11 ms·

Frankly Mozilla already lost that and people demanding Mozilla stay firefox focused are telling the company to death spiral. Firefox has no path, literally none

Frankly Mozilla already lost that and people demanding Mozilla stay firefox focused are telling the company to death spiral. Firefox has no path, literally none, in getting a significant marketing share. And even if they did the company has no real way to monetize. In fact it almost never had a chance, especially in the current environment where anticompetitive moves are no longer really pushed back on by the govt. I say this as a person where Firefox has always been my daily driver. I would rather Mozilla keep trying things that keeps it afloat.

thrown123098 4y ago
Crazy idea: make a browser which adds features with new versions instead of how they are currently removing them.
- SamoyedFurFluff 4y ago
  I don’t know of any features that would improve Firefox’s market share to any significant effect. Tbh I haven’t even noticed any feature removals, but that’s just my day to day use cases: I bookmark things, I have multiple windows with tabs open, I install privacy add one and ad blockers, I sometimes open the console and mess around with websites. I don’t think the vast majority of the market even does a portion of what I do, much less any more obscure features. So I’m not inclined to believe that any removals changes Firefox’s market share to any significant effect. They just have no realistic way to monetize a browser. I doubt safari or chrome are money makers either, but they have anticompetitive conglomerates using those browsers as customer lock in and not a core product. Completely different needs there.
  - FeepingCreature 4y ago
    No single removal changed Firefox's market share to any significant effect, but it's death of a thousand cuts. Eventually, they're going to have to start doing things again that gain them users rather than lose them. (Happy Waterfox user; my "one feature" was multirow tabs, and the general betrayal of the Quantum rewrite. "We will add these features back as extensions" my unsupported ass. Bring back UI modding. PS: Same goes for Firefox Android, which I've thankfully found an old APK for.)
    - bacchusracine 4y ago
      >Same goes for Firefox Android, which I've thankfully found an old APK for. Not sure how much this will help you, I don't know which features you're keeping the older version of Firefox Android around for. But have you looked into Iceraven browser? https://github.com/fork-maintainers/iceraven-browser https://github.com/fork-maintainers/iceraven-browser
    - pr0zac 4y ago
      You can still mod Firefox's UI pretty easily, its all defined by CSS files and not too difficult to customize. I for instance actually did the opposite of what you wanted and completely got rid of the tab bar cause I use Sidebery for tab management: https://i.imgur.com/cHz1clI.png https://i.imgur.com/cHz1clI.png Theres a whole subreddit for it even: https://www.reddit.com/r/FirefoxCSS/ https://www.reddit.com/r/FirefoxCSS/ This repo (and that subreddit) has all the info on setting stuff up in Firefox: https://github.com/aris-t2/customcssforfx https://github.com/aris-t2/customcssforfx and even has a CSS example for doing multi-tab lines: https://github.com/Aris-t2/CustomCSSforFx/blob/master/current/css/tabs/tabs_multiple_lines.css https://github.com/Aris-t2/CustomCSSforFx/blob/master/curren...
      - FeepingCreature 4y ago
        Sure, but every time I try this it has terrible UX compared to TMP, particularly around scrolling and dragging. (Also Firefox breaks it once a year or so.) Not sure how much this is lack of developer effort vs lack of support from Firefox.
slig 4y ago
They have no mobile presence, their Desktop usage is very low (even using the Cloudflare stats which doesn't require client-side tracking) and Devs aren't even bothering to test on FF anymore. It's lost.
- SamoyedFurFluff 4y ago
  Yes, my biggest complaint in firefox is a lack of dev supporting the browser. Sometimes websites break and I know it’s because their dev didn’t bother to check if it worked in Firefox. But that’s not something Mozilla can control. So I can see them trying to find something else, and I’d prefer they do that than keeping on something that will likely never work.
senko 4y ago
> I would rather Mozilla keep trying things that keeps it afloat. I don't care if Mozilla is afloat if that means they'll abandon Firefox to oblivion. I would rather have a truly open browser that doesn't do things like hamstring UBO. They're burning through (literally) millions on these moonshot projects nobody asked for, meanwhile people are building a browser & engine from scratch on a shoestring budget (Ladybird).
- SamoyedFurFluff 4y ago
  I haven’t perceived Firefox abandonment. I get regular updates and there was a very noticeable major update in performance pretty recently. I don’t think I’ve heard of anything Chrome has done besides trying to push an anti-Adblock.
  - dandellion 4y ago
    Yes, they're pretty active, especially in removing features. They removed RSS, removed compact mode, removed bookmark descriptions, removed old extensions, etc. And at the same time they don't offer any options to donate directly to Firefox, you have to donate to Mozilla and hope they'll spend the resources on the right project (which they clearly don't). It feels like Firefox has been a walking corpse for a while, so of course they'll try anything.
    - AlchemistCamp 4y ago
      Exactly. In the past, I looked for a way to donate to of give businesses to Firefox, but I have no intention of supporting Mozilla given their lack of focus.
      - b112 4y ago
        I think we should hard fork firefox. Set up a board of respected people, and a non-profit. Fork firefox. Set up a 5 year dev timeline, with specific larger goals and intent. Fundraise, and then hire away some core, mozilla key devs who will leave. Build on that. I wonder, this would be a "feel good" place for some IPO enriched persons to put money. And it has real value, in that keeping a second browser engine is a laudable and important goal. Real good to be done. Hmm. And you know, Firefox was paid for by donations, and OSS devs donating time. If anything is reasonable to non-profit, this is it.
mejutoco 4y ago
Personally, I do not need Firefox to have some grand vision to compete with Chrome. I just need it to exist and be there in features that Google does not like (Ad blocking, privacy), so Chrome does not determine the web. IMHO Mozilla needs to focus on Firefox.
- SamoyedFurFluff 4y ago
  Firefox already does this and continues to be supported. Not sure what you’re talking about. I’m only pointing out there’s no way the company Mozilla can survive off just their browser, because no company currently has a monetized browser product. They immediately lose here. I’m happy with the privacy I get from Firefox and I wished more people enjoyed it, but I understand they’re up against anticompetitive companies on the regular, so I can’t expect them to keep acting as if Firefox is all Mozilla is hanging their hat on.
  - marginalia_nu 4y ago
    Firefox started out in the position it is in today, back when Internet Explorer had Chrome's current market share. They carved out a market share because they sucked less than IE. But now we're back to square one, with a big corporate entity running dominant browser, and a host of lazy developers that only develop for that one browser. We really need Firefox to step up to the challenge again to keep chrome honest. Sadly Mozilla flounders at every step, and somehow manage to make their browser even more user-hostile than Chrome.
    - rhn_mk1 4y ago
      The situation differs. IE lost because it stagnated, as Microsoft didn't care about the Web. Google cares about the Web, and they not only keep developing Chrome, they also keep developing Web standards, meaning that any competitor has a lot of keeping up to do just to stay in one place.
      - saidinesh5 4y ago
FeepingCreature 4y ago
Mozilla are not a startup or a public corporation. If an organization does not have a path to pursue their core objective, they should just fold. Mozilla exists for Firefox, not for itself.
skrowl 4y ago
> Firefox has no path, literally none, in getting a significant marketing share. Wait until Chrome bans Manifest V2 extensions (like ublock origin). That will be a good time for Firefox to shine.
- saidinesh5 4y ago
  Doesn't Brave support Manifest V2 just like Firefox?
  - CatWChainsaw 4y ago
    Brave is based on Chromium. Google has a significant hand in Chromium developments. If Manifest V2 is deprecated on Chrome, other Chromium forks have to work harder and harder to maintain it as time goes on. Firefox is slightly less vulnerable since it's a different engine.
AlchemistCamp 4y ago
I use Firefox more than any other application. I don’t care about anything else Mozilla has built in the past decade, unless you count Rust. As they continue devoting resources towards more and more things that aren’t Firefox, they only hasten the day when I’ll give up and move to Brave.
makeitdouble 4y ago
In a way...I kinda wonder how much Mozilla needs to stay a purely private company. Giving the current climate relative to Google, Microsoft and Apple's presence on the web, having Mozilla become a nationally funded project at a dedicated org. doesn't look like wild dreams. To jest if it becomes Germany's official administration's technology provider, investing a significant amount in the ongoing maintenance of firefox would be a given. Make that a multi-country deal and enough money would float around. There would be still issues on the governance and keeping it a competitive and innovative product, but it isn't unheard of.
huijzer 4y ago
> In fact it almost never had a chance, especially in the current environment where anticompetitive moves are no longer really pushed back on by the govt. They used to have a great market share of 100%, but then Microsoft bundled Internet Explorer with Windows, which was much easier to install than Netscape Navigator. Netscape then became the basis for the open source Mozilla Firefox project. As a side-note, the name Mozilla was derived from Mosaic Killer. Mosaic is the browser that was created by Marc Andreessen and Jim Clark at the National Center for Supercomputing Applications (NCSA) at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. This Mosaic browser was then bought by Microsoft and then the basis for Internet Explorer, which killed Netscape. > In fact it almost never had a chance, especially in the current environment where anticompetitive moves are no longer really pushed back on by the govt. I disagree with the statement that anticompetitive moves are no longer really pushed back on by the govt. Anticompetitive legislation was introduced in response to Standard Oil. On the day that the legislation split up Standard Oil in the many subsidiaries such as Chevron, BP, and Texaco, Rockefeller advised people to BUY shares of Standard Oil since the company was getting too big to run efficiently anyway. The legislation didn't have much effect as you can see from the fact that aforementioned subsidiaries still thrive today. I've learned these things from the Acquired podcast by the way. Can highly recommend.
bachmeier 4y ago
> Firefox has no path, literally none, in getting a significant marketing share. We used to have these discussions in the Linux world. Some would argue that the goal is to take market share away from Microsoft, even if you have to add closed software to the distribution. Others, including me, felt the goal was to provide an open alternative. That is where I stand on Firefox as well. > And even if they did the company has no real way to monetize. You don't need to be real creative to come up with ways to monetize their brand. They're the nonprofit that makes open tools that protect your privacy. Partner with someone to provide cloud storage, email, a notes app, calendar service, and anything else that requires security and privacy. Edit: To be clear, I support Mozilla.ai if it gives us a private option. I'd like them to integrate it with Firefox.
- idiotsecant 4y ago
  I agree - if Mozilla is pushing out a useful product and they have the money to keep that product in development as needs change what's it matter if not that many people are using it? Selfishly, I don't care what other people use - just what I want to use.
antisthenes 4y ago
> Frankly Mozilla already lost that and people demanding Mozilla stay firefox focused are telling the company to death spiral. Firefox has no path, literally none, in getting a significant marketing share. The company is in a death spiral regardless of what 20-50 HN commenters tell Mozilla to do. Please don't have any illusions in that regard. We can still debate as to why they have been in a death spiral for the last 10 years, and part of it was that they did pretty much everything to avoid making a better browser that could have actually been a competitor to Chrome. On top of showing a giant middle finger to all the power users who developed add-ons. > I would rather Mozilla keep trying things that keeps it afloat. Isn't the only thing keeping them afloat concessions from Google in some sums of money? In that sense they could be doing anything and it wouldn't make any difference. It's extremely clear that their leadership is Google-captive and will never be allowed to make anything that directly competes with the tech giants.
- bacchusracine 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - nativeit 4y ago
    Snarky rhyming schemes aren’t much of a political philosophy.
    - bacchusracine 4y ago
      > Snarky rhyming schemes aren’t much of a political philosophy. Slogans have always existed. Poking at them and calling them snarky doesn't stop them from being condensed talking points. Or from being an observable reality. A little over ten years ago Firefox was doing well. In the time since then it has not fared well at all. Looking at what has changed since then is a very valid thing to do.
  - return_to_monke 4y ago
    a) you shouldn't be demoted because of your political donations, as long as you're not donating to do harm - whether Eich was donating to a harmful organization is debatable b) This has nothing to do with "wholeness" and everything to do with Google pushing chrome as hard as they can. - There is android phones, and I am pretty sure some Google services would advertise it to you - Chromebooks are used in most public schools across America c) Eich later went on to found Brave. Have you ever seen anyone in the real world use Brave? They passed 50M users one year ago: https://brave.com/2021-recap/ https://brave.com/2021-recap/ Wikipedia states 63% of people used the internet worldwide in 2021: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_Internet_users https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_... that is 4.9 billion people. So, brave has a market share of, drum roll, 1%. In conclusion, the argument that Eich would have led them to success is not a good one, in my opinion.
insanitybit 4y ago
> Firefox has no path, literally none, in getting a significant marketing share. I'd argue it has a trivial path and that focusing elsewhere (ie: not on the one fucking asset they have ever had/ profited from) is insane. 1. Build a better browser. People browse a lot. 2. Do what Chrome does. Build integrations with services. Chrome is mandated at many companies because of its GSuite integration/ Context Aware Access. The Browser is an identity platform these days and Mozilla has done fuck all about it. I could seriously go on and on about what they could do. Mozilla's failures are painful because the path to success is so obvious. Their CEO is a massive failure and should have been fired ages ago.
- likeabbas 4y ago
  Mozilla may have one path, albeit a long shot. If Apple were to decide that it’s cheaper to give money to Mozilla and have FF be the default iOS browser, that would be their best shot for success. Or maybe Apple could buy out Mozilla entirely. This scenario isn’t likely but I don’t think it’s completely out of the question.
  - PaulHoule 4y ago
    Alternately if the EU or some other government were concerned about privacy (both in the "don't collect dossiers" and the "don't harass people with popups and unwanted features" meanings) and competition it could fully fund Mozilla or a fork of Mozilla that is free of Pocket and similar distractions.
  - JimDabell 4y ago
    When Apple decided to build Safari, they hired one of the creators of Firefox and still chose the relatively obscure KHTML as their base over the at-the-time major market share Gecko. If they didn’t pick Gecko then, they certainly aren’t going to throw everything on WebKit away to do it now. It’s also a terrible move to buy a competitor when they are under legal scrutiny for having a controlling interest in web browsers.
- miohtama 4y ago
  What Chrome does is that it markets “Download Google Chrome” on every Google property, and comes reinstalled on Android phones. It is not realistic advise to expect Firefox to do what Chrome does.
stametseater 4y ago
If Firefox is already dead then Mozilla may as well be dead. What's the point of keeping Mozilla around if they're giving up on Firefox? Why should I care about the continuation of their org, if not for Firefox? In fact, if Firefox is dead then I want Mozilla dead too. Clear the playing field for somebody new who might succeed where Mozilla failed. If Firefox is dead then Mozilla continuing nevertheless is contrary to my interests.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
eitland 4y ago
> I would rather Mozilla keep trying things that keeps it afloat. A Mozilla that doesn't create Firefox is a failed Mozilla. Everything else others can do. There are working charities for every single thing Mozilla does - except creating a good browser.
- jrm4 4y ago
  Eh, this still seems at least plausibly smart strategy purely in terms of "not getting left behind." I'm reminded of the choice to enable Netflix DRM? It is at least possible (if not likely) that "AI" becomes central to the browsing experience, so Mozilla should probably do something here.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
tablespoon 4y ago
> Frankly Mozilla already lost that and people demanding Mozilla stay firefox focused are telling the company to death spiral. Firefox is literally the only thing Mozilla has that's worth a damn. A Mozilla that doesn't focus on Firefox is already dead. > Firefox has no path, literally none, in getting a significant marketing share. They have a path, and it's "called not focusing on aping Chrome and mindlessly cutting features 'because telemetry.'" > I would rather Mozilla keep trying things that keeps it afloat. I don't care about Mozilla-the-organization, I care about Firefox. It does no one any good if they burn up all their resources aimlessly chasing trends as an also-ran.
max51 4y ago
what would be the point of keeping them afloat if they no longer focus on firefox? The only reason why Mozilla exists in the first place in Firefox. If they can't make a good web browser, there is no reason for them to exist in the first place.
m0llusk 4y ago
Mozilla Fluent internationalization (https://github.com/projectfluent https://github.com/projectfluent) is superior to other offerings. Firefox is almost entirely transitioned to Fluent (https://www.arewefluentyet.com/ https://www.arewefluentyet.com/). This puts Firefox in a position to potentially perform well in providing good quality browsing experiences to a global audience using many languages.
throwaway9554 4y ago
Throwaway for obvious reasons. I recently interviewed for a Mozilla R&D E.M. job. The first and primary questions asked of me were not technical but about diversity. I didn't even feel like I had a chance to showcase my technical skills. They wanted to know how important diversity was to me and how it would impact my management. H.R. was on through the entire call continually injecting these kinds of questions and it was not a technical interview even though it was supposed to be. (third interview)
olejorgenb 4y ago
> And even if they did the company has no real way to monetize. Isn't firefox the only thing making them money? In a very straight forward way: Selling the default search engine configuration. 500M in 2020 according to Wikipedia. Seems even a tiny market share is worth a lot?
dang 4y ago
(We detached this generic subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35260301 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35260301)

thrown123098 4y ago

Crazy idea: make a browser which adds features with new versions instead of how they are currently removing them.

SamoyedFurFluff 4y ago
I don’t know of any features that would improve Firefox’s market share to any significant effect. Tbh I haven’t even noticed any feature removals, but that’s just my day to day use cases: I bookmark things, I have multiple windows with tabs open, I install privacy add one and ad blockers, I sometimes open the console and mess around with websites. I don’t think the vast majority of the market even does a portion of what I do, much less any more obscure features. So I’m not inclined to believe that any removals changes Firefox’s market share to any significant effect. They just have no realistic way to monetize a browser. I doubt safari or chrome are money makers either, but they have anticompetitive conglomerates using those browsers as customer lock in and not a core product. Completely different needs there.
- FeepingCreature 4y ago
  No single removal changed Firefox's market share to any significant effect, but it's death of a thousand cuts. Eventually, they're going to have to start doing things again that gain them users rather than lose them. (Happy Waterfox user; my "one feature" was multirow tabs, and the general betrayal of the Quantum rewrite. "We will add these features back as extensions" my unsupported ass. Bring back UI modding. PS: Same goes for Firefox Android, which I've thankfully found an old APK for.)
  - bacchusracine 4y ago
    >Same goes for Firefox Android, which I've thankfully found an old APK for. Not sure how much this will help you, I don't know which features you're keeping the older version of Firefox Android around for. But have you looked into Iceraven browser? https://github.com/fork-maintainers/iceraven-browser https://github.com/fork-maintainers/iceraven-browser
  - pr0zac 4y ago
    You can still mod Firefox's UI pretty easily, its all defined by CSS files and not too difficult to customize. I for instance actually did the opposite of what you wanted and completely got rid of the tab bar cause I use Sidebery for tab management: https://i.imgur.com/cHz1clI.png https://i.imgur.com/cHz1clI.png Theres a whole subreddit for it even: https://www.reddit.com/r/FirefoxCSS/ https://www.reddit.com/r/FirefoxCSS/ This repo (and that subreddit) has all the info on setting stuff up in Firefox: https://github.com/aris-t2/customcssforfx https://github.com/aris-t2/customcssforfx and even has a CSS example for doing multi-tab lines: https://github.com/Aris-t2/CustomCSSforFx/blob/master/current/css/tabs/tabs_multiple_lines.css https://github.com/Aris-t2/CustomCSSforFx/blob/master/curren...
    - FeepingCreature 4y ago
      Sure, but every time I try this it has terrible UX compared to TMP, particularly around scrolling and dragging. (Also Firefox breaks it once a year or so.) Not sure how much this is lack of developer effort vs lack of support from Firefox.

slig 4y ago

They have no mobile presence, their Desktop usage is very low (even using the Cloudflare stats which doesn't require client-side tracking) and Devs aren't even bothering to test on FF anymore. It's lost.

SamoyedFurFluff 4y ago
Yes, my biggest complaint in firefox is a lack of dev supporting the browser. Sometimes websites break and I know it’s because their dev didn’t bother to check if it worked in Firefox. But that’s not something Mozilla can control. So I can see them trying to find something else, and I’d prefer they do that than keeping on something that will likely never work.

senko 4y ago

> I would rather Mozilla keep trying things that keeps it afloat. I don't care if Mozilla is afloat if that means they'll abandon Firefox to oblivion. I would rather have a truly open browser that doesn't do things like hamstring UBO. They're burning through (literally) millions on these moonshot projects nobody asked for, meanwhile people are building a browser & engine from scratch on a shoestring budget (Ladybird).

SamoyedFurFluff 4y ago
I haven’t perceived Firefox abandonment. I get regular updates and there was a very noticeable major update in performance pretty recently. I don’t think I’ve heard of anything Chrome has done besides trying to push an anti-Adblock.
- dandellion 4y ago
  Yes, they're pretty active, especially in removing features. They removed RSS, removed compact mode, removed bookmark descriptions, removed old extensions, etc. And at the same time they don't offer any options to donate directly to Firefox, you have to donate to Mozilla and hope they'll spend the resources on the right project (which they clearly don't). It feels like Firefox has been a walking corpse for a while, so of course they'll try anything.
  - AlchemistCamp 4y ago
    Exactly. In the past, I looked for a way to donate to of give businesses to Firefox, but I have no intention of supporting Mozilla given their lack of focus.
    - b112 4y ago
      I think we should hard fork firefox. Set up a board of respected people, and a non-profit. Fork firefox. Set up a 5 year dev timeline, with specific larger goals and intent. Fundraise, and then hire away some core, mozilla key devs who will leave. Build on that. I wonder, this would be a "feel good" place for some IPO enriched persons to put money. And it has real value, in that keeping a second browser engine is a laudable and important goal. Real good to be done. Hmm. And you know, Firefox was paid for by donations, and OSS devs donating time. If anything is reasonable to non-profit, this is it.

mejutoco 4y ago

Personally, I do not need Firefox to have some grand vision to compete with Chrome. I just need it to exist and be there in features that Google does not like (Ad blocking, privacy), so Chrome does not determine the web. IMHO Mozilla needs to focus on Firefox.

SamoyedFurFluff 4y ago
Firefox already does this and continues to be supported. Not sure what you’re talking about. I’m only pointing out there’s no way the company Mozilla can survive off just their browser, because no company currently has a monetized browser product. They immediately lose here. I’m happy with the privacy I get from Firefox and I wished more people enjoyed it, but I understand they’re up against anticompetitive companies on the regular, so I can’t expect them to keep acting as if Firefox is all Mozilla is hanging their hat on.
- marginalia_nu 4y ago
  Firefox started out in the position it is in today, back when Internet Explorer had Chrome's current market share. They carved out a market share because they sucked less than IE. But now we're back to square one, with a big corporate entity running dominant browser, and a host of lazy developers that only develop for that one browser. We really need Firefox to step up to the challenge again to keep chrome honest. Sadly Mozilla flounders at every step, and somehow manage to make their browser even more user-hostile than Chrome.
  - rhn_mk1 4y ago
    The situation differs. IE lost because it stagnated, as Microsoft didn't care about the Web. Google cares about the Web, and they not only keep developing Chrome, they also keep developing Web standards, meaning that any competitor has a lot of keeping up to do just to stay in one place.
    - saidinesh5 4y ago

FeepingCreature 4y ago

Mozilla are not a startup or a public corporation. If an organization does not have a path to pursue their core objective, they should just fold. Mozilla exists for Firefox, not for itself.

skrowl 4y ago

> Firefox has no path, literally none, in getting a significant marketing share. Wait until Chrome bans Manifest V2 extensions (like ublock origin). That will be a good time for Firefox to shine.

saidinesh5 4y ago
Doesn't Brave support Manifest V2 just like Firefox?
- CatWChainsaw 4y ago
  Brave is based on Chromium. Google has a significant hand in Chromium developments. If Manifest V2 is deprecated on Chrome, other Chromium forks have to work harder and harder to maintain it as time goes on. Firefox is slightly less vulnerable since it's a different engine.

AlchemistCamp 4y ago

I use Firefox more than any other application. I don’t care about anything else Mozilla has built in the past decade, unless you count Rust. As they continue devoting resources towards more and more things that aren’t Firefox, they only hasten the day when I’ll give up and move to Brave.

makeitdouble 4y ago

In a way...I kinda wonder how much Mozilla needs to stay a purely private company. Giving the current climate relative to Google, Microsoft and Apple's presence on the web, having Mozilla become a nationally funded project at a dedicated org. doesn't look like wild dreams. To jest if it becomes Germany's official administration's technology provider, investing a significant amount in the ongoing maintenance of firefox would be a given. Make that a multi-country deal and enough money would float around. There would be still issues on the governance and keeping it a competitive and innovative product, but it isn't unheard of.

huijzer 4y ago

> In fact it almost never had a chance, especially in the current environment where anticompetitive moves are no longer really pushed back on by the govt. They used to have a great market share of 100%, but then Microsoft bundled Internet Explorer with Windows, which was much easier to install than Netscape Navigator. Netscape then became the basis for the open source Mozilla Firefox project. As a side-note, the name Mozilla was derived from Mosaic Killer. Mosaic is the browser that was created by Marc Andreessen and Jim Clark at the National Center for Supercomputing Applications (NCSA) at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. This Mosaic browser was then bought by Microsoft and then the basis for Internet Explorer, which killed Netscape. > In fact it almost never had a chance, especially in the current environment where anticompetitive moves are no longer really pushed back on by the govt. I disagree with the statement that anticompetitive moves are no longer really pushed back on by the govt. Anticompetitive legislation was introduced in response to Standard Oil. On the day that the legislation split up Standard Oil in the many subsidiaries such as Chevron, BP, and Texaco, Rockefeller advised people to BUY shares of Standard Oil since the company was getting too big to run efficiently anyway. The legislation didn't have much effect as you can see from the fact that aforementioned subsidiaries still thrive today. I've learned these things from the Acquired podcast by the way. Can highly recommend.

bachmeier 4y ago

> Firefox has no path, literally none, in getting a significant marketing share. We used to have these discussions in the Linux world. Some would argue that the goal is to take market share away from Microsoft, even if you have to add closed software to the distribution. Others, including me, felt the goal was to provide an open alternative. That is where I stand on Firefox as well. > And even if they did the company has no real way to monetize. You don't need to be real creative to come up with ways to monetize their brand. They're the nonprofit that makes open tools that protect your privacy. Partner with someone to provide cloud storage, email, a notes app, calendar service, and anything else that requires security and privacy. Edit: To be clear, I support Mozilla.ai if it gives us a private option. I'd like them to integrate it with Firefox.

idiotsecant 4y ago
I agree - if Mozilla is pushing out a useful product and they have the money to keep that product in development as needs change what's it matter if not that many people are using it? Selfishly, I don't care what other people use - just what I want to use.

antisthenes 4y ago

> Frankly Mozilla already lost that and people demanding Mozilla stay firefox focused are telling the company to death spiral. Firefox has no path, literally none, in getting a significant marketing share. The company is in a death spiral regardless of what 20-50 HN commenters tell Mozilla to do. Please don't have any illusions in that regard. We can still debate as to why they have been in a death spiral for the last 10 years, and part of it was that they did pretty much everything to avoid making a better browser that could have actually been a competitor to Chrome. On top of showing a giant middle finger to all the power users who developed add-ons. > I would rather Mozilla keep trying things that keeps it afloat. Isn't the only thing keeping them afloat concessions from Google in some sums of money? In that sense they could be doing anything and it wouldn't make any difference. It's extremely clear that their leadership is Google-captive and will never be allowed to make anything that directly competes with the tech giants.

bacchusracine 4y ago
[flagged]
- nativeit 4y ago
  Snarky rhyming schemes aren’t much of a political philosophy.
  - bacchusracine 4y ago
    > Snarky rhyming schemes aren’t much of a political philosophy. Slogans have always existed. Poking at them and calling them snarky doesn't stop them from being condensed talking points. Or from being an observable reality. A little over ten years ago Firefox was doing well. In the time since then it has not fared well at all. Looking at what has changed since then is a very valid thing to do.
- return_to_monke 4y ago
  a) you shouldn't be demoted because of your political donations, as long as you're not donating to do harm - whether Eich was donating to a harmful organization is debatable b) This has nothing to do with "wholeness" and everything to do with Google pushing chrome as hard as they can. - There is android phones, and I am pretty sure some Google services would advertise it to you - Chromebooks are used in most public schools across America c) Eich later went on to found Brave. Have you ever seen anyone in the real world use Brave? They passed 50M users one year ago: https://brave.com/2021-recap/ https://brave.com/2021-recap/ Wikipedia states 63% of people used the internet worldwide in 2021: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_Internet_users https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_... that is 4.9 billion people. So, brave has a market share of, drum roll, 1%. In conclusion, the argument that Eich would have led them to success is not a good one, in my opinion.

insanitybit 4y ago

> Firefox has no path, literally none, in getting a significant marketing share. I'd argue it has a trivial path and that focusing elsewhere (ie: not on the one fucking asset they have ever had/ profited from) is insane. 1. Build a better browser. People browse a lot. 2. Do what Chrome does. Build integrations with services. Chrome is mandated at many companies because of its GSuite integration/ Context Aware Access. The Browser is an identity platform these days and Mozilla has done fuck all about it. I could seriously go on and on about what they could do. Mozilla's failures are painful because the path to success is so obvious. Their CEO is a massive failure and should have been fired ages ago.

likeabbas 4y ago
Mozilla may have one path, albeit a long shot. If Apple were to decide that it’s cheaper to give money to Mozilla and have FF be the default iOS browser, that would be their best shot for success. Or maybe Apple could buy out Mozilla entirely. This scenario isn’t likely but I don’t think it’s completely out of the question.
- PaulHoule 4y ago
  Alternately if the EU or some other government were concerned about privacy (both in the "don't collect dossiers" and the "don't harass people with popups and unwanted features" meanings) and competition it could fully fund Mozilla or a fork of Mozilla that is free of Pocket and similar distractions.
- JimDabell 4y ago
  When Apple decided to build Safari, they hired one of the creators of Firefox and still chose the relatively obscure KHTML as their base over the at-the-time major market share Gecko. If they didn’t pick Gecko then, they certainly aren’t going to throw everything on WebKit away to do it now. It’s also a terrible move to buy a competitor when they are under legal scrutiny for having a controlling interest in web browsers.
miohtama 4y ago
What Chrome does is that it markets “Download Google Chrome” on every Google property, and comes reinstalled on Android phones. It is not realistic advise to expect Firefox to do what Chrome does.

stametseater 4y ago

If Firefox is already dead then Mozilla may as well be dead. What's the point of keeping Mozilla around if they're giving up on Firefox? Why should I care about the continuation of their org, if not for Firefox? In fact, if Firefox is dead then I want Mozilla dead too. Clear the playing field for somebody new who might succeed where Mozilla failed. If Firefox is dead then Mozilla continuing nevertheless is contrary to my interests.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

eitland 4y ago

> I would rather Mozilla keep trying things that keeps it afloat. A Mozilla that doesn't create Firefox is a failed Mozilla. Everything else others can do. There are working charities for every single thing Mozilla does - except creating a good browser.

jrm4 4y ago
Eh, this still seems at least plausibly smart strategy purely in terms of "not getting left behind." I'm reminded of the choice to enable Netflix DRM? It is at least possible (if not likely) that "AI" becomes central to the browsing experience, so Mozilla should probably do something here.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

tablespoon 4y ago

> Frankly Mozilla already lost that and people demanding Mozilla stay firefox focused are telling the company to death spiral. Firefox is literally the only thing Mozilla has that's worth a damn. A Mozilla that doesn't focus on Firefox is already dead. > Firefox has no path, literally none, in getting a significant marketing share. They have a path, and it's "called not focusing on aping Chrome and mindlessly cutting features 'because telemetry.'" > I would rather Mozilla keep trying things that keeps it afloat. I don't care about Mozilla-the-organization, I care about Firefox. It does no one any good if they burn up all their resources aimlessly chasing trends as an also-ran.

max51 4y ago

what would be the point of keeping them afloat if they no longer focus on firefox? The only reason why Mozilla exists in the first place in Firefox. If they can't make a good web browser, there is no reason for them to exist in the first place.

m0llusk 4y ago

Mozilla Fluent internationalization (https://github.com/projectfluent https://github.com/projectfluent) is superior to other offerings. Firefox is almost entirely transitioned to Fluent (https://www.arewefluentyet.com/ https://www.arewefluentyet.com/). This puts Firefox in a position to potentially perform well in providing good quality browsing experiences to a global audience using many languages.

throwaway9554 4y ago

Throwaway for obvious reasons. I recently interviewed for a Mozilla R&D E.M. job. The first and primary questions asked of me were not technical but about diversity. I didn't even feel like I had a chance to showcase my technical skills. They wanted to know how important diversity was to me and how it would impact my management. H.R. was on through the entire call continually injecting these kinds of questions and it was not a technical interview even though it was supposed to be. (third interview)

olejorgenb 4y ago

> And even if they did the company has no real way to monetize. Isn't firefox the only thing making them money? In a very straight forward way: Selling the default search engine configuration. 500M in 2020 according to Wikipedia. Seems even a tiny market share is worth a lot?

dang 4y ago

(We detached this generic subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35260301 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35260301)