21 ms·

Browsers are essential and how operating systems are holding them back (2022) [pdf] (2022)

205 points by pieterr 4y ago

aa-jv 4y ago
The iron of this Browser-supremacy ideology, delivered as a .PDF file... I'd wager PDF Viewers are more important than browsers. :P
- foul 4y ago
  They are!
- Deukhoofd 4y ago
  What browser are you using that is not also a PDF Viewer?
  - aa-jv 4y ago
    The one provided for me by my operating system. :)
midoridensha 4y ago
Just reading the beginning, it looks like they're mainly complaining about proprietary OS vendors restricting users' choice in browsers through various shenanigans. Linux users (for desktop systems) don't have this problem, and for mobile, Android users can easily install Firefox (or better yet, Firefox Nightly) through the Google Play store and set it to be the default browser. Basically, if you want to have choice in a browser, don't use Apple products or a Microsoft OS. And even the Microsoft OS isn't that bad these days. Apple is now the worst offender in forcing you to use your computing the device only the way they want you to.
- deafpolygon 4y ago
  I was with up up until your statement: > Basically, if you want to have choice in a browser, don't use Apple products or a Microsoft OS. I get the "Apple products" bit - Apple famously refuses to allow you to install your own browser engine under the hood on iOS. But Microsoft? Can you qualify that with some concrete examples?
  - account-5 4y ago
    Just one example is forcing you to open links in edge regardless of your "default" browser: https://betanews.com/2021/05/07/force-web-links-open-in-default-browser/ https://betanews.com/2021/05/07/force-web-links-open-in-defa...
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - hardware2win 4y ago
      As I see this is not about opening normal links This is about opening link targeted to edge "Copy the following test link: microsoft-edge:https://www.betanews.com https://www.betanews.com"
      - em-bee 4y ago
        and exactly why should anyone be allowed to target their links to a specific browser instead of letting me use the browser of my choice?
        cowl 4y ago
        For the majority of links there is no particular reason but for some specific cases where the link brings you to a App that the developer has build with that browser in mind it is useful. I want a way to force the opening of that app in the browser for which I have tested and don't want to receive support calls that the app is not working because you opened it in your obscure browser of choice.
        em-bee 4y ago
        such apps should not exist. it's a throwback to the old internet explorer days. you will receive support calls from people who don't run windows and thus don't have edge
        4y ago
- darkstar_16 4y ago
  For browsers specifically, one can select their own browser on iOS and MacOS as well.
  - Semaphor 4y ago
    On iOS it’s just the chrome, not the full browser.
  - flohofwoe 4y ago
    It's always Safari under the hood, but that may change soon thanks to EU regulations (https://www.macrumors.com/2022/12/14/apple-considering-non-webkit-iphone-browsers/ https://www.macrumors.com/2022/12/14/apple-considering-non-w...)
    - frizlab 4y ago
      because of, not thanks to. Once again the EU meddle with things they should not. And once again I’m pissed off by their regulations (though this time at least it makes a bit more sense than the previous time…)
      - flohofwoe 4y ago
        What's wrong with more choice and competition? I really don't understand the walled garden apologists. If Apple 'tears down the wall', users still have a choice not to install non-Apple software if they don't want to.
        forgotpwd16 4y ago
        Going through comments really reads like a case of Stockholm syndrome.
      - iSnow 4y ago
        I am honestly glad that the EU forces vendors to put the customer first. I won't be sad if they force opening of the walled garden that is the iOS app store.
- noobly 4y ago
  Completely unrelated, but part of me wants to say it’s too bad that I won’t read the article due your comment (I really won’t now), because it’s an interesting headline, but at the same time these comments tell me whether it’s worth reading or not. The upside is skipping the bad or bloated articles, the downside is skipping articles that were actually good, but the top comment gave a bad review. It’s especially painful when the top comment missed the mark completely. The price you pay I guess.
- the_other 4y ago
  It’s only iOS/iPadOS that Apple does this with. And iOS makes up 18% of web traffic. That’s a lot, but it means 82% can use the browser they want at any time. Chrome makes up 80-odd percent of all other traffic, so the stats overall look like: Chrome: 65.6% iOS Safari: 18% All others: 16.4% Personally, I’m more concerned about Chrome than iOS.
  - pakamin2 4y ago
    [dead]
  - Dalewyn 4y ago
    >All others: 16.4% This whole essay is really just Mozilla complaining that they aren't on anyone's radar anymore and should be disregarded as bullcrap. Firefox once upon a time defeated IE6 despite home turf advantage, to say nothing of Chrome which played that game even better. If Mozilla wants more market share, maybe they should make software people actually fucking want.
    - nhchris 4y ago
      How many people choose a browser, compared to those that use whatever the OS defaults to/pushes on them?
      - mschuster91 4y ago
        Microsoft Edge's main purpose is to download Chrome.
        867-5309 4y ago
        Windows now ships with wget or curl (can't remember which) so there's no longer any need to use its browser!
      - Dalewyn 4y ago
        The millions if not billions of Windows users who choose to use Chrome? Also, using the OS default is also a choice. If someone uses Edge in Windows, that's a choice. It's only iOS where users have no choice.
- krono 4y ago
  I've been overhearing lots of complaints coming out of the Ubuntu corner about how everything is moving to snap exclusive distribution. Not too familiar with the whole snap ordeal myself, but I understand it is quite the shitshow and that can't be good for the Linux browser landscape.
  - sam_lowry_ 4y ago
    Ubuntu is dead.
    - ladyanita22 4y ago
      Not at all
    - mardifoufs 4y ago
      It's by far the best distro, even for production loads. I know, controversial opinion, but ubuntu has never been better (even if I dislike snaps). And almost everything is now built to run on Ubuntu first. Even RHEL would require tinkering for tons of software I need in dev/prod.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
    - loup-vaillant 4y ago
      Based on what? What's the most popular/live alternative?
    - oblio 4y ago
      Statistics?
- lovich 4y ago
  >...(or better yet, Firefox Nightly) ... I think this is some of the disconnect between users on this site who don't understand why people would possibly actively choose iOS even with the lockin. Most people do not want to use a product that is constantly updating and adding features in that are going to be taken out shortly, for something as basic nowadays as web browsing. If you're on the cool new technology people the average person likes rapid innovations. Once your tech is considered a commodity, then the average person wants a the equivalent of a toaster. Most people do not want to fiddle with their toasters or find out each day what new changes their toaster has. They want to put in bread, and get out toast. For browser, most people want to just be able to navigate to a handful of websites. The restrictions are a feature and not a bug.
  - brozaman 4y ago
    > I think this is some of the disconnect between users on this site who don't understand why people would possibly actively choose iOS even with the lockin. Most people do not want to use a product that is constantly updating and adding features Precisely the reason why I have an iPhone and an iPad is because they give me 5 years of updates and even more of security fixes.
    - yamtaddle 4y ago
      Firefox feels the need to scream at me every time it updates, which is all the time—far more often than iOS, and far more often than Safari. I think that's what the GP meant. FF does the equivalent of a major iOS update several times per year, as far as the user experience of the update is concerned—iOS doesn't fill my screen with on-launch "hi! We updated!" notices unless the release is a big one and there's actually new stuff to tell me about, in which case they usually keep it short and to the point. FF opens & foregrounds a new tab to tell me about the exciting update (ugh) and sometimes also pops some call-out bubbles for Pocket or some other crap, way, way more often than any other software I use, and it's really annoying, especially for a piece of software I've been using exactly the same way since it was called Phoenix and before some of the people working on it were born, probably—none of the shit in those announcements has ever, once, been anything I needed or wanted to know about. This, despite monkeying with UI and force-foregrounding unrequested content being UI poison for people with low computer literacy. I roll my eyes and close the crap; others get confused and are significantly delayed in doing whatever they actually wanted to do with the browser, on top of feeling confused and betrayed that their browser did something different when they opened it this time.
- kolinko 4y ago
  “offender” suggests undue negativity. For me, the biggest selling point of iOS is it’s lock in - be it in browsers or the store. My phone is the centre of my privacy, and I want it to be as solid and as safe as possible. So far nobody developed a mobile system that is more open and just as safe and robust.
  - nhchris 4y ago
    So don't install alternate app stores or side-load apps. Why do you need lock-in?
  - largepeepee 4y ago
    >My phone is the centre of my privacy, and I want it to be as solid and as safe as possible. If privacy was the main concern, you wouldn't be using any of the ad vendors, which includes apple. Yes, apple does sell your data. They just don't want others to do it too. There are plenty of smaller security focused phone vendors these days that doesn't intersect with user interest.
    - shawn-butler 4y ago
      >> Yes, apple does sell your data. They just don't want others to do it too. To whom?
    - kergonath 4y ago
      > If privacy was the main concern, you wouldn't be using any of the ad vendors, which includes apple. That is a false equivalence. > Yes, apple does sell your data. They just don't want others to do it too. This badly needs a source. > There are plenty of smaller security focused phone vendors these days that doesn't intersect with user interest. This badly needs examples.
    - largepeepee 4y ago
      For those curious. Just look at the front page of the app store, literal ad right there amongst numerous locations. Their ad revenue has been expanding since 2016, and despite them hiding exact ad revenue in their quarterly, Tim Cook has mentioned in the investor call that "advertising and analytics, apple services revenue set an all-time record of 20.8 billion in q4".
- severino 4y ago
  > Android users can easily install Firefox (or better yet, Firefox Nightly) through the Google Play store Not every Android device has access to Google Play, yet Mozilla still doesn't provide an APK download for Firefox from its website to make sure those users can have their browser too, despite all of this complaining.
  - rezonant 4y ago
    This is actually another example of where OSes get in the way of browser freedom. Because of Google Play Services and its dependency on phones that have Google Play Store, it may be more difficult to support multiple builds of the app than it should be. Still, this is a good point, would love to see Mozilla support non-GMS Android devices.
    - severino 4y ago
      > Still, this is a good point, would love to see Mozilla support non-GMS Android devices Well, actually, they "support" non-GMS Android devices in the sense that no Google services are required to run Firefox on Android. But you have to get the APK from unofficial sites like APKpure or APKmirror (trusting you're downloading a non-tampered file) or finding the appropriate build among all the releases in Github.
      - rezonant 4y ago
        Oh maybe I should have checked before replying. I don't think this is too hard for someone who wants a direct APK https://github.com/mozilla-mobile/fenix/releases https://github.com/mozilla-mobile/fenix/releases Perhaps the complaint is that they are not releasing to competing stores like Amazon? I would find it hard to believe that legit Firefox builds are not already on Fdroid
        severino 4y ago
        It's not the same as clicking on a direct APK download link as WhatsApp does on their website. You download and install, that's it. Here, first get into Github, browse between beta releases, OK, is this one? Now, should I get arm64 or armeabi? Definitely not a simple process, and of course not suitable at all for non technical users.
- jemmyw 4y ago
  You missed ChromeOS which is the second worst after iOS. Then Windows, where you can set the default but MS keep trying to push edge in your face, then MacOS which only really pushes Safari on first install.
- anon1385 4y ago
  >they're mainly complaining about proprietary OS vendors restricting users' choice in browsers I guess they think everybody forgot about the many years and hundreds of millions of dollars that Mozilla spent trying to get people to adopt FirefoxOS. An operating system that… only allowed using Firefox as the web browser.
- amelius 4y ago
  If you want general purpose computers, look for industrial gear, not consumer products.
  - mtrower 4y ago
    Industrial gear? What are you talking about here? Examples?
    - amelius 4y ago
      I'm talking about the kind of computers you would use when you'd build some industrial machine. E.g. say you make MRI machines. You're not going to put consumer hardware like a MacBook inside your MRI machine.
- flakeoil 4y ago
  > Microsoft OS isn't that bad these days Really? Edge is the default option, they push you to make Edge the default if you are using Chrome or Firefox and every now and then they ask you to accept Microsoft's default Windows settings. The show their MSN news by default, Bing is default, they show ads in the OS, they constantly ask you to log in to your Microsoft account, everything leads to MS 365 office products or MS cloud storage. It's a horrible OS and I wonder how long this can fly by any anti-trust measures.
  - midoridensha 4y ago
    I was only addressing how hard it is to install a browser of your choice on Windows, that's all. Honestly, I haven't used Windows in a while so maybe I'm out-of-date, maybe it's much worse than I thought. Ads on the start menu and stuff like that is horrible, I agree, but it's a different issue than browser choice.
    - jeroenhd 4y ago
      When you try to install Firefox from a clean Windows install, Microsoft gets desperate. The default search engine is Bing so if you search for "download Firefox" you get a large ad-like panel above the results telling you how great Edge is and that you really don't need to change browsers. Then when you finally install Firefox, it'll put ads in your start menu to "try Edge", I've even seen it add a little popup when I tried to open Firefox though I don't know if they still do that. Microsoft disabled the API that let's you change the default browser because Chrome and Firefox kept doing that automatically when you clicked a button. Mozilla reverse engineered the new method of setting the browser but Microsoft then cried foul because you're not supposed to be able to set the default browser from within your preferred browser unless you're Edge. And then with every major update you risk your browser preferences being reset because of "bugs". I've had Google set as my default search engine in Edge (to avoid the desperate ads from MS) but that got reset one update. The default browser got reset twice. Microsoft assures us that these were bugs and mistakes and that they didn't intend to change user settings, though. I have a hard time believing any of it ever since the day I got an ad for their browser in my start menu.
  - 4y ago
- mid-kid 4y ago
  On Android, it's often impossible to replace the chrome webview. The only way to do so is by modifying the system's whitelist for webviews. On linux and other platforms, apps get a choice of what webview they use, be it qtwebengine, webkit-gtk, or what have you.
- roydigerhund 4y ago
  The advantage Safari gives users on iOS (and macOS) over Chrome and probably also Firefox is power consumption. Which is a crucial factor on mobile devices.
- nailer 4y ago
  > if you want to have choice in a browser, don't use Apple products or a Microsoft OS What Microsoft OS restricts your browser choice?
- toastal 4y ago
  Android makes it very difficult to modify the system WebView engine. This means no alternatives to one of the more important parts of the system. If you want adblock in a web view, tough luck for most.
- geocar 4y ago
  > Apple is now the worst offender in forcing you to use your computing the device only the way they want you to. This is wrong. Google is the worst offender; Apple is an under-appreciated hero. I have to use some web pages- for taxes and public services, for my banks and so on. Those pages don’t work in Firefox and the only reason they work in Safari is because people don’t have a choice on Apple devices. Of course they have a choice: they could just have bought a google phone, but I have worked in ads long enough to know I want to stay as far away from Google as I can, and I cannot tell you how sad this makes me to see my choice being threatened just so you could use chrome if you “wanted” to.
  - forgotpwd16 4y ago
    >Google is the worst offender How the issue you're raising has anything to do with Google? Google hasn't forced those devs to not care about Firefox.
    - geocar 4y ago
      > How the issue you're raising has anything to do with Google? Because Google benefits from this and not me. I think you would have to be stupidly naive to believe this legislative lobby happened without their help. > Google hasn't forced those devs to not care about Firefox. The only people who know that are Google and those devs, not me and not you. But Apple did force those devs to care about Safari, and the things that work in both Safari and Chrome usually work in Firefox, so if you care at all about browser choice, you should be very afraid of this: As soon as my bank can tell me to install Chrome in order to pay my bills instead of doing any more work supporting Safari (and by extension Firefox), you better believe they will.
- trelane 4y ago
  > Apple is now the worst offender in forcing you to use your computing the device only the way they want you to. Is it your device if it obeys someone else?
  - unglaublich 4y ago
    All your belongings have to obey the legal requirements set by others. E.g. building code; electronic interference limits; road safety performance; emission limits; food safety standards... Yet they can still be yours.
    - trelane 4y ago
      I am not convinced that safety regulations enacted by elected bodies are the same as proprietary software offering its manufacturer against the user's wishes.
      - unglaublich 4y ago
        They are not the same at all, so your statement is incorrect.
        trelane 4y ago
        I don't see your argument here. Is your objection solely that I was insufficiently restrictive in my statement? addendum: You're saying your analogy is fallacious, therefore I'm incorrect. Which I find rather confusing.
- surge 4y ago
  I have zero trouble using Firefox on my Mac, other than the OS wanting to use Safari sometimes, what's the problem? Edit: Ah Apple products, I didn't factor in iPhone/Pad, yeah I dislike iOS and don't use it for that reason.
- rendaw 4y ago
  I think the user choice doesn't really matter here. Web devs want 99% of people to be able to use their stuff, so they develop for the least shared functionality and companies/apps/services that _need_ functionality just don't exist or else the companies that want to do it give up after creating mobile apps (linux users, and sometimes even desktop users are out of luck).
rini17 4y ago
Dear Mozilla, you're practically drowning in money, so do something with it. Like, have Firefox on Android support creating home screen borderless widgets with any webpage. Oh, but Google isn't going to like it. Don't bite the hand that feeds you, I get it.
- noobly 4y ago
  Would you mind supplying a source supporting that they’re drowning in money? Developing a browser on the functionality of chrome (especially in terms of security) is crazy imo, especially with a different engine. Sincere question btw, as far as I know they’re “non-profit” but they get a good bit of hate. I love the browser due to the customization/flags it offers while being up to date in terms of security. I haven’t put any effort into looking into them beyond that so I promise it’s not a loaded question, I’d be upset to hear they’re squandering their funds.
  - trollied 4y ago
    Their annual financials tell all: https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2021/mozilla-fdn-2021-fs-final-1010.pdf https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2021/mozilla-fdn-202...
    - bryanrasmussen 4y ago
      that really is not anywhere near drowning in money.
      - rerdavies 4y ago
        They have $1.1 billion dollars in net assets. How is that NOT drowning in money?!
        bryanrasmussen 4y ago
        for a company supposedly competing with Google $1148 billion net worth, that's a rounding error.
bitcharmer 4y ago
I do a lot of systems engineering-level work on Linux and was surprised to see this title. The paper talks about how corporations behind commercial operating systems exploit their position and suppress user choice and use other shady tactics. The title of this paper is a bit inaccurate it should at least say "... commercial operating systems".
- karussell 4y ago
  And how would you define "commercial operating system"? Is Android one or is it "Linux"?
  - omeid2 4y ago
    No; and No. Anything that is not licensed as "Free Software" or "Open-Source software" is "Commercial Operating System".
    - frameset 4y ago
      How does Red Hat Enterprise Linux fit into that classification? It's both commercial and open source.
      - omeid2 4y ago
        That is not "Linux".
    - SSLy 4y ago
      Linux can be commercial, look at RHEL, SuSE, Ubuntu. The moniker you're looking for is proprietary.
      - omeid2 4y ago
        They're far more than Linux, in the sense that a product using Sqlite isn't "Sqlite".
    - mtrower 4y ago
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
pakamin2 4y ago
[dead]
Dalewyn 4y ago
I'll give Mozilla market share again when they give me decent software again. Until then, they can RIP in pieces as they continue to bitch while not doing anything useful. Also worth noting that Chrome flies right in the face of this essay anyway. The only OS Chrome can't nom is iOS by sheer virtue of Apple mandates that Microsoft once got burned for.
- atahanacar 4y ago
  This comment reads like it was written by someone who has never used Firefox in the last 5 years.
  - Dalewyn 4y ago
    I have, and I wouldn't even imagine using it unless it was already there as a leftover of times long gone. I don't even need to argue my point either, because everyone else already has: People will use the browser best suited for purpose. Once upon a time that browser was IE6, then it was Firefox, now it's Chrome. Firefox lost because Mozilla fails to deliver a browser the users want, it's really as simple as that.
    - atahanacar 4y ago
      >People will use the browser best suited for purpose What is something that people need that Chromium based browsers can do, but Firefox can't?
- randomcarbloke 4y ago
  it's not like they gave us Rust or anything
anoncow 4y ago
Linux has a problem too. arm64 Linux has very limited browser support. Even Chromium works poorly.
- mkurz 4y ago
  I use chromium on arm64 Linux. Can't complain. Which issues are you talking about?
  - anoncow 4y ago
    In my experience, fonts render poorly via VM on apple silicon.
redeeman 4y ago
without having read the article, I for one am happy that something is holding browsers back. One can only imagine what they would do if they had even less constraints. Everything these totally garbage softwares do is abominable to the core
medo-bear 4y ago
i think mobile users are unaware how good firefox+ublock origin is. i constantly get bombarded by disgusting adds while browsing news portals, cooking recipes, etc. imagine reading about some great cooking ideas and midway through you see an advertisement for "revolutionary medication for foot fungus" with before and after pictures to show. and yes this happens even in "private" tabs. if anything mozilla should give financial backing to extensions such as ublock origin EDIT: should say "android users". iphones are beyond help even with firefox
- frameset 4y ago
  I do try and evangalise for it when I'm with others and they complain about ads on their android web browsers. But it's a tough sell these days.
  - mihaaly 4y ago
    There was a lightly visited portal (news) that I got used to and started to bug me to turn off my adblocker (uBlock) if I want to read their materials (I do not call their duplicated things fetched from here and there articles). I stopped visiting them.
    - medo-bear 4y ago
      i used to have this for some sites too, but ublock seems to always get ahead eventually
  - medo-bear 4y ago
    yeah evangelising anything hardly works. people in large are always hesitant to move away from the familiar. i find show and tease works better :)
    - frameset 4y ago
      Ha, you make a good point. So instead I can show them the same site they're on, but with no ads. Wait for the "how come your view looks different?"
BulgarianIdiot 4y ago
Browsers are doing well. I'm more worried about the fact the browser is turning into the entire operating system these days. Even the apps use the browser engine for a lot of functionality these days. It's like a parasite, the OS is being eaten inside out. I'd be fine with this, it's a typical disruption process. Except the browser stack is full of legacy features, is bloated, and I'd hate for this to be the de-facto platform for "everything" going forward. The joke that JavaScript will become a virtual machine which will then be implemented in hardware and be the only way to do everything is not THAT far from reality.
- rezonant 4y ago
  The web is not an exception when put next to macOS (it's core remains mostly unchanged since Next) and Windows (literally can still run Win16 apps). The perfect API is the enemy of adoption and that's not going to change.
- DaiPlusPlus 4y ago
  > Except the browser stack is full of legacy features Examples?
  - rezonant 4y ago
    I don't agree with GP's sentiment but one need only look at Number.parseInt vs parseInt and the associates coercion differences, and even typeof null which was on the front page today. Lots of cumbersome APIs like XHR and others designed before Promises existed, and even smooshgate, where we couldn't introduce flatten() because Prototype (iirc) implemented it already and failed to properly handle the possibility that the browser could already have it (plus it worked differently where the default depth of the new standard API is 2).
- flohofwoe 4y ago
  The browser turning into an operating system (or rather a separate meta-platform that provides a common wrapper over operating system services) has already happened a long time ago. And while many web APIs indeed 'suck', they're still roughly in the same ballpark as traditional OS APIs when it comes to legacy features, unfixable design warts and general 'pain of use' (e.g. it's not like native development is all rainbow-farting unicorns, while web development is eternal pain and suffering - it's both 'mildly annoying' most of the time).
Neil44 4y ago
I think it's rediculous how much Windows tries to scare you away from using not-edge and then constantly tries to scare you into switching back (plus using Bing). It's no wonder their numbers are up.
- timbit42 4y ago
  If they did any less, they would fall further behind Google's scare tactics.
pmlnr 4y ago
"Operating system are holding them back" Yeah. It would be nicer if they were holding it back a LOT MORE.
- wrldos 4y ago
  This I can agree with. I was hoping that Apple was going to actually succeed in doing this with iOS but it looks like regulatory bodies are ganging up on them and their motivations weren't entirely honest. They are possibly the least shit vendor still though, not the best. If only they had a decent plugin model for ad blocking. I await the inevitable bloated 3rd party apps which literally just embed their own browsers to circumvent the device level control we actually had for a bit there over the network layer...
tuyiown 4y ago
Dear mozilla, The web is dying under chrome, with the excuse that iOS has its responsibility in the stale doesn't help either. It's dying, not because of vendors pushing their favorite flavor, but because it has a terrible, horrible API, that make building an app with tightly controller Ui and Ux atop of it a Sisyph-ian challenge. It's horrible for 3 key points reasons: - the insistance that the document oriented API (DOM/HTML) as a feature surface that covers app needs, and that all use cases can be address with enough work (regardless of this amount of work) - the tremendous gap of customizable input api, that would allows easier visual and behavior customization, while enforcing third party expectations support (assistive tech should be able handle it same way as «builtin» input) - the insistance that CSS flaws (global declarations) are not a roadblock, that implicit, hidden states (from DOM) that can be guessed through JS event handling is a reliable enough solution. The lack of initiative to solve those problems either means that care is lacking, or that the API is good enough. The API will be the death of the web. Google won't solve it, Apple won't solve it. DO IT. If the API is indeed good enough, prove it building an extension atop of it. Leverage your incredible work of those 10 last years on your engine to build the ultimate development platform. Implement it atop standard to have a backward compatibility. Propose it in a first class citizen form to take the initiative on hybride native app with great replacement of the mess Electron is. To me you have no choice, the alternative is death of the web. At some point, history will be forgotten, and a proprietary vendor will do that, the flash way. The world would be grateful, and done properly, you'll take back a big chunk of control on the web standardisation, and have large opportunities for sides monetization. Make the web great. It's your job, only you have an incentive.
- rezonant 4y ago
  > - the insistance that CSS flaws (global declarations) are not a roadblock, that implicit, hidden states (from DOM) that can be guessed through JS event handling is a reliable enough solution. There is no such insistence, in fact CSS layers, container queries, CSS variables, and Houdini are just some examples of improvements shipped that apply here.
- blacklion 4y ago
  Web can not be dying because "building an app .... is Sisyph-ian challenge". Web is dying because you try to create apps, not linked documents. Web is not for apps.
wrldos 4y ago
I can't honestly even consider reading this from the vendor in question. I appreciate Firefox and use it on a regular basis but no browser, OS vendor or standard agency out there has an ounce of respect left from me. Nothing any OS vendor or browser vendor has done in the last decade has been a user-focused positive experience. They have become delivery tools for revenue only rather than information access. Even Firefox which is turning up now with crapware splash screens turned on by default. Until that changes, I'm deaf to any position.
- pyaamb 4y ago
  I'd like to see more money that Mozilla receives go into browser development. I was excited about the Servo project but feel like maybe they aren't serious about doing a fresh rust implementation
  - wrldos 4y ago
    Yes I agree there. They seem to be a PR and marketing company these days with the odd reskin here and there.
  - pyaamb 4y ago
    that being said, i think FirefoxOS was a good idea. I just wish they would commit fully and follow through.
- HeckFeck 4y ago
  > Nothing any OS vendor or browser vendor has done in the last decade has been a user-focused positive experience. They have become delivery tools for revenue only rather than information access. Succinctly put. I've felt this shift everywhere; it killed the fun and curiosity I felt when I first encountered computers and the web. I can't recommend anything in good faith. When I open a new website or program I dread to think what it is collecting from me... who is looking at it, where it is stored... forever. It just seems so powerless to resist, especially when so much of wider society expects you to use $CHATAPP or even $DATING_APP. I can't imagine a first date where I scold the lady on her use of proprietary software: "Please install this XAMPP-Mastodon-Matrix chat app from the F-Droid store or I won't speak to you again"
eurekin 4y ago
So, the next step would be browser level device drivers?
tannhaeuser 4y ago
What does Moz hope to accomplish? That Firefox will be used on iOS by any quantifiable amount of users when we all know only Chrome has to gain from opening iOS to their tracking and Google's ads? Such that Google completely dominates the web and any way of monetizing it, to be soon extended into "best rendered using Chrome" more than it is already? Why is Moz doing this, in the name of bland fake-juvenile "the web wants to be free" propaganda? Don't they have other problems to solve, such as their low single digit user base? Shouldn't they rather team up with Safari against Chrome or is Moz now turning to the dark side with this kind of nonsensical or outright corrupt propaganda?
- atahanacar 4y ago
  >Don't they have other problems to solve, such as their low single digit user base? And how will they do it without first addressing the vendor lock-in issue?
- modo_mario 4y ago
  Their shrinking userbase won't recover if they aren't properly available everywhere. This is exactly the kind of thing I'd want them to focus on. More so than silly outreach/activism and inflating board salaries.
- Mountain_Skies 4y ago
  The Mozilla Foundation has been quite the comfy "job", especially for social activists using Foundation resources for their advocacy. Of course, they want to expand their pool of resources, but Firefox is pretty much the only thing they have that can accomplish this. They've shown they really don't give a damn about Firefox itself, but they do care greatly about the lifestyle it provides them.
Jon_Lowtek 4y ago
Title had me expecting something akin to window decorations versus seamless free form, web service widgets and integrating browser features with operating system functionality. Instead this is about bundling default software and manipulating user choices of default software. Looking at AR/VR and voice agent appliances that debate may be more relevant again, as I don't think anyone even dares to hope for free choice of object/speech recognition providers, app stores, or web browser engines. Now consider more complex systems integrate these, like smart cars or smart homes or smart fridges.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
ddevault 4y ago
Wow, I don't think anyone who commented here actually read anything in the paper. I strongly agree that Mozilla makes constant mis-steps and that the scope of web browsers is hugely problematic, but to dismiss anything they say outright over those concerns is very immature of the readers commenting here. Start from page 38 if you want to quickly get an idea of what Mozilla is complaining about here -- and they're goddamn right to complain about this. I haven't seen such a poor discussion on HN in a long time.
- rezonant 4y ago
  Every time browser freedom comes up, a good solid half of HN commentators claim they want a locked down system for themselves. They want a system they cannot hack on. So when these stories come up, it's more like "Don't Hacker News" Another minority points out that Linux is hackable and we should all just use that. I assume the number of these comments would be larger if the vast majority of Linux desktop users weren't tinkering with their X configs or fixing something that wildly broke after their update. If Apple implemented the web without obvious commercially incentivized malicious compliance, I wouldn't care as much if they restricted the browser, but I'd still care, because computing should be open. I am a fan of the Apple that made the 1984 commercial, even if I know now that it was the same marketing shit they always pull. They only cared that it wasn't their monopoly.
phendrenad2 4y ago
Discussed 4 months ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32985713 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32985713 The TL;DR on this blog post is that Mozilla is unhappy that Operating Systems push you to choose their preferred browser. But really, what is the distinction between a browser and an OS? Why should they not be integrated? Why does a "web browser" need to exist as a standalone thing? Hand-wavy things like "user choice" don't apply here, because otherwise, why not demand that every part of the OS be modular? Why can't I swap out the USB stack on MacOS with a custom one? (Linux users mostly demand that anyway, but that's beside the point.) It seems like this piece is a calculated move to keep people believing that "web browsers" are separate apps, and cannot or should not (either logically or emotionally) be incorporated into an OS. Ironically, it also tries to say that browsers are essential to modern technology, in which case, doesn't that show that they should be even more integrated with the "operating" "system" of the computer? Personally, between Firefox and Chrome, I chose the lesser of two annoyances (Chrome) because it doesn't try to push a paid VPN or a paid Mozilla Pocket every time the browser updates (changelog: fixed bugs. also look at our pocket service!)
prasooncc 4y ago
F*ck off . I don’t want your google advertisement client installed in my iPhone.
- timbit42 4y ago
  Is it being force installed?
uni_baconcat 4y ago
With Apple's new policy, Google is going to bring Blink to iOS and so do Mozilla with Gecko. The only thing I wish is you'd better provide a well power management, I don't want a browser on my phone chew up battery like Chrome on the laptop.
solarkraft 4y ago
Mozilla is largely holding itself back.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
pipeline_peak 4y ago
Does Mozilla still work on modern browsers anymore? Or do they just update the ui of their aging one and write long winded papers with fancy stats about how many average users know how to install chrome.
- timbit42 4y ago
  Well, they rewrote their engine a few years ago.
Am4TIfIsER0ppos 4y ago
> User extensions are essential and how browser [makers] are holding them back. Indeed Mozilla! Drop your DRM on them. Allow them on mobile.
rxdazn 4y ago
can in-app webviews also require a specific browser, or will they always run on webkit? would this make it possible to write a native app with some wasm components?
mrkramer 4y ago
Mozilla and their friends at Google want that Apple opens up iOS and let them bring their bloatware browsers to iOS. Complaint is legit but Firefox and Chrome are not the best choice for users although Firefox on mobile is actually good unlike Firefox for Desktop.

205 points by pieterr 4y ago

The iron of this Browser-supremacy ideology, delivered as a .PDF file... I'd wager PDF Viewers are more important than browsers. :P

foul 4y ago
They are!
Deukhoofd 4y ago
What browser are you using that is not also a PDF Viewer?
- aa-jv 4y ago
  The one provided for me by my operating system. :)

midoridensha 4y ago

Just reading the beginning, it looks like they're mainly complaining about proprietary OS vendors restricting users' choice in browsers through various shenanigans. Linux users (for desktop systems) don't have this problem, and for mobile, Android users can easily install Firefox (or better yet, Firefox Nightly) through the Google Play store and set it to be the default browser. Basically, if you want to have choice in a browser, don't use Apple products or a Microsoft OS. And even the Microsoft OS isn't that bad these days. Apple is now the worst offender in forcing you to use your computing the device only the way they want you to.

deafpolygon 4y ago
I was with up up until your statement: > Basically, if you want to have choice in a browser, don't use Apple products or a Microsoft OS. I get the "Apple products" bit - Apple famously refuses to allow you to install your own browser engine under the hood on iOS. But Microsoft? Can you qualify that with some concrete examples?
- account-5 4y ago
  Just one example is forcing you to open links in edge regardless of your "default" browser: https://betanews.com/2021/05/07/force-web-links-open-in-default-browser/ https://betanews.com/2021/05/07/force-web-links-open-in-defa...
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - hardware2win 4y ago
    As I see this is not about opening normal links This is about opening link targeted to edge "Copy the following test link: microsoft-edge:https://www.betanews.com https://www.betanews.com"
    - em-bee 4y ago
      and exactly why should anyone be allowed to target their links to a specific browser instead of letting me use the browser of my choice?
      - cowl 4y ago
        For the majority of links there is no particular reason but for some specific cases where the link brings you to a App that the developer has build with that browser in mind it is useful. I want a way to force the opening of that app in the browser for which I have tested and don't want to receive support calls that the app is not working because you opened it in your obscure browser of choice.
        em-bee 4y ago
        such apps should not exist. it's a throwback to the old internet explorer days. you will receive support calls from people who don't run windows and thus don't have edge
        4y ago
darkstar_16 4y ago
For browsers specifically, one can select their own browser on iOS and MacOS as well.
- Semaphor 4y ago
  On iOS it’s just the chrome, not the full browser.
- flohofwoe 4y ago
  It's always Safari under the hood, but that may change soon thanks to EU regulations (https://www.macrumors.com/2022/12/14/apple-considering-non-webkit-iphone-browsers/ https://www.macrumors.com/2022/12/14/apple-considering-non-w...)
  - frizlab 4y ago
    because of, not thanks to. Once again the EU meddle with things they should not. And once again I’m pissed off by their regulations (though this time at least it makes a bit more sense than the previous time…)
    - flohofwoe 4y ago
      What's wrong with more choice and competition? I really don't understand the walled garden apologists. If Apple 'tears down the wall', users still have a choice not to install non-Apple software if they don't want to.
      - forgotpwd16 4y ago
        Going through comments really reads like a case of Stockholm syndrome.
    - iSnow 4y ago
      I am honestly glad that the EU forces vendors to put the customer first. I won't be sad if they force opening of the walled garden that is the iOS app store.
noobly 4y ago
Completely unrelated, but part of me wants to say it’s too bad that I won’t read the article due your comment (I really won’t now), because it’s an interesting headline, but at the same time these comments tell me whether it’s worth reading or not. The upside is skipping the bad or bloated articles, the downside is skipping articles that were actually good, but the top comment gave a bad review. It’s especially painful when the top comment missed the mark completely. The price you pay I guess.
the_other 4y ago
It’s only iOS/iPadOS that Apple does this with. And iOS makes up 18% of web traffic. That’s a lot, but it means 82% can use the browser they want at any time. Chrome makes up 80-odd percent of all other traffic, so the stats overall look like: Chrome: 65.6% iOS Safari: 18% All others: 16.4% Personally, I’m more concerned about Chrome than iOS.
- pakamin2 4y ago
  [dead]
- Dalewyn 4y ago
  >All others: 16.4% This whole essay is really just Mozilla complaining that they aren't on anyone's radar anymore and should be disregarded as bullcrap. Firefox once upon a time defeated IE6 despite home turf advantage, to say nothing of Chrome which played that game even better. If Mozilla wants more market share, maybe they should make software people actually fucking want.
  - nhchris 4y ago
    How many people choose a browser, compared to those that use whatever the OS defaults to/pushes on them?
    - mschuster91 4y ago
      Microsoft Edge's main purpose is to download Chrome.
      - 867-5309 4y ago
        Windows now ships with wget or curl (can't remember which) so there's no longer any need to use its browser!
    - Dalewyn 4y ago
      The millions if not billions of Windows users who choose to use Chrome? Also, using the OS default is also a choice. If someone uses Edge in Windows, that's a choice. It's only iOS where users have no choice.
krono 4y ago
I've been overhearing lots of complaints coming out of the Ubuntu corner about how everything is moving to snap exclusive distribution. Not too familiar with the whole snap ordeal myself, but I understand it is quite the shitshow and that can't be good for the Linux browser landscape.
- sam_lowry_ 4y ago
  Ubuntu is dead.
  - ladyanita22 4y ago
    Not at all
  - mardifoufs 4y ago
    It's by far the best distro, even for production loads. I know, controversial opinion, but ubuntu has never been better (even if I dislike snaps). And almost everything is now built to run on Ubuntu first. Even RHEL would require tinkering for tons of software I need in dev/prod.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - loup-vaillant 4y ago
    Based on what? What's the most popular/live alternative?
  - oblio 4y ago
    Statistics?
lovich 4y ago
>...(or better yet, Firefox Nightly) ... I think this is some of the disconnect between users on this site who don't understand why people would possibly actively choose iOS even with the lockin. Most people do not want to use a product that is constantly updating and adding features in that are going to be taken out shortly, for something as basic nowadays as web browsing. If you're on the cool new technology people the average person likes rapid innovations. Once your tech is considered a commodity, then the average person wants a the equivalent of a toaster. Most people do not want to fiddle with their toasters or find out each day what new changes their toaster has. They want to put in bread, and get out toast. For browser, most people want to just be able to navigate to a handful of websites. The restrictions are a feature and not a bug.
- brozaman 4y ago
  > I think this is some of the disconnect between users on this site who don't understand why people would possibly actively choose iOS even with the lockin. Most people do not want to use a product that is constantly updating and adding features Precisely the reason why I have an iPhone and an iPad is because they give me 5 years of updates and even more of security fixes.
  - yamtaddle 4y ago
    Firefox feels the need to scream at me every time it updates, which is all the time—far more often than iOS, and far more often than Safari. I think that's what the GP meant. FF does the equivalent of a major iOS update several times per year, as far as the user experience of the update is concerned—iOS doesn't fill my screen with on-launch "hi! We updated!" notices unless the release is a big one and there's actually new stuff to tell me about, in which case they usually keep it short and to the point. FF opens & foregrounds a new tab to tell me about the exciting update (ugh) and sometimes also pops some call-out bubbles for Pocket or some other crap, way, way more often than any other software I use, and it's really annoying, especially for a piece of software I've been using exactly the same way since it was called Phoenix and before some of the people working on it were born, probably—none of the shit in those announcements has ever, once, been anything I needed or wanted to know about. This, despite monkeying with UI and force-foregrounding unrequested content being UI poison for people with low computer literacy. I roll my eyes and close the crap; others get confused and are significantly delayed in doing whatever they actually wanted to do with the browser, on top of feeling confused and betrayed that their browser did something different when they opened it this time.
kolinko 4y ago
“offender” suggests undue negativity. For me, the biggest selling point of iOS is it’s lock in - be it in browsers or the store. My phone is the centre of my privacy, and I want it to be as solid and as safe as possible. So far nobody developed a mobile system that is more open and just as safe and robust.
- nhchris 4y ago
  So don't install alternate app stores or side-load apps. Why do you need lock-in?
- largepeepee 4y ago
  >My phone is the centre of my privacy, and I want it to be as solid and as safe as possible. If privacy was the main concern, you wouldn't be using any of the ad vendors, which includes apple. Yes, apple does sell your data. They just don't want others to do it too. There are plenty of smaller security focused phone vendors these days that doesn't intersect with user interest.
  - shawn-butler 4y ago
    >> Yes, apple does sell your data. They just don't want others to do it too. To whom?
  - kergonath 4y ago
    > If privacy was the main concern, you wouldn't be using any of the ad vendors, which includes apple. That is a false equivalence. > Yes, apple does sell your data. They just don't want others to do it too. This badly needs a source. > There are plenty of smaller security focused phone vendors these days that doesn't intersect with user interest. This badly needs examples.
  - largepeepee 4y ago
    For those curious. Just look at the front page of the app store, literal ad right there amongst numerous locations. Their ad revenue has been expanding since 2016, and despite them hiding exact ad revenue in their quarterly, Tim Cook has mentioned in the investor call that "advertising and analytics, apple services revenue set an all-time record of 20.8 billion in q4".
severino 4y ago
> Android users can easily install Firefox (or better yet, Firefox Nightly) through the Google Play store Not every Android device has access to Google Play, yet Mozilla still doesn't provide an APK download for Firefox from its website to make sure those users can have their browser too, despite all of this complaining.
- rezonant 4y ago
  This is actually another example of where OSes get in the way of browser freedom. Because of Google Play Services and its dependency on phones that have Google Play Store, it may be more difficult to support multiple builds of the app than it should be. Still, this is a good point, would love to see Mozilla support non-GMS Android devices.
  - severino 4y ago
    > Still, this is a good point, would love to see Mozilla support non-GMS Android devices Well, actually, they "support" non-GMS Android devices in the sense that no Google services are required to run Firefox on Android. But you have to get the APK from unofficial sites like APKpure or APKmirror (trusting you're downloading a non-tampered file) or finding the appropriate build among all the releases in Github.
    - rezonant 4y ago
      Oh maybe I should have checked before replying. I don't think this is too hard for someone who wants a direct APK https://github.com/mozilla-mobile/fenix/releases https://github.com/mozilla-mobile/fenix/releases Perhaps the complaint is that they are not releasing to competing stores like Amazon? I would find it hard to believe that legit Firefox builds are not already on Fdroid
      - severino 4y ago
        It's not the same as clicking on a direct APK download link as WhatsApp does on their website. You download and install, that's it. Here, first get into Github, browse between beta releases, OK, is this one? Now, should I get arm64 or armeabi? Definitely not a simple process, and of course not suitable at all for non technical users.
jemmyw 4y ago
You missed ChromeOS which is the second worst after iOS. Then Windows, where you can set the default but MS keep trying to push edge in your face, then MacOS which only really pushes Safari on first install.
anon1385 4y ago
>they're mainly complaining about proprietary OS vendors restricting users' choice in browsers I guess they think everybody forgot about the many years and hundreds of millions of dollars that Mozilla spent trying to get people to adopt FirefoxOS. An operating system that… only allowed using Firefox as the web browser.
amelius 4y ago
If you want general purpose computers, look for industrial gear, not consumer products.
- mtrower 4y ago
  Industrial gear? What are you talking about here? Examples?
  - amelius 4y ago
    I'm talking about the kind of computers you would use when you'd build some industrial machine. E.g. say you make MRI machines. You're not going to put consumer hardware like a MacBook inside your MRI machine.
flakeoil 4y ago
> Microsoft OS isn't that bad these days Really? Edge is the default option, they push you to make Edge the default if you are using Chrome or Firefox and every now and then they ask you to accept Microsoft's default Windows settings. The show their MSN news by default, Bing is default, they show ads in the OS, they constantly ask you to log in to your Microsoft account, everything leads to MS 365 office products or MS cloud storage. It's a horrible OS and I wonder how long this can fly by any anti-trust measures.
- midoridensha 4y ago
  I was only addressing how hard it is to install a browser of your choice on Windows, that's all. Honestly, I haven't used Windows in a while so maybe I'm out-of-date, maybe it's much worse than I thought. Ads on the start menu and stuff like that is horrible, I agree, but it's a different issue than browser choice.
  - jeroenhd 4y ago
    When you try to install Firefox from a clean Windows install, Microsoft gets desperate. The default search engine is Bing so if you search for "download Firefox" you get a large ad-like panel above the results telling you how great Edge is and that you really don't need to change browsers. Then when you finally install Firefox, it'll put ads in your start menu to "try Edge", I've even seen it add a little popup when I tried to open Firefox though I don't know if they still do that. Microsoft disabled the API that let's you change the default browser because Chrome and Firefox kept doing that automatically when you clicked a button. Mozilla reverse engineered the new method of setting the browser but Microsoft then cried foul because you're not supposed to be able to set the default browser from within your preferred browser unless you're Edge. And then with every major update you risk your browser preferences being reset because of "bugs". I've had Google set as my default search engine in Edge (to avoid the desperate ads from MS) but that got reset one update. The default browser got reset twice. Microsoft assures us that these were bugs and mistakes and that they didn't intend to change user settings, though. I have a hard time believing any of it ever since the day I got an ad for their browser in my start menu.
- 4y ago
mid-kid 4y ago
On Android, it's often impossible to replace the chrome webview. The only way to do so is by modifying the system's whitelist for webviews. On linux and other platforms, apps get a choice of what webview they use, be it qtwebengine, webkit-gtk, or what have you.
roydigerhund 4y ago
The advantage Safari gives users on iOS (and macOS) over Chrome and probably also Firefox is power consumption. Which is a crucial factor on mobile devices.
nailer 4y ago
> if you want to have choice in a browser, don't use Apple products or a Microsoft OS What Microsoft OS restricts your browser choice?
toastal 4y ago
Android makes it very difficult to modify the system WebView engine. This means no alternatives to one of the more important parts of the system. If you want adblock in a web view, tough luck for most.
geocar 4y ago
> Apple is now the worst offender in forcing you to use your computing the device only the way they want you to. This is wrong. Google is the worst offender; Apple is an under-appreciated hero. I have to use some web pages- for taxes and public services, for my banks and so on. Those pages don’t work in Firefox and the only reason they work in Safari is because people don’t have a choice on Apple devices. Of course they have a choice: they could just have bought a google phone, but I have worked in ads long enough to know I want to stay as far away from Google as I can, and I cannot tell you how sad this makes me to see my choice being threatened just so you could use chrome if you “wanted” to.
- forgotpwd16 4y ago
  >Google is the worst offender How the issue you're raising has anything to do with Google? Google hasn't forced those devs to not care about Firefox.
  - geocar 4y ago
    > How the issue you're raising has anything to do with Google? Because Google benefits from this and not me. I think you would have to be stupidly naive to believe this legislative lobby happened without their help. > Google hasn't forced those devs to not care about Firefox. The only people who know that are Google and those devs, not me and not you. But Apple did force those devs to care about Safari, and the things that work in both Safari and Chrome usually work in Firefox, so if you care at all about browser choice, you should be very afraid of this: As soon as my bank can tell me to install Chrome in order to pay my bills instead of doing any more work supporting Safari (and by extension Firefox), you better believe they will.
trelane 4y ago
> Apple is now the worst offender in forcing you to use your computing the device only the way they want you to. Is it your device if it obeys someone else?
- unglaublich 4y ago
  All your belongings have to obey the legal requirements set by others. E.g. building code; electronic interference limits; road safety performance; emission limits; food safety standards... Yet they can still be yours.
  - trelane 4y ago
    I am not convinced that safety regulations enacted by elected bodies are the same as proprietary software offering its manufacturer against the user's wishes.
    - unglaublich 4y ago
      They are not the same at all, so your statement is incorrect.
      - trelane 4y ago
        I don't see your argument here. Is your objection solely that I was insufficiently restrictive in my statement? addendum: You're saying your analogy is fallacious, therefore I'm incorrect. Which I find rather confusing.
surge 4y ago
I have zero trouble using Firefox on my Mac, other than the OS wanting to use Safari sometimes, what's the problem? Edit: Ah Apple products, I didn't factor in iPhone/Pad, yeah I dislike iOS and don't use it for that reason.
rendaw 4y ago
I think the user choice doesn't really matter here. Web devs want 99% of people to be able to use their stuff, so they develop for the least shared functionality and companies/apps/services that _need_ functionality just don't exist or else the companies that want to do it give up after creating mobile apps (linux users, and sometimes even desktop users are out of luck).

rini17 4y ago

Dear Mozilla, you're practically drowning in money, so do something with it. Like, have Firefox on Android support creating home screen borderless widgets with any webpage. Oh, but Google isn't going to like it. Don't bite the hand that feeds you, I get it.

noobly 4y ago
Would you mind supplying a source supporting that they’re drowning in money? Developing a browser on the functionality of chrome (especially in terms of security) is crazy imo, especially with a different engine. Sincere question btw, as far as I know they’re “non-profit” but they get a good bit of hate. I love the browser due to the customization/flags it offers while being up to date in terms of security. I haven’t put any effort into looking into them beyond that so I promise it’s not a loaded question, I’d be upset to hear they’re squandering their funds.
- trollied 4y ago
  Their annual financials tell all: https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2021/mozilla-fdn-2021-fs-final-1010.pdf https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2021/mozilla-fdn-202...
  - bryanrasmussen 4y ago
    that really is not anywhere near drowning in money.
    - rerdavies 4y ago
      They have $1.1 billion dollars in net assets. How is that NOT drowning in money?!
      - bryanrasmussen 4y ago
        for a company supposedly competing with Google $1148 billion net worth, that's a rounding error.

bitcharmer 4y ago

I do a lot of systems engineering-level work on Linux and was surprised to see this title. The paper talks about how corporations behind commercial operating systems exploit their position and suppress user choice and use other shady tactics. The title of this paper is a bit inaccurate it should at least say "... commercial operating systems".

karussell 4y ago
And how would you define "commercial operating system"? Is Android one or is it "Linux"?
- omeid2 4y ago
  No; and No. Anything that is not licensed as "Free Software" or "Open-Source software" is "Commercial Operating System".
  - frameset 4y ago
    How does Red Hat Enterprise Linux fit into that classification? It's both commercial and open source.
    - omeid2 4y ago
      That is not "Linux".
  - SSLy 4y ago
    Linux can be commercial, look at RHEL, SuSE, Ubuntu. The moniker you're looking for is proprietary.
    - omeid2 4y ago
      They're far more than Linux, in the sense that a product using Sqlite isn't "Sqlite".
  - mtrower 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

pakamin2 4y ago

[dead]

Dalewyn 4y ago

I'll give Mozilla market share again when they give me decent software again. Until then, they can RIP in pieces as they continue to bitch while not doing anything useful. Also worth noting that Chrome flies right in the face of this essay anyway. The only OS Chrome can't nom is iOS by sheer virtue of Apple mandates that Microsoft once got burned for.

atahanacar 4y ago
This comment reads like it was written by someone who has never used Firefox in the last 5 years.
- Dalewyn 4y ago
  I have, and I wouldn't even imagine using it unless it was already there as a leftover of times long gone. I don't even need to argue my point either, because everyone else already has: People will use the browser best suited for purpose. Once upon a time that browser was IE6, then it was Firefox, now it's Chrome. Firefox lost because Mozilla fails to deliver a browser the users want, it's really as simple as that.
  - atahanacar 4y ago
    >People will use the browser best suited for purpose What is something that people need that Chromium based browsers can do, but Firefox can't?
randomcarbloke 4y ago
it's not like they gave us Rust or anything

anoncow 4y ago

Linux has a problem too. arm64 Linux has very limited browser support. Even Chromium works poorly.

mkurz 4y ago
I use chromium on arm64 Linux. Can't complain. Which issues are you talking about?
- anoncow 4y ago
  In my experience, fonts render poorly via VM on apple silicon.

redeeman 4y ago

without having read the article, I for one am happy that something is holding browsers back. One can only imagine what they would do if they had even less constraints. Everything these totally garbage softwares do is abominable to the core

medo-bear 4y ago

i think mobile users are unaware how good firefox+ublock origin is. i constantly get bombarded by disgusting adds while browsing news portals, cooking recipes, etc. imagine reading about some great cooking ideas and midway through you see an advertisement for "revolutionary medication for foot fungus" with before and after pictures to show. and yes this happens even in "private" tabs. if anything mozilla should give financial backing to extensions such as ublock origin EDIT: should say "android users". iphones are beyond help even with firefox

frameset 4y ago
I do try and evangalise for it when I'm with others and they complain about ads on their android web browsers. But it's a tough sell these days.
- mihaaly 4y ago
  There was a lightly visited portal (news) that I got used to and started to bug me to turn off my adblocker (uBlock) if I want to read their materials (I do not call their duplicated things fetched from here and there articles). I stopped visiting them.
  - medo-bear 4y ago
    i used to have this for some sites too, but ublock seems to always get ahead eventually
- medo-bear 4y ago
  yeah evangelising anything hardly works. people in large are always hesitant to move away from the familiar. i find show and tease works better :)
  - frameset 4y ago
    Ha, you make a good point. So instead I can show them the same site they're on, but with no ads. Wait for the "how come your view looks different?"

BulgarianIdiot 4y ago

Browsers are doing well. I'm more worried about the fact the browser is turning into the entire operating system these days. Even the apps use the browser engine for a lot of functionality these days. It's like a parasite, the OS is being eaten inside out. I'd be fine with this, it's a typical disruption process. Except the browser stack is full of legacy features, is bloated, and I'd hate for this to be the de-facto platform for "everything" going forward. The joke that JavaScript will become a virtual machine which will then be implemented in hardware and be the only way to do everything is not THAT far from reality.

rezonant 4y ago
The web is not an exception when put next to macOS (it's core remains mostly unchanged since Next) and Windows (literally can still run Win16 apps). The perfect API is the enemy of adoption and that's not going to change.
DaiPlusPlus 4y ago
> Except the browser stack is full of legacy features Examples?
- rezonant 4y ago
  I don't agree with GP's sentiment but one need only look at Number.parseInt vs parseInt and the associates coercion differences, and even typeof null which was on the front page today. Lots of cumbersome APIs like XHR and others designed before Promises existed, and even smooshgate, where we couldn't introduce flatten() because Prototype (iirc) implemented it already and failed to properly handle the possibility that the browser could already have it (plus it worked differently where the default depth of the new standard API is 2).
flohofwoe 4y ago
The browser turning into an operating system (or rather a separate meta-platform that provides a common wrapper over operating system services) has already happened a long time ago. And while many web APIs indeed 'suck', they're still roughly in the same ballpark as traditional OS APIs when it comes to legacy features, unfixable design warts and general 'pain of use' (e.g. it's not like native development is all rainbow-farting unicorns, while web development is eternal pain and suffering - it's both 'mildly annoying' most of the time).

Neil44 4y ago

I think it's rediculous how much Windows tries to scare you away from using not-edge and then constantly tries to scare you into switching back (plus using Bing). It's no wonder their numbers are up.

timbit42 4y ago
If they did any less, they would fall further behind Google's scare tactics.

pmlnr 4y ago

"Operating system are holding them back" Yeah. It would be nicer if they were holding it back a LOT MORE.

wrldos 4y ago
This I can agree with. I was hoping that Apple was going to actually succeed in doing this with iOS but it looks like regulatory bodies are ganging up on them and their motivations weren't entirely honest. They are possibly the least shit vendor still though, not the best. If only they had a decent plugin model for ad blocking. I await the inevitable bloated 3rd party apps which literally just embed their own browsers to circumvent the device level control we actually had for a bit there over the network layer...

tuyiown 4y ago

Dear mozilla, The web is dying under chrome, with the excuse that iOS has its responsibility in the stale doesn't help either. It's dying, not because of vendors pushing their favorite flavor, but because it has a terrible, horrible API, that make building an app with tightly controller Ui and Ux atop of it a Sisyph-ian challenge. It's horrible for 3 key points reasons: - the insistance that the document oriented API (DOM/HTML) as a feature surface that covers app needs, and that all use cases can be address with enough work (regardless of this amount of work) - the tremendous gap of customizable input api, that would allows easier visual and behavior customization, while enforcing third party expectations support (assistive tech should be able handle it same way as «builtin» input) - the insistance that CSS flaws (global declarations) are not a roadblock, that implicit, hidden states (from DOM) that can be guessed through JS event handling is a reliable enough solution. The lack of initiative to solve those problems either means that care is lacking, or that the API is good enough. The API will be the death of the web. Google won't solve it, Apple won't solve it. DO IT. If the API is indeed good enough, prove it building an extension atop of it. Leverage your incredible work of those 10 last years on your engine to build the ultimate development platform. Implement it atop standard to have a backward compatibility. Propose it in a first class citizen form to take the initiative on hybride native app with great replacement of the mess Electron is. To me you have no choice, the alternative is death of the web. At some point, history will be forgotten, and a proprietary vendor will do that, the flash way. The world would be grateful, and done properly, you'll take back a big chunk of control on the web standardisation, and have large opportunities for sides monetization. Make the web great. It's your job, only you have an incentive.

rezonant 4y ago
> - the insistance that CSS flaws (global declarations) are not a roadblock, that implicit, hidden states (from DOM) that can be guessed through JS event handling is a reliable enough solution. There is no such insistence, in fact CSS layers, container queries, CSS variables, and Houdini are just some examples of improvements shipped that apply here.
blacklion 4y ago
Web can not be dying because "building an app .... is Sisyph-ian challenge". Web is dying because you try to create apps, not linked documents. Web is not for apps.

wrldos 4y ago

I can't honestly even consider reading this from the vendor in question. I appreciate Firefox and use it on a regular basis but no browser, OS vendor or standard agency out there has an ounce of respect left from me. Nothing any OS vendor or browser vendor has done in the last decade has been a user-focused positive experience. They have become delivery tools for revenue only rather than information access. Even Firefox which is turning up now with crapware splash screens turned on by default. Until that changes, I'm deaf to any position.

pyaamb 4y ago
I'd like to see more money that Mozilla receives go into browser development. I was excited about the Servo project but feel like maybe they aren't serious about doing a fresh rust implementation
- wrldos 4y ago
  Yes I agree there. They seem to be a PR and marketing company these days with the odd reskin here and there.
- pyaamb 4y ago
  that being said, i think FirefoxOS was a good idea. I just wish they would commit fully and follow through.
HeckFeck 4y ago
> Nothing any OS vendor or browser vendor has done in the last decade has been a user-focused positive experience. They have become delivery tools for revenue only rather than information access. Succinctly put. I've felt this shift everywhere; it killed the fun and curiosity I felt when I first encountered computers and the web. I can't recommend anything in good faith. When I open a new website or program I dread to think what it is collecting from me... who is looking at it, where it is stored... forever. It just seems so powerless to resist, especially when so much of wider society expects you to use $CHATAPP or even $DATING_APP. I can't imagine a first date where I scold the lady on her use of proprietary software: "Please install this XAMPP-Mastodon-Matrix chat app from the F-Droid store or I won't speak to you again"

eurekin 4y ago

So, the next step would be browser level device drivers?

tannhaeuser 4y ago

What does Moz hope to accomplish? That Firefox will be used on iOS by any quantifiable amount of users when we all know only Chrome has to gain from opening iOS to their tracking and Google's ads? Such that Google completely dominates the web and any way of monetizing it, to be soon extended into "best rendered using Chrome" more than it is already? Why is Moz doing this, in the name of bland fake-juvenile "the web wants to be free" propaganda? Don't they have other problems to solve, such as their low single digit user base? Shouldn't they rather team up with Safari against Chrome or is Moz now turning to the dark side with this kind of nonsensical or outright corrupt propaganda?

atahanacar 4y ago
>Don't they have other problems to solve, such as their low single digit user base? And how will they do it without first addressing the vendor lock-in issue?
modo_mario 4y ago
Their shrinking userbase won't recover if they aren't properly available everywhere. This is exactly the kind of thing I'd want them to focus on. More so than silly outreach/activism and inflating board salaries.
Mountain_Skies 4y ago
The Mozilla Foundation has been quite the comfy "job", especially for social activists using Foundation resources for their advocacy. Of course, they want to expand their pool of resources, but Firefox is pretty much the only thing they have that can accomplish this. They've shown they really don't give a damn about Firefox itself, but they do care greatly about the lifestyle it provides them.

Jon_Lowtek 4y ago

Title had me expecting something akin to window decorations versus seamless free form, web service widgets and integrating browser features with operating system functionality. Instead this is about bundling default software and manipulating user choices of default software. Looking at AR/VR and voice agent appliances that debate may be more relevant again, as I don't think anyone even dares to hope for free choice of object/speech recognition providers, app stores, or web browser engines. Now consider more complex systems integrate these, like smart cars or smart homes or smart fridges.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

ddevault 4y ago

Wow, I don't think anyone who commented here actually read anything in the paper. I strongly agree that Mozilla makes constant mis-steps and that the scope of web browsers is hugely problematic, but to dismiss anything they say outright over those concerns is very immature of the readers commenting here. Start from page 38 if you want to quickly get an idea of what Mozilla is complaining about here -- and they're goddamn right to complain about this. I haven't seen such a poor discussion on HN in a long time.

rezonant 4y ago
Every time browser freedom comes up, a good solid half of HN commentators claim they want a locked down system for themselves. They want a system they cannot hack on. So when these stories come up, it's more like "Don't Hacker News" Another minority points out that Linux is hackable and we should all just use that. I assume the number of these comments would be larger if the vast majority of Linux desktop users weren't tinkering with their X configs or fixing something that wildly broke after their update. If Apple implemented the web without obvious commercially incentivized malicious compliance, I wouldn't care as much if they restricted the browser, but I'd still care, because computing should be open. I am a fan of the Apple that made the 1984 commercial, even if I know now that it was the same marketing shit they always pull. They only cared that it wasn't their monopoly.

phendrenad2 4y ago

Discussed 4 months ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32985713 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32985713 The TL;DR on this blog post is that Mozilla is unhappy that Operating Systems push you to choose their preferred browser. But really, what is the distinction between a browser and an OS? Why should they not be integrated? Why does a "web browser" need to exist as a standalone thing? Hand-wavy things like "user choice" don't apply here, because otherwise, why not demand that every part of the OS be modular? Why can't I swap out the USB stack on MacOS with a custom one? (Linux users mostly demand that anyway, but that's beside the point.) It seems like this piece is a calculated move to keep people believing that "web browsers" are separate apps, and cannot or should not (either logically or emotionally) be incorporated into an OS. Ironically, it also tries to say that browsers are essential to modern technology, in which case, doesn't that show that they should be even more integrated with the "operating" "system" of the computer? Personally, between Firefox and Chrome, I chose the lesser of two annoyances (Chrome) because it doesn't try to push a paid VPN or a paid Mozilla Pocket every time the browser updates (changelog: fixed bugs. also look at our pocket service!)

prasooncc 4y ago

F*ck off . I don’t want your google advertisement client installed in my iPhone.

timbit42 4y ago
Is it being force installed?

uni_baconcat 4y ago

With Apple's new policy, Google is going to bring Blink to iOS and so do Mozilla with Gecko. The only thing I wish is you'd better provide a well power management, I don't want a browser on my phone chew up battery like Chrome on the laptop.

solarkraft 4y ago

Mozilla is largely holding itself back.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

pipeline_peak 4y ago

Does Mozilla still work on modern browsers anymore? Or do they just update the ui of their aging one and write long winded papers with fancy stats about how many average users know how to install chrome.

timbit42 4y ago
Well, they rewrote their engine a few years ago.

Am4TIfIsER0ppos 4y ago

> User extensions are essential and how browser [makers] are holding them back. Indeed Mozilla! Drop your DRM on them. Allow them on mobile.

rxdazn 4y ago

can in-app webviews also require a specific browser, or will they always run on webkit? would this make it possible to write a native app with some wasm components?

mrkramer 4y ago

Mozilla and their friends at Google want that Apple opens up iOS and let them bring their bloatware browsers to iOS. Complaint is legit but Firefox and Chrome are not the best choice for users although Firefox on mobile is actually good unlike Firefox for Desktop.