5 ms·
Personally I'd split it into two eras. The first is "Chrome arises as a faster browser and then gimps performance of Google services like Youtube on non-Chrome
by causi 4y ago
Personally I'd split it into two eras. The first is "Chrome arises as a faster browser and then gimps performance of Google services like Youtube on non-Chrome browsers" which lost Firefox half its market share. The second era is "Mozilla waters-down the essence of Firefox by vainly trying to recapture Chrome's market share while ignoring what its core userbase actually liked about Firefox."
- shadowgovt 4y agoDid Google gimp performance on their services or did Mozilla not spend the resources to keep up? I can confirm that Google didn't wasn't testing on Firefox first as of the early-to-mid 2010s, but that was an efficiency-of-testing decision; how much should a company spend on testing a browser with a sub-10% market share?
- causi 4y agoFor example, they created a Youtube redesign which relied on a deprecated API that only Chrome implemented. It was deliberate and resulted in a 500% slowdown for Firefox and Edge users. It was and is a systematic campaign to use Google properties to damage the user experience of competing browsers.
- shadowgovt 4y agoSo Mozilla didn't implement a deprecated API that would have made video 500% faster on the largest video site on the planet. ... That sounds like it's on Mozilla.
- abdulmuhaimin 4y agono. its called deprecated API for a reason. Its deprecated
- shadowgovt 4y agoshrug To do my actual job, I have to implement on deprecated APIs all the time. Deprecation is a declaration of intent, but intent rams into reality and changes continuously. There are two types of deprecated APIs: ones nobody uses and ones everybody uses. Sounds like Mozilla mis-guessed on which one of those Shadow Dom v0 would be. (From my limited experience: I bet while the Chrome team was trying to deprecate shadow dom v0, YouTube, which still operates as a pretty independent arm inside the Google ecosystem, built a new system on Polymer and in terms of Google's management architecture, nobody has authority to tell them not to do that. Far from an intentional shafting of other browsers, it was likely a failure to coordinate internally coupled with total apathy regarding what that meant for other browsers, since from YouTube's point of view, Chrome is free and available to everyone. Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by disorganized-bag-of-cats management style).
- folkrav 4y agoHow did Mozilla "water-down" their own essence? Is it about that old XUL debate again?
- causi 4y agoJust one among many other choices. Adding garbage content like suggested stories. Removing one method of customizing the UI without implementing a new one. The pile of flaming garbage that Firefox Mobile became after the transition to Firefox for Android. Continually dropping options out of about:config and userchrome.css. It goes on and on.