3 ms·

Here's my perspective on this - Chrome has established itself as the baseline. The baseline is no longer the W3C standard, it's Chrome due to all of the experim

by jjcm 5y ago

Here's my perspective on this - Chrome has established itself as the baseline. The baseline is no longer the W3C standard, it's Chrome due to all of the experimental future W3C spec items being in Chrome. Chrome leads the spec, and with its 70% market share developers allow it to. Firefox will always be playing catchup because of this, regardless of their market share. This leaves three main reasons for using Firefox: 1.) decoupling from Google / ad privacy 2.) promoting browser ecosystem health 3.) familiarity / history of use Unfortunately, these three items lead to a very narrow TAM, especially when talking purely about new users. The gap will continue to grow as sites that work in Chrome but don't work in Firefox, despite the site using things not in the W3C spec, will be seen as Firefox issues by non-technical users. These users will eventually default to Chrome.

selfhoster11 5y ago
Mistreatment of users is quickly eroding 3. for me, and I deeply care about 2. A family member already explicitly asked for assistance in migrating away from Firefox.
WorldMaker 5y ago
We need a better way to communicate this: Chrome doesn't "lead the spec", it "rushes out ahead of the spec". The developers using non-standard features need to be held better accountable for using non-standard features, and Google needs to be held better accountable for releasing non-standard features ahead of standardization processes. W3C is seen as no longer relevant to HTML specs having delegated "HTML5" to WHATWG, and WHATWG seems to exist entirely to rubber-stamp Google's will (up until Firefox or Safari or increasingly less common Microsoft complains, and then they try to compromise, sometimes). WHATWG seems to have no teeth to hold Google accountable to standards processes and the Emperor Has No Clothes. (ETA: And yes, that's a hot take that's very unfavorable. I understand many individuals still care inside the W3C and WHATWG, but the end result of collective action is a dangerous rubber-stamping of a Chromium monopsony.)
- eternityforest 5y ago
  Apple and Mozilla can't be compromised with. They want certain powerful features to just not exist. They don't trust users to choose for themselves. They are trying to ensure privacy at all costs by making tools that could be used to spy unavailable, no matter what the purpose. If devs want to make something, Chrome wants to make it happen, and I want to use it, then I don't want Mozilla trying to block up the whole works. Especially not to "protect my privacy" from a site I completely trust, that might even be an intranet site I built myself. What's next, are you going to disable downloading executable files, probably the most dangerous browser feature of all? There's no nice alternative, or sometimes no alternative at all besides making a native app for a bazillion different platforms. Maybe WHATWG actually isn't just rubber stamping things because they're a google puppet, but at least partly because... it's what devs want.
  - WorldMaker 5y ago
    > They don't trust users to choose for themselves. No, they don't trust advertisers and spyware companies (the two seem inseparable today) to choose for them. Google has a massive conflict of interest in being the web's largest advertising network owner and sometimes the web's largest spymaster, in addition to owning the web's most common browser. > What's next, are you going to disable downloading executable files, probably the most dangerous browser feature of all? Firefox has had a relatively consistent stance on that since 1990 something and always had warnings when downloading executable files and worked hard to make sure that malware can't just download executable files it wants when it wants. As someone who remembers the malware wars of the 1990s, it was a reason I switched to Firefox in the first place! It still amazes me that Chrome just auto-downloads EXEs willy-nilly without warnings or user consent, because I still remember what it was like the last time a major browser did that by default. > it's what devs want. That's my point: devs as a collective are morons. Devs as a collective include a lot of people whose salaries pay them to build adware, spyware, malware, and worse. Devs as a collective lack a major ethics body or ethics reviews and so far no dev has had to stand trial for a clear violation of professional ethics. Maybe the web shouldn't give devs what they want?
    - 5y ago

by jjcm 5y ago

selfhoster11 5y ago

Mistreatment of users is quickly eroding 3. for me, and I deeply care about 2. A family member already explicitly asked for assistance in migrating away from Firefox.

WorldMaker 5y ago

We need a better way to communicate this: Chrome doesn't "lead the spec", it "rushes out ahead of the spec". The developers using non-standard features need to be held better accountable for using non-standard features, and Google needs to be held better accountable for releasing non-standard features ahead of standardization processes. W3C is seen as no longer relevant to HTML specs having delegated "HTML5" to WHATWG, and WHATWG seems to exist entirely to rubber-stamp Google's will (up until Firefox or Safari or increasingly less common Microsoft complains, and then they try to compromise, sometimes). WHATWG seems to have no teeth to hold Google accountable to standards processes and the Emperor Has No Clothes. (ETA: And yes, that's a hot take that's very unfavorable. I understand many individuals still care inside the W3C and WHATWG, but the end result of collective action is a dangerous rubber-stamping of a Chromium monopsony.)

eternityforest 5y ago
Apple and Mozilla can't be compromised with. They want certain powerful features to just not exist. They don't trust users to choose for themselves. They are trying to ensure privacy at all costs by making tools that could be used to spy unavailable, no matter what the purpose. If devs want to make something, Chrome wants to make it happen, and I want to use it, then I don't want Mozilla trying to block up the whole works. Especially not to "protect my privacy" from a site I completely trust, that might even be an intranet site I built myself. What's next, are you going to disable downloading executable files, probably the most dangerous browser feature of all? There's no nice alternative, or sometimes no alternative at all besides making a native app for a bazillion different platforms. Maybe WHATWG actually isn't just rubber stamping things because they're a google puppet, but at least partly because... it's what devs want.
- WorldMaker 5y ago
  > They don't trust users to choose for themselves. No, they don't trust advertisers and spyware companies (the two seem inseparable today) to choose for them. Google has a massive conflict of interest in being the web's largest advertising network owner and sometimes the web's largest spymaster, in addition to owning the web's most common browser. > What's next, are you going to disable downloading executable files, probably the most dangerous browser feature of all? Firefox has had a relatively consistent stance on that since 1990 something and always had warnings when downloading executable files and worked hard to make sure that malware can't just download executable files it wants when it wants. As someone who remembers the malware wars of the 1990s, it was a reason I switched to Firefox in the first place! It still amazes me that Chrome just auto-downloads EXEs willy-nilly without warnings or user consent, because I still remember what it was like the last time a major browser did that by default. > it's what devs want. That's my point: devs as a collective are morons. Devs as a collective include a lot of people whose salaries pay them to build adware, spyware, malware, and worse. Devs as a collective lack a major ethics body or ethics reviews and so far no dev has had to stand trial for a clear violation of professional ethics. Maybe the web shouldn't give devs what they want?
  - 5y ago