5 ms·

A full detailed list: https://caniuse.com/?compare=firefox+101,chrome+102&compareCats=all https://caniuse.com/?compare=firefox+101,chrome+102&compareC...

prophesi 4y ago
I don't think this proves Firefox is dying. A better indicator would be Chrome's past decade of 90%+ browser market share. It's also worth noting that a good amount of the features not implemented in Firefox are either Chrome-specific experiments, or features purposefully unimplemented for privacy purposes. If anything, it shows the damage of a browser-tech monopoly which Edge and Brave aren't helping with.
- longrod 4y ago
  I don't think features such as Web USB, Web Bluetooth are privacy invasive. Chrome's huge market share is the very reason Firefox isn't trying very hard here. They are playing catch up. Take Manifest v3 for example; Chrome introduced it quite a while ago and made it mandatory for new extensions in 2022. Firefox just started catching up. This is bad for Firefox because developers will eventually (and some still do) will simply stop supporting Firefox due it being so slow to catch up. Chrome already has such a huge market that a lot of web devs already don't care (e.g. Microsoft Teams). What does this signify? It's the death of Firefox unless Firefox pulls a miracle here. Chrome is leading, all the devs are following, and they leading by leaps and bounds. Firefox is forced to catch up which causes frustration among users. How long before Firefox gets tired of playing catch up and simply becomes irrelevant? I am not happy about this. This is clearly bad but inevitable. The only other real competitor is WebKit which is restricted to Apple only. A huge market still. But Google's monopoly over the browsing market will only cause harm in the long run. Even though it will make devs jobs a lot easier.
  - dylan604 4y ago
    >I don't think features such as Web USB, Web Bluetooth are privacy invasive. It's telling that the only browser vendor that feels this way has the logo of one of the two most privacy invading companies in existence.
  - prophesi 4y ago
    > I don't think features such as Web USB, Web Bluetooth are privacy invasive. Coincidentally, Brave believes they are privacy-invasive and don't support those features either (last paragraph in the article)[0]. Firefox, as with all other browsers aside from Safari, will remain with less than 5% market share for the foreseeable future. But I'd much rather continue supporting different browser engines than use a skinned Chromium to uphold the status quo. [0] https://www.cnet.com/tech/computing/google-plan-for-chrome-capability-has-a-big-security-risk/ https://www.cnet.com/tech/computing/google-plan-for-chrome-c...
  - NoGravitas 4y ago
    > I don't think features such as Web USB, Web Bluetooth are privacy invasive. Mozilla, Apple, and Brave all disagree (as do I).
  - stonogo 4y ago
    You are misinformed. Firefox had their own implementations of WebUSB and WebBluetooth years and years ago -- they were necessary for FirefoxOS. Deprecating and removing them was a conscious decision because the privacy risks were deemed too great. This is also the case for Manifest v3; Mozilla is trying to determine the 'safe' (i.e. user-friendly) characteristics to implement and ways to mitigate the rest. Some parts of v3 directly conflict with Firefox architecture. As an example, v3 requires service workers, while Firefox permits entirely disabling them. The overarching theme of your writing on this topic is that Chrome can just spit out Web 'features' at random and unless Firefox implements all of them immediately it is dying. I hope you can try to understand that not only is this not an accurate assessment, but maybe also that Firefox has value beyond being a copy of Chrome.
    - fabrice_d 4y ago
      The security model used in Firefox OS to gate access to these APIs was very different. We never exposed these web bluetooth to the web at large, only to signed apps. Mozilla needs to step up and find ways to expose such APIs though, because they are useful. Just saying "no" without proposing a solution is a sure way to lose. There's a bit of hope recently with the implementation of WebMIDI in Gecko.
Phelinofist 4y ago
I find the lack of nonsense API implementations to be a good thing

prophesi 4y ago

I don't think this proves Firefox is dying. A better indicator would be Chrome's past decade of 90%+ browser market share. It's also worth noting that a good amount of the features not implemented in Firefox are either Chrome-specific experiments, or features purposefully unimplemented for privacy purposes. If anything, it shows the damage of a browser-tech monopoly which Edge and Brave aren't helping with.

longrod 4y ago
I don't think features such as Web USB, Web Bluetooth are privacy invasive. Chrome's huge market share is the very reason Firefox isn't trying very hard here. They are playing catch up. Take Manifest v3 for example; Chrome introduced it quite a while ago and made it mandatory for new extensions in 2022. Firefox just started catching up. This is bad for Firefox because developers will eventually (and some still do) will simply stop supporting Firefox due it being so slow to catch up. Chrome already has such a huge market that a lot of web devs already don't care (e.g. Microsoft Teams). What does this signify? It's the death of Firefox unless Firefox pulls a miracle here. Chrome is leading, all the devs are following, and they leading by leaps and bounds. Firefox is forced to catch up which causes frustration among users. How long before Firefox gets tired of playing catch up and simply becomes irrelevant? I am not happy about this. This is clearly bad but inevitable. The only other real competitor is WebKit which is restricted to Apple only. A huge market still. But Google's monopoly over the browsing market will only cause harm in the long run. Even though it will make devs jobs a lot easier.
- dylan604 4y ago
  >I don't think features such as Web USB, Web Bluetooth are privacy invasive. It's telling that the only browser vendor that feels this way has the logo of one of the two most privacy invading companies in existence.
- prophesi 4y ago
  > I don't think features such as Web USB, Web Bluetooth are privacy invasive. Coincidentally, Brave believes they are privacy-invasive and don't support those features either (last paragraph in the article)[0]. Firefox, as with all other browsers aside from Safari, will remain with less than 5% market share for the foreseeable future. But I'd much rather continue supporting different browser engines than use a skinned Chromium to uphold the status quo. [0] https://www.cnet.com/tech/computing/google-plan-for-chrome-capability-has-a-big-security-risk/ https://www.cnet.com/tech/computing/google-plan-for-chrome-c...
- NoGravitas 4y ago
  > I don't think features such as Web USB, Web Bluetooth are privacy invasive. Mozilla, Apple, and Brave all disagree (as do I).
- stonogo 4y ago
  You are misinformed. Firefox had their own implementations of WebUSB and WebBluetooth years and years ago -- they were necessary for FirefoxOS. Deprecating and removing them was a conscious decision because the privacy risks were deemed too great. This is also the case for Manifest v3; Mozilla is trying to determine the 'safe' (i.e. user-friendly) characteristics to implement and ways to mitigate the rest. Some parts of v3 directly conflict with Firefox architecture. As an example, v3 requires service workers, while Firefox permits entirely disabling them. The overarching theme of your writing on this topic is that Chrome can just spit out Web 'features' at random and unless Firefox implements all of them immediately it is dying. I hope you can try to understand that not only is this not an accurate assessment, but maybe also that Firefox has value beyond being a copy of Chrome.
  - fabrice_d 4y ago
    The security model used in Firefox OS to gate access to these APIs was very different. We never exposed these web bluetooth to the web at large, only to signed apps. Mozilla needs to step up and find ways to expose such APIs though, because they are useful. Just saying "no" without proposing a solution is a sure way to lose. There's a bit of hope recently with the implementation of WebMIDI in Gecko.

Phelinofist 4y ago

I find the lack of nonsense API implementations to be a good thing