3 ms·

Right? Because that’s totally why Firefox’s market share has gone down and is not at all related to a billion dollar corporation ruthlessly and relentlessly pus

Right? Because that’s totally why Firefox’s market share has gone down and is not at all related to a billion dollar corporation ruthlessly and relentlessly pushing its competitor…

londons_explore 4y ago
Mozilla had a lot of goodwill, particularly in the tech world. With the right strategy, they could have translated that into thousands of influential websites encouraging users to use Firefox. Things like releasing features for firefox users first, because devs like firefox and it had better devtools, would have kept the firefox userbase afloat. Instead the mozilla devtools have been allowed to fall behind, web apps are no longer developed firefox-first, and mozilla lost it's opportunity.
lolinder 4y ago
Mozilla is hopelessly mismanaged. The entire Android app was overhauled a while back, dropping functionally and decreasing stability, and has since been pretty much ignored even though it is still missing features and is still painfully clunky and prone to crash. The developer tools on the desktop app were ahead of Chrome but have stagnated, and they're slow to adopt new standards, but they somehow find time to add things no one asked for like Colorways and a VPN. I want Firefox to get its traction back, but it's hard to cheer for Mozilla or blame Google when I see them twiddling their thumbs like this.
- b112 4y ago
  I want Firefox to get its traction back, but it's hard to cheer for Mozilla or blame Google when I see them twiddling their thumbs like this. I don't think this will happen. I think they will just fade away. They are completely dysfunctional now. Some say it is due to the whole woke movement, and it may be, but really, I see it as due to politics. By that I mean, politics is nothing but divisive, and if you introduce it into a company, as a corporate culture, you're going to regret it. IMO, work is where you leave religion, and politics(the other religion) at home. And Mozilla is paying the price for letting it in.
  - mistrial9 4y ago
    > due to the whole woke movement yes, and forcing out there reasonable CEO for a purity test, long ago.. HELO BRAVE
    - mysteryalias 4y ago
      [flagged]
      - tristan957 4y ago
        Their point is that Eich was forced out of Mozilla on what the user claims was a "purity test". Then he went to start Brave and no one seems to care, hence it was all just theater while he was at Mozilla.
      - _emacsomancer_ 4y ago
        Brave is more than reskinned Chrome. It's one of the only Chromium-based browsers that's both open-source and has some security/privacy features. (E.g. anti-fingerprinting things, an adblocker based on uBlock Origin (rewritten in Rust) built-in (and not as an extension, so will not be limited by Manifest V3).) Eich is not unproblematic, of course (in addition to the anti-gay marriage issue, there is/was also issues of 'covid-scepticism'[1]). And the cryptocurrency stuff in Brave is uninteresting to me (fortunately it's opt-IN though and not opt-out). And I still think, on the desktop at least, Firefox still has advantages over Brave (and even more so over other Chromium-based offerings). [1]: https://web.archive.org/web/20230104010454/https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/22/business/brave-brendan-eich-covid-19.html https://web.archive.org/web/20230104010454/https://www.nytim...
- kome 4y ago
  "The entire Android app was overhauled a while back, dropping functionally and decreasing stability" And yet it's the only mainstream browser for android that support, natively, ad-blocking. Using chrome on mobile is a joke.
  - mattlondon 4y ago
    Edge on android blocks ads.
    - rejectfinite 4y ago
      Using Adblock plus...
VancouverMan 4y ago
Regardless of how much or how strongly Chrome may have been advertised, we can't forget that a lot of IE and Firefox users ultimately decided to try Chrome, then went ahead and actually installed Chrome, then actively used Chrome, and most importantly, decided to keep on using Chrome instead of the other browser(s). All of that didn't just happen because of advertising. It happened become Chrome offered very compelling benefits over its competitors. For many users, Chrome was faster, lighter, more secure, and offered a better all-around user experience than its competitors did. Even now, that's still largely the case. Advertising alone can't make that happen.
- unethical_ban 4y ago
  Firefox didn't always work as well in an SSO corporate environment, where Chrome was able to shoe-in for IE. From a sysadmin perspective, Firefox having its own cert store instead of relying on system store was an extra hurdle for corp IT people. Then there is the fact that Chrome goes out of its way to integrate with Google's other properties which they market to corporations to replace Office. So I'm saying, I believe FF would have done better if they tried harder to integrate with corporate environments without compromising on their capability and independence. Name recognition is a big thing.
- kome 4y ago
  "Regardless of how much or how strongly Chrome may have been advertised, we can't forget that a lot of IE and Firefox users ultimately decided to try Chrome" Google for years installed Chrome using installers of other applications, like malware. I am talking of 10 years ago, that was common practice for google, on windows. So a lot of users found themselves using Chrome without even knowing they were using chrome.
- EMM_386 4y ago
  > we can't forget that a lot of IE and Firefox users ultimately decided to try Chrome, then went ahead and actually installed Chrome, then actively used Chrome, and most importantly, decided to keep on using Chrome instead of the other browser(s). I'm in this camp. I had used Firefox for 20 years, literally since it was just a zip file called Pheonix/Firebird. I switched to a Chromium-based browser kicking and screaming, but it came down mostly to speed for me, and some website incompatibility (which I can't blame wholly on Firefox). I'd obviously tried Chrome since day 1, and was impressed and checked back in from time to time, until I decided it was time to finally switch over. I still support Mozilla and Firefox and don't want to see less competition in browser engine space. As long as Google continues to fund it (mostly out of anti-competitive concerns I'd imagine) I don't see them going anywhere.
WoodenChair 4y ago
> Right? Because that’s totally why Firefox’s market share has gone down and is not at all related to a billion dollar corporation ruthlessly and relentlessly pushing its competitor… The irony here is that the billion dollar corporation (Google is who OP is referring to) actually funds Firefox's development. We looked into this in one of our recent podcast episodes called "How Does Mozilla Make Money?": https://pnc.st/s/kopec-explains-software/bdecab32/how-does-mozilla-make-money- https://pnc.st/s/kopec-explains-software/bdecab32/how-does-m...

Right? Because that’s totally why Firefox’s market share has gone down and is not at all related to a billion dollar corporation ruthlessly and relentlessly pushing its competitor…

londons_explore 4y ago

Mozilla had a lot of goodwill, particularly in the tech world. With the right strategy, they could have translated that into thousands of influential websites encouraging users to use Firefox. Things like releasing features for firefox users first, because devs like firefox and it had better devtools, would have kept the firefox userbase afloat. Instead the mozilla devtools have been allowed to fall behind, web apps are no longer developed firefox-first, and mozilla lost it's opportunity.

lolinder 4y ago

Mozilla is hopelessly mismanaged. The entire Android app was overhauled a while back, dropping functionally and decreasing stability, and has since been pretty much ignored even though it is still missing features and is still painfully clunky and prone to crash. The developer tools on the desktop app were ahead of Chrome but have stagnated, and they're slow to adopt new standards, but they somehow find time to add things no one asked for like Colorways and a VPN. I want Firefox to get its traction back, but it's hard to cheer for Mozilla or blame Google when I see them twiddling their thumbs like this.

b112 4y ago
I want Firefox to get its traction back, but it's hard to cheer for Mozilla or blame Google when I see them twiddling their thumbs like this. I don't think this will happen. I think they will just fade away. They are completely dysfunctional now. Some say it is due to the whole woke movement, and it may be, but really, I see it as due to politics. By that I mean, politics is nothing but divisive, and if you introduce it into a company, as a corporate culture, you're going to regret it. IMO, work is where you leave religion, and politics(the other religion) at home. And Mozilla is paying the price for letting it in.
- mistrial9 4y ago
  > due to the whole woke movement yes, and forcing out there reasonable CEO for a purity test, long ago.. HELO BRAVE
  - mysteryalias 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - tristan957 4y ago
      Their point is that Eich was forced out of Mozilla on what the user claims was a "purity test". Then he went to start Brave and no one seems to care, hence it was all just theater while he was at Mozilla.
    - _emacsomancer_ 4y ago
      Brave is more than reskinned Chrome. It's one of the only Chromium-based browsers that's both open-source and has some security/privacy features. (E.g. anti-fingerprinting things, an adblocker based on uBlock Origin (rewritten in Rust) built-in (and not as an extension, so will not be limited by Manifest V3).) Eich is not unproblematic, of course (in addition to the anti-gay marriage issue, there is/was also issues of 'covid-scepticism'[1]). And the cryptocurrency stuff in Brave is uninteresting to me (fortunately it's opt-IN though and not opt-out). And I still think, on the desktop at least, Firefox still has advantages over Brave (and even more so over other Chromium-based offerings). [1]: https://web.archive.org/web/20230104010454/https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/22/business/brave-brendan-eich-covid-19.html https://web.archive.org/web/20230104010454/https://www.nytim...
kome 4y ago
"The entire Android app was overhauled a while back, dropping functionally and decreasing stability" And yet it's the only mainstream browser for android that support, natively, ad-blocking. Using chrome on mobile is a joke.
- mattlondon 4y ago
  Edge on android blocks ads.
  - rejectfinite 4y ago
    Using Adblock plus...

VancouverMan 4y ago

Regardless of how much or how strongly Chrome may have been advertised, we can't forget that a lot of IE and Firefox users ultimately decided to try Chrome, then went ahead and actually installed Chrome, then actively used Chrome, and most importantly, decided to keep on using Chrome instead of the other browser(s). All of that didn't just happen because of advertising. It happened become Chrome offered very compelling benefits over its competitors. For many users, Chrome was faster, lighter, more secure, and offered a better all-around user experience than its competitors did. Even now, that's still largely the case. Advertising alone can't make that happen.

unethical_ban 4y ago
Firefox didn't always work as well in an SSO corporate environment, where Chrome was able to shoe-in for IE. From a sysadmin perspective, Firefox having its own cert store instead of relying on system store was an extra hurdle for corp IT people. Then there is the fact that Chrome goes out of its way to integrate with Google's other properties which they market to corporations to replace Office. So I'm saying, I believe FF would have done better if they tried harder to integrate with corporate environments without compromising on their capability and independence. Name recognition is a big thing.
kome 4y ago
"Regardless of how much or how strongly Chrome may have been advertised, we can't forget that a lot of IE and Firefox users ultimately decided to try Chrome" Google for years installed Chrome using installers of other applications, like malware. I am talking of 10 years ago, that was common practice for google, on windows. So a lot of users found themselves using Chrome without even knowing they were using chrome.
EMM_386 4y ago
> we can't forget that a lot of IE and Firefox users ultimately decided to try Chrome, then went ahead and actually installed Chrome, then actively used Chrome, and most importantly, decided to keep on using Chrome instead of the other browser(s). I'm in this camp. I had used Firefox for 20 years, literally since it was just a zip file called Pheonix/Firebird. I switched to a Chromium-based browser kicking and screaming, but it came down mostly to speed for me, and some website incompatibility (which I can't blame wholly on Firefox). I'd obviously tried Chrome since day 1, and was impressed and checked back in from time to time, until I decided it was time to finally switch over. I still support Mozilla and Firefox and don't want to see less competition in browser engine space. As long as Google continues to fund it (mostly out of anti-competitive concerns I'd imagine) I don't see them going anywhere.

WoodenChair 4y ago

> Right? Because that’s totally why Firefox’s market share has gone down and is not at all related to a billion dollar corporation ruthlessly and relentlessly pushing its competitor… The irony here is that the billion dollar corporation (Google is who OP is referring to) actually funds Firefox's development. We looked into this in one of our recent podcast episodes called "How Does Mozilla Make Money?": https://pnc.st/s/kopec-explains-software/bdecab32/how-does-mozilla-make-money- https://pnc.st/s/kopec-explains-software/bdecab32/how-does-m...