4 ms·

I'm surprised to realize this: Firefox must be the best browser there is, in order to fulfill its mission. Shouldn't be so surprising in retrospect (like many

I'm surprised to realize this: Firefox must be the best browser there is, in order to fulfill its mission. Shouldn't be so surprising in retrospect (like many things), but I never fully got that before. Power comes from being chosen by end users. Firefox needs power to be able to resist this kind of crap. In this case, they didn't quite have enough power (probably because they let memory bloat get away from them a few years back, giving Chrome the upper hand which is has done a decent job of holding on to).

cpeterso 12y ago
Similarly, Mozilla tried to take the high road against H.264 in Firefox. Google pledged to drop H.264 from Chrome, too, but reneged on its promise. Mozilla lost users. Google is trying to do the same with EME over HTTPS. Google wants Mozilla to stand together with Firefox and Chrome resisting EME over unprotected HTTP. But they want Firefox to go first (again), even though Chrome is already shipping EME.
bigbugbag 12y ago
It's not about being the best browser, opera has long been the best browser as almost every innovation got copied from opera. It still failed to get a global market share and only came to lead some local markets. Besides chrome didn't get its market share on technical merit alone, but mostly by paying for its installation and targeted PR.
- charlieflowers 12y ago
  What is your criteria for declaring Opera the best browser? I tried it a few years ago, but found it awkward and slow. I'm sure I did not give it a fair chance by reading about its features ... I merely tried it briefly and went back to Firefox.
JohnTHaller 12y ago
A rather large part of Chrome's growth came from marketing. Pushing users of both Internet Explorer and Firefox to download it directly from the Google.com homepage, online ads, offline ads, etc. Firefox has never had access to that kind of marketing. And don't underestimate all the bundleware installs, too. Even today, when upgrading your version of Java in Windows, it still tries to trick you into installing Chrome.
lazyjones 12y ago
> Firefox must be the best browser there is, in order to fulfill its mission. Does caving in to commercial pressure and adding unpopular (for its core audience) features like DRM advance it in that direction, or in the opposite direction? I believe "more of the same" isn't going to help it pull ahead, it needs distinctive features such as more privacy, fewer ads, or even a strong anti-DRM stance. As a (former) large-ish website owner I have to disagree with your assessment. Even browsers with 5% market share (Firefox has 15-20%) have the power to influence design decisions and thus counter browser-based DRM adoption, except strong de facto monopolies (like Google, youtube) that can make or break browsers by supporting or excluding them (youtube has even more influence than Google search currently because of its unique content). It's true that Firefox was simply too bad to use for a couple of years (cue conspiracy theories about Google being their main source of income and desperately trying to push Chrome), but it still had power due to its large user base.

cpeterso 12y ago

Similarly, Mozilla tried to take the high road against H.264 in Firefox. Google pledged to drop H.264 from Chrome, too, but reneged on its promise. Mozilla lost users. Google is trying to do the same with EME over HTTPS. Google wants Mozilla to stand together with Firefox and Chrome resisting EME over unprotected HTTP. But they want Firefox to go first (again), even though Chrome is already shipping EME.

bigbugbag 12y ago

It's not about being the best browser, opera has long been the best browser as almost every innovation got copied from opera. It still failed to get a global market share and only came to lead some local markets. Besides chrome didn't get its market share on technical merit alone, but mostly by paying for its installation and targeted PR.

charlieflowers 12y ago
What is your criteria for declaring Opera the best browser? I tried it a few years ago, but found it awkward and slow. I'm sure I did not give it a fair chance by reading about its features ... I merely tried it briefly and went back to Firefox.

JohnTHaller 12y ago

A rather large part of Chrome's growth came from marketing. Pushing users of both Internet Explorer and Firefox to download it directly from the Google.com homepage, online ads, offline ads, etc. Firefox has never had access to that kind of marketing. And don't underestimate all the bundleware installs, too. Even today, when upgrading your version of Java in Windows, it still tries to trick you into installing Chrome.

lazyjones 12y ago

> Firefox must be the best browser there is, in order to fulfill its mission. Does caving in to commercial pressure and adding unpopular (for its core audience) features like DRM advance it in that direction, or in the opposite direction? I believe "more of the same" isn't going to help it pull ahead, it needs distinctive features such as more privacy, fewer ads, or even a strong anti-DRM stance. As a (former) large-ish website owner I have to disagree with your assessment. Even browsers with 5% market share (Firefox has 15-20%) have the power to influence design decisions and thus counter browser-based DRM adoption, except strong de facto monopolies (like Google, youtube) that can make or break browsers by supporting or excluding them (youtube has even more influence than Google search currently because of its unique content). It's true that Firefox was simply too bad to use for a couple of years (cue conspiracy theories about Google being their main source of income and desperately trying to push Chrome), but it still had power due to its large user base.