11 ms·

Honestly I hope Google go through with this as it will direct people to Firefox so they can continue using ad-blockers like uBlock Origin. I don't know how man

• hericium 4y ago
  Google may try to enforce MV3 on Firefox. 90% of Mozilla's income comes from Google and while Google needs this controlled opposition, they may lower their input to almost-suffocate Mozilla whenever they desire.
  • dmitriid 4y ago
    They don't have to do that. They have technical means to suffocate Mozilla. See this thread on sabotage: https://archive.ph/2019.04.15-165942/https://twitter.com/johnath/status/1116871238922776576 https://archive.ph/2019.04.15-165942/https://twitter.com/joh... (archived), https://twitter.com/johnath/status/1116871238922776576 https://twitter.com/johnath/status/1116871238922776576 (original)
    • random_cynic 4y ago
      So google is trying to both kill Mozilla and keep it alive? Are they trying to create a Schrodinger's Mozilla?
      • dmitriid 4y ago
        For a while Google needed Mozilla (and Safari) to point at and say: see, competition. Now that they have Edge, they need neither. Because they can now pretend that Edge is something else but a glorified Chrome fork and follower. See, for example, WebTransport which as a standard doesn't even exist beyond some scribbles on a napkin https://web.dev/webtransport/ https://web.dev/webtransport/ --- start quote --- The WebTransport features described in this article are shipping in Chrome, Edge, and other Chromium-based browsers, starting with version 97. Firefox does not currently have support for WebTransport. Updates on their position can be found in this GitHub issue. Safari does not currently have support for WebTransport. --- end quote ---
      • xani_ 4y ago
        They want to have puppet that makes it look like they're not a monopoly on the market. That doesn't really work if the puppet is so niche companies stop even supporting it
  • bdcravens 4y ago
    Firefox has already announced support for v3, even though it's not implementing the changes to WebRequest that is causing the most heartache, and they will continue to support v2. https://www.ghacks.net/2022/09/24/mozilla-reaffirms-that-firefox-will-continue-to-support-current-content-blockers/ https://www.ghacks.net/2022/09/24/mozilla-reaffirms-that-fir...
  • seanw444 4y ago
    That doesn't make sense. If you can control the other person's moves directly like that, then you're clearly a monopoly already. Nobody actually has a choice.
• midoridensha 4y ago
  It might be 1%, best case. Most people are just clueless and think loads of ads are normal. Talking to them about ad-blockers usually goes nowhere in my experience. They don't even know what browser they're using; they just click on the Chrome icon and think it's the "internet icon".
  • deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  • notriddle 4y ago
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/tjmccue/2019/03/19/47-percent-of-consumers-are-blocking-ads/?sh=694ad2b72037 https://www.forbes.com/sites/tjmccue/2019/03/19/47-percent-o...
    • kmlx 4y ago
      MV3 doesn't stop anyone blocking ads. i've been running exclusively on Safari for years now. zero ads.
      • saagarjha 4y ago
        It will when mainstream browsers adopt Manifest v3 and ads get smarter.
      • erinnh 4y ago
        I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'm always surprised when people say they never get ads on Safari. Its one of my major annoyances, that sometimes I do get ads on my iPhone, even with Ad-blockers.
        • joshmanders 4y ago
          I've almost forgot what having ads in my browser was like using AdGuard for Safari on my MacBook but it seems to miss a lot on my iPhone.
    • midoridensha 4y ago
• m00x 4y ago
  • input_sh 4y ago
    I imagine you didn't take the time to understand Manifest v3 criticism. Nobody claims they won't work at all, they'll just be crappier than they are now, which boils down to two reasons: Manifest v3 introduces limits to filter list size + pattern matching isn't as flexible. And Firefox has stated multiple times so far that they're going to keep current content blocking APIs, meaning that once Manifest v3 rolls out, adblockers will work better than they will on Chromium-based browsers. uBlock Origin already released a v3-compatible add-on and they call it uBlock Origin Lite for a reason: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ublock-origin-lite/ddkjiahejlhfcafbddmgiahcphecmpfh https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ublock-origin-lite...
    • RunSet 4y ago
      "uBlock Origin Lite" is bad branding as there is a convention of using "Lite" to suggest reduced hardware requirements. They should have named it something like "uBlock Origin Tame".
      • seanw444 4y ago
        Or "lite" on features, which it is.
    • m00x 4y ago
      > Nobody claims they won't work at all, they'll just be crappier than they are now, which boils down to two reasons: Manifest v3 introduces limits to filter list size + pattern matching isn't as flexible. Can you show this objectively through experiments or are you just assuming it won't be as good? > they call it uBlock Origin Lite for a reason Nowhere on that extension does it say it's any worse. It's a work in progress, it makes sense to call it something else. You're reaching and pressing your own assumptions as truths that have no backing.
  • yjftsjthsd-h 4y ago
• culi 4y ago
  I think you're really overestimating Firefox's influence. Firefox has less than 4% browser share. Even less than Edge! This is also a change to Chromium itself and not just Chrome so even those Edge users will be affected Firefox has never even held 10% browser share
  • SpaceManNabs 4y ago
    > Firefox has never even held 10% browser share I distinctly remember firefox having at least 25% share in 2010. No source besides my memory.
    • jve 4y ago
      30% per statcounter https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share#yearly-2009-2022 https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share#yearly-2009-...
      • jahewson 4y ago
        That number is incorrect, per Mozilla: https://blog.mozilla.org/metrics/2009/11/09/firefox-hits-25-market-share-on-its-birthday/ https://blog.mozilla.org/metrics/2009/11/09/firefox-hits-25-... The peak was 25%.
        • SpaceManNabs 4y ago
          yup this is exactly what i remember. 2009 though. guess i am unreliable.
  • justinclift 4y ago
    > Firefox has never even held 10% browser share That's very inaccurate. Firefox held a ~30% market share way back in ancient times (~2009), which decreased to around ~10% through to ~2018. The substantial drop from ~10% to it's current position only happened in the last few years. Animation of the browser market share over time, if that helps: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=es9DNe0l0Qo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=es9DNe0l0Qo
• rany_ 4y ago
  I predict the future will have users launching .exe files to mod Chrome (similar to what's going on with Discord and other Electron app mods). Firefox will barely gain market share.
  • GeckoEidechse 4y ago
    Yeah no, modifying logic of a binary application as large and complex as modern web browsers is slightly more involved than the Discord frontend mods that essentially just tweak some CSS and or HTML and JavaScript.
    • Quarrel 4y ago
      Compared to the mods for closed source game engines it is pretty trivial. Chromium is opensource, so the basis for straight forward binary modding are already there.
      • rany_ 4y ago
        This. I didn't mean to imply that Discord modding is as easy as Chrome modding. All I meant to say is that people are willing to mod Discord with random .exes so they'd do the same with Chrome.
• _8j50 4y ago
  In a world where a ton of people actually use Edge, this won't happen for most users. Firefox needs to take the google money and throw it into aggressive marketing.
  • omgmajk 4y ago
    Edge is also implementing MV3. Or did I read your comment wrong and you meant something else?
    • _8j50 4y ago
      Something else, I meant most people use defaults and are not educated enough to rely on them finding firefox and using it, you have to market it to them.
      • omgmajk 4y ago
        I agree with that, I don't think the general internet public is savvy enough to go search for an alternative. But I hope they will.
• vinay_ys 4y ago
  If ad blocking really became a significant problem, the next big change I suspect is server-side ad network integration for ad serving. Architecturally, it is definitely possible to interleave ads from an ad network into your server's http3 response stream by doing server-side ad network integration. Only the measurement needs to be client-side and directly integrated with ad network, if at all. The same underlying mechanism used for content security policy can be used for ensuring integrity of ad content even when not served directly by the ad network. So, any domain/url/path/extension/dom-id etc based ad blocking mechanism isn't going to work. Very likely this will result in superior technical performance (latency and measurement), and superior ad performance (due to richer backend data integration and better ad selection). It is just a matter of time.
  • xani_ 4y ago
    > If ad blocking really became a significant problem, the next big change I suspect is server-side ad network integration for ad serving. I'm surprised that's not already the case. Well, not that surprised, it's a business where at least one of sides is scum and server-side makes it a hell lot easier to cheat
    • doliveira 4y ago
      We've been really lucky so far that most marketing departments don't seem to interact with the core codebase when it comes to injecting ads, they just get a Tag Manager and can inject as many ads as they like.
    • fguerraz 4y ago
      The problem with server side ad insertion as you call it is the lack of accountability. It gives way too much power to the publisher: they want the ad money and therefore have all the incentives to commit fraud. At the moment, having the ad distributed by a third party and a ton of other third party JS in the browser allow all parties involved to cross check each other. The bot problem would be way worse with server side.
  • cryptonym 4y ago
    I can see that happening and that could be a good way to remove all that JS nightmare and provide better visibility on perf impact, eventually improving overall user-experience. In the meantime, someone will build adblocker undoing what has been done server-side. And if this is hard to detect, that will be based on training/model. Data integration will be subject to GDPR.
• xani_ 4y ago
  Firefox is pushing with V3 too. They are keeping ad stuff but rest of the disadvantages will be there
  • pmlnr 4y ago
    Source?
    • xani_ 4y ago
      https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2022/05/18/manifest-v3-in-firefox-recap-next-steps/ https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2022/05/18/manifest-v3-in-fi...
• wooque 4y ago
  By Firefox own stats, over 60% of their users don't have a single extension installed (?!) and Firefox users should be a more tech savvy ones. I guess for Chrome that share is even greater. Most people don't use extensions and don't know ad-blocking is even a thing.
  • cassianoleal 4y ago
    That data is likely biased. I imagine most tech-savvy Firefox users disable telemetry.
    • smcleod 4y ago
      This.
    • wisnoskij 4y ago
      Sure, but if their was anything I was to believe was a tiny minority of users it would be opting out of telemetry. If they are under 10-20% they wont sway the end result enough to matter, and I really expect they are.
      • cassianoleal 4y ago
        The comment I was responding to said: > Firefox users should be a more tech savvy ones Now in the same thread you're suggesting a tiny minority of users are tech savvy. Sorry, but can't have it both ways - majority savvy and minority savvy. It's either-or.
  • matheusmoreira 4y ago
    They should fix that by shipping Firefox with uBlock Origin included.
    • RunSet 4y ago
      Unlikely: > Mozilla has renewed its lucrative nine-figure deal with Google to ensure its search engine is the default in Firefox in the US and other parts of the world. ... > Moz will likely pocket $400m to $450m a year between now and 2023 from the arrangement ... > More than 90 per cent of Mozilla's funding comes from web search providers that pay for the right to be the default search engine in Firefox in their regions. According to the organization's latest financial figures, $430m of its 2018 total revenue of $451m came from those internet giants – primarily Google https://www.theregister.com/2020/08/14/mozilla_google_search/ https://www.theregister.com/2020/08/14/mozilla_google_search...
• RandomWorker 4y ago
  Maybe not all ad blocking. There’s already v3 ublock, but maybe just enough for people to keep adopting Chrome but not enough to switch.
• thunderbong 4y ago
  If the only hope that Firefox has is that other browsers will do worse, then Firefox has already lost.
• nathias 4y ago
  yea, I appreciate the sentiment but the world doesn't work like that
• josephcsible 4y ago
  What about all the people with Chromebooks? If they want to use Firefox, their choices are either doing all of their browsing inside of a container that's itself inside of a VM, taking apart the Chromebooks and removing the developer screw to be able to replace the OS, or buying new computers. I expect approximately 0% of them to do any of those things.