6 ms·

> 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 o

> 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.
- insanitybit 4y ago
  I said what Chrome does. It has integrations. I have to use Chrome to log in at work, that's been the case at 3 companies I've worked at now. It is insane that Firefox doesn't see that as an obvious threat and build similar integrations.
  - dblohm7 4y ago
    Building similar integrations will require, in your words, "focusing elsewhere." You can't have both.
    - jacobr1 4y ago
      Yes - but that would be as a extension/integration with their browser asset - not a random unrelated project.
      - dralley 4y ago
        You can say this, but every time Mozilla does an integration with their browser asset - like Mozilla VPN or Pocket - people scream at them for adding "pointless bloat" to the browser. I fail to see how your proposal would end differently. Plus it was suggested that Mozilla do things to compete with Google's "Gsuite integration" - how do you see that working to begin with? Should Mozilla try to push a competitive office suite, or try to compete at an inherent disadvantage to Google, who already nerfs features of Google search on their mobile browser?
        insanitybit 4y ago
        All they have to do is implement the Endpoint Verification plugin. It's open source and any attempt from Google to prevent that would be obviously anti-competitive.
Entinel 4y ago
I agree with this for the most part but "just build a better browser" is naive. For starters, everyone has a different of what "better" is. I'm actually pretty happy with Firefox for the most part and I think being the company that sells safety is a good fit for Mozilla to move into.
- insanitybit 4y ago
  > For starters, everyone has a different of what "better" is. We can all agree on some things though. I'm talking about core metrics. Performance, stability, safety. Beyond that there are some more "controversial" things like privacy, and then you have purely subjective things like UX. When I say "build a better browser" I mean that they should take those core capabilities and invest heavily in them. Instead, one of their most promising projects, Servo, was canned "because covid" while their CEO took their largest 8 figure payment ever.
  - quesera 4y ago
    Mozilla's greatest failure with Firefox is one of marketing. It's a performant, stable, safe, and private browser. (It lags Chrome in some potted performance tests, but it is more than adequately performant. Firefox is much better than Chrome at memory management. It never crashes. It does not steal your data. It allows you the greatest degree of privacy in any major browser. Side tabs are possible.) But no one can compete with Google's marketing, or Apple's iOS advantage. Not even Microsoft. Certainly not Mozilla. Mozilla has failed us in so so many ways. You mention one egregious example. But we've failed Mozilla too. Anyone who recommends Chrome over Firefox is making a mistake detrimental to the well-being of the internet. Not that Chrome is a bad browser. It's great. Almost as good as Firefox! Chrome has terrible tab management and chews RAM, but it's performant and secure and lovely. But Chrome is a bad path forward for the internet, and this is important.
    - hgsgm 4y ago
      Firefox is bad at browsing the web, because complex websites don't test for Firefox compatible.
SkyPuncher 4y ago
> 1. Build a better browser. People browse a lot. We're at the point of marginal returns on nearly all of our "traditional" tech (browsers, cell phones, gaming, etc, etc). There just isn't room for enough improvement in the browsing experience to be "that much better" for people to switch.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- insanitybit 4y ago
  Disagree. Safety is still really bad in browsers. Companies have to spend a lot of money ensuring that patches are rolled out aggressively because attacks against browsers are increasingly common in the wild. Investing into a memory safe browser would have been a huge boon, especially since security teams are often the ones who decide on a company's browser choice. That's just one example.
kevingadd 4y ago
"Build integrations with services" is the silliest possible advice for Mozilla to be getting on Hacker News. Any time people talk about Mozilla on this website, you see comments about Pocket or VPN or any of the other integrations Mozilla did, and most of the comments (if not all) are negative. Persona is the closest thing I can think of and that was a failure, nobody wanted it. As a former member of both the Firefox and Chrome teams I think you're also deeply misunderstanding the difference in scope and scale of the teams and the products. The thing you're suggesting Mozilla should Just Do Somehow is not feasible.
- insanitybit 4y ago
  > Any time people talk about Mozilla on this website, you see comments about Pocket or VPN or any of the other integrations Mozilla did, and most of the comments (if not all) are negative a) Pocket is by far the one that gets criticized, not the VPN. Besides, the VPN is primarily criticized because VPN companies tend to be really scummy. The VPN is fine I guess it's just not interesting and I don't see how it's going to drive user engagement. b) HN criticisms aren't representative of anything too meaningful. People constantly post about their pet bugs that they think matter to everyone but they don't. The integrations I'm talking about are ones that Chrome already has and that would be a huge boon to Enterprise users. Users who have to use a browser at work are going to end up using it at home to avoid the UX friction of using both, other than a subset of "power users" who won't be convinced anyways. Getting Enterprise users is huge and it's a big part of why Chrome is winning - their integrations with identity management is massive and it's part of their overall strategy as an IDP. > The thing you're suggesting Mozilla should Just Do Somehow is not feasible. That's nonsense. There are already third party extensions for some endpoint verification for Firefox. We're talking about a 1st party plugin built by a company that just spend 30 Million dollars on this "safe AI" project. There are startups building entire IDPs with a 10th of that funding.
ohgodplsno 4y ago
And what does Firefox integrate with? Your Mozilla account? All of these companies have both an identity service (Google accounts/live.com) and a shit load of services (office365/gsuite). What does Firefox offer? Automatic login to more Google properties so companies can continue mandating Chrome, because Google will regularly fuck over Mozilla? All the big browser players have more than just a browser. It's a gateway to _their_ services. Firefox users on this site shriek at fucking _Pocket_ and all seem to think that all you need to do is to build a better browser. If that was true, IE6 would never have been in the dominant position it was. If that was true, Chrome would no longer be in the dominant position it is. The only thing that matters is how much you blast users with ads and force them in your ecosystem. Mozilla has none of that.
- insanitybit 4y ago
  Integrate with those other services obviously. Partner with Okta and O365, implement the Endpoint Verification plugin for GSuite, etc.
pclmulqdq 4y ago
On the one hand, it would be nice for Mozilla to focus on firefox, but on the other hand, Mozilla screwing around has produced things like Rust, so maybe they have earned some credit to screw around if that's what the donors actually want.
- blihp 4y ago
  Their 'donor' is Google, their users are us. Without us they have no donor. Rust at least makes some kind of sense because it is a tool they used to build parts of Firefox. Aside from being the new hotness, what exactly about AI makes sense for Mozilla/Firefox to jump into and have anything to offer? The one obvious thing they could do would be to integrate AI capabilities into the browser for the users benefit (i.e. the most valuable thing they could do to contribute to 'trustworthy AI'. Note that this would not require a new foundation/company... just integrating the capability into the product they already have) But of course Mozilla most likely won't do this... they're going to keep taking moonshots they can't afford. I can't say I'll miss them when they're gone.
  - noahlevenson 4y ago
    > Without us they have no donor. Former Mozilla fellow here. I wish I could agree with this sentiment, but it's untrue. Mozilla is a corrupt nonprofit which exists solely to advance the interests of elites. The users don't matter. Within Mozilla there is disdain for the concerns of regular people.
- insanitybit 4y ago
  I consider Rust and Servo to be exactly the kind of things that they should be working on in order to strengthen their core product.
Animats 4y ago
> Build a better browser. The Linux version has definitely become worse over the last year. It keeps stalling for no good reason.
Havoc 4y ago
>1. Build a better browser. People browse a lot. Don't think there is anything with it (now). Chrome just captured all the mindshare by being a lot faster & leaner for a while Hard to fix a mindshare problem with a technical solution given that they're now about on par (roughly)

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.

insanitybit 4y ago
I said what Chrome does. It has integrations. I have to use Chrome to log in at work, that's been the case at 3 companies I've worked at now. It is insane that Firefox doesn't see that as an obvious threat and build similar integrations.
- dblohm7 4y ago
  Building similar integrations will require, in your words, "focusing elsewhere." You can't have both.
  - jacobr1 4y ago
    Yes - but that would be as a extension/integration with their browser asset - not a random unrelated project.
    - dralley 4y ago
      You can say this, but every time Mozilla does an integration with their browser asset - like Mozilla VPN or Pocket - people scream at them for adding "pointless bloat" to the browser. I fail to see how your proposal would end differently. Plus it was suggested that Mozilla do things to compete with Google's "Gsuite integration" - how do you see that working to begin with? Should Mozilla try to push a competitive office suite, or try to compete at an inherent disadvantage to Google, who already nerfs features of Google search on their mobile browser?
      - insanitybit 4y ago
        All they have to do is implement the Endpoint Verification plugin. It's open source and any attempt from Google to prevent that would be obviously anti-competitive.

Entinel 4y ago

I agree with this for the most part but "just build a better browser" is naive. For starters, everyone has a different of what "better" is. I'm actually pretty happy with Firefox for the most part and I think being the company that sells safety is a good fit for Mozilla to move into.

insanitybit 4y ago
> For starters, everyone has a different of what "better" is. We can all agree on some things though. I'm talking about core metrics. Performance, stability, safety. Beyond that there are some more "controversial" things like privacy, and then you have purely subjective things like UX. When I say "build a better browser" I mean that they should take those core capabilities and invest heavily in them. Instead, one of their most promising projects, Servo, was canned "because covid" while their CEO took their largest 8 figure payment ever.
- quesera 4y ago
  Mozilla's greatest failure with Firefox is one of marketing. It's a performant, stable, safe, and private browser. (It lags Chrome in some potted performance tests, but it is more than adequately performant. Firefox is much better than Chrome at memory management. It never crashes. It does not steal your data. It allows you the greatest degree of privacy in any major browser. Side tabs are possible.) But no one can compete with Google's marketing, or Apple's iOS advantage. Not even Microsoft. Certainly not Mozilla. Mozilla has failed us in so so many ways. You mention one egregious example. But we've failed Mozilla too. Anyone who recommends Chrome over Firefox is making a mistake detrimental to the well-being of the internet. Not that Chrome is a bad browser. It's great. Almost as good as Firefox! Chrome has terrible tab management and chews RAM, but it's performant and secure and lovely. But Chrome is a bad path forward for the internet, and this is important.
  - hgsgm 4y ago
    Firefox is bad at browsing the web, because complex websites don't test for Firefox compatible.

SkyPuncher 4y ago

> 1. Build a better browser. People browse a lot. We're at the point of marginal returns on nearly all of our "traditional" tech (browsers, cell phones, gaming, etc, etc). There just isn't room for enough improvement in the browsing experience to be "that much better" for people to switch.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
insanitybit 4y ago
Disagree. Safety is still really bad in browsers. Companies have to spend a lot of money ensuring that patches are rolled out aggressively because attacks against browsers are increasingly common in the wild. Investing into a memory safe browser would have been a huge boon, especially since security teams are often the ones who decide on a company's browser choice. That's just one example.

kevingadd 4y ago

"Build integrations with services" is the silliest possible advice for Mozilla to be getting on Hacker News. Any time people talk about Mozilla on this website, you see comments about Pocket or VPN or any of the other integrations Mozilla did, and most of the comments (if not all) are negative. Persona is the closest thing I can think of and that was a failure, nobody wanted it. As a former member of both the Firefox and Chrome teams I think you're also deeply misunderstanding the difference in scope and scale of the teams and the products. The thing you're suggesting Mozilla should Just Do Somehow is not feasible.

insanitybit 4y ago
> Any time people talk about Mozilla on this website, you see comments about Pocket or VPN or any of the other integrations Mozilla did, and most of the comments (if not all) are negative a) Pocket is by far the one that gets criticized, not the VPN. Besides, the VPN is primarily criticized because VPN companies tend to be really scummy. The VPN is fine I guess it's just not interesting and I don't see how it's going to drive user engagement. b) HN criticisms aren't representative of anything too meaningful. People constantly post about their pet bugs that they think matter to everyone but they don't. The integrations I'm talking about are ones that Chrome already has and that would be a huge boon to Enterprise users. Users who have to use a browser at work are going to end up using it at home to avoid the UX friction of using both, other than a subset of "power users" who won't be convinced anyways. Getting Enterprise users is huge and it's a big part of why Chrome is winning - their integrations with identity management is massive and it's part of their overall strategy as an IDP. > The thing you're suggesting Mozilla should Just Do Somehow is not feasible. That's nonsense. There are already third party extensions for some endpoint verification for Firefox. We're talking about a 1st party plugin built by a company that just spend 30 Million dollars on this "safe AI" project. There are startups building entire IDPs with a 10th of that funding.

ohgodplsno 4y ago

And what does Firefox integrate with? Your Mozilla account? All of these companies have both an identity service (Google accounts/live.com) and a shit load of services (office365/gsuite). What does Firefox offer? Automatic login to more Google properties so companies can continue mandating Chrome, because Google will regularly fuck over Mozilla? All the big browser players have more than just a browser. It's a gateway to _their_ services. Firefox users on this site shriek at fucking _Pocket_ and all seem to think that all you need to do is to build a better browser. If that was true, IE6 would never have been in the dominant position it was. If that was true, Chrome would no longer be in the dominant position it is. The only thing that matters is how much you blast users with ads and force them in your ecosystem. Mozilla has none of that.

insanitybit 4y ago
Integrate with those other services obviously. Partner with Okta and O365, implement the Endpoint Verification plugin for GSuite, etc.

pclmulqdq 4y ago

On the one hand, it would be nice for Mozilla to focus on firefox, but on the other hand, Mozilla screwing around has produced things like Rust, so maybe they have earned some credit to screw around if that's what the donors actually want.

blihp 4y ago
Their 'donor' is Google, their users are us. Without us they have no donor. Rust at least makes some kind of sense because it is a tool they used to build parts of Firefox. Aside from being the new hotness, what exactly about AI makes sense for Mozilla/Firefox to jump into and have anything to offer? The one obvious thing they could do would be to integrate AI capabilities into the browser for the users benefit (i.e. the most valuable thing they could do to contribute to 'trustworthy AI'. Note that this would not require a new foundation/company... just integrating the capability into the product they already have) But of course Mozilla most likely won't do this... they're going to keep taking moonshots they can't afford. I can't say I'll miss them when they're gone.
- noahlevenson 4y ago
  > Without us they have no donor. Former Mozilla fellow here. I wish I could agree with this sentiment, but it's untrue. Mozilla is a corrupt nonprofit which exists solely to advance the interests of elites. The users don't matter. Within Mozilla there is disdain for the concerns of regular people.
insanitybit 4y ago
I consider Rust and Servo to be exactly the kind of things that they should be working on in order to strengthen their core product.

Animats 4y ago

> Build a better browser. The Linux version has definitely become worse over the last year. It keeps stalling for no good reason.

Havoc 4y ago

>1. Build a better browser. People browse a lot. Don't think there is anything with it (now). Chrome just captured all the mindshare by being a lot faster & leaner for a while Hard to fix a mindshare problem with a technical solution given that they're now about on par (roughly)