2 ms·

Here's the thing, it isn't a single problem, it is the combination of many, just like Windows Phone/Windows Mobile.

paulryanrogers 4y ago
You may be overlooking the larger point, it is just one thing: monopolization. If you control the defaults you win, as long as it doesn't suck too bad. Why did IE so quickly destroy paid browser market then languish for so many years? Because they had a lock on desktop market share. Google and Apple just have to be mediocre because they own the hardware, services, and/or distribution. Mozilla cannot take from other business arms to bankroll its browser. It has to sell defaults, ads, or find other markets.
- solarkraft 4y ago
  But Firefox used to be the default. It's what people were used to because it used to be significantly better in the past. Then they stopped keeping up ...
  - paulryanrogers 4y ago
    Apart from FirefoxOS and random EU browser ballots I'm not aware of anywhere Firefox was the default. You seem to be saying because many people chose Firefox it was their default. But that's not a common use of the word in this context.
    - solarkraft 4y ago
      That's what I mean, in the same way Chrome is a "default" now. It's the first thing people install without even thinking too much about why.
- Nextgrid 4y ago
  Mozilla conquered a significant chunk of Internet Explorer's marketshare back in the day despite the latter being the preinstalled default. The problem isn't just defaults, it's that Mozilla isn't giving people enough reasons to actually switch. A stock Firefox install isn't going to give you any major benefits over Chrome, and the only benefit (ad-blocking - but with an extension you need to install manually) isn't something Mozilla is looking to capitalise on. Mozilla can win over the masses in one day by just embedding uBlock Origin and using that fact in their PR and marketing - no bullshit useless features such as "Colorways" or Pocket, no dubious social justice/political activism, instead, just say "the web sucks and Firefox makes it tolerable" with a side-by-side comparison of FF vs a stock browser on a popular newspaper's website.
  - paulryanrogers 4y ago
    > Mozilla conquered a significant chunk of Internet Explorer's marketshare back in the day despite the latter being the preinstalled default. My point is what FF did then was unusual, requiring the incumbent to be negligent for a long time. Chrome and its derivatives are moving quickly. (Perhaps even wrecklessly so given security implications of some of their 'standards'.) Chrome also sets the standards Mozilla must now follow to keep up, and exceed to overtake it. Isn't it strange that even huge well funded competitors have all given up and just fork Chrome? They do it because they cannot compete starting from their own foundation. Chrome is too entrenched and moving too fast. > Mozilla can win over the masses in one day by just embedding uBlock Origin and using that fact in their PR and marketing. Brave has ad blocking preinstalled, so does Chrome to some extent. I don't think Mozilla would stand out with UO alone. And even if it did and became dominant what would that mean for creators who are ad supported?
    - Nextgrid 4y ago
      > requiring the incumbent to be negligent for a long time But the incumbents are negligent. Their browsers, based on their business models, no longer serve the needs of their users. This is an opportunity for Firefox. > Brave has ad blocking preinstalled, so does Chrome to some extent Haven't used Brave so can't comment on it, but Chrome doesn't and can't have powerful adblocking due to its parent company's business model - not to mention that one reason to block ads would be privacy which is also a problem with Google, so it would be a non-starter even if it was blocking ads. > even if it did and became dominant what would that mean for creators who are ad supported? I wonder how we dealt with this argument back in the day where OSes were full of security holes and the antivirus industry was starting out?

You may be overlooking the larger point, it is just one thing: monopolization. If you control the defaults you win, as long as it doesn't suck too bad. Why did IE so quickly destroy paid browser market then languish for so many years? Because they had a lock on desktop market share. Google and Apple just have to be mediocre because they own the hardware, services, and/or distribution. Mozilla cannot take from other business arms to bankroll its browser. It has to sell defaults, ads, or find other markets.

solarkraft 4y ago
But Firefox used to be the default. It's what people were used to because it used to be significantly better in the past. Then they stopped keeping up ...
- paulryanrogers 4y ago
  Apart from FirefoxOS and random EU browser ballots I'm not aware of anywhere Firefox was the default. You seem to be saying because many people chose Firefox it was their default. But that's not a common use of the word in this context.
  - solarkraft 4y ago
    That's what I mean, in the same way Chrome is a "default" now. It's the first thing people install without even thinking too much about why.
Nextgrid 4y ago
Mozilla conquered a significant chunk of Internet Explorer's marketshare back in the day despite the latter being the preinstalled default. The problem isn't just defaults, it's that Mozilla isn't giving people enough reasons to actually switch. A stock Firefox install isn't going to give you any major benefits over Chrome, and the only benefit (ad-blocking - but with an extension you need to install manually) isn't something Mozilla is looking to capitalise on. Mozilla can win over the masses in one day by just embedding uBlock Origin and using that fact in their PR and marketing - no bullshit useless features such as "Colorways" or Pocket, no dubious social justice/political activism, instead, just say "the web sucks and Firefox makes it tolerable" with a side-by-side comparison of FF vs a stock browser on a popular newspaper's website.
- paulryanrogers 4y ago
  > Mozilla conquered a significant chunk of Internet Explorer's marketshare back in the day despite the latter being the preinstalled default. My point is what FF did then was unusual, requiring the incumbent to be negligent for a long time. Chrome and its derivatives are moving quickly. (Perhaps even wrecklessly so given security implications of some of their 'standards'.) Chrome also sets the standards Mozilla must now follow to keep up, and exceed to overtake it. Isn't it strange that even huge well funded competitors have all given up and just fork Chrome? They do it because they cannot compete starting from their own foundation. Chrome is too entrenched and moving too fast. > Mozilla can win over the masses in one day by just embedding uBlock Origin and using that fact in their PR and marketing. Brave has ad blocking preinstalled, so does Chrome to some extent. I don't think Mozilla would stand out with UO alone. And even if it did and became dominant what would that mean for creators who are ad supported?
  - Nextgrid 4y ago
    > requiring the incumbent to be negligent for a long time But the incumbents are negligent. Their browsers, based on their business models, no longer serve the needs of their users. This is an opportunity for Firefox. > Brave has ad blocking preinstalled, so does Chrome to some extent Haven't used Brave so can't comment on it, but Chrome doesn't and can't have powerful adblocking due to its parent company's business model - not to mention that one reason to block ads would be privacy which is also a problem with Google, so it would be a non-starter even if it was blocking ads. > even if it did and became dominant what would that mean for creators who are ad supported? I wonder how we dealt with this argument back in the day where OSes were full of security holes and the antivirus industry was starting out?