
Choose Firefox Now, Or Later You Won't Get A Choice - walterbell
http://robert.ocallahan.org/2014/08/choose-firefox-now-or-later-you-wont.html?showComment=1408137721125
======
srean
Almost every other comment that have been posted so far are complaining that
FF tabs are not independent processes. Let me express my contrarian opinion.
For my use case FF is just excellent and has served me well, I have absolutely
no complains now. There was a time when FF leaked, and held a lot of memory,
that time has since passed, at least seams so.

I regularly keep _several_ hundreds of tabs open for months on end on my PCs
one a 32 bit m/c another a 64 bit both with about a Gig of RAM (one a shade
below 1 Gig). Trying to do the same with Chrome has been a torture.

I have used Chrome, its pretty good, but am very happy with FF. Some people
get allergic reactions when I mention keeping so many tabs open, I have
commented about it here
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2936369#up_2936784](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2936369#up_2936784)

A few others have a snark ready, "buy some RAM", I perhaps could, but I would
rather use my RAM for other purposes than clogging it with a browser (cat
pictures), window manager eye candy etc. In addition, this low RAM environment
has turned out to be a good filter, software written without much attention to
detail or resource efficiency just doesnt run well, and thats perfectly fine
with me. I like hanging out with better ones.

~~~
icantthinkofone
In fact, the infamous memory leak Firefox was 'famous' for was fixed in
version 2.5 which tells me that anyone who still complains of memory leaks in
Firefox is one who you do not want to listen to for advice.

EDIT: I may have the version number wrong, it's been a long time, and, yes,
the "leak" was a combination of things and not just one thing but my point is
the same.

~~~
Pacabel
What makes you so sure that there was ever only one memory leak? What makes
you so sure that one or more new ones haven't been introduced since then?

I've seen and heard a lot of reports from many different Firefox users about
Firefox using an unreasonably large amount of memory, even when using fresh
installations of the most recent version, and when engaging in very reasonable
browsing patterns.

As a software developer faced with a large and frequent volume of reports of
such a nature, the only responsible thing to do is to assume that there is
truly a problem. This should be assumed even if the developers themselves may
be having trouble reproducing the problem. Denying that the problem exists is
usually the most counterproductive thing that can be done, because the problem
likely does actually exist, and it doesn't get fixed.

By the way, I don't believe that there ever was a Firefox 2.5 release. Perhaps
you mean Firefox 3.5?

~~~
dblohm7
Once again, nobody is denying anything about memory problems. But there are
two things at play here:

1\. One person's experience is not universal. With a web browser as
customizable as Firefox, there will be certain configurations causing problems
that aren't caught by tests or by dogfooding. Some people are probably seeing
leaks that users with a default configuration don't see. For example:
[https://blog.mozilla.org/nnethercote/2014/08/15/the-story-
of...](https://blog.mozilla.org/nnethercote/2014/08/15/the-story-of-a-tricky-
bug/)

2\. People need to report their problems in ways that are actionable. HN is
not a bug tracker. If somebody on HN (Hacker News! News for programmers who
presumably know how a bug tracker works!) is having memory issues, (s)he
should have no problems filing a bug in Bugzilla. Firefox has had about:memory
for years now; save that report and attach it to your bug.

------
specialp
This is actually very true. Having Chrome/V8 out there has definitely improved
the state of browsers as far as performance; especially in regards to
JavaScript. But now we face a situation where Google is getting such a market
share with Chrome and their other web properties where lock in is a very real
possibility, and the only way to keep an open, standardized web is to make
sure there are still other browsers with major market share.

I once switched from Firefox to Chrome as Firefox became bloated and drifted
away from its original mission to be a light weight branch from Mozilla (the
browser). Now it is much better, but I still end up using Chrome when doing
front end development as the developer tools on Chrome are fantastic. I do
notice lately though that Firefox is putting new emphasis on devtools.

~~~
higherpurpose
Lock-in has already begun on Chrome. Now you can't install Chrome extensions
from anywhere else but the Chrome store (which means only stuff Google agrees
with). Chrome is as closed-down as iOS and WP8 right now (For shame, Google!).
It's actually the main reasons I'm waiting to switch from it soon. But not
until Firefox gets a security sandbox.

~~~
scrollaway
This is not lock in (not for the purpose of lock-in anyway) \- it's for
security reasons and it is in fact exclusive to Windows. Chrome was getting
abused by thousands of extra-crapware installers which would install extra
extensions etc. They have taken a gradual response to the issue but it always
came down to ">99% of outside extensions installed on windows are crapware.
This is exclusive to Windows due to its permission model. This gives users a
very bad impression of chrome. Now what?"

I get it, honestly. But hey, if you don't want lock in, the hell are you doing
on Windows?

~~~
Silhouette
_Chrome was getting abused by thousands of extra-crapware installers which
would install extra extensions etc._

Chrome is a prime offender in the "installing unwanted add-ons" game. I'm
using Firefox right now, and it has a "Google Update" extension installed that
I certainly didn't put there. My system has a silent Google Update process
that runs in the background as well. Neither of these, to my knowledge, gave
me any choice about installing or even actively announced their presence or
what they're doing.

Chrome is a prime offender in the "undermining the system security model" game
as well. Just look at how Chrome is installed and handles auto-updates on
Windows. It actively circumvents the normal user access control system and
pollutes a data directory with executable code, with all the negative
consequences that come from that.

Maybe Google should clean up their own yard before they spend too much time
criticizing everyone else's?

~~~
scrollaway
1\. They are not criticizing, they are preventing. 2\. You are full of it.
Everything you are talking about is part of the Google Updater. An _open
source_ program which keeps Chrome (and various other google products if
installed) up to date. Needless to say, these updaters don't even exist on
Linux and are only there on Windows because of the latter's absolutely moronic
handling of updates.

As for Chrome undermining the system security model: [citation needed]

------
dmethvin
How can everyone--including O'Callahan--be giving Apple a free pass on this
issue? Pointer events are a great example of Apple's obstructionism. The W3C
tried for years to standardize touch events and Apple blocked them several
times by claiming patent rights. Microsoft proposed pointer events, and
everyone seems to agree that they are much better as a future standard and a
way to unify pointer models, but Apple seems to have no interest in
implementing them.

Whether you agree with Google or not (I don't), be realistic and admit that
any web platform standard like pointer events that lacks an Apple
implementation won't help developers--how good is a "standard" that doesn't
work on the iPhone/iPad? My guess is that Apple sees no reason to move quickly
on improving web standards, since they'd rather have people develop for their
proprietary walled garden. They just created a new proprietary language to do
so!

Microsoft and Mozilla lack the market share in mobile devices to be able to
move standards in any direction by themselves. Google is in the driver's seat.
Apple is willing to sit quietly in the back and we seem to be okay with that?

~~~
shangxiao
I didn't read that he was giving Apple a free pass, more like the lesser of 2
evils.

------
codeflo
As someone who switches browsers about every six months, I feel that Firefox
is still quite a bit behind in terms of stability and performance. I mostly
blame the single-process model, which makes crashes and hangups way more
global than they should be in 2014.

On Windows, there's also the 32-bit issue. On machines with 8+ GB of RAM,
having all tabs share a 2 GB address space just doesn't cut it. Especially
when your addon model, one of the key features that sets Firefox apart from
other browsers, eats an additional 4 MB of this limited space per tab (and
that's just for one addon).[1]

Having said all that, I know that brilliant people are working on fixing this,
and there have been huge improvements in the past year. And that's how I hope
they'll win back users: by building a better browser, not just by appealing to
open-source ideals and fear.

[1] [https://blog.mozilla.org/nnethercote/2014/05/14/adblock-
plus...](https://blog.mozilla.org/nnethercote/2014/05/14/adblock-pluss-effect-
on-firefoxs-memory-usage/)

~~~
zobzu
Personally, I use firefox nightly and i get a couple of crashes a year...

I also use chrome extensively... and i get crashes about once... a month (im
not talking about tab crashes but entiere browser crash)

So im not convinced by the whole multi process thing for stability reasons. It
seems like a good idea for sandboxing or "webapps" and only so IF you also
have separate cookie jars, etc.

(and i trust chrome more for security)

I'd rather have 2 processes, one for the GUI, one for the tabs ;)

~~~
jasonkostempski
I use Chrome on everything, no plugins. I can't remember a crash in the last
year on Windows or Mac but Linux has lately been telling me it did crash but
it really didn't. What are you on? Got any plugins?

------
recalibrator
Developers, please stop making add-ons and extensions for Google products. You
accelerate Google's domination and vendor lock-in when you do.

~~~
myrryr
What are we to do? We build data visualization software, but firefox is REALLY
slow at rendering SVG (so no d3 for us). We have a choice of asking our
customers to run ie11 or chrome, since both run quickly.

We would recommend firefox, since we really like the Mozilla foundation, but
the performance of it is so bad we have to steer people away from it.

It is a sad state of affairs.

~~~
GlennS
I'm a little surprised by this. I can believe that Firefox is slower (I
haven't done the comparison myself), but even so it's still capable of
rendering hundreds of thousands of points or thousands of complicated
geometric shapes.

I would have thought it you had more data than that then the points will all
be rammed together and hard to distinguish, so it would be better to switch to
density plots.

~~~
shangxiao
I've also noticed it slower on an SVG based app. Not terribly slower, just
enough to make it look slightly glitchy compared with the smoothness of Chrome
with interactive actions like drag n dropping components around.

------
jfuhrman
For those saying Google is a benevolent company, here are a few signs that the
bean counters are taking over:

Tracking Google Apps for Education and even paid Google Apps for Business
emails to build ad profiles, making misleading statement to the public that
they're not doing so, and then when it finally came to statements to federal
court, lacking the dare to continue lying and finally confessing the truth and
then claiming the consumer Gmail policy applied to Apps for Education data.

[http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2014/03/13/26google.h33.ht...](http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2014/03/13/26google.h33.html)

Conspiring to kill SkyHook(and succeeding) with its 500lb outsized influence
like Microsoft used to.

[http://www.theverge.com/2011/05/12/google-android-skyhook-
la...](http://www.theverge.com/2011/05/12/google-android-skyhook-lawsuit-
motorola-Samsung)

Tracking the physical location of Android phones for ad purposes without
properly informing users and disabling things like Google Now if you disable
the tracking.

[http://digiday.com/platforms/google-
tracking/](http://digiday.com/platforms/google-tracking/)

Google employee access personal information of others. Google says it has
fixed the issue, but how do we even know? Is there any legal safeguard against
someone at Google reading your email?

[http://gawker.com/5637234/gcreep-google-engineer-stalked-
tee...](http://gawker.com/5637234/gcreep-google-engineer-stalked-teens-spied-
on-chats)

Paid inclusion for shopping search results

[http://marketingland.com/once-deemed-evil-google-now-
embrace...](http://marketingland.com/once-deemed-evil-google-now-embraces-
paid-inclusion-13138)

Ranking Google+ reviews over Yelp results even if the user explicitly searches
for Yelp

[http://www.searchenginejournal.com/yelp-complains-
outranked-...](http://www.searchenginejournal.com/yelp-complains-outranked-
google-local-listings/111539/)

Decreasing contrast in the background of ads, this especially hurts older
people as ability to see contrast decreases with age, and the FTC found that
almost half the people fail to notice that there are ads on the page, thus
forcing products that are first in the organic results to pay Google for ads.

[http://ppcblog.com/fbf0fa-now-you-see-itor-maybe-
not/](http://ppcblog.com/fbf0fa-now-you-see-itor-maybe-not/)

[http://blumenthals.com/blog/2012/01/31/is-google-
intentional...](http://blumenthals.com/blog/2012/01/31/is-google-
intentionally-trying-to-minimize-the-fact-that-these-are-ads/)

[http://wallstcheatsheet.com/stocks/ftc-googles-ad-
practice-i...](http://wallstcheatsheet.com/stocks/ftc-googles-ad-practice-is-
deceptive.html/?a=viewall)

Making people literally cry with the forced Google+ integration into Youtube.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ccxiwu4MaJs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ccxiwu4MaJs)
(warning, NSFW language)

Extracting petty revenge on CNET for googling(!) information on its CEO

[http://money.cnn.com/2005/08/05/technology/google_cnet/](http://money.cnn.com/2005/08/05/technology/google_cnet/)

~~~
jfuhrman
Edit: I can't edit my post, perhaps due to the downvotes(why downvote without
replying?), so here's a couple more.

Tying Android App store to having Google search engine as default on Android,
ensuring that alternative search engines cannot be shipped as default.

[http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2014/02/12/documents-shed-
light-...](http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2014/02/12/documents-shed-light-on-
google-rules-for-android/)

Stopping Acer from shipping Aliyun OS by threatening to pull the Play Store
and Android beta access. Bonus points for enforcing this by the duplicitous
moniker 'Open Handset Alliance' doublespeak

[http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2012/09/report-google-
threate...](http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2012/09/report-google-threatened-
acer-forced-it-to-dump-rival-os/)

~~~
findjashua
You stated facts, with sources. I can't see why someone would downvote, and
that too without stating the reason. I upvoted to counter at least one
downvoter.

~~~
personZ
They also created a new account to post a mixed list of random complaints.
Sorry it's actually a _repost_ given that this identical list was posted by
angularfan -- also a fresh new account created purely to post this list -- 20
days ago. Is that really the behavior HN wants?

~~~
kybernetyk
> Is that really the behavior HN wants?

He/She might have good reasons for anonymity. As long as the post contributes
to the discussion I don't really care if the account is 10 years or 10 days
old or if it has been posted 20 days ago.

~~~
personZ
It _doesn 't_ contribute to the discussion. It's a wall of noise hit list of
entirely random quality, that draws absolute, nefarious conclusions from
complex situations.

If someone hates Google, then sure, it's "contributing". If you're just
looking for information it's just extremist nonsense.

Indeed, this very _submission_ was already submitted a week ago (just as that
hit list appeared before), and of course would have been blocked by HN as a
dupe but made it through courtesy of the fun of querystrings.

~~~
stephenr
Right, because on a comment thread about google's ever-increasing control over
the web/etc, the following are irrelevant:

* A court case about breaching US federal privacy laws

* A court case about Google using it's relationship with device manufacturers to negatively impact a company with a competing service

* An article about how Google tracks mobile users and the disclosure/notification about said tracking, with input from the EFF

* An article about how Google was less than open and transparent about the handling of an employee who spied on/stalked four underage users of Google services

* Several articles about what are basically deceptive practices - paid inclusions, much less identifiable ads compared to organic search results and artificially increasing the search rank of it's own properties when a search mentions a specific competitor

* An article about Google's decision to refuse any interaction with a news agency that posted an article discussing Google in relation to privacy concerns, in which they demonstrate the risks by publishing material about Eric Schmidt that was found via google searches

But no, you are right. None of them are relevant. Remember what I said in
another comment about cult-like status? Should I call Rick Ross for you?

~~~
kybernetyk
Yes, it's interesting. Anything that is remotely critical of Google gets
downvoted pretty quick here on HN. Now I don't know if it's because many
Google employees browse HN or because people still believe in that "don't be
evil" marketing babel.

~~~
stephenr
As I said in another comment, google has reached cult status with a lot of
tech people.

------
pdkl95
Separate process tabs? Rendering and javascript speed? UI features? I know
it's popular on HN to focus on technical features, but that entirely misses
the point of this post.

Technical features will continue to improve over time. The browser that is
"best" in any given area will change as the code evolves. Most of the other
reasons to like a given browser are the subjective opinions we all have or the
particular use cases we have in mind.

None of this matters. When comparing Firefox and Chrome, the substantive
difference isn't which browser is faster or which browser uses less memory.
The difference that matters is the power of monopoly and what their dominance
means for our future. Supporting Chrome by using it is a vote in support of
Google being able to dictate standards. Chrome already sends way too much
data[1] for storage[2] and analysis.

Even worse, using Chrome instead of Firefox will eventually damage the Free
Software[3] ecosystem. While most people focus one the availability of source
code, barriers in interoperability is the more fastest and most effective way
restrict both developer and user freedom. This is why the LGPLv2 puts a
special restriction on static linking; you (usually) can't replace or modify
the Free Software components unless they are dynamically linked[4]. We already
see Google following Apple's lead in restricting phones. Do you really want
the browser to end up with Android-style limitations[5]?

Even though I don't think it's a good idea to let _anybody_ aggregate and
analyze all the data we generate, I can respect the decision of someone who
actually _wants_ Google/Chrome to win over Firefox. I'm primarily suggesting
that there are Big Issues going on around us and - intentional or not - there
seems to be a lot of people being distracted by stuff that won't matter in the
long run.

    
    
        "...we have to create the future, or others would do it for us."
            - Ivonova, B5/"Sleeping In Light"
    
    

[1] Firefox has problems here as well, unfortunately.

[2] Even if Prism and XKeyScore didn't exist, that data is still merely a
subpoena or "national security letter" away from the NSA or any other branch
of government.

[3] "Open Source" is _not_ the same thing.

[4] (lack of) interoperability is also the problem a lot of us have with
systemd. Too much focus on technical features that distracts from the threat
to interoperability.

[5] [https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/android-and-users-
freedom.htm...](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/android-and-users-freedom.html)

~~~
dep_b
The reason to stop using Firefox on my Mac was battery life, Safari handles
this so much better that it was impossible to ignore. On Windows 8 whenever I
use I tend to use Internet Explorer as it's better optimised for HDPI screens.
But I still love Firefox and I'm ready to return to the nest again as soon as
the battery life issue is fixed.

~~~
api
Honestly I think the OP's title should really be "use something other than
Chrome." The fear here is that Chrome (and Google) are approaching critical
mass that would allow platform lock in.

I personally think that Gmail is the greater threat. In looking at users
signed up on a service of mine, I see _almost all GMail_. It's breathtaking.
Pretty soon Google will have the ability to basically embrace-extend-
extinguish the Internet's most useful service.

I too use Safari on Mac. Better integration with the OS. Chrome is _slightly_
faster but meh.

~~~
eropple
I use Google Apps for Business because I no longer have to think about the
bullshit around mail and spam, and that's not going to change until the
alternatives are worth the time they require me to invest. I get the argument
regarding Gmail, but if you want somebody to not use Gmail, you're gonna have
to be better than Gmail. Nobody is. (Outlook.com is okay, but their web client
is garbage and email is one of fairly few things I want as a web app.)

~~~
api
I don't disagree. GMail conquered the world by investing a lot in overcoming
the spam problem.

------
wingerlang
I've gone back to FF after using Chrome literally form the day it landed. I
changed because of vimperator + the ability to theme the header slimmer (i'm
on laptop 24/7).

But frankly it kind of sucks a bit and I have to jump over to Chrome a lot
because almost no videos will play in FF.

~~~
ck2
Firefox 33 will have native h.264 support so that will solve the video
problem.

September 2nd will bring 33beta

~~~
stesch
Together with the developer tools this will be a hell of a release. 33 sounds
nice.

------
tux
I really like firefox and still use it as my main browser. But you guys
started to force users to your own standards. By locking or removing many
options.

For example, you have locked (left and right) arrows and now refresh button.
What's next home button ? I don't mind arrows been locked, even throught I
like to have a choice. But having my refresh button locked in one place
without ability to move it to alternative spot is just rediculous.

Then you guys completely removed JavaScript disable option, even throught I
can still enable it by going to "about:config" and switching
"javascript:enabled" from "true" to "false".

Another weird option which is missing is ability to disable PDF view inside
firefox browser. Again I can use "about:config" and switch "pdfjs.disabled"
from "false" to "true".

But having this options in Preferences will be much better.

Not to mantion a lot of websites load much faster in Chrome or Chromium then
Firefox.

I think this is why many people ether user it as second browser or switching
from Firefox to Chrome/Chromium.

As for Google search engine, I have been using "DuckDuckGo.com" as alternative
for some time now. For email use "ZoHo.com" instead of Gmail.com

~~~
walterbell
We need a community-edited index of debatable changes, linked to bugzilla
issues where the rationale is discussed. This would be a subset of the overall
changelog, which has many technical changes that arent controversial among
users or the developer ecosystem.

------
k4rthik
I agree with Paul Graham on this one. "Has any other company grown to Google's
size and remained as benevolent? (Not saying they're perfect, just the best
that big.)"
([https://twitter.com/paulg/status/495948643149426688](https://twitter.com/paulg/status/495948643149426688))
I'll stick with Chrome for now as I find it slightly better than firefox.

~~~
pasiaj
While I do agree, there have been many signs that times they are a changin'

~~~
TeMPOraL
Please enumerate at least some of those signs.

~~~
BrandonM
A different user replied with a very comprehensive list that is now
inexplicably deleted. It included a story about Google using its leverage to
oust location services competitor SkyHook:
[http://mobile.theverge.com/2011/05/12/google-android-
skyhook...](http://mobile.theverge.com/2011/05/12/google-android-skyhook-
lawsuit-motorola-samsung)

Edit: looks like they changed it to a top-level comment:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8186125](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8186125)

------
mythz
If the premise here is that Google is the evil empire, why is Google still on
the Home Page when running Firefox?? Apparently large sums of money can have
an effect on ethics.

Obviously the underlying goal here is a plea for more FF marketshare, but it's
a tad hypocritical if the message is to not use services from a company you're
promoting yourself. That's do as I say, not as I do type stuff.

~~~
sabbatic13
Keep mind that Google was initially installed as the default search engine
years ago, because FF users voted for it to be so. Only after Google saw how
many search referrals they then got from FF, did they, that is Google, suggest
an actual deal (which paid, incidentally, only a few percent of the market
value for those referrals.). That deal doesn't include anything preventing
users from changing the defaults.

Consider as well the Awesome Bar. The ability to search your history easily
resulted in fewer users going back to Google and generating search referrals.
Mozilla implemented it anyway, because it was good for the user.

You seem to be missing the point that overthrows your assertion. Yes, there is
still a deal with Google, but Mozilla doesn't care if doing and advocating
what's good for the user makes that relationship less and less valuable for
Google. They are, in fact, sacrificing potential financial gain for the sake
of their principles.

Mozilla has numerous, egregious faults, but this kind of hypocrisy and ethical
lapses aren't among them.

~~~
mythz
> Mozilla doesn't care if doing and advocating what's good for the user makes
> that relationship less and less valuable for Google. They are, in fact,
> sacrificing potential financial gain for the sake of their principles.

Ahh, No. They're biting the hand that feeds them while they're still being
fed, which just makes them look tacky. They admittingly see the writing on the
wall, with declining mind and marketshare to Google which is what's prompted
this post - which isn't in the users best interests, it's what's in their own.
Users also end up using what they believe is the best or most convenient
choice. Which is fine, everyone has the right to do what's best for
themselves.

Mozilla had their opportunity to go with another Search Provider in Dec 2011
when they renewed their agreement with Google:
[https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2011/12/20/mozilla-and-
google-...](https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2011/12/20/mozilla-and-google-sign-
new-agreement-for-default-search-in-firefox/)

------
userbinator
I use Chrom(ium), Firefox, IE, and Opera, and even Lynx, so I have no
particular loyalty to any one browser, but it doesn't feel like there is all
that much of a choice anymore among the "mainstream" ones as they all seem to
be converging in design. Even Opera, which used to use its own rendering
engine, has moved to WebKit, and Blink is not all that different from WebKit
either. I certainly hope Mozilla will never choose to turn Firefox into yet
another WebKit shell, and neither Microsoft with IE.

Web developers trying to make their pages look _exactly_ the same in "all
browsers" may enjoy a browser monopoly since it reduces the effort, but I
think that's the wrong way to do it; instead, they should aim for "similar
enough" \- after all, content is what site visitors are after. The idea of
progressive enhancement/graceful degradation, which can make for a better
environment for browser diversity, seems to be completely lost on many
developers.

~~~
slasaus
"Web developers trying to make their pages look exactly the same in "all
browsers" may enjoy a browser monopoly since it reduces the effort, but I
think that's the wrong way to do it; ... The idea of progressive
enhancement/graceful degradation, which can make for a better environment for
browser diversity, seems to be completely lost on many developers."

Sometimes it helps to remind them of IE6 in order to make webdevs realize that
a monopoly wasn't that good for them either.

------
tambourine_man
If your only argument is ideology, you are in serious trouble. I know from
experience.

Firefox changed the game back in the early 2000s not only because it fought
for the open web, but because it was way better than the competition.

Granted, beating a very actively developed product is much harder than a
stagnant one. Google's got a lot of smart people working on it. I think
Mozilla is going to have radicalize and go places where competition isn't
willing to be. Crazy different features and UI besides evangelizing on
privacy.

~~~
ZenoArrow
If eye candy is more of a feature to you than privacy then what does that say?
Would you give up all privacy and choice for something flashy?

~~~
tambourine_man
If user interface is eye candy to you then what does that say?

~~~
ZenoArrow
Do you really feel like the Firefox UI is subpar?

~~~
tambourine_man
No, but being on equal footing is not enough.

~~~
ZenoArrow
Sure it is. If Firefox and Chrome have similar UI, similar performance,
similar functionality, but Firefox also has the added benefit of respecting
your privacy, the only reason to use Chrome over Firefox is an emotional one.

~~~
tambourine_man
So, basically keep the same course of action. It's not working great, hence
the article.

Mozilla can't advertise their browser on every search query or offer better
integration with Google services. If they continue to pursue being similar to
Chrome they'll just keep sliding away into irrelevance.

------
darklajid
Ff fan here. Running Aurora on desktop, laptop and mobile.

Love the project, have nothing but minor complains. Currently leading the
list: For quite a while FF on Android has a 'broken' long press menu on links.
Someone thought that it should be

Share Link ->

Open Link in New Tab

Open Link in Private Tab

Copy Link

Bookmark Link

I.. guess I don't understand how others use their browser. The last action
doesn't make sense to me (bookmarking a link I haven't visited/open?), but
worse: The first item annoys the hell out of me. Same question applies (share
a link that isn't open?), but reserving the top spot for that? In my world you
use the 'open in *tab' operations or copy a link. I regularly hit 'Share Link'
and curse about the UX and shake my head trying to figure out what process
lead to this design.

Minor quibbles.. :-) Best browser, hands down.

~~~
lucb1e
> (bookmarking a link I haven't visited/open?),

Yes, to read it later. I don't, but I know many people use it this way.

> The first item annoys the hell out of me.

It's not that huge to get around. I have yet to use any share button in any OS
or application or website (I copy the link to chats or forums or where I need
them if I want to share anything), but I don't really mind it either. Would
love to see stats on how often the UI options are used, though. I don't know
anyone using those share options. But then again, I don't have many
"mainstream" (non-techies) friends :p

~~~
darklajid
Oh, I use the 'share' feature. For sites I'm looking at right now. In that
case it is a prominent button right next to bookmark.

I haven't used those features on a random link (vs. page). Agreed, some
telemetry about these features or the story behind those would be interesting.

------
wlv
They make great stuff but it is worrying they control everything and buy
everything they don't and it feels like they're locking small businesses out
of the search results these days, preferring to only link to major established
sites.

------
rburhum
I read this and said, yep, let's switch for all my home surfing. Nevertheless,
I only use my iPad for browsing at home (running Chrome). As soon as I went to
the Mozilla site to download Firefox for iOS, I realized Apple is blocking it.
I can only imagine what would happen if Microsoft blocked Chrome from
installing on Windows. It is time for some laws to be made around this topic.

------
Bahamut
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8151180](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8151180)

Prior discussion

~~~
dang
Correct. We've demoted the current thread as a dupe.

------
e40
I was fully on the Chrome train. For a long time. It was a good ride, until I
really started to suffer Chrome bugs. I would often find a huge discussion on
the chrome google group, and sometimes the thread would be months old. It
became clear to me that Google doesn't care about fixing bugs that affect
users.

At the point that the bugs were interfering with my daily life, I switched to
Firefox. There are a few extensions I miss, but overall, it's made my life
better.

The only thing I really miss is the separation of tabs from each other, so
that one tab can't bring down the entire browser. It is very rare, but I was
visiting a site yesterday that did it. It was painful to wait until the UI
would be responsive enough to kill the tab.

------
FreakyT
Firefox on Windows is nice, but on the Mac the UI feels just slightly off,
presumably thanks to the XUL layer. Until they finally ditch XUL and just
start doing native UIs, I suspect they'll always be playing catch up in the
"feeling native" game. Here are a few examples:

* Still no elastic scrolling, 3 entire years after that became the standard scroll behavior for all Mac apps (this started in Mac OS 10.7)

* Still missing HiDPI icons for most toolbar and sidebar icons, 2 years after the first Retina Macbooks were released

* Took nearly THREE YEARS to adopt the new scrollbar style first seen in Mac OS 10.7 [1]

[1]
[https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=636564](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=636564)

~~~
kristofferR
Elastic scrolling was actually activated for a while, but they disabled it
since it caused performance issues (especially on retina screens) due to the
way it was coded:
[https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=673875](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=673875)
[https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=939480](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=939480)

~~~
FreakyT
Interesting! That is also a great example of how XUL tends to force the
developers to re-invent the wheel every time the OS GUI elements change,
causing Firefox to lag considerably behind Chrome and Safari's UIs.

------
dammitcoetzee
Everyone's mentioning this separate process business and subtle engine
differences web developers compensate for and I never experience. However,I
really don't care about all that. Chrome is just nicer to use: one search/url
bar, few buttons but all purposeful, can drag and split windows easily. Best
browser. Only recently annoying thing is it asking me to sign up for some sort
of sync constantly. I have no idea why I'd ever want to do that. When I load
up Firefox I'm just overwhelmed by how much stuff there is. If someone made a
chrome-like Firefox I'd use it no problem.

~~~
Silhouette
_Chrome is just nicer to use: one search /url bar, few buttons but all
purposeful, can drag and split windows easily._

This is why the browser market is challenging: to me, all three of the things
you mentioned are negatives.

I _don 't want_ a single URL and search bar that sends every character I type
to the mothership. I value my privacy and am particularly aggressive at
defending it on the Web.

I _don 't want_ a slimmed down UI where everything is hidden away. I have
nice, big screens in front of me, and I want features I use all the time
available with as little effort as possible. Almost every change Firefox has
made in its UI recently has been a step backwards for me.

I _don 't want_ splitting and dragging windows to be too easy. I have desktop
management software to lay things out properly, and those big screens. The
last thing I need is an accidental drag when I pushed the mouse button a
moment too soon and picked up a tab splitting everything up so I have to spend
the next half-minute fiddling around to put it back again.

YMMV, and the next guy's mileage may vary from both of ours. Pleasing a large
market is difficult. But I can't help thinking that Mozilla's current
strategy, which seems to be the bastard child of Microsoft (make it the same
on all platforms) and Google (hide almost everything in the UI by default), is
doomed to failure if only because they probably can't beat either Microsoft or
Google at their own games and they'll alienate the people who liked Firefox
because it _wasn 't_ those things as long as they try.

------
AshleysBrain
> "Other bad things are happening that I can't even talk about."

This may be true but it doesn't seem to do much to bolster the argument. I
just want to know - what are those things?

------
DCKing
"Google is bent on establishing platform domination unlike anything we've ever
seen, even from late-1990s Microsoft." [citation needed]. I think this is an
assumption, and it needs to have some basis. Can somebody explain to me _why_
it would be in Google's interest to obtain platform dominance?

I find their own reasoning for making Android and Chrome in the first place
quite compelling. They're making platforms from which it is easy to use their
services and distributing them freely. With that in mind _how_ is creating
lock-in in their interests? What motives would they have for creating a lock-
in with their platforms? Why would Google want to risk less use of their
products from other browsers and platforms? Google makes money from the use of
their services, but not from Chrome directly. The only way they're making
money on Android "directly" is the Play Store.

The examples mentioned in the blog post are not very strong examples of Google
creating lock-in. Of course offline Docs is coming to Chrome (and Chromebooks)
first. Google has long announced that Chrome would become Android's default
browser (and was criticized when it was not). I don't think they are
particularly laudable actions on their own, but I don't think they are
evidence of a bigger Google plan to create lock-in.

~~~
VikingCoder
Also, if it's lock-in, they're handing out the keys. Android and Chrome are
open source, and you can easily download all of your data out of most of their
services.

~~~
stephenr
Android is open source in the same way that I can eat a cockroach.

In theory, yes. In practice, you can forget about.

~~~
DCKing
It doesn't matter whether you can download the source for the devices you buy
in the store. Not in the context of this discussion about vendor lock-in.
You're using a red herring.

The point is: if you don't like devices on sale with Chrome, Chrome OS or
Android, you can download the source code and make it run on your own devices.
Google really doesn't mind at all if you do that.

The point is: Google doesn't profit from "selling" Chrome, or profit from
"selling" Android. It profits whenever Chrome is used, or it profits whenever
Android is used (most of the time at least for both). Similarily, it profits
whenever Firefox is used and whenever iOS is used (most of the time for both).
Therefore, although Google _likes_ that you use Chrome or Android to access
their services, what it _wants_ is just that you use their services regardless
what platform you use.

It has no reason for it to desire a complete lock-in because their products
are just _means to an end_ , not ends in themselves.

~~~
stephenr
I was referring more to the fact that what Google says ("embrace the open
web", "open source wins", etc) don't really mean shit.

Chrome isn't open source, chromium is. What are the extra bits in chrome?

My issue is not that google does what it does, my issue is the religious cult
like status so many tech related people give google, in spite of their
numerous and repeated attempts to control so many facts of the digital
landscape

~~~
yohui
> _Chrome isn 't open source, chromium is. What are the extra bits in chrome?_

[https://code.google.com/p/chromium/wiki/ChromiumBrowserVsGoo...](https://code.google.com/p/chromium/wiki/ChromiumBrowserVsGoogleChrome)

Plus, if you're on Windows or Mac, the auto-updater for Chrome.

The most significant differences are probably that Chrome has oit-of-the-box
support for AAC, H.264, MP3, and Flash that Chromium does not have (by
default).

~~~
stephenr
When the whole issue being discussed is about Google's control/power, and the
potential for mis-use, and general mis-trust of Google, it seems a little odd
to reference a google supplied document about the differences between the open
source and commercial versions.

If they are doing nefarious things (e.g. if they shipped something that
benefited their own web properties and hurt others) they wouldn't exactly
publicise that, now would they?

------
sauere
Remember the early 2000 days? When Internet Explorer had a 95%+ market share?
Well look at where we are now... we have a somewhat diverse market with IE,
Chrome, Firefox, Opera and Safari. Not counting some other new and upcoming
browsers such as Midori. The browser market has a healthy competition and can
fix itself if one player is abusing their power. If you belive that Chrome is
a threat to your privacy, feel free to use Firefox or something else.

~~~
nathan_long
> The browser market has a healthy competition and can fix itself if one
> player is abusing their power. If you belive that Chrome is a threat to your
> privacy, feel free to use Firefox or something else.

Are you trying to disagree with the OP? Because he's saying "the browser
market should fix itself via you choosing Firefox because Chrome is a threat
to your privacy."

He's saying "we should do X because Y", and you're saying "no, everything is
fine because we can do X if Y".

------
zak_mc_kracken
That's some sensationalism there.

A web browser is probably the least sticky software application you could
conceive of. Switching from one browser to the next can typically be done in
minutes, so reading something like

> So if you want an Internet --- which means, in many ways, a world --- that
> isn't controlled by Google, you must stop using Chrome now

makes me think the author of the article has a huge chip on his shoulder.

This not the right tone for this kind of discussion.

~~~
nathan_long
> A web browser is probably the least sticky software application you could
> conceive of

For an individual, maybe. But if 99% of users are on Chrome, sites will target
Chrome-specific features and the web "won't work" on other browsers. That's
when you get lock-in.

------
ksec
I think this is going to anger a lot of people and gets downvoted into
oblivion. But I will say this anyway.

Open Web, Javascript Only world, and Patents free video codec etc, doesn't
matter to 98% of the users online. It is a very noble thing to do, but most
users dont care.

Do i care? I do, but none of these are going to pull users away from Chrome.
As a matter of fact, if Firefox didn't have a bunch of loyal fans, Chrome
would have taken over 60% of Desktop Browsers market shares. With the majority
of the rest going to IE, then Safari and Firefox.

Users care about speed. Having deployed over 100s installation of Firefox, and
forcing them to use it, everytime they get to touched Chrome their instant
response was, why is this so much faster. Can I use this?

They dont care about e10s, tab per process, Different set of Superfast
JavaScript Compiler that only works with 10% of the site. Or What ever newest
GC that was added it. They wouldn't know, and dont want to know either. All
that matter is the result, the experience of using the product.

I am a Firefox Fans, but I hated it, all because i love it so much.

~~~
nathan_long
> Open Web, Javascript Only world, and Patents free video codec etc, doesn't
> matter to 98% of the users online. It is a very noble thing to do, but most
> users dont care.

"Fighting pollution is a noble thing to do, but most users don't care. They
just want fast cars."

Users don't understand enough to care. That doesn't excuse us who do
understand from caring.

The web that users love today is possible because of ideals like
interoperability which they don't understand.

------
higherpurpose
I expect 2 things from Firefox before I consider seriously switching:

1) Bring security sandboxing already.

2) Fix the terrible rendering on Android. Seriously, Firefox has _literally_
the worst rendering out of all mobile browsers. And by worst, I mean
_slowest_. I don't know whether it's some kind of on purpose delayed
rendering, or if it's just that slow, but they need to change that. It's
especially more obvious on lower-end phones (where Firefox OS is supposedly
making a big push).

Also, after all this time, Opera Classic (not the new one) is still my
preferred browser on Android. It acts the way it should when double tapping
(makes the page big and usable). Chrome/new Opera don't really do anything
when double tapped. And it has the fastest rendering.

It also still has a great mobile browser UI. I don't know what Opera did with
the new one, but they totally killed that UI in it. Anyway, my point is,
Firefox could learn a thing or two from Opera Classic for mobile.

~~~
andor
_Fix the terrible rendering on Android. Seriously, Firefox has literally the
worst rendering out of all mobile browsers. And by worst, I mean slowest._

Firefox feels fast on the Nexus 5. I use it over Chrome, because I want to
disable third-party cookies. Chrome on Android doesn't give me that option...

~~~
lucb1e
> Firefox feels fast on the Nexus 5.

Same here on a Galaxy Note II. Pretty high-end phone though, that might have
something to do with it. Still, been using Firefox ever since I got the phone
(my first Android after years of Symbian) and I'm very happy with it. It even
has about:config included!

------
pender
The vast majority of users are not developers and wouldn't even spend the time
paying any attention to any of this. The only way Firefox is going to survive
is by being 1. Easy to use 2. Fast 3. Secure and the priority is in that
order. Right now Firefox fails, on all three, when compared to Chrome.

Want Firefox to succeed? Then they will need to change priorities.

------
hokkos
For me Firefox is just superior to Chrome with the Tree Tab Style extension
and the absence of multi-process.

The multi process in Chrome is implemented in a very bad way that multiply
without a reason the RAM usage, it is better implemented in Safari but still
heavy, I eventually have crash in Firefox once a month, but the session
manager addon can remedy. As for addons they use way less memory in Firefox,
you can see it with the about:addons-memory addon (yes another one), "add
block edge" uses around 25MB, whereas in Chrome it is 10x more. I still use
Chrome for webdev, but the firefox dev tools are progressing.

Tree Tab Style is a better way to navigate the web, you can see more tabs
because screens are wide and the web is vertical, so it makes a better use of
the screen. Also the tree structure is better for the way to browse the web
with hyper-links, it is like a multi stack trace of page you saw.

~~~
findjashua
could you please explain in layman terms what exactly is bad about the way
multi-process is implemented?

~~~
hokkos
It is explained here :
[https://trac.webkit.org/wiki/WebKit2](https://trac.webkit.org/wiki/WebKit2)
and here : [http://webkit.sed.hu/blog/20110120/webkit2-memory-
consumptio...](http://webkit.sed.hu/blog/20110120/webkit2-memory-consumption-
process-models-vol-1)

Chrome duplicate tons of data structures, Webkit2 shares more, but Firefox
without multi process is more efficient.

------
corobo
Does Firefox have separate processes per tab/window yet? Literally the only
reason I switched to Chrome back when

~~~
Squarex
It does have it in nightly versions but not enabled by default.
[https://wiki.mozilla.org/Electrolysis](https://wiki.mozilla.org/Electrolysis)

~~~
corobo
Ah, going by many software burns in the past I'll wait until it's a stable
feature before making the journey back

~~~
dkns
IIRC it's going to be released in stable branch around february 2014.

------
88trh
The separate URL and search bars are the one reason I don't switch. Such a
silly UI feature that feels years behind other browsers.

I know you can get rid of it, but then I have to fiddle around with
about:config to get it working as I want it to out of the box. All very
strange.

~~~
gnud
I love the separate boxes.

I really like that when I type the name of a local server, my browser doesn't
search for it.

I also like that I can search my history and bookmarks without my keypresses
being sent to google/bing.

------
agumonkey
I've followed Mozilla efforts to slim down and perf up Firefox, and they did
miraculous things considering the resources they have (in comparison to
Chrome, IE, etc). Like many I still wish for process isolation (wip). But
beside that, as a recovering nerd, I'd like to be able to hook into it like
conkeror. 50% of my links are sent to printfriendly.com, many time I don't
wanna use the basic ergonomics of the web and write js/jq snippets to change
things. Sure one can always write a firefox extension but it feels like a
burden to me. Emacs might have spoiled me for good.

------
findjashua
It's all about the extensions!

I use Firefox on the desktop mainly because of Tree Style Tabs and Snap Links.
I can't browse the web without these two anymore.

I use Firefox on mobile because it allows me to use extensions. Especially,
with Ad Block Edge, I can browse mobile web without the annoying ads. And with
Phony (user agent switcher), I can easily switch to the desktop version of a
site.

Speaking of Ad Block Edge, anyone complaining of Firefox being slow and
hogging memory, it's probably because of Ad Block 'Plus'. Replace it with Ad
Block 'Edge' and enjoy smooth browsing!

------
rwmj
I do use Firefox, through inertia, but honestly it's not a good browser. It
consumes 50%+ CPU constantly. It uses huge amounts of RAM. It crashes from
time to time. Every few months I end up losing all my open tabs permanently.
There's no isolation (process per tab). And they keep making gratuitous
changes to the UI that don't improve the real UI problems but do require
searching through about:config to revert them.

I would love there to be a minimal but usable browser.

~~~
acdha
That CPU and RAM consumption is likely due to extensions (AdBlock Plus being
the most common hog). Unless you're running a really old version, Firefox is
usually smaller than Chrome these days.

~~~
cauterized
Yup ABP is killer. I'm also unwilling to upgrade to Australis at the moment,
as I can't find a Mac-compatible theme that isn't painful to use with it.
(Hate, hate, hate monochrome themes -- color coding the buttons may not be
trendy but it improves usability, and has for the 20 years I've been using web
browsers.) And Firebug has some major performance improvements with FF31 and
newer.

------
xkiwi
One thing I want to point out immediately when I saw this post: Chrome makes
virus-like auto-update, It just freak me out. Google keeps their product auto-
update and gave a reason: better services, but ALL I CAN FEEL is FINFISHER is
coming closer and closer.

Second, Firefox give me more freedom so far. I can install whatever plugin I
want, regardless whether violate Google's terms of service. Instant example,
you can't download a Youtube video with chrome store app.

~~~
gbl08ma
Chrome doesn't auto-update on Linux, nor presumably in other platforms with
working package managers. Windows software is expected to update itself or ask
the user to do it, so Google took the approach that was easiest for non-
technical users, which IMO is much better for their security.

When users are running an old, unpatched version of a browser, you don't need
very advanced tactics to pwn their machines...

And for what is worth, there must be a way to disable Chrome automatic
updates, because the PortableApps version of it doesn't (or didn't, a while
ago) auto-update.

------
babby
A practical reason not to use Chrome is the chrome app store.

It's littered with garbage-ware. Outdated extensions, broken extensions and
extensions with fucking ads. It seems like anything can get in and you don't
know if it's broken until you test it yourself.

It's a mess. At least with Firefox addons you can expect a certain level of
quality, especially with the vetted addons, and you know before you install it
whether it;s likely to be compatible.

------
ensignavenger
I would love to switch to Firefox as my primary browser, however, I cannot get
my tabs to properly line up with the top of the screen in Linux Mint Cinnamon.
There is the ever present title bar that just doesn't go away, not matter what
hackery I have tried. (Without breaking something else, that is). I use
Chromium, because the tabs are where they should be. Any suggestions on how to
fix this would certainly be tried.

------
sidcool
It so much sounds like an apocalyptic cry. It has substance but the degree to
which it is shown to harm is us not to be taken seriously, I believe. To be
honest, Chrome is a good browser, both on desktop and mobile(at least
Android). And Google does not have a hegemony on the entire Web.

EDIT - This thread is an example of 'That escalated quickly!'

------
akoster
When working with many a bunch of tabs in Firefox or SeaMonkey, I use the new
about:memory page to garbage collect, minimize the heap, et. al. I encourage
other users with triple-digit tab counts or those having issues with
performance to take a look. I also have disabled all plugins, having only
flash and java activated on click.

------
billconan
I don't like google taking control of everything. I tried to force myself to
use DuckDuckGo for searching. But soon, I had to switch back to google,
because google is so integrated. Not only I need to search, I also need gmail,
map, news. All these are not provided by DuckDuckGo. Similar things happen
with firefox.

------
plicense
I was an ardent Chrome supporter and always wanted to make the switch to
Chrome. Thanks to your post, the switch has been made. I feel a lot of
difference, particularly with respect to how easy my Google searches were,
since I was signed in. But then, that's the whole reason why I am switching to
Firefox.

------
ekianjo
This guy writes against Google world domination using Blogger. A good example
of how to shoot down your credibility. But hey, he is a hacker. Looks like its
out of a hackers reach to host your blog. But choose Mozilla.

By the way isnt Mozilla like 90 percent financed by Google?

~~~
specialp
Yes this is true which is even more risky for the fate of a standardized web.
Right now and in the past it was very important for Google to do this for 2
reasons: 1. They get to be the default search for a huge amount of people, and
2: They support someone who was making a competing product against another
company doing lock-in for their own benefit (Microsoft).

However, what if one day Google Chrome has 70%+ market share? Then the Chrome
only creep will continue. You can already tell that they are doing a lot of
Chrome only things on their web properties as with the nightly chrome builds
you get occasional Google property only weird bugs. If Chrome had a massive
market share they can then not have to bother supporting Mozilla or web
standards. They can then leverage Chrome to have an advantage in performance
and even monetization of Google products over others.

You can say right now Google has not done this, but they are doing small
things here and there that are going down that route. Altruism is not a trait
companies are known to keep for long, especially when there is no competition.

~~~
ekianjo
> However, what if one day Google Chrome has 70%+ market share?

Oh, I agree with the tonality of the article, alright, but i don't subscribe
in the "White Knight Firefox" story. Firefox is in bed with Google already, I
don't like one bit what they did with the recent update and UI changes, and
the performance of the browser in general is so bad it's not wonder people are
switching to Chrome.

We need a much better competitor than Firefox if we want to fight against
Chrome's domination.

------
VMG
Please remind me why Google is the default search engine in Firefox.

~~~
mcherm
It may be the default, but the search engine is fully configurable, with no
degredation in functionality.

~~~
VMG
Right, yet the Google, the evil tyrant, still thinks the default setting is
worth paying $160m a year, accounting for over 80% of Mozilla's income.

So is using Mozilla in the interest of Google, or is it not?

------
Fizzadar
I will use Firefox when a single tab can't cause the entire browser to pause.
Until then, for better or worse, Chrome wins.

EDIT: Would much prefer Opera if it supported all my Chrome extensions.

------
iancarroll
I've tried. I just cannot keep closing Firefox every time it hits 600MB of RAM
usage. It's getting insane, I've even purged it and it comes back the next
day!

------
Kenji
Why should we choose a product that is qualitatively worse (in my opinion,
this is up to debate, but just compare the JavaScript engine, V8 owns) just to
keep having a choice? A free market works exactly because people choose what
they like the most and let the things that can't compete die. Through this
darwinian selection, products gradually converge towards a better quality.
What you are proposing is completely irrational. If Chrome were to suddenly
drop in quality for any reason, there would be a million people creating a
better solution. But there aren't because Chrome works very well right now.

~~~
xyzzyz
Fast website loading and JavaScript engine speed are not the only qualities
people care about. Adherence to open standards and transparent procedure, lack
of vendor lock-in, or diversity in the market are qualities themselves too.
Just remember the dark years of web, when IE was dominating and web was
stagnating.

~~~
Kenji
About Firefox vs Chrome. Yes I said it's up to debate, I'm not going into
this.

"Just remember the dark years of web, when IE was dominating and web was
stagnating."

I do. And we are well into the process of getting out of it and wonderful,
good, new browsers have emerged. That is in favour of what I was saying. The
products converge towards a better quality because that's what people
gravitate towards.

------
tmikaeld
If Google really wanted to show that they are for openness and privacy, they
would have moved Chrome to a not-for-profit foundation instead of owning it
themselves.

~~~
stephenr
that would defeat the purpose of them creating Chrome in the first place - to
have access to product (by which I mean people using the browser) activities.

What other advertising company has ever had as many fingers in as many pies?

It’s entirely possible for people in parts of the USA be getting a large
percentage of their web content (search, news, video, social etc) from a
Google web property, using a device controlled by Google, using an internet
connection controlled by Google.

Just to remind you - Google is an Ad company.

People talk about the Apple “reality distorion field” because people willingly
buy in to the Apple ecosystem, but Apple have nothing on the religion like
status Google has reached with some people.

~~~
myrryr
They are a Tech company, they make most of their money from ad's for now, but
I expect in the future, it will be from AI and robotics, since they are
investing incredible amounts in those areas.

~~~
romerro
Nope, that's just to deceive you. They still just want/need your attention and
more of it every year on more surfaces. Online Media is way too profitable to
"pivot" away from it :)

~~~
stephenr
Can't reply lower.

The idea that Google will somehow abandon it's current advertising/data mining
business model is ridiculous.

In 2013 Google's non-advertising revenue was less than 9% of their total
revenue.

For average people, the $0 price tag is one of the big appeals about Google's
various services - of course those things are really just ways to acquire
product (i.e. people) data/eyeballs.

If you look at a lot of their online services outside of straight search, they
do not have the best experience, they are simply free and "good enough" to
squeeze out or marginalise paid services.

~~~
myrryr
I didn't say they were going to abandon it, I said I believed that the other
parts of their business would grow bigger then the advertising part.

Yes, it is only around 9% now, but it used to be 0% and it is growing fast.

~~~
stephenr
But how much of that growth is true growth and how much is about sudden new
income streams because of purchases.

e.g. they buy a company like Nest, which has a commercial product. Suddenly
they have a lot of extra non-ad based revenue, giving the appearance of
growth.

------
fred_durst
I just want to add how important your browsing choice is. Everytime you visit
a site you vote for a browser. Its one of the easiest ways to help keep the
web open.

------
_cipher_
I'm calling bullshit.

Firecrap will support HTML5 DRM. What kind of choice are you talking about? We
have _no choice_ (well, except from way smaller projects, which doesn't
matter. I can't see the majority of users using netsurf or some other cool
project).

Yes, I still use firefox from time to time, but the situation is getting
worse. Instead of fixing older bugs, they keep adding new ones. Huge memory
leaks and for what? For a _browser_ that supposedly let's you view... web
pages.

I begin to think that unix and it's simplicity destroyed my way of thinking.
;)

~~~
lucb1e
> Firecrap will support HTML5 DRM. What kind of choice are you talking about?
> We have _no choice_

Though I agree with your basic argument, it must be noted that you have a
choice to fork Firefox. You cannot do that with Chrome.

Yeah everyone will start about Chromium but it's not equivalent. There is no
sync, PDF viewer, Flash Player implementation, print system (and print
preview), auto-updater, AAC, MP3 and Opus codecs, and maybe other things I'm
forgetting.

If you want to fork Chrome, you'll have to build all of that yourself. If you
fork Firefox, you get the whole deal and you can really make it the way you
want it to be while staying up-to-date with upstream patches.

~~~
yohui
> _Yeah everyone will start about Chromium but it 's not equivalent. There is
> no sync, PDF viewer, Flash Player implementation, print system (and print
> preview), auto-updater, AAC, MP3 and Opus codecs, and maybe other things I'm
> forgetting._

You may find the Chromium project's comparison helpful:
[https://code.google.com/p/chromium/wiki/ChromiumBrowserVsGoo...](https://code.google.com/p/chromium/wiki/ChromiumBrowserVsGoogleChrome)

As a matter of fact, Chromium does support open media formats such as Opus,
and (now that Google and Foxit have open-sourced PDFium) Chromium has the same
PDF viewing and print preview system that Chrome has long enjoyed.

PDFium: [https://code.google.com/p/pdfium/](https://code.google.com/p/pdfium/)

HN discussion of PDFium:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7781878](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7781878)

Both Chromium and Chrome allow you to sync your profile (bookmarks,
extensions, etc.). The auto-updater is a difference on Windows and Mac, but
not on Linux, where Chrome simply uses the same repository and package update
systems other applications use.

It _is_ true that Chromium does not, by default, come with Flash bundled or
support proprietary media tags (AAC, H.264, and MP3), but the reason why that
is the case should be clear.

If you do want Chrome's Flash plugin in Chromium, you only need to copy the
file into your Chromium directory. There are even Linux repos that can keep it
up-to-date for you.

------
drunkcatsdgaf
I constantly see google hiring people for the XUL language, which firefox
uses. Can anyone give some insight on the usage?

------
boot13
I'm having trouble understanding why this FUD is the top story on the
otherwise excellent HN. Having choice is good, but assuming Google's
domination would be a bad thing just because it was bad with Microsoft doesn't
give Google enough credit. I currently use Firefox because it is the least
crappy browser out there, but I'd love to switch, because it still has
stability issues, particularly with animated GIFs and video.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
This highlights the irrationality of browser wars. Can FireFox be both 'least
crappy' and 'stability issues'? Selection is made on emotional grounds, and
rationalizations created after the fact.

~~~
boot13
Perhaps I expressed myself poorly. When I say that Firefox is the least crappy
browser, I mean that all of the available browsers are crappy, and Firefox is
simply the least crappy. I hesitate to say that it's the best browser, because
that might lead to the mistaken belief that it's actually a good browser or
that I like it, when in fact I don't. Does that clear things up?

~~~
JoeAltmaier
I understand. I mean only that we all (me included) choose what we choose for
reasons unrelated to the actual thing. For instance, the major browsers are
buggy and annoying in largely non-overlapping ways. This makes it difficult to
compare them - any checklist will be apples and oranges because features and
bugs are orthogonal between them, to some degree.

So we find ourselves offended by something in one of them, and fasten on
another because its not deficient the same way. Without any thorough analysis.

Works the same way with cars, and politics.

~~~
boot13
I agree. Something about human nature, I expect.

------
mythz
> Google is bent on establishing platform domination unlike anything we've
> ever seen, even from late-1990s Microsoft.

With `bent` you mean like they're trying to build the best products people
would want to use? What should they do instead, not try as hard?

> Google controls Android, which is winning; Chrome, which is winning; and key
> Web properties in Search, Youtube, Gmail and Docs, which are all winning.

IOTW success of a competitor is bad.

~~~
TeMPOraL
Exactly. The reason Google succeeded is because they made really good (often
the best available to date) products. I think whatever type of "monopoly" they
now enjoy is well deserved, and apparently, they still don't abuse it and
crank out great products instead.

------
Hurricane2K5
PRODUCTIVITY of 100 TABS? When it comes for FF performance, what is the market
share breakdown of number of tabs open versus those who scream the loudest?

# of open tabs - % MarketShare 1 50%??? 2 3 5 7 10 12 15 20 25 50 100?? 200
tabs open?

And also do it by browser type?

Plus Why not show us how productive you are with hundreds of tabs open in FF?
Or for that matter any other browser?

------
raverbashing
Oh, I stopped using Chrome some time ago.

They're actively making it worse. It's slower and more bloated than ever.

Not to mention it caused a small periodic interruption in MacOS (you were
typing and then it would stop the whole system). Shut down Chrome and voila,
no more interruptions.

I'm using Chrome exclusively for GMail, and I keep logged out of Google on FF
which is used for everything else.

------
guilloche
I hope that FF keeps to be different from chrome. Otherwise why not use chrome
directly.

I am using firefox because it is multi-threaded (vs. chrome's multi-process)
and thus lighter. My version is still 28 since it has less dependencies than
current one.

Be different, otherwise FF may die.

------
owly
Seriously, why isn't DuckDuckGo the default search in Firefox? Or maybe on
first launch a list of search engines pops up with DDG at the top?

~~~
dkns
Because Google pays hefty amount of money to Mozilla for keeping Google as
default search engine.

------
smegel
Can a single tab still crash firefox?

------
romerro
Amen

------
c2prods
Utterly stupid. The only reason that would make Firefox win is because it's a
good piece of software, which it's currently not, especially when you compare
it to chrome. You're not going to convince the average joe with a rant like
that ;)

------
_random_
Mozilla's persistent over-promotion of the legacy technologies (HTML, JS, CSS)
as the only acceptable way of web development is a very strong turn-off for
me.

NaCl let's you use e.g. C# in-browser without shitty and low-performance
workarounds like transpiling. I hope it will become mainstream.

~~~
stephenr
is this meant to be a joke/sarcasm?

~~~
myrryr
I can see what you are saying, but NACL is a big deal.

It isn't ONLY c/c++ but any language that can compile with LLVM, which is
almost every language.

Think about it, new scripting languages, new compiled languages, anything
language you care about. You want to write in Haskell? fine... do so, and have
it run instead of javascript.

This IS a big big deal. No language is perfect, so the ability to use any of
them? It is huge.

~~~
stephenr
I don't need to "think about it", I've experienced the idea before, twice.

Do you remember Java Applets? Do you remember ActiveX controls? Do you
remember Flash and/or Shockwave?

~~~
_random_
"Native Client avoids these issues by using sandboxing."

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Native_Client](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Native_Client)

~~~
stephenr
I never mentioned security. Their whole approach with both this and Dart are
perfect examples of how they are following the old Microsoft playbook.

"Your browser does not support Flash/Java/ActiveX/Bert and Ernie's latest
bullshit, please upgrade to X to continue"

~~~
_random_
Dart is awesome! I hope they will come up with something that fixes all HTML &
CSS warts as well.

Don't tell me technology doesn't thrive on competition. Pigeonholing everyone
into same set of legacy languages is simply not OK! (no transpiling
suggestions please - it's crap)

~~~
stephenr
This is why HTML CSS and JavaScript standards are constantly evolving, to
solve real world problems.

------
adamors
> Google is bent on establishing platform domination unlike anything we've
> ever seen, even from late-1990s Microsoft.

Because they make a good browser? Firefox is still slow, hangs frequently and
the developer tools are still not up to par to Chrome's. All IMO of course,
but as a developer I don't have the patience to use slower, clunkier tools
"just because".

Also, Mozilla gets most of its revenue from their partnership with Google[0].
Is there a difference between using a Google made browser or a Google funded
browser?

[0]:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Corporation#Google](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Corporation#Google)

