4 ms·

What? Mozilla's pursuit of other ventures of varying importance is precisely what lead to the Chrome (Blink) monopoly in the first place. FF lags behind (or is

What? Mozilla's pursuit of other ventures of varying importance is precisely what lead to the Chrome (Blink) monopoly in the first place. FF lags behind (or is perceived to)⟶users switch to Chrome⟶sites stop testing on FF⟶sites don't work on FF⟶users switch to Chrome... (Also, was Firefox was ever locked out of the smartphone market? I thought only Apple blocked third-party browsers.)

ddggee 3y ago
[flagged]
Kinrany 3y ago
Mozilla doesn't have enough money to keep up with Chrome regardless.
- AtlasBarfed 3y ago
  What is firefox fundamentally missing from Chrome? I daily drive firefox as much as possible, and only go into chrome on some machines if it may have an old password stored there. I don't miss Chrome one bit. I don't notice any difference between the browsers. As for the article, this is some pedantic pro-CEO bullcrap. 3 million dollars? GTFO. Nonprofit CEOs that pay themselves this are not acting in the goodwill of the organization they represent. They are just being leeches. Firefox will have a search contract with someone, and that will be worth a lot of money. Otherwise no firefox/mozilla CEO has effectively raised the profile of the browser, so none of them are worth a tenth or less of that salary.
  - Dalewyn 3y ago
    >What is firefox fundamentally missing from Chrome? Speed. Usability. Practicality. Reality. I daresay Chrome murdering adblocking is still better than Mozilla's gaslighting. Mozilla is that bad; they steal precious time and resources away from actually doing something worthwhile.
    - AtlasBarfed 3y ago
      Ok google
    - mcv 3y ago
      I use both Firefox and Chrome, and Firefox has better usability and is not lagging in performance in any practical way. And I'm a very heavy user. Not sure what you mean by Firefox missing reality. It exists.
  - Kinrany 3y ago
    I don't think it would have mattered if Firefox suddenly started improving rapidly. Alphabet has enough money and competence to not fall behind in features, ever, and it has the advertising power to never lose their market share. The best thing Firefox can do for the world is to keep raising the bar, so that Chrome has to keep up. This will not affect their popularity but it will make browsers better.
- Dalewyn 3y ago
  Not when the CEO by herself is paid 5 to 7 million dollars every year, no.
orbital-decay 3y ago
> Mozilla's pursuit of other ventures of varying importance is precisely what lead to the Chrome (Blink) monopoly in the first place. Not Chrome being shoved down users' throats on every corner, including the main page of the internet? Not accidental breakage of competing browsers on YouTube?
afavour 3y ago
> Mozilla's pursuit of other ventures of varying importance is precisely what lead to the Chrome (Blink) monopoly in the first place No it isn’t. It’s because their competitor is Google and it has more resources than god.

ddggee 3y ago

[flagged]

Kinrany 3y ago

Mozilla doesn't have enough money to keep up with Chrome regardless.

AtlasBarfed 3y ago
What is firefox fundamentally missing from Chrome? I daily drive firefox as much as possible, and only go into chrome on some machines if it may have an old password stored there. I don't miss Chrome one bit. I don't notice any difference between the browsers. As for the article, this is some pedantic pro-CEO bullcrap. 3 million dollars? GTFO. Nonprofit CEOs that pay themselves this are not acting in the goodwill of the organization they represent. They are just being leeches. Firefox will have a search contract with someone, and that will be worth a lot of money. Otherwise no firefox/mozilla CEO has effectively raised the profile of the browser, so none of them are worth a tenth or less of that salary.
- Dalewyn 3y ago
  >What is firefox fundamentally missing from Chrome? Speed. Usability. Practicality. Reality. I daresay Chrome murdering adblocking is still better than Mozilla's gaslighting. Mozilla is that bad; they steal precious time and resources away from actually doing something worthwhile.
  - AtlasBarfed 3y ago
    Ok google
  - mcv 3y ago
    I use both Firefox and Chrome, and Firefox has better usability and is not lagging in performance in any practical way. And I'm a very heavy user. Not sure what you mean by Firefox missing reality. It exists.
- Kinrany 3y ago
  I don't think it would have mattered if Firefox suddenly started improving rapidly. Alphabet has enough money and competence to not fall behind in features, ever, and it has the advertising power to never lose their market share. The best thing Firefox can do for the world is to keep raising the bar, so that Chrome has to keep up. This will not affect their popularity but it will make browsers better.
Dalewyn 3y ago
Not when the CEO by herself is paid 5 to 7 million dollars every year, no.

orbital-decay 3y ago

> Mozilla's pursuit of other ventures of varying importance is precisely what lead to the Chrome (Blink) monopoly in the first place. Not Chrome being shoved down users' throats on every corner, including the main page of the internet? Not accidental breakage of competing browsers on YouTube?

afavour 3y ago

> Mozilla's pursuit of other ventures of varying importance is precisely what lead to the Chrome (Blink) monopoly in the first place No it isn’t. It’s because their competitor is Google and it has more resources than god.