10 ms·

I love Mozilla but this feels like marketing imo. From the article: "AI should always be a choice — something people can easily turn off" and "Firefox will rem

I love Mozilla but this feels like marketing imo. From the article: "AI should always be a choice — something people can easily turn off" and "Firefox will remain our anchor. It will evolve into a modern AI browser". I highly doubt you will be able to turn of the transformer tech features in an AI browser imo. And they won't make a separate browser for this. This really feels like the beginning of the end for Mozilla, sadly. Are there any true alternatives (not dependent on financing or any engines from third parties) to Google, if you wish to use the web in 2025?

idiotsecant 10mo ago
I'm excited about what Kagi is doing: https://orionbrowser.com/ https://orionbrowser.com/ I have no illusions that they will turn into google the first chance they get, all companies do. But for now they seem pretty good.
- rrradical 10mo ago
  I tried Orion about a year ago. I tried using the profile sandboxing. Logging into my google account in one profile also logged me in in another profile. I can definitely excuse some bugs (there were crashes for example that I didn’t overly mind; I understand I was using prerelease software). But something like account containers should be built fundamentally to disallow any data sharing. If data sharing is a bug, and not fundamentally disallowed by the architecture, then it’s going to happen again later. So for that reason I’m not bullish on orion.
  - zamadatix 10mo ago
    I'd be interested if the issue you ran into was actually due to poor architecture or just something not fully implemented in the pre-release. Unfortunately, it's closed source - so hard to tell from the outside.
    - rrradical 10mo ago
      Well it was definitely a bug. It worked in some cases (I think it even worked in google at first, and then a few days later it manifested). And the feature was advertised, even though, again, they never claimed the software to be release quality. But my point is that, similar to security, you don't want to build this kind of feature piece meal. Either the containers are fundamentally walled off or they aren't.
      - zamadatix 10mo ago
        I understand what your claim is, I just disagree it's that blanket. You could e.g. absolutely build the UI for a profile switcher before your implementation of the backend changes are merged without carrying implications of how well that will handle isolation in the same way in security you could implement the null cipher in TLS to test that portion of the code without it forever implying you have bad encryption.
- baggachipz 10mo ago
  Not sure why you're getting downvoted. Orion has matured as a browser and just hit 1.0. It's mac- and ios-only for now, but linux and windows ports are in the works. It has ad-blocking out of the box and has zero telemetry. I use it every day.
  - bigyabai 10mo ago
    My two cents - I'm not doing the "proprietary browser" shtick again. Unless I have real assurance that the software isn't going to become a $50/month SaaS, why should I leave my perfectly good current browser? I get the feeling this kind of product will only appeal to unconscious iOS and macOS users. Windows and Linux users have much better (and freer) options than a WebKit wrapper.
  - worik 10mo ago
    > Not sure why you're getting downvoted Orion browser is proprietary That would be my guess. That might be OK for you, but I have been burnt, as have many others, by proprietary software If there is a choice, I make it
  - rdm_blackhole 10mo ago
    But Orion has the exact same issue that we are facing now with Chrome and Edge and Firefox. Orion is funded by Kagi, so it's a money losing venture. If Kagi folds tomorrow, who will pick the pieces and continue its' development? Replace Orion with Chrome and Kagi with Google and you will find that we are in the same exact boat. Browsers cost money to maintain. Money has to come from somewhere. If the general public does not want to pay then who does? Furthermore, what makes you think that Kagi will not one day do the same exact thing that Google has done with Chrome? Are you willing to bet that it won't happen? And I am not here to bash on Kagi, I am one of their customers but I will not use Orion for the same reason I don't use Chrome.
    - baggachipz 10mo ago
      If Kagi goes tits-up, you could switch to another browser. I don't see how this is a permanent decision.
- wyre 10mo ago
  Google is what it is because of advertising. Kagi's whole raison d'etre is to have a search engine without advertising.
  - idiotsecant 10mo ago
    google is what it is because they have shareholders and need to make money. Maybe Kagi gets around that by setting up as a PBC, I hope so. I am not holding my breath.
this_user 10mo ago
What even is an "AI browser"? It's a browser, it's mainly supposed to render web pages / web apps. There is no obvious reason why it would need any AI features.
- TheBigSalad 10mo ago
  This is the equivalent of Blockbuster rejecting Netflix.
  - deleted 10mo ago
    [deleted]
  - christophilus 10mo ago
    Time will tell, but I doubt it.
  - cosmic_cheese 10mo ago
    At the risk of becoming the infamous iPod and Dropbox posters, I really don't think so. My browser having an LLM directly integrated adds nothing for my use cases that couldn't be accomplished with a web service or dedicated tool/app. For me, an integrated LLM running concurrently with my browser just represents a whole lot of compute and/or network calls with little added value and I don't think that this is unusual.
    - brians 10mo ago
      Having something that read everything I read and could talk with me about it, help remember things and synthesize? That’s awesome. Follow links and check references.
      - cosmic_cheese 10mo ago
        This use case feels better served by a dedicated utility with a specialized UI rather than shoehorned into a browser. It'd fit the macOS services model (which adds items to context and application menus, e.g. "Research this…" when right-clicking a link or text selection) and could optionally also be summoned by the system app launcher (like Spotlight).
rvz 10mo ago
> This really feels like the beginning of the end for Mozilla, sadly. The moment Mozilla failed to stop being dependent on Google's money whilst being true to their own mission in being a 'privacy first browser' it already was the end and the damage in trust was done. In 2007, the CEO at the time said they could live without Google's money - Now, their entire survival was tied to Google funding them [0] and got rewarded for failure whilst laying off hundreds of engineers working on Firefox. Other than the change in leadership after 17 years of mis-direction, the financial situation has still not changed. Do you still trust them now? > Are there any true alternatives (not dependent on financing or any engines from third parties) to Google, if you wish to use the web in 2025? After thinking about it, the only viable browser that is not funded by Google (Firefox 75%, Safari (>20%) and Chrome) is Ladybird. [1] [0] https://web.archive.org/web/20120105090543/https://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9044160/Mozilla_can_live_without_Google_s_money_Baker_says_ https://web.archive.org/web/20120105090543/https://www.compu... [1] https://ladybird.org/ https://ladybird.org/
- rdm_blackhole 10mo ago
  > The moment Mozilla failed to stop being dependent on Google's money whilst being true to their own mission in being a 'privacy first browser' it already was the end and the damage in trust was done. I understand your position but what is the alternative funding source that could keep a company making a free browser running? Apple funds Safari's development but it's basically a side project for them, Google funds Chrome's development as side project to their ad business, Edge is the same for Microsoft. Obviously we don't want Firefox to become ad-supported so that leaves either donations which to be honest does not work (see all the OS projects that ask for donations when you install NPM packages for reference) or they need to start charging money (we know how well that worked out for Netscape) or finally find another corporate sponsor willing to shove billions of dollars each year into a product that will not improve their bottom line. I am all for alternatives and I agree with you that something needs to change but the real question is how? Maybe I am presumptuous in this assumption but I am pretty sure that if Mozilla had another palatable solution on the table, they would have probably implemented it by now. > After thinking about it, the only viable browser that is not funded by Google (Firefox 75%, Safari (>20%) and Chrome) is Ladybird. Ladybird is sponsored by many big companies as well. What makes you think that somehow their fate will be any different than Firefox? Do you believe that Shopify for example is more altruistic than Google and therefore should be trusted more? I personally don't. In my opinion the problem is the expectation that things should be free always on the internet and we can thank Google and Facebook for that. Most people these days who are not in the tech world simply have no idea how many hours and how much money it takes to create something, having it used by people and iterating on it day in day out until it is in a good shape and can be used by the general public. Therefore besides a small cohort of users in tech (like Kagi's customers for example who understand that a good search engine is not free), the vast majority of people will not accept to have to pay for a browser. Which brings us back to the question I asked above. Who will fund this supposedly free for all browser that does not track you, that does not show you any ads, that does not incorporate AI features, that does not try to up-sell you or scam you? From my vantage point it's not like there are 100s of solutions to get out of this conundrum.
JoshTriplett 10mo ago
> Are there any true alternatives (not dependent on financing or any engines from third parties) Servo is still a work in progress, but their current positions give a great deal of hope.
TehCorwiz 10mo ago
This is why I'm hopeful that at least one of Ladybird, Flow, and Servo emerge as a viable alternative to the current crop.
- atlintots 10mo ago
  I recently learned of Flow, and I don't understand why people group it together with Ladybird and Servo, which are both developing the browser engine from scratch mostly, while Flow seems to be based on Chromium. Is Flow doing anything different compared to the numerous other Chromium-based browsers? Genuinely curious.
  - nicoburns 10mo ago
    Are you talking about https://flow-browser.com https://flow-browser.com ? I wasn't aware of this project before, but it appears to a new chromium based browser. The Flow people are talking about when they talk about Ladybird and Servo is https://www.ekioh.com/flow-browser/ https://www.ekioh.com/flow-browser/ which does have it's own engine. It has a similar level of standards compliance to Servo and Ladybird, although it's not open source which puts it in a somewhat different category.
nticompass 10mo ago
This is why I've been using Firefox forks like Zen or LibreWolf. These forks will disable/strip out the AI stuff, so I never have to see it.
- FuriouslyAdrift 10mo ago
  Palemoon still exists...
- vpShane 10mo ago
  LibreWolf ftw, I switched to it, installed my extensions and am not looking back. Would be nice to have a mobile Firefox(LibreWolf) with all extensions, I should go look around F Droid again. in ff if you're reading this go to about:config and type privacy - why these aren't immediately obvious in the Settings is beyond me
  - MattTheRealOne 10mo ago
    IronFox is essentially LibreWolf for mobile: https://gitlab.com/ironfox-oss/IronFox https://gitlab.com/ironfox-oss/IronFox
trentnix 10mo ago
The beginning of the end was getting rid Brendan Eich for wrongthink. This is the middle of the end.
- bigyabai 10mo ago
  Having seen what Brave became, I'm extremely happy that Eich wasn't allowed to bring his "vision" to my favorite browser.
  - LexiMax 10mo ago
    Even in a compromised state, if given the choice between Firefox and Brave, I would choose Firefox 10 out of 10 times. A closed source chromium fork put out by a business that still isn't sure what its business model is and already has a fair number of "whoopsies" under its belt is a complete non-starter for me. That is, given the choice between Firefox and Brave. For what it's worth, my current browser is Zen, and I'm quite happy with it.
    - homebrewer 10mo ago
      Brave is 100% FOSS. At least the client side, I've not looked into their server applications. https://github.com/brave https://github.com/brave
      - LexiMax 10mo ago
        Fair enough. I'd still be very hesitant to use it on account of it being a chrome fork. Moreover, I don't really understand how Brave expects to be a viable business without deeply betraying their userbase at some point. It admittedly is a gut feeling, but Brave started out with a browser and some handwavy crypto magic beans and seemed like it careened from idea to idea looking for a business model, occasionally stepping on toes along the way. They have products like AI integration, a VPN and a firewall, but those aren't particularly stand-out products in a very crowded market. As a point of comparison, Kagi started out with a product that people were willing to pay for, and grew other services from there. I feel comfortable giving them money, and I'd be willing to at least try their browser - if it ever releases for Windows.
shadowgovt 10mo ago
"Anchor" is interesting. Because it could mean cornerstone or it could mean the thing weighing the company down.
pjmlp 10mo ago
I still use Firefox, however it has been away from our browser matrix since 2019, very few customers worry with browsers under 5% market share.
smaudet 10mo ago
> This really feels like the beginning of the end for Mozilla, sadly. I really feel like every time Mozilla announces something, someone gets paid to leave comments like this around. I've seen many "beginning of the end" comments like this, and so far, it hasn't happened. What I do see is a lot of bashing, and hypocrisy, and excuses for why its OK that you don't personally try to do better...
- mcpar-land 10mo ago
  Personally try to do what better? Run Mozilla? Make a browser?
  - smaudet 10mo ago
    Personally not support monopolies? If firefox is not working, do you have a solution/alternative?
    - Dylan16807 10mo ago
      Are you trying to say that complaining about Mozilla's mistakes supports monopolies? If yes then that's an unreasonable standard to hold people to. If no then I can't figure out what your comment means.
      - smaudet 10mo ago
        Not at all. To clarify, saying something is "over", without really saying what your plan is, is low effort. "This is a problem, and here is what I/we should do", takes a bit more effort. Firefox is still open source last I checked. You can still contribute, write bugs, write letters to the CEO, etc... I'm only taking issue with tendency people have to throw shade without offering a solution.
        Dylan16807 9mo ago
        "low effort" is a completely different statement from supporting monopolies. If that's what you actually meant, sure I guess. But it's really hard for a normal person to do much about steering firefox other than helping raise a fuss. Sometimes there isn't "a solution".
skrtskrt 10mo ago
Kagi's Orion browser is 1.0 on Mac and working on the first full Linux release - it's built on WebKit. That WebKit is a "third party" dependency but it's still a break from the browser monoculture and it doesn't seem like Mozilla has as much interest in pushing the browser engine space forward after pulling back from Servo.
bambax 10mo ago
> It will evolve into a modern AI browser OMG, please, no! What are they thinking and who wants an "AI browser"? > Are there any true alternatives Firefox with blocked updates works pretty well.
- mminer237 10mo ago
  Not updating works until an exploit fixed years ago exfiltrates your bank info
  - account42 10mo ago
    If that's the price to pay for having a working browser until then.
20after4 10mo ago
The beginning of the end was a long time ago. We are well past the middle of the end of Mozilla.
__loam 10mo ago
Safari lol
- dabockster 10mo ago
  Safari has like 20% market share right now. The only thing holding it back is that it's Mac only. If Apple got a Windows version going again, it'd eat Chrome for lunch.
dabockster 10mo ago
I switched to Brave. Even with its cryptocurrency stuff bundled, it's easily disabled and not in your face at all. And their adblock tech is an amazing uBlock successor.
- baobabKoodaa 10mo ago
  I stopped using Brave after they began to shove ads into the splash screen.
  - moltopoco 10mo ago
    That is also easily disabled. I think there are five or six things that I need to disable in a fresh Brave installation and then it's perfect.
    - dabockster 9mo ago
      They also support Group Policy and JSON based configurations, depending on the OS. So you could install a config that disables a lot of that before you even install the Brave Browser. Heck, they could probably sell that as a premium/business feature for extra funding (hint hint if anyone from Brave reads this).
AnonC 10mo ago
> This really feels like the beginning of the end for Mozilla, sadly. This has been said numerous times over the decades anytime Mozilla has done something. Thankfully (at least for me), it hasn’t come true so far.

idiotsecant 10mo ago

I'm excited about what Kagi is doing: https://orionbrowser.com/ https://orionbrowser.com/ I have no illusions that they will turn into google the first chance they get, all companies do. But for now they seem pretty good.

rrradical 10mo ago
I tried Orion about a year ago. I tried using the profile sandboxing. Logging into my google account in one profile also logged me in in another profile. I can definitely excuse some bugs (there were crashes for example that I didn’t overly mind; I understand I was using prerelease software). But something like account containers should be built fundamentally to disallow any data sharing. If data sharing is a bug, and not fundamentally disallowed by the architecture, then it’s going to happen again later. So for that reason I’m not bullish on orion.
- zamadatix 10mo ago
  I'd be interested if the issue you ran into was actually due to poor architecture or just something not fully implemented in the pre-release. Unfortunately, it's closed source - so hard to tell from the outside.
  - rrradical 10mo ago
    Well it was definitely a bug. It worked in some cases (I think it even worked in google at first, and then a few days later it manifested). And the feature was advertised, even though, again, they never claimed the software to be release quality. But my point is that, similar to security, you don't want to build this kind of feature piece meal. Either the containers are fundamentally walled off or they aren't.
    - zamadatix 10mo ago
      I understand what your claim is, I just disagree it's that blanket. You could e.g. absolutely build the UI for a profile switcher before your implementation of the backend changes are merged without carrying implications of how well that will handle isolation in the same way in security you could implement the null cipher in TLS to test that portion of the code without it forever implying you have bad encryption.
baggachipz 10mo ago
Not sure why you're getting downvoted. Orion has matured as a browser and just hit 1.0. It's mac- and ios-only for now, but linux and windows ports are in the works. It has ad-blocking out of the box and has zero telemetry. I use it every day.
- bigyabai 10mo ago
  My two cents - I'm not doing the "proprietary browser" shtick again. Unless I have real assurance that the software isn't going to become a $50/month SaaS, why should I leave my perfectly good current browser? I get the feeling this kind of product will only appeal to unconscious iOS and macOS users. Windows and Linux users have much better (and freer) options than a WebKit wrapper.
- worik 10mo ago
  > Not sure why you're getting downvoted Orion browser is proprietary That would be my guess. That might be OK for you, but I have been burnt, as have many others, by proprietary software If there is a choice, I make it
- rdm_blackhole 10mo ago
  But Orion has the exact same issue that we are facing now with Chrome and Edge and Firefox. Orion is funded by Kagi, so it's a money losing venture. If Kagi folds tomorrow, who will pick the pieces and continue its' development? Replace Orion with Chrome and Kagi with Google and you will find that we are in the same exact boat. Browsers cost money to maintain. Money has to come from somewhere. If the general public does not want to pay then who does? Furthermore, what makes you think that Kagi will not one day do the same exact thing that Google has done with Chrome? Are you willing to bet that it won't happen? And I am not here to bash on Kagi, I am one of their customers but I will not use Orion for the same reason I don't use Chrome.
  - baggachipz 10mo ago
    If Kagi goes tits-up, you could switch to another browser. I don't see how this is a permanent decision.
wyre 10mo ago
Google is what it is because of advertising. Kagi's whole raison d'etre is to have a search engine without advertising.
- idiotsecant 10mo ago
  google is what it is because they have shareholders and need to make money. Maybe Kagi gets around that by setting up as a PBC, I hope so. I am not holding my breath.

this_user 10mo ago

What even is an "AI browser"? It's a browser, it's mainly supposed to render web pages / web apps. There is no obvious reason why it would need any AI features.

TheBigSalad 10mo ago
This is the equivalent of Blockbuster rejecting Netflix.
- deleted 10mo ago
  [deleted]
- christophilus 10mo ago
  Time will tell, but I doubt it.
- cosmic_cheese 10mo ago
  At the risk of becoming the infamous iPod and Dropbox posters, I really don't think so. My browser having an LLM directly integrated adds nothing for my use cases that couldn't be accomplished with a web service or dedicated tool/app. For me, an integrated LLM running concurrently with my browser just represents a whole lot of compute and/or network calls with little added value and I don't think that this is unusual.
  - brians 10mo ago
    Having something that read everything I read and could talk with me about it, help remember things and synthesize? That’s awesome. Follow links and check references.
    - cosmic_cheese 10mo ago
      This use case feels better served by a dedicated utility with a specialized UI rather than shoehorned into a browser. It'd fit the macOS services model (which adds items to context and application menus, e.g. "Research this…" when right-clicking a link or text selection) and could optionally also be summoned by the system app launcher (like Spotlight).

rvz 10mo ago

> This really feels like the beginning of the end for Mozilla, sadly. The moment Mozilla failed to stop being dependent on Google's money whilst being true to their own mission in being a 'privacy first browser' it already was the end and the damage in trust was done. In 2007, the CEO at the time said they could live without Google's money - Now, their entire survival was tied to Google funding them [0] and got rewarded for failure whilst laying off hundreds of engineers working on Firefox. Other than the change in leadership after 17 years of mis-direction, the financial situation has still not changed. Do you still trust them now? > Are there any true alternatives (not dependent on financing or any engines from third parties) to Google, if you wish to use the web in 2025? After thinking about it, the only viable browser that is not funded by Google (Firefox 75%, Safari (>20%) and Chrome) is Ladybird. [1] [0] https://web.archive.org/web/20120105090543/https://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9044160/Mozilla_can_live_without_Google_s_money_Baker_says_ https://web.archive.org/web/20120105090543/https://www.compu... [1] https://ladybird.org/ https://ladybird.org/

rdm_blackhole 10mo ago
> The moment Mozilla failed to stop being dependent on Google's money whilst being true to their own mission in being a 'privacy first browser' it already was the end and the damage in trust was done. I understand your position but what is the alternative funding source that could keep a company making a free browser running? Apple funds Safari's development but it's basically a side project for them, Google funds Chrome's development as side project to their ad business, Edge is the same for Microsoft. Obviously we don't want Firefox to become ad-supported so that leaves either donations which to be honest does not work (see all the OS projects that ask for donations when you install NPM packages for reference) or they need to start charging money (we know how well that worked out for Netscape) or finally find another corporate sponsor willing to shove billions of dollars each year into a product that will not improve their bottom line. I am all for alternatives and I agree with you that something needs to change but the real question is how? Maybe I am presumptuous in this assumption but I am pretty sure that if Mozilla had another palatable solution on the table, they would have probably implemented it by now. > After thinking about it, the only viable browser that is not funded by Google (Firefox 75%, Safari (>20%) and Chrome) is Ladybird. Ladybird is sponsored by many big companies as well. What makes you think that somehow their fate will be any different than Firefox? Do you believe that Shopify for example is more altruistic than Google and therefore should be trusted more? I personally don't. In my opinion the problem is the expectation that things should be free always on the internet and we can thank Google and Facebook for that. Most people these days who are not in the tech world simply have no idea how many hours and how much money it takes to create something, having it used by people and iterating on it day in day out until it is in a good shape and can be used by the general public. Therefore besides a small cohort of users in tech (like Kagi's customers for example who understand that a good search engine is not free), the vast majority of people will not accept to have to pay for a browser. Which brings us back to the question I asked above. Who will fund this supposedly free for all browser that does not track you, that does not show you any ads, that does not incorporate AI features, that does not try to up-sell you or scam you? From my vantage point it's not like there are 100s of solutions to get out of this conundrum.

JoshTriplett 10mo ago

> Are there any true alternatives (not dependent on financing or any engines from third parties) Servo is still a work in progress, but their current positions give a great deal of hope.

TehCorwiz 10mo ago

This is why I'm hopeful that at least one of Ladybird, Flow, and Servo emerge as a viable alternative to the current crop.

atlintots 10mo ago
I recently learned of Flow, and I don't understand why people group it together with Ladybird and Servo, which are both developing the browser engine from scratch mostly, while Flow seems to be based on Chromium. Is Flow doing anything different compared to the numerous other Chromium-based browsers? Genuinely curious.
- nicoburns 10mo ago
  Are you talking about https://flow-browser.com https://flow-browser.com ? I wasn't aware of this project before, but it appears to a new chromium based browser. The Flow people are talking about when they talk about Ladybird and Servo is https://www.ekioh.com/flow-browser/ https://www.ekioh.com/flow-browser/ which does have it's own engine. It has a similar level of standards compliance to Servo and Ladybird, although it's not open source which puts it in a somewhat different category.

nticompass 10mo ago

This is why I've been using Firefox forks like Zen or LibreWolf. These forks will disable/strip out the AI stuff, so I never have to see it.

FuriouslyAdrift 10mo ago
Palemoon still exists...
vpShane 10mo ago
LibreWolf ftw, I switched to it, installed my extensions and am not looking back. Would be nice to have a mobile Firefox(LibreWolf) with all extensions, I should go look around F Droid again. in ff if you're reading this go to about:config and type privacy - why these aren't immediately obvious in the Settings is beyond me
- MattTheRealOne 10mo ago
  IronFox is essentially LibreWolf for mobile: https://gitlab.com/ironfox-oss/IronFox https://gitlab.com/ironfox-oss/IronFox

trentnix 10mo ago

The beginning of the end was getting rid Brendan Eich for wrongthink. This is the middle of the end.

bigyabai 10mo ago
Having seen what Brave became, I'm extremely happy that Eich wasn't allowed to bring his "vision" to my favorite browser.
- LexiMax 10mo ago
  Even in a compromised state, if given the choice between Firefox and Brave, I would choose Firefox 10 out of 10 times. A closed source chromium fork put out by a business that still isn't sure what its business model is and already has a fair number of "whoopsies" under its belt is a complete non-starter for me. That is, given the choice between Firefox and Brave. For what it's worth, my current browser is Zen, and I'm quite happy with it.
  - homebrewer 10mo ago
    Brave is 100% FOSS. At least the client side, I've not looked into their server applications. https://github.com/brave https://github.com/brave
    - LexiMax 10mo ago
      Fair enough. I'd still be very hesitant to use it on account of it being a chrome fork. Moreover, I don't really understand how Brave expects to be a viable business without deeply betraying their userbase at some point. It admittedly is a gut feeling, but Brave started out with a browser and some handwavy crypto magic beans and seemed like it careened from idea to idea looking for a business model, occasionally stepping on toes along the way. They have products like AI integration, a VPN and a firewall, but those aren't particularly stand-out products in a very crowded market. As a point of comparison, Kagi started out with a product that people were willing to pay for, and grew other services from there. I feel comfortable giving them money, and I'd be willing to at least try their browser - if it ever releases for Windows.

shadowgovt 10mo ago

"Anchor" is interesting. Because it could mean cornerstone or it could mean the thing weighing the company down.

pjmlp 10mo ago

I still use Firefox, however it has been away from our browser matrix since 2019, very few customers worry with browsers under 5% market share.

smaudet 10mo ago

> This really feels like the beginning of the end for Mozilla, sadly. I really feel like every time Mozilla announces something, someone gets paid to leave comments like this around. I've seen many "beginning of the end" comments like this, and so far, it hasn't happened. What I do see is a lot of bashing, and hypocrisy, and excuses for why its OK that you don't personally try to do better...

mcpar-land 10mo ago
Personally try to do what better? Run Mozilla? Make a browser?
- smaudet 10mo ago
  Personally not support monopolies? If firefox is not working, do you have a solution/alternative?
  - Dylan16807 10mo ago
    Are you trying to say that complaining about Mozilla's mistakes supports monopolies? If yes then that's an unreasonable standard to hold people to. If no then I can't figure out what your comment means.
    - smaudet 10mo ago
      Not at all. To clarify, saying something is "over", without really saying what your plan is, is low effort. "This is a problem, and here is what I/we should do", takes a bit more effort. Firefox is still open source last I checked. You can still contribute, write bugs, write letters to the CEO, etc... I'm only taking issue with tendency people have to throw shade without offering a solution.
      - Dylan16807 9mo ago
        "low effort" is a completely different statement from supporting monopolies. If that's what you actually meant, sure I guess. But it's really hard for a normal person to do much about steering firefox other than helping raise a fuss. Sometimes there isn't "a solution".

skrtskrt 10mo ago

Kagi's Orion browser is 1.0 on Mac and working on the first full Linux release - it's built on WebKit. That WebKit is a "third party" dependency but it's still a break from the browser monoculture and it doesn't seem like Mozilla has as much interest in pushing the browser engine space forward after pulling back from Servo.

bambax 10mo ago

> It will evolve into a modern AI browser OMG, please, no! What are they thinking and who wants an "AI browser"? > Are there any true alternatives Firefox with blocked updates works pretty well.

mminer237 10mo ago
Not updating works until an exploit fixed years ago exfiltrates your bank info
- account42 10mo ago
  If that's the price to pay for having a working browser until then.

20after4 10mo ago

The beginning of the end was a long time ago. We are well past the middle of the end of Mozilla.

__loam 10mo ago

Safari lol

dabockster 10mo ago
Safari has like 20% market share right now. The only thing holding it back is that it's Mac only. If Apple got a Windows version going again, it'd eat Chrome for lunch.

dabockster 10mo ago

I switched to Brave. Even with its cryptocurrency stuff bundled, it's easily disabled and not in your face at all. And their adblock tech is an amazing uBlock successor.

baobabKoodaa 10mo ago
I stopped using Brave after they began to shove ads into the splash screen.
- moltopoco 10mo ago
  That is also easily disabled. I think there are five or six things that I need to disable in a fresh Brave installation and then it's perfect.
  - dabockster 9mo ago
    They also support Group Policy and JSON based configurations, depending on the OS. So you could install a config that disables a lot of that before you even install the Brave Browser. Heck, they could probably sell that as a premium/business feature for extra funding (hint hint if anyone from Brave reads this).

AnonC 10mo ago

> This really feels like the beginning of the end for Mozilla, sadly. This has been said numerous times over the decades anytime Mozilla has done something. Thankfully (at least for me), it hasn’t come true so far.