10 ms·

I hate to say it, but if you used Chrome to read this, then you're part of the problem. Awful stuff like this wouldn't stand a chance if Google didn't have suc

I hate to say it, but if you used Chrome to read this, then you're part of the problem. Awful stuff like this wouldn't stand a chance if Google didn't have such a near-monopoly position. For the sake of the open internet, please switch to a different browser. IMO, Firefox is best*, but even something chromium based is probably fine. Just not Google Chrome. * On desktop - Firefox is a bit weaker on Android, with an extemely limited set of extensions (but still better than Chrome with no extensions) and just a Safari wrapper on iOS, with no extensions. (But sync works everywhere!) (I posted something similar in a different thread recently but I think it bears repeating.)

cft 3y ago
I use Edge. I think Edge is a realistically viable competitor, especially with Bing chat sidebar. It's also faster than Safari on MacOS
- jacquesm 3y ago
  That's just exchanging one demon on your shoulder for another.
- slondr 3y ago
  Edge is just chromium. It is not a competitor.
  - mrweasel 3y ago
    With few exceptions the browser market is a lot like the Volkswagen Group. They design key components and depending on market segment they slap a Audi, VW or Skoda label on it, do a few tweaks to the look and feel and add a few features that they know that a particular segment wants. Under "chrome" it's a Volkswagen.
- dillydogg 3y ago
  I think the person you are responding to would say that edge is just another chromium skin. It doesn't exactly relieve Google's monopoly on browser technology
  - CatWChainsaw 3y ago
    another chromium skin with extra tracking. I believe Edge tracks by hardware ID more aggressively than Chrome or chromium.
  - papruapap 3y ago
    It should fairly simple for MS to block this API (if they wish to).
    - Moldoteck 3y ago
      depends how the api is designed. If it'll be integrated deep into chromium, disabling it would cost too much time
      - notpushkin 3y ago
        I don't think so. Even if it's impossible to exclude it from the builds, they can just remove it from the JavaScript global scope or something.
    - adrianN 3y ago
      Why would they? They make money with ads too
      - papruapap 3y ago
        But Googles makes way more, will make compete with Google even harder in the future (deeper pockets).
- mozball 3y ago
  Microsoft is exactly the kind of company that would throw its full backing behind this google proposal, seeing how they have spent the last 20 years working towards the same goal. See Windows 11, Trusted Platform Module, Pluton, Palladium, SecureBoot.
- NoGravitas 3y ago
  Not only is Edge based on Chromium, as a major operating system vendor with strong influence on the hardware market, Microsoft is well positioned to be one of the widely-accepted attesters. So they have little motivation to oppose this proposal.
ModernMech 3y ago
Does Opera count? It uses Chromium.
- PrimeMcFly 3y ago
  No. Chromium browsers may as well be Chrome for the purposes of this discussion.
- nfriedly 3y ago
  I'd say it's better than using Google Chrome.
gaudat 3y ago
>Firefox is a bit weaker on Android, with an extemely limited set of extensions Definitely not with the Iceweasel fork. https://github.com/fork-maintainers/fenix https://github.com/fork-maintainers/fenix
- nfriedly 3y ago
  Yeah, I'm actually using Iceraven right now, I just didn't want to muddy up the point of that comment any further than I already had. Firefox is an easy recommendation on desktop but mobile needs a bit more nuance. The point is that using anything that's not Google Chrome is better for the internet.
- taneq 3y ago
  Is that the one that harangues you any time you load a page with non-GPL'd JavaScript on it? Because that was incredibly annoying.
  - nfriedly 3y ago
    Nope, I've never seen that. Iceraven is just Firefox for Android with more extensions enabled, about:config support, and a couple of other minor annoyances fixed.
    - taneq 3y ago
      Wait, the post says iceweasel but the link is iceraven, are they the same thing? This was on the default browser one of the times I tried LineageOS, this was back in 2019 or so. I could be misremembering the specific fork.
      - nfriedly 3y ago
        I found this about iceweasel, which inclines me to believe that you remembered it correctly, and the grandparent was just mistaken about the name: > In August 2005,[11] the GNUzilla project adopted the GNU IceWeasel name for a rebranded distribution of Firefox that made no references to nonfree plugins. > [...] > The GNU LibreJS extension detects and blocks non-free non-trivial JavaScript. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_IceCat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_IceCat
Zambyte 3y ago
[flagged]
- jessyco 3y ago
  This is news to me; when and how does Google own Firefox? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Corporation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Corporation
  - LeonB 3y ago
    If you have a customer who pays more than 50% of your income that’s not a customer that’s a controlling interest. Track record shows the relationship looks the way google wants it to look and behaves the way google wants it to behave.
- capableweb 3y ago
  > Firefox is owned by Google You're gonna have to explain why you think this, because publicly, Firefox is owned by Mozilla which is not owned by Google in any way. But maybe you know something the rest of us don't?
  - Zambyte 3y ago
    > Firefox is owned by Mozilla which is not owned by Google in any way. Who owns Mozilla? Put another way, if Google stops funding Mozilla, will it still exist? The only reason Firefox exists is because Google wants something they can point to in court and say "look! we're not a monopoly!"
    - eis 3y ago
      The shareholders of Mozilla own Mozilla. And that's not Google. If Google stopped the search deal then Bing would take over in a second.
      - rvnx 3y ago
        At a much lower price, because search deals are paid based on number of searches done (so indirectly, the number of active users), and because Google has 90%-ish market share, it means a 90% drop in revenue. Also, Bing has on average twice higher RPMs, so, a 50% of drop in income after rev-share. So, you remove 90% of the revenue, and you divide by 2 what is remaining.
joelthelion 3y ago
You can actually use more extensions on Android. It's just more involved than it should be. The trick is to create an "extension collection" from your Mozilla account. Then you can use any extension, and a lot of them just work.
- pmontra 3y ago
  I know but it never worked for me. I followed the procedure twice, two different years, two different installs. I'm always doing something wrong. On Mozilla's side, why are they even doing that to us on Nightly?
  - jeroenhd 3y ago
    It works for me on the Beta. No need to go to nightly. Mozilla was even gracious enough to allow us to go to about:config! I don't know what you're doing wrong (all I can say is that the name of the collection is case sensitive) but I haven't had any trouble adding the custom collection settings to my Firefox installs.
- nfriedly 3y ago
  Yeah, I know - I ended up switching to Iceraven on my phone, though. I've heard good things about Mull too. But I didn't want to muddy the original post with all that.
  - joelthelion 3y ago
    Your post was perfect. We need to get people off Chrome, and ideally off Chromium-based browsers. It doesn't matter which.
edg5000 3y ago
I agree, I use Firefox everywhere. But we must not forget the following: In 2011 Mozilla income was 85% derrived from Google, through the primary search engine deal. Around a billion was paid over three years as part of this deal at some point. Appearantly there was bidding by Microsoft for making Bing the default, which pushed up the pricing. So every time Mozilla speaks out against Google, it is a bit awkward, since they are biting the hand that feeds them. I suppose they could take a deal from Microsoft, Yahoo or even DDG (or Baidu!), but without interest from Google I presume the funding would be lower. Quite an interesting situation. Thank God both Firefox and Chrome are open source. That is at least some small degree of insurance against potential freedom-limiting shenanigans by tech giants.
- eptcyka 3y ago
  Yet the development of the browser is seeing a smaller fraction of that income than most people believe.
  - tjoff 3y ago
    Then let's make the situation even worse until it resolves itself.
  - asadotzler 3y ago
    Not really. Firefox is a large majority of Mozilla and Mozilla's spending. Feel free to read over our financial statements to confirm this.
- nfriedly 3y ago
  Yeah, I mentioned this in another comment: it's really a shame that Mozilla spends the majority of that money (often poorly IMO), instead of putting it into an endowment fund or something similar that would leave them in a much better position for the long run.
  - asadotzler 3y ago
    It actually takes a lot of people to build and maintain a modern competitive browser. Not paying those people and instead investing the revenue would end the project in short order. Mozilla is already outgunned on staff by the other major browser makers and you want us to cut staff to save more? That's not realistic, IMO.
Kutsuya 3y ago
People need to be more aware about this. I also use Firefox on the desktop. On Android I use Mull, which is based upon Firefox and it's actually pretty good!
scrollaway 3y ago
> I hate to say it, but if you used Chrome to read this, then you're part of the problem. Victim blaming BS. Let's see who else is the problem. How about all those engineers who decided not to contribute to Firefox? Or all those website developers who didn't test their site in Firefox? Or hell, why not all those Mozilla engineers who didn't fix Firefox hard enough? Let's put the blame where it actually is. Google is to blame. Not the users of their free products they advertise all over the place and have an unlimited marketing budget for.
- vultour 3y ago
  Victim blaming is absolutely the correct approach here. Of course you shouldn't blame your grandma for using Chrome, but people on HN are a completely different audience. HN readers should be well aware of the damage Google is causing to the open internet, using Chrome is tantamount to supporting this effort.
  - cmilton 3y ago
    What should HN readers do that are forced to work within these ecosystems? Ex. Work, school. It’s not always so easy to walk away from an entire platform. People’s entire livelihoods could be based around Google. I don’t see any issue with Google owning some of this responsibility.
    - nequo 3y ago
      Google is a monopolist that acts like a monopolist. Its main revenue source is advertising. So it will use its monopoly power to secure advertising. You cannot expect Google to act against its own self-interest only because you ask nicely. You have to stop giving them the market power to do it.
      - cmilton 3y ago
        Have they won the game of capitalism by becoming a monopoly? I don’t expect Google to act against its own will, but they should.
8organicbits 3y ago
Even if you don't care about all that, Firefox is the faster browser. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36770883 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36770883
- 0l 3y ago
  On a very niche set of tests, sure.
- somehnguy 3y ago
  Chrome feels faster though. I just switched back to it after using Firefox for the last year. Chrome on my work computer felt snappier than Firefox on my comparable spec personal machine.
  - jeltz 3y ago
    Have you tried disabling smooth scrolling?
  - 8organicbits 3y ago
    My concern is that soon the comparison will be "Chrome without ad block" vs "Firefox with ad block". There's no way Chrome outperforms Firefox in that scenario. Even if Chrome is faster for your unique workflow today, prepare to switch back.
linza 3y ago
I'm honestly (as in putting in multiple hours) trying to switch to Firefox every 4 to 5 months. I tried at least 4 times. I do the dance of migrating bookmarks, passwords, layout preferences, add-ons, workflows, setting up sync, installing on all Android and desktop devices ... and then i run into issues, try to fix some of them, research, then give up and go back to chrome and don't think about it anymore until another article like this pops up on HN. This time I won't be shamed into doing it again. I don't have the time or motivation. edit: forgot to mention explicitly, it's not Firefox, it's me. I'm not strong enough.
- ruszki 3y ago
  What are these issues?
  - sgc 3y ago
    I am very curious as well. I have zero issues using FF everywhere. I used to have to use Chromium every couple months because some dumb website was pulling in a library that was using some non-industry-standard thing chromium did - and everything broke due to their utter lack of testing - but even that has died down. There is a newer trend where I have to disable uBlock every once in a while to complete a task, which is just as bad, but I rarely have to actually use another browser.
- notpushkin 3y ago
  Can you elaborate on the issues you're running into with Firefox? Hopefully we can help you sort these out!
  - linza 3y ago
    I find that condescending but I'm sure you didn't mean it that way and had good intentions asking that. The problems I experienced that can be fixed in Firefox itself probably already got fixed. My (personal) problem with Firefox is that functionally it's not Chrome and doesn't look/feel like it. The claimed non-functional improvements (privacy, freedom, ...) DON'T make up for the difference for me personally. If Firefox looked and felt more or less exactly like Chrome for the functional parts then I would not have any problem switching for good. It's not at the moment, so this is what stops me from adoption. I don't propose to change anything (you did). I was merely stating why I'm not on Firefox yet as a data point.
RajT88 3y ago
I used Brave. But I am considering a switch to the new DuckDuckGo browser, which I assume is just another Chromium browser.
- nfriedly 3y ago
  If I remember right, DuckDuckGo's browser just uses the system webview. So that might be Chromium on Windows now that Edge is Chromium-based, but it'd be WebKit on macOS, and I'm not sure what it'd use on Linux.
bradley13 3y ago
Web standards are a part of the problem that few people think about. Existing rendering engines grew along with the standards. However, the standards (especially CSS) have become so absurdly complex that implementing a new engine would be nearly impossible. Even Microsoft caved, and Edge is now essentially Chrome. Some will point out that Chrome is based on open-source software. In reality, however, Google has a huge amount of power here. If Google is serious about this initiative, they will try to force it into the projects, and make it an essential part of the web experience. As others have pointed out, Google is also a primary supporter of Firefox, so they have influence there as well.
- bell-cot 3y ago
  THIS...except "a part of the problem" is miserably understated. Extreme technological complexity is just about the best possible moat a huge business can have. Though in this case "walls around the prison in which the users are incarcerated" might be a better analogy. And all the prisoners, who just can't resist the endless shiny new goodies added to the web standards, are forever building their own prison walls higher...
chippiewill 3y ago
100% agree. I switched to Chrome pretty much the day it first came out and it was revolutionary. Switched back to Firefox a few years ago due to Chrome becoming too dominant and Google throwing their weight around in standards committees too much. When I desperately need Chromium for something I use Edge (which I actually rather like).
- alfiedotwtf 3y ago
  The problem with Mozilla Corporation/Foundation is that they blew all their time/money/resources/lead on things that didn't matter, not helping pave the way forward, and then fired a lot of their staff to boot! Mozilla was once a bright shinning beacon of hope for the open web, but they wasted their good will on too many of us, and it pains me to think what could have been.
  - baq 3y ago
    Good will is nice but those people also need to eat and mozzilla really needed to find a revenue stream other than google paying them off so they don’t have to spend 100x the amount on antitrust litigations. This is a perfect case in which I’d like to see my taxes funding their work.
suyash 3y ago
If you're using Apple products, your first preference should be Safari. I use that all the time, it's faster, leaner and syncs tabs/history/bookmarks greatly between different Apple devices.
- hospitalJail 3y ago
  Why not Firefox?
  - NoGravitas 3y ago
    I'm not an Apple user, but from what I've heard, battery usage is the main reason to prefer Safari to Firefox on MacOS.
  - Terretta 3y ago
    A few reasons: 1. Native integration across devices: Safari integrates seamlessly with Apple's ecosystem due to proprietary features like iCloud, Handoff, and universal clipboard, allowing for a consistent user experience across all Apple devices, with seamless transition among them to stay in your flow across devices. 2. iCloud Private Relay: This is a recent security tool from Apple and participating CDNs that encrypts all Safari traffic and protects the user's privacy by preventing anyone, including both Apple and network providers, from seeing which sites are visited. 3. Password Management Integration: Safari offers seamless integration with Apple’s Keychain for password and two-factor authentication (2FA) management across devices and across apps and browsers. Safari leverages Apple's OS level full password manager that's been quietly iterated each major release, now including support for TOTP and compromised-site checks. 4. Increased security/privacy: Safari uses AI/ML backed Intelligent Tracking Prevention to identify and block trackers, ensuring enhanced user privacy. While similar features can be added to Firefox via extensions, Safari has these capabilities by default. 5. Improved Power Efficiency and Performance: Multiple battery life tests confirm that Safari is significantly more power-efficient than Firefox and Chrome. Apple pulls this off through co-optimization of hardware and software, power-efficient technologies, hardware acceleration, conservative use of resources, efficient resource handling, and the blocking of resource-heavy ads and trackers. In real world use, you may see twice the battery life during web heavy usage. 6. Extended Support for WebKit: Use the browser your users use, so you understand and support their experience. Other factors like persistent tab groups, 120hz scroll performance, and first class "retina" typography simply add to the smooth experience Safari provides on macOS and iOS. Here are some lesser known tips for tuning up Safari to your liking and using features folks may be less familiar with: https://www.pcmag.com/how-to/hidden-tricks-inside-apples-safari-browser https://www.pcmag.com/how-to/hidden-tricks-inside-apples-saf...
signa11 3y ago
> I hate to say it, but if you used Chrome to read this, then you're part of the problem. not sure how far using 'ungoogled-chromium' takes you though.
- nfriedly 3y ago
  I'd say it's certainly better than using Google Chrome.
bob1029 3y ago
What does HN think about Mozilla adding some premium tier of the browser itself for a small subscription fee? I already subscribe to MDN out of sheer principle, and would be OK substituting some bullshit like Hulu if it would help even more... I am willing to pay the true cost of the "open" web, whatever it is. Just tell me how much and where to sign. Money is going to be a required tool to fight back against google, whether we like it or not. Capitalizing on the lesser evil to fight the bigger evil is not a terrible idea in my estimation.
- nfriedly 3y ago
  I just donate to the Mozilla Foundation each month: https://donate.mozilla.org/en-US/ https://donate.mozilla.org/en-US/ I feel like they could do better, but on the whole, I'm happy with what they provide to everyone for free.
southernplaces7 3y ago
I would love to use Firefox, if it wasn't so persistently such an utterly slow piece of shit if you open more than a few tabs or use it much. Across every laptop I've ever owned and across every version of FF I've ever used, this has been the case despite all promises. So unless i'm haunted by some magical digital browser curse, Chrome at least performs rapidly, even for a tab hoarder like me. I barely use anything by Google knowingly, but with Chrome Firefox can fuck off in comparison if it can't simply perform at the basics of agile functionality.
- raxxorraxor 3y ago
  This has never been the case for me at all. I write this comment in Chrome because I have it for testing and specific purposes, but I believe CPU and memory utilization advantages of Chromium always have been a myth for the most part. And I am someone that holds a lot of tabs open without rebooting my work machine for days or months. Browsers are still memory hogs, but at some point you have to decide if you want speed or low memory usage. Fast reaction time or nicely rendered pictures. On a decent machine, not even a fast one, there is no difference. That said, I despise notebooks and usually use towers.
- kibibu 3y ago
  Microsoft's Defender was, until recently, drastically slowing down Firefox on many configurations.
  - southernplaces7 3y ago
    I'll look into that on my laptop and see if it may just possibly have been a major cause of problems all this time. I'm skeptical, but thanks for the tip.
throwawaymobule 3y ago
Kiwi browser for android supports chrome extensions. The chrome web store is horrible to navigate on mobile though.

cft 3y ago

I use Edge. I think Edge is a realistically viable competitor, especially with Bing chat sidebar. It's also faster than Safari on MacOS

jacquesm 3y ago
That's just exchanging one demon on your shoulder for another.
slondr 3y ago
Edge is just chromium. It is not a competitor.
- mrweasel 3y ago
  With few exceptions the browser market is a lot like the Volkswagen Group. They design key components and depending on market segment they slap a Audi, VW or Skoda label on it, do a few tweaks to the look and feel and add a few features that they know that a particular segment wants. Under "chrome" it's a Volkswagen.
dillydogg 3y ago
I think the person you are responding to would say that edge is just another chromium skin. It doesn't exactly relieve Google's monopoly on browser technology
- CatWChainsaw 3y ago
  another chromium skin with extra tracking. I believe Edge tracks by hardware ID more aggressively than Chrome or chromium.
- papruapap 3y ago
  It should fairly simple for MS to block this API (if they wish to).
  - Moldoteck 3y ago
    depends how the api is designed. If it'll be integrated deep into chromium, disabling it would cost too much time
    - notpushkin 3y ago
      I don't think so. Even if it's impossible to exclude it from the builds, they can just remove it from the JavaScript global scope or something.
  - adrianN 3y ago
    Why would they? They make money with ads too
    - papruapap 3y ago
      But Googles makes way more, will make compete with Google even harder in the future (deeper pockets).
mozball 3y ago
Microsoft is exactly the kind of company that would throw its full backing behind this google proposal, seeing how they have spent the last 20 years working towards the same goal. See Windows 11, Trusted Platform Module, Pluton, Palladium, SecureBoot.
NoGravitas 3y ago
Not only is Edge based on Chromium, as a major operating system vendor with strong influence on the hardware market, Microsoft is well positioned to be one of the widely-accepted attesters. So they have little motivation to oppose this proposal.

ModernMech 3y ago

Does Opera count? It uses Chromium.

PrimeMcFly 3y ago
No. Chromium browsers may as well be Chrome for the purposes of this discussion.
nfriedly 3y ago
I'd say it's better than using Google Chrome.

gaudat 3y ago

>Firefox is a bit weaker on Android, with an extemely limited set of extensions Definitely not with the Iceweasel fork. https://github.com/fork-maintainers/fenix https://github.com/fork-maintainers/fenix

nfriedly 3y ago
Yeah, I'm actually using Iceraven right now, I just didn't want to muddy up the point of that comment any further than I already had. Firefox is an easy recommendation on desktop but mobile needs a bit more nuance. The point is that using anything that's not Google Chrome is better for the internet.
taneq 3y ago
Is that the one that harangues you any time you load a page with non-GPL'd JavaScript on it? Because that was incredibly annoying.
- nfriedly 3y ago
  Nope, I've never seen that. Iceraven is just Firefox for Android with more extensions enabled, about:config support, and a couple of other minor annoyances fixed.
  - taneq 3y ago
    Wait, the post says iceweasel but the link is iceraven, are they the same thing? This was on the default browser one of the times I tried LineageOS, this was back in 2019 or so. I could be misremembering the specific fork.
    - nfriedly 3y ago
      I found this about iceweasel, which inclines me to believe that you remembered it correctly, and the grandparent was just mistaken about the name: > In August 2005,[11] the GNUzilla project adopted the GNU IceWeasel name for a rebranded distribution of Firefox that made no references to nonfree plugins. > [...] > The GNU LibreJS extension detects and blocks non-free non-trivial JavaScript. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_IceCat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_IceCat

Zambyte 3y ago

[flagged]

jessyco 3y ago
This is news to me; when and how does Google own Firefox? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Corporation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Corporation
- LeonB 3y ago
  If you have a customer who pays more than 50% of your income that’s not a customer that’s a controlling interest. Track record shows the relationship looks the way google wants it to look and behaves the way google wants it to behave.
capableweb 3y ago
> Firefox is owned by Google You're gonna have to explain why you think this, because publicly, Firefox is owned by Mozilla which is not owned by Google in any way. But maybe you know something the rest of us don't?
- Zambyte 3y ago
  > Firefox is owned by Mozilla which is not owned by Google in any way. Who owns Mozilla? Put another way, if Google stops funding Mozilla, will it still exist? The only reason Firefox exists is because Google wants something they can point to in court and say "look! we're not a monopoly!"
  - eis 3y ago
    The shareholders of Mozilla own Mozilla. And that's not Google. If Google stopped the search deal then Bing would take over in a second.
    - rvnx 3y ago
      At a much lower price, because search deals are paid based on number of searches done (so indirectly, the number of active users), and because Google has 90%-ish market share, it means a 90% drop in revenue. Also, Bing has on average twice higher RPMs, so, a 50% of drop in income after rev-share. So, you remove 90% of the revenue, and you divide by 2 what is remaining.

joelthelion 3y ago

You can actually use more extensions on Android. It's just more involved than it should be. The trick is to create an "extension collection" from your Mozilla account. Then you can use any extension, and a lot of them just work.

pmontra 3y ago
I know but it never worked for me. I followed the procedure twice, two different years, two different installs. I'm always doing something wrong. On Mozilla's side, why are they even doing that to us on Nightly?
- jeroenhd 3y ago
  It works for me on the Beta. No need to go to nightly. Mozilla was even gracious enough to allow us to go to about:config! I don't know what you're doing wrong (all I can say is that the name of the collection is case sensitive) but I haven't had any trouble adding the custom collection settings to my Firefox installs.
nfriedly 3y ago
Yeah, I know - I ended up switching to Iceraven on my phone, though. I've heard good things about Mull too. But I didn't want to muddy the original post with all that.
- joelthelion 3y ago
  Your post was perfect. We need to get people off Chrome, and ideally off Chromium-based browsers. It doesn't matter which.

edg5000 3y ago

I agree, I use Firefox everywhere. But we must not forget the following: In 2011 Mozilla income was 85% derrived from Google, through the primary search engine deal. Around a billion was paid over three years as part of this deal at some point. Appearantly there was bidding by Microsoft for making Bing the default, which pushed up the pricing. So every time Mozilla speaks out against Google, it is a bit awkward, since they are biting the hand that feeds them. I suppose they could take a deal from Microsoft, Yahoo or even DDG (or Baidu!), but without interest from Google I presume the funding would be lower. Quite an interesting situation. Thank God both Firefox and Chrome are open source. That is at least some small degree of insurance against potential freedom-limiting shenanigans by tech giants.

eptcyka 3y ago
Yet the development of the browser is seeing a smaller fraction of that income than most people believe.
- tjoff 3y ago
  Then let's make the situation even worse until it resolves itself.
- asadotzler 3y ago
  Not really. Firefox is a large majority of Mozilla and Mozilla's spending. Feel free to read over our financial statements to confirm this.
nfriedly 3y ago
Yeah, I mentioned this in another comment: it's really a shame that Mozilla spends the majority of that money (often poorly IMO), instead of putting it into an endowment fund or something similar that would leave them in a much better position for the long run.
- asadotzler 3y ago
  It actually takes a lot of people to build and maintain a modern competitive browser. Not paying those people and instead investing the revenue would end the project in short order. Mozilla is already outgunned on staff by the other major browser makers and you want us to cut staff to save more? That's not realistic, IMO.

Kutsuya 3y ago

People need to be more aware about this. I also use Firefox on the desktop. On Android I use Mull, which is based upon Firefox and it's actually pretty good!

scrollaway 3y ago

> I hate to say it, but if you used Chrome to read this, then you're part of the problem. Victim blaming BS. Let's see who else is the problem. How about all those engineers who decided not to contribute to Firefox? Or all those website developers who didn't test their site in Firefox? Or hell, why not all those Mozilla engineers who didn't fix Firefox hard enough? Let's put the blame where it actually is. Google is to blame. Not the users of their free products they advertise all over the place and have an unlimited marketing budget for.

vultour 3y ago
Victim blaming is absolutely the correct approach here. Of course you shouldn't blame your grandma for using Chrome, but people on HN are a completely different audience. HN readers should be well aware of the damage Google is causing to the open internet, using Chrome is tantamount to supporting this effort.
- cmilton 3y ago
  What should HN readers do that are forced to work within these ecosystems? Ex. Work, school. It’s not always so easy to walk away from an entire platform. People’s entire livelihoods could be based around Google. I don’t see any issue with Google owning some of this responsibility.
  - nequo 3y ago
    Google is a monopolist that acts like a monopolist. Its main revenue source is advertising. So it will use its monopoly power to secure advertising. You cannot expect Google to act against its own self-interest only because you ask nicely. You have to stop giving them the market power to do it.
    - cmilton 3y ago
      Have they won the game of capitalism by becoming a monopoly? I don’t expect Google to act against its own will, but they should.

8organicbits 3y ago

Even if you don't care about all that, Firefox is the faster browser. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36770883 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36770883

0l 3y ago
On a very niche set of tests, sure.
somehnguy 3y ago
Chrome feels faster though. I just switched back to it after using Firefox for the last year. Chrome on my work computer felt snappier than Firefox on my comparable spec personal machine.
- jeltz 3y ago
  Have you tried disabling smooth scrolling?
- 8organicbits 3y ago
  My concern is that soon the comparison will be "Chrome without ad block" vs "Firefox with ad block". There's no way Chrome outperforms Firefox in that scenario. Even if Chrome is faster for your unique workflow today, prepare to switch back.

linza 3y ago

I'm honestly (as in putting in multiple hours) trying to switch to Firefox every 4 to 5 months. I tried at least 4 times. I do the dance of migrating bookmarks, passwords, layout preferences, add-ons, workflows, setting up sync, installing on all Android and desktop devices ... and then i run into issues, try to fix some of them, research, then give up and go back to chrome and don't think about it anymore until another article like this pops up on HN. This time I won't be shamed into doing it again. I don't have the time or motivation. edit: forgot to mention explicitly, it's not Firefox, it's me. I'm not strong enough.

ruszki 3y ago
What are these issues?
- sgc 3y ago
  I am very curious as well. I have zero issues using FF everywhere. I used to have to use Chromium every couple months because some dumb website was pulling in a library that was using some non-industry-standard thing chromium did - and everything broke due to their utter lack of testing - but even that has died down. There is a newer trend where I have to disable uBlock every once in a while to complete a task, which is just as bad, but I rarely have to actually use another browser.
notpushkin 3y ago
Can you elaborate on the issues you're running into with Firefox? Hopefully we can help you sort these out!
- linza 3y ago
  I find that condescending but I'm sure you didn't mean it that way and had good intentions asking that. The problems I experienced that can be fixed in Firefox itself probably already got fixed. My (personal) problem with Firefox is that functionally it's not Chrome and doesn't look/feel like it. The claimed non-functional improvements (privacy, freedom, ...) DON'T make up for the difference for me personally. If Firefox looked and felt more or less exactly like Chrome for the functional parts then I would not have any problem switching for good. It's not at the moment, so this is what stops me from adoption. I don't propose to change anything (you did). I was merely stating why I'm not on Firefox yet as a data point.

RajT88 3y ago

I used Brave. But I am considering a switch to the new DuckDuckGo browser, which I assume is just another Chromium browser.

nfriedly 3y ago
If I remember right, DuckDuckGo's browser just uses the system webview. So that might be Chromium on Windows now that Edge is Chromium-based, but it'd be WebKit on macOS, and I'm not sure what it'd use on Linux.

bradley13 3y ago

Web standards are a part of the problem that few people think about. Existing rendering engines grew along with the standards. However, the standards (especially CSS) have become so absurdly complex that implementing a new engine would be nearly impossible. Even Microsoft caved, and Edge is now essentially Chrome. Some will point out that Chrome is based on open-source software. In reality, however, Google has a huge amount of power here. If Google is serious about this initiative, they will try to force it into the projects, and make it an essential part of the web experience. As others have pointed out, Google is also a primary supporter of Firefox, so they have influence there as well.

bell-cot 3y ago
THIS...except "a part of the problem" is miserably understated. Extreme technological complexity is just about the best possible moat a huge business can have. Though in this case "walls around the prison in which the users are incarcerated" might be a better analogy. And all the prisoners, who just can't resist the endless shiny new goodies added to the web standards, are forever building their own prison walls higher...

chippiewill 3y ago

100% agree. I switched to Chrome pretty much the day it first came out and it was revolutionary. Switched back to Firefox a few years ago due to Chrome becoming too dominant and Google throwing their weight around in standards committees too much. When I desperately need Chromium for something I use Edge (which I actually rather like).

alfiedotwtf 3y ago
The problem with Mozilla Corporation/Foundation is that they blew all their time/money/resources/lead on things that didn't matter, not helping pave the way forward, and then fired a lot of their staff to boot! Mozilla was once a bright shinning beacon of hope for the open web, but they wasted their good will on too many of us, and it pains me to think what could have been.
- baq 3y ago
  Good will is nice but those people also need to eat and mozzilla really needed to find a revenue stream other than google paying them off so they don’t have to spend 100x the amount on antitrust litigations. This is a perfect case in which I’d like to see my taxes funding their work.

suyash 3y ago

If you're using Apple products, your first preference should be Safari. I use that all the time, it's faster, leaner and syncs tabs/history/bookmarks greatly between different Apple devices.

hospitalJail 3y ago
Why not Firefox?
- NoGravitas 3y ago
  I'm not an Apple user, but from what I've heard, battery usage is the main reason to prefer Safari to Firefox on MacOS.
- Terretta 3y ago
  A few reasons: 1. Native integration across devices: Safari integrates seamlessly with Apple's ecosystem due to proprietary features like iCloud, Handoff, and universal clipboard, allowing for a consistent user experience across all Apple devices, with seamless transition among them to stay in your flow across devices. 2. iCloud Private Relay: This is a recent security tool from Apple and participating CDNs that encrypts all Safari traffic and protects the user's privacy by preventing anyone, including both Apple and network providers, from seeing which sites are visited. 3. Password Management Integration: Safari offers seamless integration with Apple’s Keychain for password and two-factor authentication (2FA) management across devices and across apps and browsers. Safari leverages Apple's OS level full password manager that's been quietly iterated each major release, now including support for TOTP and compromised-site checks. 4. Increased security/privacy: Safari uses AI/ML backed Intelligent Tracking Prevention to identify and block trackers, ensuring enhanced user privacy. While similar features can be added to Firefox via extensions, Safari has these capabilities by default. 5. Improved Power Efficiency and Performance: Multiple battery life tests confirm that Safari is significantly more power-efficient than Firefox and Chrome. Apple pulls this off through co-optimization of hardware and software, power-efficient technologies, hardware acceleration, conservative use of resources, efficient resource handling, and the blocking of resource-heavy ads and trackers. In real world use, you may see twice the battery life during web heavy usage. 6. Extended Support for WebKit: Use the browser your users use, so you understand and support their experience. Other factors like persistent tab groups, 120hz scroll performance, and first class "retina" typography simply add to the smooth experience Safari provides on macOS and iOS. Here are some lesser known tips for tuning up Safari to your liking and using features folks may be less familiar with: https://www.pcmag.com/how-to/hidden-tricks-inside-apples-safari-browser https://www.pcmag.com/how-to/hidden-tricks-inside-apples-saf...

signa11 3y ago

> I hate to say it, but if you used Chrome to read this, then you're part of the problem. not sure how far using 'ungoogled-chromium' takes you though.

nfriedly 3y ago
I'd say it's certainly better than using Google Chrome.

bob1029 3y ago

What does HN think about Mozilla adding some premium tier of the browser itself for a small subscription fee? I already subscribe to MDN out of sheer principle, and would be OK substituting some bullshit like Hulu if it would help even more... I am willing to pay the true cost of the "open" web, whatever it is. Just tell me how much and where to sign. Money is going to be a required tool to fight back against google, whether we like it or not. Capitalizing on the lesser evil to fight the bigger evil is not a terrible idea in my estimation.

nfriedly 3y ago
I just donate to the Mozilla Foundation each month: https://donate.mozilla.org/en-US/ https://donate.mozilla.org/en-US/ I feel like they could do better, but on the whole, I'm happy with what they provide to everyone for free.

southernplaces7 3y ago

I would love to use Firefox, if it wasn't so persistently such an utterly slow piece of shit if you open more than a few tabs or use it much. Across every laptop I've ever owned and across every version of FF I've ever used, this has been the case despite all promises. So unless i'm haunted by some magical digital browser curse, Chrome at least performs rapidly, even for a tab hoarder like me. I barely use anything by Google knowingly, but with Chrome Firefox can fuck off in comparison if it can't simply perform at the basics of agile functionality.

raxxorraxor 3y ago
This has never been the case for me at all. I write this comment in Chrome because I have it for testing and specific purposes, but I believe CPU and memory utilization advantages of Chromium always have been a myth for the most part. And I am someone that holds a lot of tabs open without rebooting my work machine for days or months. Browsers are still memory hogs, but at some point you have to decide if you want speed or low memory usage. Fast reaction time or nicely rendered pictures. On a decent machine, not even a fast one, there is no difference. That said, I despise notebooks and usually use towers.
kibibu 3y ago
Microsoft's Defender was, until recently, drastically slowing down Firefox on many configurations.
- southernplaces7 3y ago
  I'll look into that on my laptop and see if it may just possibly have been a major cause of problems all this time. I'm skeptical, but thanks for the tip.

throwawaymobule 3y ago

Kiwi browser for android supports chrome extensions. The chrome web store is horrible to navigate on mobile though.