6 ms·

Poor souls still don't understand the why choose Firefox. If I remember right opera now funded by some chinese company https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opera_(w

Poor souls still don't understand the why choose Firefox. If I remember right opera now funded by some chinese company https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opera_(web_browser) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opera_(web_browser)

mozman 3y ago
On iOS it’s still powered by webkit
drooopy 3y ago
Oh man, I wish we could get Gecko-based Firefox with addon support in iOS land.
- lxgr 3y ago
  It's now possible, at least if you live in (and don't leave for more than 60 days) the EU. Now the ball is in Mozilla's court! I do wonder if they'd have to send their developers to the EU for on-device debugging as well.
  - I_Am_Nous 3y ago
    Are you sure? As I understand it, iOS still uses Webkit at the base level, and any browser app on iOS has to use the Webkit engine. This EU ruling seems to be less about allowing alternate engines and more about removing "roadblocks" to user choice, even if the different browsers are more or less still Safari with a different coat of paint. For instance, Brave on iOS doesn't have built in TOR functionality like it does on non-mobile versions, so the browser is functionally limited to what Webkit allows.
    - Am4TIfIsER0ppos 3y ago
      The EU forced Henry Ford to paint the Model Ts in something other than black? What a load of fucking drama for nothing.
      - mort96 3y ago
        I .. don't think the EU forced Ford to paint the Model T in colors other than black
        I_Am_Nous 3y ago
        I believe their point was more that if the whole push was just to inform users that other browser options exist, but they are still running on the same underlying engine no matter the "skin" the browser is using on top of Webkit, it would be similar to forcing Ford to offer alternate colors on the same vehicle in the EU and congratulating themselves on "regulation done well". As someone else pointed out, the legislation does force Apple to allow alternate browser engines, but creating one would be quite a burden for someone like Firefox.
        Am4TIfIsER0ppos 3y ago
        You got it. Perhaps my analogies are too obscure. Firefox already has a browser engine all they need the possibility of running it and printing it to the screen. That possibility is what I thought the EU was going to force not just another "coat of paint", which already existed AFAIK.
    - frankjr 3y ago
      > ... Apple announced yesterday it will start letting developers submit non-WebKit-based browsers — both for full web browser apps, which offer an alternative to using Safari, and for developers offering in-app browsers for displaying webpages within their iOS apps... https://techcrunch.com/2024/01/26/apple-dma-webkit/ https://techcrunch.com/2024/01/26/apple-dma-webkit/
      - concinds 3y ago
        *Terms and conditions apply: - must be submitted as a separate binary, no migration path from existing WebKit version of a browser - only available in the EU, unclear how non-EU web developers can test for compatibility - ban on non-WebKit PWAs
        I_Am_Nous 3y ago
        >- must be submitted as a separate binary, no migration path from existing WebKit version of a browser I can imagine this one being really annoying as you are probably required to go through the entire app review process again (so they can make sure you didn't sneak anything cool in there)
        concinds 3y ago
        New versions of AltStore and Spotify are both stuck in App Review since the DMA passed 3 weeks ago.
    - fantyoon 3y ago
      Mozilla has now the chance to release a Gecko version of iOS Firefox to people living in the EU. That version currently doesn't exist and, depending on how valuable Mozilla thinks a port of Gecko to iOS would be, might never exist. But Apple would be unable to keep it off the App Store without drawing some serious ire from the EU, which is probably not a good thing for them.
    - Hamuko 3y ago
      https://developer.apple.com/documentation/browserenginekit https://developer.apple.com/documentation/browserenginekit
  - tgv 3y ago
    I think Mozilla has already said they won't do it. Firefox on Webkit isn't half bad, though. The extensions, however...
    - Aissen 3y ago
      I don't think that's accurate. Mozilla has said the current malicious compliance plain is "painful", but no blanket rejection: https://www.theverge.com/2024/1/26/24052067/mozilla-apple-ios-browser-rules-firefox https://www.theverge.com/2024/1/26/24052067/mozilla-apple-io...
    - pjerem 3y ago
      I’d like to have more diversity of engines but at least WebKit is good so I can live with it. However Firefox iOS have a crappy UI compared to Safari and it doesn’t looks like Mozilla is bothering a lot about it.
      - ikekkdcjkfke 3y ago
        It's open source? Have a crack at it m8
        lxgr 3y ago
        Have you seen the list of Apple rules you need to follow to publish an alternative-engine-using browser in the EU?
olliej 3y ago
The issue is not being controlled by a Chinese company. The issue is they’ve adopted the “sell user data” profit model that is super popular in all of tech. You should not be complaining about opera because they’re owned by a Chinese company any more than you would complain about chrome being owned by a us company. The complaint for both (and many other companies) should be the business model of selling user data is morally corrupt.
- kwhitefoot 3y ago
  How do you propose that they generate enough income then?
  - olliej 3y ago
    Develop a revenue stream that doesn't depend on misleading people? Plenty of software exists that doesn't depend on violating user's privacy. Hell google's original Ad Words was built on putting ads relevant to content being read, but then they pulled a Boeing and reverse acquired DoubleClick so went all in spyware/"behavioral advertising". This obsession with selling out your users to make money is gross, and the absurd belief that that is the only path to income is absurd. Plenty of companies still exist and make money by selling products rather than users and the twisted belief that you can only make money by "giving away" your product (and then selling out your users) that you're exhibiting is just insane. It's especially laughable to point to a company like Opera (the modern one, not the original) which is just skinning chrome, and then say "they should be able to make a profit by selling out their users". If they are adding so little value, when the overwhelming majority of the work is done for free for them, that people don't want to actually pay for it, why should they make a profit? if their sales pitch involves misleading the consumers about what they are doing, why should they be making money?
sebazzz 3y ago
Opera regularly sponsors YouTube videos, Firefox doesn’t. Marketing works.
- tredre3 3y ago
  It is a little weird how Mozilla doesn't advertise Firefox, isn't it? At least I've never seen them sponsoring anything, nor any ads. (50% of my browsing is without adblock, so I should have seen them if they exist. But maybe they do?) Like 1M/yr spent on sponsoring 1000 videos by top tech youtubers is nothing when they have 600M/yr revenue and it would bring in a massive audience. It's as if they're content with coasting and/or chasing even lower single digit market share?
  - didntcheck 3y ago
    That would go against their mission to spend time and money on everything but the one product that anyone cares about
    - tharne 3y ago
      As a loyal Firefox user, I hate the leadership at Mozilla for this.
  - joshspankit 3y ago
    Personally: If the product is excellent and already being used by people who are happy then you don’t really need to spend money on marketing, you need to keep focused on making an excellent product. In fact, marketing can take resources away from excellence. If I ever see a FireFox marketing campaign on YouTube I will worry about them. The best “marketing” they can do in my opinion is something they already do: MDN.

mozman 3y ago

On iOS it’s still powered by webkit

drooopy 3y ago

Oh man, I wish we could get Gecko-based Firefox with addon support in iOS land.

lxgr 3y ago
It's now possible, at least if you live in (and don't leave for more than 60 days) the EU. Now the ball is in Mozilla's court! I do wonder if they'd have to send their developers to the EU for on-device debugging as well.
- I_Am_Nous 3y ago
  Are you sure? As I understand it, iOS still uses Webkit at the base level, and any browser app on iOS has to use the Webkit engine. This EU ruling seems to be less about allowing alternate engines and more about removing "roadblocks" to user choice, even if the different browsers are more or less still Safari with a different coat of paint. For instance, Brave on iOS doesn't have built in TOR functionality like it does on non-mobile versions, so the browser is functionally limited to what Webkit allows.
  - Am4TIfIsER0ppos 3y ago
    The EU forced Henry Ford to paint the Model Ts in something other than black? What a load of fucking drama for nothing.
    - mort96 3y ago
      I .. don't think the EU forced Ford to paint the Model T in colors other than black
      - I_Am_Nous 3y ago
        I believe their point was more that if the whole push was just to inform users that other browser options exist, but they are still running on the same underlying engine no matter the "skin" the browser is using on top of Webkit, it would be similar to forcing Ford to offer alternate colors on the same vehicle in the EU and congratulating themselves on "regulation done well". As someone else pointed out, the legislation does force Apple to allow alternate browser engines, but creating one would be quite a burden for someone like Firefox.
        Am4TIfIsER0ppos 3y ago
        You got it. Perhaps my analogies are too obscure. Firefox already has a browser engine all they need the possibility of running it and printing it to the screen. That possibility is what I thought the EU was going to force not just another "coat of paint", which already existed AFAIK.
  - frankjr 3y ago
    > ... Apple announced yesterday it will start letting developers submit non-WebKit-based browsers — both for full web browser apps, which offer an alternative to using Safari, and for developers offering in-app browsers for displaying webpages within their iOS apps... https://techcrunch.com/2024/01/26/apple-dma-webkit/ https://techcrunch.com/2024/01/26/apple-dma-webkit/
    - concinds 3y ago
      *Terms and conditions apply: - must be submitted as a separate binary, no migration path from existing WebKit version of a browser - only available in the EU, unclear how non-EU web developers can test for compatibility - ban on non-WebKit PWAs
      - I_Am_Nous 3y ago
        >- must be submitted as a separate binary, no migration path from existing WebKit version of a browser I can imagine this one being really annoying as you are probably required to go through the entire app review process again (so they can make sure you didn't sneak anything cool in there)
        concinds 3y ago
        New versions of AltStore and Spotify are both stuck in App Review since the DMA passed 3 weeks ago.
  - fantyoon 3y ago
    Mozilla has now the chance to release a Gecko version of iOS Firefox to people living in the EU. That version currently doesn't exist and, depending on how valuable Mozilla thinks a port of Gecko to iOS would be, might never exist. But Apple would be unable to keep it off the App Store without drawing some serious ire from the EU, which is probably not a good thing for them.
  - Hamuko 3y ago
    https://developer.apple.com/documentation/browserenginekit https://developer.apple.com/documentation/browserenginekit
- tgv 3y ago
  I think Mozilla has already said they won't do it. Firefox on Webkit isn't half bad, though. The extensions, however...
  - Aissen 3y ago
    I don't think that's accurate. Mozilla has said the current malicious compliance plain is "painful", but no blanket rejection: https://www.theverge.com/2024/1/26/24052067/mozilla-apple-ios-browser-rules-firefox https://www.theverge.com/2024/1/26/24052067/mozilla-apple-io...
  - pjerem 3y ago
    I’d like to have more diversity of engines but at least WebKit is good so I can live with it. However Firefox iOS have a crappy UI compared to Safari and it doesn’t looks like Mozilla is bothering a lot about it.
    - ikekkdcjkfke 3y ago
      It's open source? Have a crack at it m8
      - lxgr 3y ago
        Have you seen the list of Apple rules you need to follow to publish an alternative-engine-using browser in the EU?

olliej 3y ago

The issue is not being controlled by a Chinese company. The issue is they’ve adopted the “sell user data” profit model that is super popular in all of tech. You should not be complaining about opera because they’re owned by a Chinese company any more than you would complain about chrome being owned by a us company. The complaint for both (and many other companies) should be the business model of selling user data is morally corrupt.

kwhitefoot 3y ago
How do you propose that they generate enough income then?
- olliej 3y ago
  Develop a revenue stream that doesn't depend on misleading people? Plenty of software exists that doesn't depend on violating user's privacy. Hell google's original Ad Words was built on putting ads relevant to content being read, but then they pulled a Boeing and reverse acquired DoubleClick so went all in spyware/"behavioral advertising". This obsession with selling out your users to make money is gross, and the absurd belief that that is the only path to income is absurd. Plenty of companies still exist and make money by selling products rather than users and the twisted belief that you can only make money by "giving away" your product (and then selling out your users) that you're exhibiting is just insane. It's especially laughable to point to a company like Opera (the modern one, not the original) which is just skinning chrome, and then say "they should be able to make a profit by selling out their users". If they are adding so little value, when the overwhelming majority of the work is done for free for them, that people don't want to actually pay for it, why should they make a profit? if their sales pitch involves misleading the consumers about what they are doing, why should they be making money?

sebazzz 3y ago

Opera regularly sponsors YouTube videos, Firefox doesn’t. Marketing works.

tredre3 3y ago
It is a little weird how Mozilla doesn't advertise Firefox, isn't it? At least I've never seen them sponsoring anything, nor any ads. (50% of my browsing is without adblock, so I should have seen them if they exist. But maybe they do?) Like 1M/yr spent on sponsoring 1000 videos by top tech youtubers is nothing when they have 600M/yr revenue and it would bring in a massive audience. It's as if they're content with coasting and/or chasing even lower single digit market share?
- didntcheck 3y ago
  That would go against their mission to spend time and money on everything but the one product that anyone cares about
  - tharne 3y ago
    As a loyal Firefox user, I hate the leadership at Mozilla for this.
- joshspankit 3y ago
  Personally: If the product is excellent and already being used by people who are happy then you don’t really need to spend money on marketing, you need to keep focused on making an excellent product. In fact, marketing can take resources away from excellence. If I ever see a FireFox marketing campaign on YouTube I will worry about them. The best “marketing” they can do in my opinion is something they already do: MDN.