5 ms·

> If Firefox is destined for a market share of 2%, may as well get there quickly. A few years of decline vs a few months makes little difference in the long ter

by foofie 3y ago

> If Firefox is destined for a market share of 2%, may as well get there quickly. A few years of decline vs a few months makes little difference in the long term. How does that play into your decision to use Firefox or any other browser? I'm a Firefox user and I care nothing about market share. I get annoyed if I stumble upon a page managed by incompetent devteams and thus only runs on Chrome, but that's a quick in-and-out. Why do you care about share? Why do you feel it's relevant, specially if people are pushed to use Chrome or Edge through unethical means?

archerx 3y ago
As a developer the lower the market share the less incentive there is to supporting it. I have stopped testing to see if my sites work on firefox and just focus on chromium and safari. A few years ago Firefox was my main browser and I got sick of the constant changes and just use chrome, brave and safari now. I never missed FF for one moment. I remember when Firefox was the faster leaner version of the mozilla browser and now they have bloated it up and forgotten its foundational principles.
- foofie 3y ago
  > As a developer the lower the market share the less incentive there is to supporting it. I have stopped testing to see if my sites work on firefox and just focus on chromium and safari. It's one thing to claim to not include Firefox in your list of supported browsers. It's an entirely different thing to claim you only support Chrome and Safari. If you are a developer and only target browsers from Apple and Google, this is a personal decision you're making to purposely ignore around 25% of your whole market share. This is not Firefox's or Microsoft's Opera's problem. This is your problem.
jstanley 3y ago
> I get annoyed if I stumble upon a page managed by incompetent devteams and thus only runs on Chrome, but that's a quick in-and-out. I read this kind of comment all the time, and it's something I almost never experience. The only feature that I want in Firefox that I need to use Chromium for is Web Bluetooth, and that's because I use a Bangle.js smartwatch, which is even more niche than using Firefox is. It's very hard for me to understand why so many people think they routinely encounter websites that don't work in Firefox.
- foofie 3y ago
  > I read this kind of comment all the time, and it's something I almost never experience. I agree, fortunately that's somewhat rare. It still stings if you come across a broken site that you need to use frequently. I'm concerned that Google's "extend" phase is just ramping up, with incompetent devteams confusing "Chrome has a large market share" with "it's ok to publish a broken site if it works with Chrome".
- jstarfish 3y ago
  In the early days of bloated SPAs, they used to run like absolute shit on Firefox (if they even worked at all). Now everything runs like shit on every browser so things appear to be more equal.
eviks 3y ago
Do you not see the causal connection between 2% and pages that runs only on Chrome? Those same incompetent devs would make it run on Firefox with a higher % without annoying you There are also plenty of other direct-to-user benefits

by foofie 3y ago

archerx 3y ago

As a developer the lower the market share the less incentive there is to supporting it. I have stopped testing to see if my sites work on firefox and just focus on chromium and safari. A few years ago Firefox was my main browser and I got sick of the constant changes and just use chrome, brave and safari now. I never missed FF for one moment. I remember when Firefox was the faster leaner version of the mozilla browser and now they have bloated it up and forgotten its foundational principles.

foofie 3y ago
> As a developer the lower the market share the less incentive there is to supporting it. I have stopped testing to see if my sites work on firefox and just focus on chromium and safari. It's one thing to claim to not include Firefox in your list of supported browsers. It's an entirely different thing to claim you only support Chrome and Safari. If you are a developer and only target browsers from Apple and Google, this is a personal decision you're making to purposely ignore around 25% of your whole market share. This is not Firefox's or Microsoft's Opera's problem. This is your problem.

jstanley 3y ago

> I get annoyed if I stumble upon a page managed by incompetent devteams and thus only runs on Chrome, but that's a quick in-and-out. I read this kind of comment all the time, and it's something I almost never experience. The only feature that I want in Firefox that I need to use Chromium for is Web Bluetooth, and that's because I use a Bangle.js smartwatch, which is even more niche than using Firefox is. It's very hard for me to understand why so many people think they routinely encounter websites that don't work in Firefox.

foofie 3y ago
> I read this kind of comment all the time, and it's something I almost never experience. I agree, fortunately that's somewhat rare. It still stings if you come across a broken site that you need to use frequently. I'm concerned that Google's "extend" phase is just ramping up, with incompetent devteams confusing "Chrome has a large market share" with "it's ok to publish a broken site if it works with Chrome".
jstarfish 3y ago
In the early days of bloated SPAs, they used to run like absolute shit on Firefox (if they even worked at all). Now everything runs like shit on every browser so things appear to be more equal.

eviks 3y ago

Do you not see the causal connection between 2% and pages that runs only on Chrome? Those same incompetent devs would make it run on Firefox with a higher % without annoying you There are also plenty of other direct-to-user benefits