Firefox would be better off if it was technically a worse browser but more relevant. The function (and central marketing claim) of Mozilla and Firefox is that i

Firefox would be better off if it was technically a worse browser but more relevant. The function (and central marketing claim) of Mozilla and Firefox is that it is an alternative to big tech controlling the entire internet. It has completely failed at that mission. At one point, it was failing because engineering. 10 years later they've finally corrected that, about 8 years to late, and at the cost of tying themselves to Google and losing all their relevance. Again, this is a zero sum game. Firefox only has value as an alternative to big tech if it has enough relevance to prevent Google and Microsoft from abandoning standards. And it has failed spectacularly in that arena. It spent all its relevance, has failed to recoup it, and is now reliant on Google to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars solely to pay the bills. Mitchell has been at the helm for nothing short of an unmitigated disaster.