a great approach. I personally felt strongly, when I was with Mozilla, that differentiated products would help get out of that quagmire. I never had any influence at a meaningful level - probably my own fault - so the idea never went anywhere. But with multiple products you can provide niche features that are meaningful and attractive. If there are ways to use interacting features to achieve some end that is not a marketable approach: there's no story, there's nothing to attract the user to return after installation. By saying "here's a browser for research" (or studying, watching videos, managing an online store, programming, etc) you come up with an understanding between the user and product maker about purpose. Chrome had, and still has, a lock on the kind-of-good-enough-for-everyone market. A niche approach like Vivaldi is still less successful than Firefox is today. Firefox needs to find entirely different approaches.