5 ms·

Maybe time to fork Firefox.

by __loam 3y ago

zamadatix 3y ago
And then convince ~200 million people to use your browser so you can get the same bare bones level of funding via search deals Mozilla is having trouble sustaining on. Things do get in a progressively easier feedback loop after that though. I almost wonder if the Edge/Brave approach is the smarter approach. Build something on top of Chromium, trading full independence for the ability to focus on differentiation, and then if you ever show you can actually make a more popular browser you're free to take over/break away from/fork Chromium for full independence again at the end. Either way you have a tradeoff.
- babypuncher 3y ago
  But building something on top of Chromium defeats the entire appeal of a replacement for Firefox, which is to continue the fight against the Blink/V8 monoculture.
  - zamadatix 3y ago
    Certainly to some, to others it's just about having a browser which doesn't spy on you, use non-free components, or try to use all of your data for ads. Things are a bit different than the original I.E. battle where a monoculture around a closed source limited platform engine existed and monoculture isn't a neat box for the entire story anymore, especially if you're doing this because you think Mozilla is imminently failing because they can't find the money to maintain a separate engine to user's expectations.
- alwayslikethis 3y ago
  Well, what if you want to.. lets say, keep Manifest V2 compatibility in Chromium? Judging by the compile times, Chromium is one of the largest open source projects out there. Maintaining a backport is going to be a nontrivial effort because your company isn't Google and can't just throw developer hours at the problem.
  - zamadatix 3y ago
    The amount of work is plenty true but the alternative (on the assumption you're assuming Firefox is failing and needs to be forked or replaced) is maintaining an entire browser and its Manifest V2 instance instead of maintaining a separate back port of manifest v2. Not really much better.
- antisthenes 3y ago
  Firefox's future was written when they abandoned the rich add-on ecosystem and tried to compete with Chrome by being user-friendly to normies. In the end, they lost both the power users and the regular crowd (which will use Chrome or Edge, because those come bundled or are advertised on front page of Google).
  - pcwalton 3y ago
    It'd certainly be convenient if it were true, but the rate of Firefox's market share decline was completely unaffected by the switch to Web Extensions. There are Firefox forks out there that still keep the legacy add-on interface around, and they of course get comparatively very little use, because very few people actually care. And, of course, "being user-friendly to normies" has always been among Firefox's chief goals.
    - doix 3y ago
      It's what got me off FF for a long time. I stuck around on FF 52 ESR(I think?) for ages, the last version to work with pentadactyl. Then I finally switched to Chrome because it was much faster than FF and my extensions were dead anyway. I switched back a few years ago because FF became good enough again. I wouldn't be surprised if others did the same (and possibly didn't switch back). When I switched, everyone I provided tech support in my family for also switched. I did not switch them back because I don't think it's worth inconveniencing them at this point. Obviously my case is a miniscule amount of people, but it wouldn't surprise me if the story wasn't somewhat common.
      - josephd79 3y ago
        This is what I did. Just switched back not to long ago.
JohnFen 3y ago
There exist a number of reasonable Firefox forks right now.
goodSteveramos 3y ago
Those already exist. The problem is the Mozilla organization has all the money and they piss it away because they are controlled by corporate types who care more about not pissing off their past and future bosses at Google more than pushing open and privacy protecting web standards.
- yencabulator 3y ago
  Also, paying tech salaries would mean the suits get to pocket less of the money themselves.
xuhu 3y ago
Desktop linux market share is below 2% yet people aren't talking about it being on its last legs like with Firefox. How does Firefox's 3.5% market share prevent people from using it ? Is the 180,000,000 number of monthly active users simply too low ?
- pwb25 3y ago
  wow you are right, they have 3,5%. I thought they had like 25-30%. Safari had 18% apparently, I know 0 people who use Safari
  - aleph_minus_one 3y ago
    > wow you are right, they have 3,5% It depends a lot on the country. In Germany, Firefox' market share is larger since Firefox is viewed as the browser that takes the users' privacy concerns (e.g. tracking, DRM (there still exists Firefox EME-free), ..) most seriously. According to > https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share/desktop/germany https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share/desktop/germ... Firefox' market share is about 18.6 % among the desktop users in Germany, i.e. among the desktop browsers, Firefox has the 2nd largest market share in Germany (for all platforms: according to > https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share/all/germany https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share/all/germany in Germany, Firefox' market share is currently about 10.4 %).
    - pwb25 3y ago
      That explains things, I in fact work as a programmer in germany :) They even have ads on the subway here
  - alemanek 3y ago
    You don’t know anyone who uses an iPhone to browse the web? Pretty sure that is where that Safari market share comes from.
    - aleph_minus_one 3y ago

Maybe time to fork Firefox.

by __loam 3y ago

Maybe time to fork Firefox.

And then convince ~200 million people to use your browser so you can get the same bare bones level of funding via search deals Mozilla is having trouble sustaining on. Things do get in a progressively easier feedback loop after that though. I almost wonder if the Edge/Brave approach is the smarter approach. Build something on top of Chromium, trading full independence for the ability to focus on differentiation, and then if you ever show you can actually make a more popular browser you're free to take over/break away from/fork Chromium for full independence again at the end. Either way you have a tradeoff.

babypuncher 3y ago
But building something on top of Chromium defeats the entire appeal of a replacement for Firefox, which is to continue the fight against the Blink/V8 monoculture.
- zamadatix 3y ago
  Certainly to some, to others it's just about having a browser which doesn't spy on you, use non-free components, or try to use all of your data for ads. Things are a bit different than the original I.E. battle where a monoculture around a closed source limited platform engine existed and monoculture isn't a neat box for the entire story anymore, especially if you're doing this because you think Mozilla is imminently failing because they can't find the money to maintain a separate engine to user's expectations.
alwayslikethis 3y ago
Well, what if you want to.. lets say, keep Manifest V2 compatibility in Chromium? Judging by the compile times, Chromium is one of the largest open source projects out there. Maintaining a backport is going to be a nontrivial effort because your company isn't Google and can't just throw developer hours at the problem.
- zamadatix 3y ago
  The amount of work is plenty true but the alternative (on the assumption you're assuming Firefox is failing and needs to be forked or replaced) is maintaining an entire browser and its Manifest V2 instance instead of maintaining a separate back port of manifest v2. Not really much better.
antisthenes 3y ago
Firefox's future was written when they abandoned the rich add-on ecosystem and tried to compete with Chrome by being user-friendly to normies. In the end, they lost both the power users and the regular crowd (which will use Chrome or Edge, because those come bundled or are advertised on front page of Google).
- pcwalton 3y ago
  It'd certainly be convenient if it were true, but the rate of Firefox's market share decline was completely unaffected by the switch to Web Extensions. There are Firefox forks out there that still keep the legacy add-on interface around, and they of course get comparatively very little use, because very few people actually care. And, of course, "being user-friendly to normies" has always been among Firefox's chief goals.
  - doix 3y ago
    It's what got me off FF for a long time. I stuck around on FF 52 ESR(I think?) for ages, the last version to work with pentadactyl. Then I finally switched to Chrome because it was much faster than FF and my extensions were dead anyway. I switched back a few years ago because FF became good enough again. I wouldn't be surprised if others did the same (and possibly didn't switch back). When I switched, everyone I provided tech support in my family for also switched. I did not switch them back because I don't think it's worth inconveniencing them at this point. Obviously my case is a miniscule amount of people, but it wouldn't surprise me if the story wasn't somewhat common.
    - josephd79 3y ago
      This is what I did. Just switched back not to long ago.

JohnFen 3y ago

There exist a number of reasonable Firefox forks right now.

goodSteveramos 3y ago

Those already exist. The problem is the Mozilla organization has all the money and they piss it away because they are controlled by corporate types who care more about not pissing off their past and future bosses at Google more than pushing open and privacy protecting web standards.

yencabulator 3y ago
Also, paying tech salaries would mean the suits get to pocket less of the money themselves.

xuhu 3y ago

Desktop linux market share is below 2% yet people aren't talking about it being on its last legs like with Firefox. How does Firefox's 3.5% market share prevent people from using it ? Is the 180,000,000 number of monthly active users simply too low ?

pwb25 3y ago
wow you are right, they have 3,5%. I thought they had like 25-30%. Safari had 18% apparently, I know 0 people who use Safari
- aleph_minus_one 3y ago
  > wow you are right, they have 3,5% It depends a lot on the country. In Germany, Firefox' market share is larger since Firefox is viewed as the browser that takes the users' privacy concerns (e.g. tracking, DRM (there still exists Firefox EME-free), ..) most seriously. According to > https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share/desktop/germany https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share/desktop/germ... Firefox' market share is about 18.6 % among the desktop users in Germany, i.e. among the desktop browsers, Firefox has the 2nd largest market share in Germany (for all platforms: according to > https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share/all/germany https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share/all/germany in Germany, Firefox' market share is currently about 10.4 %).
  - pwb25 3y ago
    That explains things, I in fact work as a programmer in germany :) They even have ads on the subway here
- alemanek 3y ago
  You don’t know anyone who uses an iPhone to browse the web? Pretty sure that is where that Safari market share comes from.
  - aleph_minus_one 3y ago