7 ms·

I wonder if people realize how low Firefox marketshare has fallen, or if people are stuck in a 2010s-era idea of what the web browser landscape is like. I also

by dmart 4y ago

I wonder if people realize how low Firefox marketshare has fallen, or if people are stuck in a 2010s-era idea of what the web browser landscape is like. I also think the prevalence of Firefox among the (overall tiny) desktop Linux demographic tends to warp developer perspectives. It's under 4% - for all intents and purposes a dead browser. I certainly wouldn't devote any engineering hours towards supporting it.

pipeline_peak 4y ago
Not to mention, the core development team has been cut. Mozilla is rebranding itself into a “Social Justice For Tech” marketing firm. There are two significant platforms left Chromium and WebKit. I hope that isn’t the future, but browser dominance is such an obscure, indirect problem to the industry that no company would bother touching it.
- vord1080 4y ago
  Not sure where you got the idea that the core development team has been cut, Firefox development remains strong. For example, here's a 1,000+ line patch that just landed two days ago. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1779952 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1779952
  - pipeline_peak 4y ago
    I shouldn’t of said cut, but they did layoff 250 members 2 years ago and among those were the Servo team. https://www.protocol.com/amp/mozilla-layoffs-2646950077 https://www.protocol.com/amp/mozilla-layoffs-2646950077
    - Twirrim 4y ago
      That's not the core dev team, at all. Servo was a research group, building an experimental browser engine, parts of which did end up transitioning across to Gecko.
      - iggldiggl 4y ago
        Some senior core developers were definitively let go, though, e.g. David Baron (who is now working for Google on Chrome instead).
  - devwastaken 4y ago
    Look at the tech Mozilla produces, all of it is non portable, exclusively for FF, and is not particularly great. Chromium can be extended in many ways. V8 can be used anywhere and is what spawned node and the idea of JavaScript server and client side. Firefox is more like a product that's source available than an open source project made to benefit the ecosystem. They would do better to finally pony up, reskin chromium, and stop playing catch up.
    - pipeline_peak 4y ago
      They really should rebadge Chromium, then they can frolic with Rust UI changes and focus more on what they really seem to care about.
rlpb 4y ago
In most industries increasing your reach by 3% is worth doing.
- shultays 4y ago
  You are not losing all that 4%, most will just launch another browser to for your site if they have to
  - hedora 4y ago
    Or user agent spoof, then blame the bank if it blows up. (This is what I do. No problems so far…)
the_biot 4y ago
Firefox's marketshare is hardly the point here. As bob1029 said, there's no earthly reason why you wouldn't just build a standards-based site and have it work on any modern browser.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- zarzavat 4y ago
  It's a bank. If a customer uses Firefox and loses money because of a Firefox bug or incompatibility, who do you think will be liable? The customer? No way. The bank is on the hook because it's their website that resulted in the loss. So the bank has to test in Firefox, they can't just put all their hope in web standards that may or may not represent reality. When Firefox falls to a certain marketshare it makes no sense for the bank to keep testing on Firefox.
  - handoflixue 4y ago
    "It makes no sense to appeal to 4% of the population" seems like a bizarre claim, especially since that 4% is likely to be programmers in the top 25% of income. I'm also not sure what error you're expecting? If browser bugs are a serious risk like this, you should surely be able to cite a few example lawsuits from the last year or two?
    - fbrehwerha 4y ago
      This argument seems bizarre to me considering the volumes of money banks work with and the lack of programmers who only use banks that take Firefox. I'm not sure what you're expecting, that banks are just doing it to spite Mozilla?
      - handoflixue 4y ago
        I really don't believe the return-on-investment for a major bank to support Firefox is negative. Quick Google napkin math says a customer is worth $500/year, and a decent programmer is easily available for $50/hour. You only need to stop one (1) customer from leaving for every day of programming this costs. This thread is at +89 and has 32 comments, so it's probably worth at least a programmer-month. If you can't make your website Firefox compliant in a month, you have some very deep design issues. Firefox compliance is so trivial that most websites achieve it without even trying, because Firefox follows basically the same standards Chrome does.
Cameri 4y ago
Seems like you forgot what it was like when Internet Explorer was the dominating browser.
- sph 4y ago
  Sounds like they're actively working towards recreating that world. I really have no sympathy for a $100/h web developer that has no time to check with Firefox every once in a while that their Chromeism works over there as well. It's not like Firefox is a buggy browser that requires tons of work. It's pure laziness.
satellite2 4y ago
Falling market share in a growing market doesn't necessarily mean falling total usage. Additionally, the market FF serves this days is educated, rich and ahead of the curve. Not a market you necessarily want to ignore.
- archerx 4y ago
  > the market FF serves this days is educated, rich and ahead of the curve. That’s some weird projection that made me laugh. I used to use firefox everyday until it became too annoying and I moved on to another browser and never looked back. Firefox used to be great but those days are long gone.
  - ajvs 4y ago
    I don't think there's anything I'd exchange for having to suffer more ads, but you do you.
  - kbelder 4y ago
    Generally demographic makeup of FF traffic is more affluent than Chrome, similar to Safari. IE is closer to Chrome. It can vary by the field or nature of the site, of course.
lemoncookiechip 4y ago
By this logic, no one should bother supporting Linux.

by dmart 4y ago

pipeline_peak 4y ago

Not to mention, the core development team has been cut. Mozilla is rebranding itself into a “Social Justice For Tech” marketing firm. There are two significant platforms left Chromium and WebKit. I hope that isn’t the future, but browser dominance is such an obscure, indirect problem to the industry that no company would bother touching it.

vord1080 4y ago
Not sure where you got the idea that the core development team has been cut, Firefox development remains strong. For example, here's a 1,000+ line patch that just landed two days ago. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1779952 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1779952
- pipeline_peak 4y ago
  I shouldn’t of said cut, but they did layoff 250 members 2 years ago and among those were the Servo team. https://www.protocol.com/amp/mozilla-layoffs-2646950077 https://www.protocol.com/amp/mozilla-layoffs-2646950077
  - Twirrim 4y ago
    That's not the core dev team, at all. Servo was a research group, building an experimental browser engine, parts of which did end up transitioning across to Gecko.
    - iggldiggl 4y ago
      Some senior core developers were definitively let go, though, e.g. David Baron (who is now working for Google on Chrome instead).
- devwastaken 4y ago
  Look at the tech Mozilla produces, all of it is non portable, exclusively for FF, and is not particularly great. Chromium can be extended in many ways. V8 can be used anywhere and is what spawned node and the idea of JavaScript server and client side. Firefox is more like a product that's source available than an open source project made to benefit the ecosystem. They would do better to finally pony up, reskin chromium, and stop playing catch up.
  - pipeline_peak 4y ago
    They really should rebadge Chromium, then they can frolic with Rust UI changes and focus more on what they really seem to care about.

rlpb 4y ago

In most industries increasing your reach by 3% is worth doing.

shultays 4y ago
You are not losing all that 4%, most will just launch another browser to for your site if they have to
- hedora 4y ago
  Or user agent spoof, then blame the bank if it blows up. (This is what I do. No problems so far…)

the_biot 4y ago

Firefox's marketshare is hardly the point here. As bob1029 said, there's no earthly reason why you wouldn't just build a standards-based site and have it work on any modern browser.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
zarzavat 4y ago
It's a bank. If a customer uses Firefox and loses money because of a Firefox bug or incompatibility, who do you think will be liable? The customer? No way. The bank is on the hook because it's their website that resulted in the loss. So the bank has to test in Firefox, they can't just put all their hope in web standards that may or may not represent reality. When Firefox falls to a certain marketshare it makes no sense for the bank to keep testing on Firefox.
- handoflixue 4y ago
  "It makes no sense to appeal to 4% of the population" seems like a bizarre claim, especially since that 4% is likely to be programmers in the top 25% of income. I'm also not sure what error you're expecting? If browser bugs are a serious risk like this, you should surely be able to cite a few example lawsuits from the last year or two?
  - fbrehwerha 4y ago
    This argument seems bizarre to me considering the volumes of money banks work with and the lack of programmers who only use banks that take Firefox. I'm not sure what you're expecting, that banks are just doing it to spite Mozilla?
    - handoflixue 4y ago
      I really don't believe the return-on-investment for a major bank to support Firefox is negative. Quick Google napkin math says a customer is worth $500/year, and a decent programmer is easily available for $50/hour. You only need to stop one (1) customer from leaving for every day of programming this costs. This thread is at +89 and has 32 comments, so it's probably worth at least a programmer-month. If you can't make your website Firefox compliant in a month, you have some very deep design issues. Firefox compliance is so trivial that most websites achieve it without even trying, because Firefox follows basically the same standards Chrome does.

Cameri 4y ago

Seems like you forgot what it was like when Internet Explorer was the dominating browser.

sph 4y ago
Sounds like they're actively working towards recreating that world. I really have no sympathy for a $100/h web developer that has no time to check with Firefox every once in a while that their Chromeism works over there as well. It's not like Firefox is a buggy browser that requires tons of work. It's pure laziness.

satellite2 4y ago

Falling market share in a growing market doesn't necessarily mean falling total usage. Additionally, the market FF serves this days is educated, rich and ahead of the curve. Not a market you necessarily want to ignore.

archerx 4y ago
> the market FF serves this days is educated, rich and ahead of the curve. That’s some weird projection that made me laugh. I used to use firefox everyday until it became too annoying and I moved on to another browser and never looked back. Firefox used to be great but those days are long gone.
- ajvs 4y ago
  I don't think there's anything I'd exchange for having to suffer more ads, but you do you.
- kbelder 4y ago
  Generally demographic makeup of FF traffic is more affluent than Chrome, similar to Safari. IE is closer to Chrome. It can vary by the field or nature of the site, of course.

lemoncookiechip 4y ago

By this logic, no one should bother supporting Linux.