Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
Firefox 70 (hacks.mozilla.org)
1595 points by feross 30 days ago | hide | past | web | favorite | 457 comments

Not mentioned in this article (although it's in the Release Notes [1]): the amazing work done regarding the macOS compositor.

This should give pretty noticeable speed and battery improvements on Retina Macbooks.

[1] https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/70.0/releasenotes/#new

Game changer! Now from my POV Firefox is the best desktop browser, period. No caveats.

Is there a good transition path for someone who uses a lot of Google products? In particular, I use Chrome across all my devices, and I depend on the ability to search my history/recent tabs/etc from anywhere. Will Firefox give me the same ability? Is the transition literally just: Install Firefox everywhere and start using it instead?

> Is the transition literally just: Install Firefox everywhere and start using it instead?

Yep. I did this about a year ago. You have to create a Mozilla account (if you haven't already) in order to sync your tabs and history across devices, but that should be a given.

I find the Firefox sync a bit clunky compared to Chromes though. I think Chrome sends udpates to Google on each change whereas Firefox polls and updates on a schedule which means sometimes if you put a device to sleep (or if you're on iOS and the app gets suspended) your history and tab state won't be propagated and it'll be missing on your other devices which can be frustrating when you're away from those devices.

Agreed to what everyone else said, but to me the killer feature of Firefox Sync is that you can send tabs from one browser to another, so I can find links on my work computer and ship them directly to my home computer or phone to read later, and they'll just show up when it syncs next.

I'm actually not sure if this is a native Chrome feature, but I can instantly send tabs to my other devices with right click > "send to your devices" > list of devices with a Google account signed in (Which is my phone and laptop for me on my desktop).

It's exactly the same in FF: https://i.vgy.me/vBP4rF.png

> Will Firefox give me the same ability?


> transition literally just: Install Firefox everywhere and start using it instead?

Almost. You will have to create a firefox account and export/import your bookmarks. That's it.

Pretty much, yes. You’ll have to make a Firefox account, but then tabs and plugins will sync everywhere you log in.

Also, passwords.

The only feature you may miss is auto-fill of credit card info. It's saved my ass abroad before.

Firefox has credit card auto-fill capabilities: https://blog.mozilla.org/firefox/online-shopping-autofill-cr...

A good password manager will handle that easily.

As long as you use it everywhere in the same way you presently use Chrome everywhere, yes. You can also import a certain amount (history & bookmarks, not, I think, current & recent tabs) to get started.

Firefox Sync let's you syncronize Bookmarks, Open tabs, Logins, History, Add-ons and Preferences across devices by logging in once with username password

Here’s the Sync security FAQ to answer javajosh’s follow up question, which I can’t reply to directly.

“How Firefox Sync keeps your data safe even if TLS fails” https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/how-firefox-sync-keeps-...

If you click on the 'x hours ago' part of the comment next to the username you will get a parent link and can then reply to and save individual comments.

Couple of questions about this: does FF import Chrome logins? Also, can Mozilla read the data or are they doing client-side-encryption?

Yes, it can now import logins/passwords from Chrome/Chromium on macOS, Windows support already existed for some years.

> Passwords can now be imported from Chrome on macOS in addition to existing support for Windows


Wow. That's the final bit. Thank you!

I'm not sure about the former, but the answer to your second question is yes, they do client-side encryption: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/how-firefox-sync-keeps-...

Can each of those be turned on or off per device, and dont get sneakily turned back on during upgrades?

edit: Sorry for anyone I misled. You can't opt a particular kind of data out of syncing per device. You can only enable/disable for the whole account.

Yes, each (bookmarks, history, passwords, tabs ) can be turned on or off per device basis.

This is incorrect AFAIK. The sync toggle for a data type is for the whole account, not per-device.

You are right. Always thought it worked like that but indeed it is for the whole account and not per device. My bad.

by way of logging in/out, yes

I'm doing this but it's painful. I am still stuck on GMail.

This should be the headline feature. I've been following this bug for so long on Bugzilla. The energy improvement is really incredible.

The performance is what has kept me on Chrome on Mac. Going to re-install FF now and give it a whirl. Thanks for this info!

I just tried this. Interestingly I'd left it on v68 and it cooked my MBP, fans all on max immediately. When I updated to 70 it seems to work perfectly. CPU temp in the 40s. Gonna leave it on in the background and see if it suddenly spikes.

The same here. Have you tried with FF add-ons that normally are the culprit for CPU hogging?

Yeah, they're all on. Seems to be fine thus far, and there's an article about what they actually did to fix it, so I'm ready to say it's fixed.

Only minor gripe is userChrome.css seems to not be used now.

You need to enable it in about:config

Set this option to true: toolkit.legacyUserProfileCustomizations.stylesheets

That's a slightly worrying precedent, they're calling the way to diaable certain bits of obnoxiousness (the header bar in Tree Style Tabs comes to mind) "legacy", which is usually a precursor to removal.

Is there a new method available/forthcoming, or is this more control planned to be wrenched out of user's hands?

Was set to true already.

Was it referring to browser.xul? There’s no XUL left, so you might need to change that to browser.xhtml.

You can also use Brave browser, it's basically Chrome with the ad tracking removed. With that, almost no reason to switch to another browser.

You’re still contributing to the Chromium engine monoculture, though.

Guess we are dealing with purists here. Mind you that Chromium is free and open-source just like MySQL. A strategical move by the community to fork MySQL to MariaDB to ensure it remained free and open from the tech giant after it was acquired by Oracle. How Brave is any different? It made a similar move. Some people hate crypto. Fine. Personally I've never used the Brave crypto. Perhaps FF 70 has completely fixed its performance problem, sure, happy to switch. But before that really happens Brave is still a viable interim solution.

The issue is the engine. There are few big engines out there and chromium is taking a lot of the market.

The issue with this is that they could start controlling the standards and everyone would have to follow behind instead of everyone working and doing what’s best for consumers.

While chromium is open source, that doesn’t mean they have to accept merges from the community. It only means that they have to provide the source code. Yes it can be forked, but now you have to maintain or develop your engine. If they’re the dominant ones and are setting standards, that won’t help much.

By using another one you are helping keep a neutral ground.

The difference between MySQL and MariaDB is that you have PostgreSQL, Oracle, SQLite, MSSQL among a bunch of others, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_relational_datab...

So the issue isn’t forking or not, but the fact that it’s still close enough that gives chromium the competitive edge and could kill the market.

Brave looks amazing, the question I have is, just like how Google Chrome, can they be trusted as a private entity?

Well, they're shilling their own worthless cryptocurrency, so it is obvious to me that they cannot be.

It is an opt-in system. They're not making you use it and you don't lose anything by choosing not to opt-in. What exactly are they doing that you would consider "shilling"?


What would you call creating a new alt-coin and implying it will some day have value?

That entire industry is a dumpster fire of greed, fraud, and misrepresentation.

A good chunk of HN is really fed up with cryptocurrencies.

Whoever are pushing them - including Telegram that I otherwise like - are damaging their reputation in my eyes.

>injects own custom http headers so advertisers can uniquely identify you even easier

>takes crypto donation hostage and opens funds in other people's names (i.e. scams crypto to artificially create demand for that BAT)

If you use Brave you literally are part of the problem.

Interesting. Any downside of Brave? Small userbase, etc ?

I use it in my Android, because it allows me to have an ad blocking browser without rooting and without installing any additional software.

My gripe there is that it started showing push notifications of ads!!! Once I blocked all its notifications everything went to normality.

This would be a showstopper for me. Turning off the notifications addresses only part of the issue, I would never trust them again.

Why not use Firefox?

Battery life is my primary concern, and unless they release battery life benchmarks I’d be hard pressed to switch off of Safari.

Last I checked it was looking like they would now be as "good" as Chrome, which is much worse than Safari. Hopefully that improved or will soon improve.

Safari means no ublock, the web without is annoying.

There are other options (paid ones) that are equal —or even better since they are quite automatic— than ublock.

The only two things I'm missing in safari to be hones are:

- A no-script extension or similar.

- Sync part of my work is on a no macOS machines I don't have safari there, so no sync. I partially overcome this with bookmaster for bookmarks, but I still missing tabs and read it later list. However, firefox doesn't have this later feature on desktop —and I don't why.

Firefox Sync syncs your tabs, bookmarks, passwords, etc. Your read it later list is synced through Pocket (which is owned by Mozilla). They exist on desktop and mobile.

Still using pinboard; one of the best investment I made in my entire life.

Pocket sucks big time!

FWIW, I started using 1Blocker recently with Safari and have found it to be quite good. YMMV.

nice try.

Disconnect works well enough.

Yeah, I just switched to Safari recently because of battery life

Recently switched from Safari to Firefox because of the awful extensions environment in Safari but definitely missing the battery life. Really wish one browser could just get everything right

This is what I am most excited about. I have been using the improvements through nightly since they were released, I think little more than a month, and I couldn't be happier. I'd hate to have to use Chrome and I welcome the competition to webkit.

Trying it out and it absolutely flies!!

Would this bring it up to par with safari's power consumption?

I don't know about other usages, but energy consumption while using YouTube is important to me (usually have something playing while I work) so I just did a quick measurement.

Safari 13.0.2 versus Firefox 70.0 versus Chrome 77.0

Playing the same YouTube video at the same quality (1080p) and watching Energy Impact in Activity Monitor while the video played, I saw averages of: Safari used 20, Firefox used 45, Chrome used 45.

So on that task at least Safari is still king, but Firefox is on par with Chrome.

You could try a plugin which forces h264 Youtube. Just about anything made in the last decade has mature hardware support for decoding h264, but not necessarily for VP8/9. This may be what's going on here.

See https://mozillagfx.wordpress.com/2019/10/22/dramatically-red...

More work is planned to reduce the energy usage for scrolling and full screen video. Though I guess for your example you don't watch things fullscreen.

I just checked with the Intel Power Gadget on a 2015 MBP 10.14.6, iGPU only, same video at 1080p, package power consumption (CPU + iGPU):

~6,4W average in Safari 13.0.3

~8,6W average in Firefox 70

Safari still uses significantly less CPU while decoding video.

Safari does not support vp8 or vp9 when playing youtube, and youtube serves h264 instead. h264 is less efficient in terms of compression ratio (more to download for the same quality), but h264 is decoded in hardware on OSX, and VP8 or VP9 isn't, which explains what you see.

This is why, for example, Safari does not have 4k video on Youtube, while being perfectly capable of playing 4k videos in general.

Depending on the machine, VP9 can be decoded in hardware on Firefox on Windows, but chip support is limited.

All that said, we're working on our video playback performance as we speak, especially on OSX (because it was so bad a few release back), but also in general.

Thanks for the explanation.

I found this extension that forces FF to use H264 instead: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/h264ify/

On my old MBP I'd rather consume more bandwidth than more more CPU.

Thanks for the link. On Firefox/Linux nvidia drivers, I don't see much difference in h264 vs VP9

We don't do hardware decoding on Linux for now, because we don't do hardware acceleration for graphics by default on Linux.

Web Render might allow doing it properly, since the rendering is not on the CPU anymore.

Also from the Q&A at the end:

> Safari’s compositor is entirely Core Animation based; Safari basically skips step 2.

(Step 2 is "the Firefox “compositor” assembles Gecko layers to produce the rendering of the window")

You think this affects video decoding?

Anyway, I imagine that's the price to pay for being crossplatform. You can't implement everything for every platform. Safari only has to work on macOS/iOS.

> You think this affects video decoding?

Speaking for Chrome's implementation, efficiently rendering video on macOS does require CALayer compositing, but it's not sufficient.

Only certain types of decoded frames can be efficiently scanned out (different from the types that can be used efficiently in OpenGL compositing). Actually entering the most efficient fullscreen video mode requires some magic. Matching macOS behavior exactly when a fallback to OpenGL compositing is required can be difficult (eg. colorspace bugs can result in flickering).

I have not looked at the new code in Firefox, but I would expect that not all of the benefit would be realized in a first release. In any case it's a huge undertaking to support a single platform; congrats to the team for making it happen!

Maybe just don't watch videos inside your Browser. You know there's youtube-dl+mpv?

iina can ply youtube stream without pre-downloading them. You have also Picture in Picture following you on all desktop.

iina is open source and have a lot of codec available.

I don't know if it change something on energy consumption, though.

I don't know what iina is, but youtube-dl + mpv mentioned by Angeo34 does exactly that (stream videos without pre-downloading them). Youtube-dl just gets the stream URL and mpv plays it. And it's easy to use, just:

    mpv https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0

Should this affect memory bloat? Because I still have to restart ffx regularly on my Mac because it uses upward of 8gb RAM over time

After years of waiting, it's hard to believe it's finally fixed. Will try this out immediately.

i am very very eager to test and use this. FF is my main driver but it's a heat machine on my mac 10.11.6. I wonder if i gain something to upgrade my macOS (4g ram :()

anyone knows how firefox is on iOS? vs Safari/Chrome? :) Want to switch, but wondering whether it's worth it cross-platform

does anybody know if all of these are available in nightly?

Yes, Nightly is (I'm simplifying a bit but it's generally true) release + a few weeks of patches + different default settings, sometimes experimental things enabled, etc.

I'm running Nightly on OSX and I confirm all those improvements are there, but more are coming.

I am not a Firefox user but know that matching Webkit performance on macOS is going to be very hard.

So just fired a test on my Macbook Air - Safari 13 vs Firefox 70.

Opened top 10 links from techmeme. Both windows in background.

Firefox 70: Energy use 30-200; CPU 20-25%; Threads 82

Safari 13: Energy use 0.1-5; CPU 2-5%; Threads 11

If this is to celebrate I can only imagine what the things looked like before this release. Save for Apple fiddling with the energy use numbers (VW style) this means that my battery is going to last 4-5x longer with Safari. Can anyone replicate this for the sake of argument?

Edit: uploaded screenshots https://imgur.com/a/4L64ShP

> this means that my battery is going to last 4-5x longer with Safari

Well it might last 4-5x longer if you run safari in the background, since that is what you tested. But wouldn't the real test be running both browsers as the active window and comparing those results?

One thing that Safari is incredibly good at (and its' engineers are proud of) is the ability to reduce resource consumption for non-active tabs and windows to nearly zero. This is really good when running on battery because it is a shame to dedicate resources to things that aren't even visible on screen. But this could make the results far more dramatic through your test.

I would hypothesize that Safari still wins your performance test (if you were to re-test using them both as "active" windows), but probably not as dramatically as in the inactive window test.

I used that use case because I usually have multiple windows with multiple tabs in the background.

I measured it with active windows now.


- Both in background

- Safari Actie

- Firefox Active


Conclusion: it gets even worse for Firefox.

Edit: At the time of test Safari had 7 more windows open with probably 70+ tabs from my previous session that I didn't close.

You are not running uBlock Origin, so ads might be taking up all the CPU cycles they can get their hands on.

> One thing that Safari is incredibly good at (and its' engineers are proud of) is the ability to reduce resource consumption for non-active tabs and windows to nearly zero.

I understand this is rare, but I just have a very very hard time understanding what is so hard about this.

Page not visible? Just stop it. Stop the layout engine, stop the javascript VM. If there was a transfer in progress, let it finish, a page might get the callback when it's active again ...

(I know there are some tricky cases, a lot of them, but there just isn't any reason why a browser with 30 tabs should be consuming over 1 % cpu...)

Classic HackerNews "

This is so easy and I, a software developer with no actual experience in that area, know the obvious solution that eludes that hundreds of developers with actual experience in the area. Meanwhile, I take umbrage when my product manager tells me that implementing the next feature will be easy and I'm exaggerating how complicated it is."

Perhaps so. But,

if (not_visible) { suspend_wait_and_stop_consuming_resources }

I can imagine that it gets massively more complicated. However, as, say, an executive, this probably indicates that you can lean on your sw dev staff to approach the asymptotic ideal that looks so simple if you really care about the goal.

Of course, and all major browsers have background tab throttling features[1]. But there are multiple goals and limited dev time.

[1] E.g. Firefox added some in version 58: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Page_Visibi...

Reminds me an old boss I had who, when I reported a complicated problem, always came up with: "why don't you just write if (problem) { solution(); } ? Should'nt take long, should it?

Well, the difficult part is not writing an if statement...

> Page not visible? Just stop it. Stop the layout engine, stop the javascript VM. If there was a transfer in progress, let it finish, a page might get the callback when it's active again

Contrats, you just broke the web for anyone doing one of the following:

- listening to music in the browser.

- having a webRTC chat with someone while browsing.

- keep reading another tab while waiting for a page to load.

And I'm probably missing a dozen of other totally legit use-cases.

"- keep reading another tab while waiting for a page to load."

Oh tell me about it. That's just about dead now. I mean, wasn't the point of multi tab browsing that I could do precisely that? Now I load Google Maps on my lethargic internet connection, go do something else for ten minutes, and come back and ... it starts loading when I open. This is on Firefox. Super sad.

Pretty surprising. I don't use Google maps though, but it works fine with all the websites I go daily.

YouTube music video running in another tab. Should it stop render the video and keep playing the audio? Maybe feasible but it should keep receiving both the video and audio data. Stop all of it? Not what I wish to happen.

Firefox does stop rendering videos in background tabs (or used to, at least). You can see it take a couple of frames to restart.

The javascript engine and rendering engines are what are generally affected by being backgrounded. So yes, generally the media library will continue receiving the combined video/audio stream and not bother rendering the video frames

Youtube uses the Media Source Extensions API, which means that JS is responsible for fetching compressed video data and feeding it into the decoder, so it can implement adaptive streaming. Pause JS for more than a few seconds and the video will stop playing.

Yes, and this is likely why Youtube now periodically pauses in the background on current macOS/Safari.

My understanding is that most video websites like Youtube use Media Source Extensions, a standard which allows javascript to download and assemble video streams in non-standard ways. This work is done by page JS and passed to the browser to decode and render. AFAIK youtube uses this to implement DASH streaming.

Presumably there is no easy way to disable page JS but keep your youtube video downloading.

Does HTML video need to catch up based on the most recent keyframe?

If they don't render while backgrounded, how do they do that without being noticeable?

Chrome does this for a long time now and I don't consider it an issue. You see a frozen version of the last decoded keyframe until the next one is decoded. Elegant solution IMO.

That makes sense, it seems I haven’t looked closely enough to notice.

I couldn’t find info on how often a keyframe is expected from YouTube, but I’m recalling the bad old divx days where you sometimes had a frame per scene and skipping was very slow.

What about a timer running in a different tab?

How can the browser distinguish between useful background Javascript (e.g. web based chat) and harmful background Javascript (e.g. advertising)?

It might not be perfect, but allowing only web workers (if you agree on getting push notifications from a page) might be the solution.

> But wouldn't the real test be running both browsers as the active window and comparing those results?

No matter what you're doing, all but one of your tabs will be in the background at any given moment.

What about 4 windows, 2 for safari, 2 for FF in windowed mode? But I guess only window can be active at a time.

> One thing that Safari is incredibly good at (and its' engineers are proud of) is the ability to reduce resource consumption for non-active tabs and windows to nearly zero. This is really good when running on battery because it is a shame to dedicate resources to things that aren't even visible on screen. But this could make the results far more dramatic through your test.

Does it mean that page in background isn't updated in Safari?

I just can't imagine Firefox will ever be performant as Safari. One is written for a single platform developed at the same company that develops the hardware and OS (I'm not trying to belittle the Safari team--it's kind of amazing what they do). The other is developed separately, must equally support at least 2 other OSes and has an expectation for supporting older setups.

My problem is that Safari won't work for me as a daily driver so it's not an option. It seems too aggressive in memory management and in reloading.

So I'm very happy to see Firefox improve performance over Firefox-v1.

WebKit also works on other platforms.

You're thinking of Blink. WebKit is pretty exclusive to macOS and iOS these days.

No, I'm not; I'm actually typing this from WebKit on Linux. I'd actually guess that WebKit runs on more platforms than Blink does…

I didn't say it didn't run on other OSes. But the big ones are mostly iOS and it shows in the targeting of the development. Blink is what's on most (non-gecko/servo) browsers people use now (chrome, chromium, Opera, the new Edge browser, etc).

> I'd actually guess that WebKit runs on more platforms than Blink does…

I'd say they're probably at parity, if not a small edge given to Blink since an entire OS is built around it. Which would be the only exclusive case of the two I can think of.

I'm actually curious which WebKit browser you're using. GNOME Web?

Yes, I was using GNOME Web.

Interesting. You're one of the few people I know on Linux not using Chrome/Chromium or Firefox (or one of it's derivatives). And the others I know mostly use Konqueror.

No, Webkit used to be a cross platform renderer which work started on Linux in the first place, so it is definitely not MacOS only.

I never said it was Mac only. I said it's development now was mostly focused on iOS browsers. You can obviously use GNOME Web and the like, but most big browsers (especially cross-platform) that aren't Gecko-based are Blink-based (Chrome/Chromium, Opera, Edge beta)

Even back in 2014, I was developing my own browser with webkit:


Works on any OS I've tried.

I never said it wasn't cross platform. I said it's development and use was pretty exclusive to iOS these days; outside of less common browsers like GNOME Web.

Webkit mother is literally KDE code.

WebKit was based off KHTML. It hasn't been the same engine for 17 years (though they do occasionally share code) and never used the same jS VM.

Nice bit of obscure knowledge that adds nothing to the conversation. Unless your argument is that KHTML and WebKit are the equivalent to Blink because of a shared ancestry; in which case you're arguing something I never claimed.

I just can't imagine Firefox will ever be performant as Safari.

Firefox has (for now at least) a huge leg up in terms of content blockers. IDK if that's enough to even out the energy consumption and performance, but it can't hurt.

I know Firefox is the one browser who isn't switching to the newer, more restrictive method of content blocking, but wasn't the (purported) motivation for Safari's change performance?

For my use, I keep many many tabs and windows open. Most of the efficiency gains I see are from handling that better. I don't use desktop Safari heavily. I tend to keep it as the thing I use when I suspect adblockers are messing up content (it's easier than disabling adblock). On my iPhone I do use an adblocker and haven't noticed problems. When I do browse the web without an adblocker I quickly recoil and think, "do people really live like this??"

wasn't the (purported) motivation for Safari's change performance?

Maybe, but what kind of performance hit will letting all the ads and nonsense through be? I probably could aim to find a trusty ad blocker for Safari, keeping in mind that Apple has left the disingenuously named uBlock up in their extension store. Or I could just stick with uBlock Origin and a browser that works with it.

I've got ~2000 tabs open in Firefox right now and don't feel like performance or battery life is a problem. I use 1Blocker on iOS, but it's clunkier, less effective, and more expensive than uBlock Origin (and I still get tons of in-app ads). That's not something I'm in any hurry to bring over to the desktop.

I can't speak to actual performance impact. I saw people flame Safari, then Chrome about the change. I was waiting to see how everything settled out for my own use case and switch browsers as needed.

> (and I still get tons of in-app ads)

I'm pretty sure that's expected. 1Blocker's FAQ says it won't work with most third party iOS apps like Chrome.

I'm sure usage varies and I'm glad Firefox works well for you. I have Firefox 70 hidden with about 7 windows and 40 tabs (total) and Activity Monitor points to it as the highest energy suck bouncing between 15-20 of whatever units this measures--in line with CPU usage. I only installed uBlock Origin last night for Firefox. I use it mostly for work stuff which generally doesn't have ads. Chrome, where I'm typing this is about 1/3 to 1/2 the usage (and it's not hidden).

I was hoping for more of an improvement from Firefox. Historically, using Chrome or Safari will get me literally hours longer between charging.

IIRC Safari achieves this by suspending the processes in background tabs, which could be running inefficient JavaScript (polling for new ads etc). There's no cross-platform way to do this, but I think Mozilla absolutely need to try and find a way to address this. Web sites cannot be trusted to write efficient well-behaved JavaScript and so the burden of taming it falls upon the browser. There is probably some throttling going on, but clearly not enough. Running background JavaScript should be an opt-in permission, not the default.

Firefox can and does aggressively throttle JS in background tabs. However, it's not easy to do this in a way that doesn't break sites. Sometimes background tabs have JS doing actually useful work --- playing audio, running a simulation, receiving notifications, stuff like that.

I don't know what Safari is doing differently to Firefox, and no doubt Firefox can improve here, but when people say "it's easy, just completely stop running JS in background tabs" they have no idea what tradeoffs that entails. (Just as when people said "browsers should just refuse to autoplay videos" had no idea what they were talking about.)

When people comments "it'd easy to..." or "just so XYZ, it's simple", it means they haven't actually done the work before, and is just sprouting bs.

The answer is simply that yes Safari breaks websites, but users are happy to make that tradeoff.

It's common knowledge among web developers that browsers aggressively throttle background tabs so anybody who is designing a website that depends on it is misguided.

I don't hear anybody complaining about Safari being too aggressive with background tabs, I do hear people complaining that Firefox uses too much battery. So I think Firefox should be more aggressive.

A poll of your friends may not constitute adequate data for making such decisions. We know for sure that techie-people and friends-of-techie-people are qualitatively different to the mass market.

These tradeoffs may also be different for different browsers. E.g. if you're Apple, perhaps breaking Web sites isn't a big deal since on iOS Safari is entrenched by fiat, and if users switch from Web apps to native apps, so much the better for Apple. For Mozilla that calculation works out differently.

Generally speaking "site X breaks in Firefox, works in Chrome" is a good way for Mozilla to lose market share.

Haven't people been complaining that youtube will randomly stop playing in the background on safari? I'm not so sure users are happy about that as you say.

That sounds simple to fix by checking whether the tab is playing audio.

There is an extension that does roughly this: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/total-suspend...

(Not to say that it wouldn't be good if Firefox was better at it, but for those using Firefox, it might still be interesting until then.)

Firefox users should take a look at the "Auto Tab Discard"[0] extension. It offloads inactive tabs, saving CPU and RAM, (similar to how Safari works).

It doesn't work quite as transparently (or effectively) as Safari's equivalent functionality, but it does make a noticeable difference. It's worked very well for me.

[0] https://addons.mozilla.org/en-CA/firefox/addon/auto-tab-disc...

On Windows I've been testing the new MS Edge because I've noticed my laptop has significantly higher CPU usage running FF. The reduced battery life is one thing, a hot laptop is another. Currently the new Edge is not as well optimized as the original, but there's more to come on that front.

I've been using FF since it was in beta, never left but I'm starting to come around to the reality that native browsers are best optimized for the device. While there's no real native browser to leverage on desktop Linux, on macOS/Windows, native may be the best way to go for most people. This is how break down browsers to friends and family.

Google Chrome- optimized for Google's needs and profit margin.

Microsoft Edge- optimized for your device, if running Windows.

Apple Safari- optimized for your device, if running macOS.

Mozilla Firefox- optimized for the user. Certainly a noble goal, but I increasingly have a "mobile" goal and that trend isn't slowing for anyone.

Yes, I also observe much more power drawn even on a single page (especially if it contains animations) opened in Firefox vs any other browser, and on Windows, IE is significantly less power hungry.

I've also checked this newest version, 70 on Windows and my measurement of the power use give practically identical results to the measurements I've done almost two years ago.

I see that the power drain comes from the browser's own code doing something unnecessary and as far as I see it doesn't even appear to platform dependent.

It's surely possible to optimize that and it's obviously not their priority.

If you would share any of your findings, I'd be interested to see that.

From what I've read, Mozilla can't really optimize rendering to the level of Safari & Edge. I found this article[0] on WebRender to be very interesting on this front. The author noted-

"Note: Painting and compositing is where browser rendering engines are the most different from each other. Single-platform browsers (Edge and Safari) work a bit differently than multi-platform browsers (Firefox and Chrome) do."

I love Firefox quite a bit, every detail, the way it scrolls with smooth scrolling off, the dedicated search bar for switching DuckDuckGo bangs, the container support. The dedicated search bar is a huge one, I can't imagine why no one else at least offers that, as a feature it can't cause that much maintenance headache. I definitely love FF as much as anyone here but I'm not one who argues that Gecko is necessary for a standards-based web, I'm not convinced by the argument. Webkit can be forked again and it has a significant userbase to act as a counterweight to Blink. It's increasingly difficult at this point to convince myself that native browsers don't make the most sense.


My notebook happens to have a fan calibrated to turn on when the CPU gets "too hot" where the point is above of what is consumed by IE to show the pages with more videos, so I actually hear the power consumption of Firefox and I simply don't hear it for the same page when opened in IE.

So for me is simply: open some page, hear the fan for as long as the page remains open. Do the same with IE, silence.

BTW I otherwise haven't IE used for daily browsing, but I did a lot of tests with the same pages to see that it's not an accident and that IE does show the same content, but with less power used.

For somebody with a different computer: find any web page with more media playing on the page (you should see the videos playing or pictures "animating"), open the task manager (this is a Windows example) then switch to the graph view and compare the browsers while looking at the graph view. The task manager area "under the curve" reflects the power used -- the more CPU used for a given amount of time -- the more power used. In my observations the area drawn by Firefox is more that twice as big as the one by IE.

That's what drains the battery faster: taking more CPU to keep the "animations" on the page. Moreover Firefox has some consumption created by some of its background tasks even when the pages aren't animated, but the animations are really wasting a lot of power.

From my look at the behavior, having some experience in evaluating the performance of the software, and spending some time trying to figure out what's happening there, my impression is that the source of that power drain is in the Firefox code which is not platform specific which explains why they have problems on every platforms with that.

I've concluded they simply never actively tried to minimize overall CPU and GPU use (both will use more power unless somebody measures and tries to improve the code): even when they did move some pieces of processing to the GPU, their motivation was speeding up what's visible, actively minimizing the power used was simply not the part of their process.

You can also search their Bugzilla to see how they handle the problems with the CPU, GPU use and the power drain. This can be a part of the workflow, measuring that at least for every release and acting to fix the issues, but I just don't see that anywhere.

That's essentially how I've been A:B testing as well. I was hoping you had some software that measured power draw and tracked it. Much like the Windows 10 power usage info. A laptop fan is a pretty good arbiter.

Agreed though, it's very noticeable and I never did feel it until I started using a laptop more than a desktop. I'm also finding bugs in the iOS version of Firefox which is probably going to be the last straw, not only does it freeze often, my bookmarks are no longer there and they were synced from my Firefox account. I'm likely to migrate to native browsers for whichever platform I'm on at that time. As you said in their own process they're focused on feature development but not efficiency. Overall, I'm losing faith that Mozilla has the resources to effectively manage all of this.

I hate to followup with a 2nd response but I wanted to add, it really would be a poor priority anyway because they'll never be able to beat Apple or MS at optimizing a browser for their OS.

My advice to Mozilla would be to continue on the customizability and privacy route, and get Firefox on iOS in better shape. It's been freezing on me for as long as I can remember using it. Very buggy, and has played a significant role in losing some confidence in Mozilla.

This message and all of my messages in this thread posted from Microsoft Edge (Official build) beta (64-bit).

Test: open 10 tabs of techmeme.com, on OSX Catalina (10.15 Beta), on a 2015 retina 13" macbook pro.

Firefox: Threads 71, %CPU 2.5. Energy: 0.4. Opening the tabs all at once took up ~68% CPU. Energy went up to 75.

Safari: threads: 8, %CPU: 0.7-2. When opening the tabs: %CPU: 28%. Energy usage: 2.4.

Firefox grew sluggish when opening that many tabs at once. Safari handled it like a champ.

Pretty bleak for firefox.

Mozilla's priorities are (and have mostly always been) for FF on Windows. It's a gripe that me (and the great majority of FF devs who use Macs and Linux boxes) have been suffering under for years) that those OSs will just never be the highest priority--and the reasons why have much to do with Apple and their Apple-first mentality for their platform. It is only partly a joke that the last users of Firefox will be software developers and their grandmothers. But there are a lot more grannies than devs.

As other people have mentioned, Safari doesn't load/run tabs in the background. What happens when you switch to each of those tabs so you can use the site?

Something like this happens on my Linux laptop: Firefox eats battery 2-3 times faster than Chrome & cooler activity is much more higher.

Seems like Firefox cares only about Windows.

> Seems like Firefox cares only about Windows.

…which is why all the work was done to support Core Animation on macOS?

To be fair, CoreAnimation was first released a year before FireFox 1.0.

For many years CA wasn't hosted in the window server; it was rendered locally within the app via GL 1.x, which is worse than what Firefox was doing. And window server rendering didn't result in large energy consumption gains until Retina Displays came around.

Retina came about in 2012. That was 7 years ago!

what would be interesting is running with state of the art ad blocking in safari (which IIRC they recently changed) and firefox with ublock origin on multiple domains so as to better approximate advertisement load across the web

i posit that ad blocking is actually a net resource saver, probably not at the level of using safari over firefox but certainly over unprotected firefox

(i am on gnu/linux or else i'd do this myself)

Safari is a high bar to reach but they are getting closer to Chrome.

Any number about chrome?

> Firefox 70 introduces three new properties related to text decoration/underline:

> text-decoration-thickness: sets the thickness of lines added via text-decoration.

> text-underline-offset: sets the distance between a text decoration and the text it is set on. Bear in mind that this only works on underlines.

> text-decoration-skip-ink: sets whether underlines and overlines are drawn if they cross descenders and ascenders. The default value, auto, causes them to only be drawn where they do not cross over a glyph. To allow underlines to cross glyphs, set the value to none.

I'm so excited for these. Implementing sane underlines for headers has been a pain in the ass for far too long. Writers rejoice!

Don't want to rain on your parade, but this is a long way from being generally available: https://caniuse.com/#search=text-decoration-thickness

11% coverage, and almost all of that is iOS Safari.

This is one of these cases though, were coverage doesn't really matter. The fall-back is fairly reasonable.

That's true, but if I used all CSS properties with this amount of coverage it would cause a lot of extra work for very little gain. If this is something that really gets your goat, and you use Firefox, perhaps it's worth it to scratch the itch, but otherwise pretty useless currently.

But if you'd otherwise use border-bottom hacks, this is a good reason to stop doing those and just have Chrome users live with the not-terrible default underline until Chrome supports those properties as well.

It's coming to Chromium soon

> We have plans to start implementation work on this before the end of the year.


Thanks for the heads-up. That will make it worthwhile. It will be nice to drop the dirty border-bottom hacks.

It'll be nice to simplify underline links tremendously once that becomes implemented in IE/Edge & Safari. The existing methods for avoiding underlines overlapping text descenders like Tufte-CSS's method (https://github.com/edwardtufte/tufte-css) are kinda crazy looking, and also cause the occasional bug with text highlighting.

Do people actually want it? Technological limitation or not, this is how things have been both in print and digital for as long as I can remember. Not to mention handwriting. I still find the non-overlapping underline weird (even if kind of neat).

I think people do; it's popular enough that many people implement it, not just Tufte-CSS, it was one of the first things I added to gwern.net once I saw it demoed, I believe Medium also does it, and no one's complained to me that they really like the overlapping obscuration.

I really like the overlapping underline. Well, really I like the non-broken underline, which happens to overlap with descenders.

If the underline indicating a link breaks, it looks like there are two adjacent links. To check if this is the case, I have to mouseover both the link before and after the break, and compare the URLs with my eyes.

I find this a much greater annoyance then I do the overlapping underlining.

>If the underline indicating a link breaks, it looks like there are two adjacent links

Ah that's what that is. I've seen a few like that and wondered why there were two identical links next to each other not thinking it was underline style.

I'll save myself the hover now!

Wikipedia also does it, I just noticed.

I wonder if the default values for offset and thickness will respect those declared in the font. And also whether sub-pixel values are allowed? I don’t know how many fonts declare these values, but it would be a shame not to use information that provides values tailored to the font in use.

Firefox has always* respected the underline position/thickness in the font. This is why in an example like

    data:text/html,<u style="font:99px times">Times</u> <u style="font:99px Arial">Arial
the Times and Arial elements get different underlines.

(Safari and Chrome don't do this, they ignore the font's properties and use an arbitrary underline of their own -- which differs between the two, Chrome's being somewhat thicker.)

* "Always" may not be strictly true, but it's certainly been a long time.

That’s great to hear. I had assumed otherwise because of the other browsers lack of support.

Me too -- This is a real quality of life improvement for developers that work with picky designers :)

Links for the password manager, "Firefox Lockwise" go through adjust, which appears to be a tracking/analytics/marketing platform. This is both through their website and by clicking through the Firefox UI menu.

I guess it's harder to walk the walk yourself when the desires to track usage and analytics come from within your own teams.

Check the links yourself over at:


And built in to Firefox by going about:logins, the top right * menu and clicking Lockwise for Android or Lockwise for iPhone

You end up with redirect links like:


To be fair, it's common practice to measure marketing campaign effectiveness. Mozilla doesn't hide that they share data to "Measure and support our marketing"

"Campaign and Referral Data: This helps Mozilla understand the effectiveness of our marketing campaigns."

"On iOS and Android: Firefox by default sends mobile campaign data to Adjust, our analytics vendor, which has its own privacy policy. Mobile campaign data includes a Google advertising ID, IP address, timestamp, country, language/locale, operating system, and app version. Read the documentation."

Src: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/privacy/firefox/

I mean, they act like all of the info Google takes in goes straight to ads, when a lot of it goes to it's analytics platform

I fail to see how the latter prevents the former. This is digital information that can be copied endlessly, not a physical object that can only be owned by one entity at a time.

Google doesn't share data between Analytics and Ads behind the scenes, only if you set it up through the the site owner and it doesn't go through to other sites.

Not sure what your point is? Of course it's common practice. Of course it's useful information for the business. Of course it will be documented in their privacy policy.

You just described basically all tracking and analytics. This is what they are blocking by default for everyone except themselves apparently.....

And I can't opt-out?

The one thing that prevents me from switching to Firefox is the spell checker. Like many non-native English people, I'm constantly switching between languages when typing. Chrome is smart with that, and detects the right language sentence per sentence. Is there a way to have FF do this? Did I miss something?

It seems there are add-ons for this :-)


I installed it, but this should be solved at the native level and not on JS.

What difference does it make?

Having features function by default matters a lot in regards to user adoption. A very large portion of users will never change their default settings, let alone discover and install an add on for something Chrome has by default.

Here’s an article by Mozilla stating the power of default settings:


extensions are one lump sum offer away from becoming malware

e: immaigne people down-voting facts https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/-particle-chr...

The same is true of Firefox itself, or indeed any piece of software.

There's slight difference in that in Firefox's case tech journals will be writing about it, everyone else will be talking about it and it will be on front page of HN. In the case of random extension going rogue it will likely get unnoticed for years and when it is finally noticed there's a small chance it will be picked by HN if planets align.

Maybe. Take a look at my exchange with u/LoSboccacc a parallel branch of this thread. If what he claims is correct (I don't know, but he seems pretty confident) then there is already a huge gaping security hole in FF that no one is talking about (AFAICT).

not only is factual, it comes with linked sources for all the claimed points


Don't believe everything you read on the internet.

Yes, the text on that page can be interpreted as supporting your position. Still, "Offer a password manager..." is not quite the same thing as "silently read all of your passwords and do whatever the extension wants with them..." I have a very hard time believing that the latter is the case and that no one has sounded the alarm on this yet.

Also, add-ons have been deprecated in favor of extensions.

Its true of things beyond software too. The problem is the power of people to produce large enough lump sums.

holy false equivalence batman. it's definitely harder to buy/compromise firefox

Yes, that's true, but it would be correspondingly more difficult to find an alternative. If a plugin is compromised you're much more likely to be able to easily find an alternative. So it's a trade-off either way.

the cost of a compromised plugin is not just the inconvenience, but also all the passwords you might enter on forms if the plugin has full permissions granted

That's a stretch. We're talking about a translation plugin here. If FF doesn't have a mechanism to keep passwords safe from that, then that is the problem, not the lack of native translation.

if a plugin can read what's in a field, it can read the passwords therein, I'm not talking about the password file.

I am not wise in the ways of Firefox plugins, but if the ability of a plugin to read a password field is not a separate permission, then that is a much more serious problem than the lack of native translation. That's just a huge gaping security hole, full stop. If that is indeed how Firefox is designed, then the lack of native translation should be the least of your concerns.

> I am not wise in the ways of Firefox plugins

> That's just a huge gaping security hole

> If that is indeed how Firefox is designed

that's the whole point I'm trying to make! goddamit stop working on assumption and hypothetical thinking I'm a lunatic, this is a real issue and the actual way firefox works, how do you think all password manager work?

here look yourself https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/permission-request-mess...

and guess what permission the language extension need?


Go back to this ancestor comment in this thread:


We're not talking about password managers here, we're talking about spelling checkers. If a spelling checker can read passwords, then Firefox has a problem that that has nothing to do with spelling checkers or password managers. You cannot safely use any plugin.

Now, it's possible that Firefox does indeed have this very serious problem, I don't know. But I think it's much more likely that the FF engineers did the obvious thing and excluded password fields from being accessed by plugins by default if they can access text fields. If this were not the case, the complaint would not have been, "FF doesn't have native spell checking", the complaint would have been, "FF has this gaping security hole through which you can drive an M1 Abrams tank."

good thing then that I linked you to the very spell checker parent included to show you that it's flagged with that goddamn permission I'll put it here as well since you have missed it > https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/automatic-spe...

you're not listening and you're having a very strong opinion on a topic you don't know about, which makes having a discussion frustrating, tedious and very unhackernews-like, the data is before your eyes, believe what you will.

but if you are unwilling to listen, then why ask and answer?

> that goddamn permission

What permission is that? The only permission I see is "Access your data for all websites." If that includes passwords, then FF has much bigger problems than not having native spell checking.

One aspect is having to maintain double dictionaries. Back in the early Mac OS X days the system-wide dictionary was one of the little features that made me happy.

This is the kind of thing that should be built-in instead of Monitor, Pocket, etc. :(

They help pay the bills, so I don't mind addons like pocket even if I don't use it.

as an english only speaker I have no need for a feature like this to be built in. I get much more out of monitor. So perhaps neither should be built in by default?

Please vote and/or speak up (constructively, no "mee too" comments please) on https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=69687

LOL forever @ "opened 19 years ago"

> Opened 19 years ago

Edit: I commented on Bugzilla I hope everyone does the same.

Go ahead and vote if you wish, but please do not add “me too” comments to our bug tracker.

Thanks for the reminder. I edited my above message to reflect the same sentiment.

Weird, Chrome (specifically Electron) always gets confused when I speak English and Spanish all at once and Slack just starts to say everything I spell in English is wrong, it kinda annoys me. I don't think I have experienced this on Firefox.

Yes that's probably the most annoying thing in FF. Chrome does spell checking even when you mix multiple languages in the same sentence.

There used to be the Dictionary Switcher addon, but doesn't work >v57. An alternative I found was https://addons.mozilla.org/en-GB/firefox/addon/automatic-spe...

Whether it is on Chrome, Firefox, Android or in my text editor, I'll always disable spell checking. I am also not a native english speaker and seeing those red underlines everywhere is just way too annoying for me.

not a great solution but dictionaries are simple files and you can merge them into the one you consider to be your main language

Well, I mean, "do" is an English word, "de" is an Esperanto word and "di" is an Indonesian word. I'd rather they get marked as wrong in the wrong language. (If I'm mixing languages, which I do on my phone often enough in text messages, whatever; but then I don't care about spelling anyway.)

Have a look at https://www.grammarly.com

Honest question, where does one use a spellchecker in the browser ?

All text-based input fields. Like this text-area element I am typing in now. But also for elements with the contentEditable attribute set to true.

This is one of the features I appreciate a lot. I am not a native speaker of the English language, and I sometimes mix British English and USA English, and the spell-checker helps me to write consistently better messages.

Thank you for the explanation!

I myself (not a native speaker) am very pedantic about setting all my software to enUS and turn all spell checking off. (I can't even stand the linter underline in VS for example, it ruins my focus, especially when it underlines as I type and then lags before disappearing at the end of the word)

The only place where I use spellcheck is e-mail at work to avoid typos. Over the years I've learned to proofread my messages before sending them and touch typing helps a ton as well.

In the textarea where you just entered your question...

I'm assuming Chrome is reporting back to Google everything you're typing. Privacy is probably what's holding Firefox back.

In Chrome you can choose if you want to use an offline or online spellcheck. Offline is on by default.

Similarly, the auto-translate (which Firefox is finally getting) is insanely useful if you ever browse a website that isn’t in a language you can read. I’d be interested in how both features can be implemented in a privacy-preserving way.

This is on HN frontpage right now - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21321430

No. Default is Hunspell based offline spell checkers, since the beginning of Chrome.

> Pause on DOM Mutation in Debugger

Heckin finally!

The dev tool improvements all seem good. Still no support for inline code edits, which means JS debugging will still be something of a pain, but strengthening Firefox's position as one of the better tools for debugging and prototyping CSS.

Saw that too. What a wicked feature. Will make reverse engineering and debugging other peoples code much much easier!

Switching to CoreAnimation is very, very nice - however, this still doesn't feel quite at home on macOS because of a bug that's pretty old at this point.

Overflow/rubberband scrolling needs to be added here, because that is how scrolling is supposed to work on macOS. If you don't have it, you feel very alien. I'm not entirely sure why this isn't fixed after all these years, especially since Chrome managed to do it - it's not like an open source implementation doesn't exist at this point to crib the math from.

Firefox still doesn't render native OS elements like select boxes and right-click menus, so I have little faith overflow scrolling will ever be fixed.

Yeah... Firefox is probably the biggest example of why you shouldn't reinvent the wheel in terms of cross-platform GUI. It just looks and feels so out of place, whether it's macOS or some niche setup like running it under KDE. If you're in Gnome or Windows it can look fine, but I still question much of the iconography and general layout.

Any time you bring it up, though, you get batted away and beaten over the head with privacy, browser monoculture, or open source arguments. It's really frustrating; if you want open source to succeed, you have to also want it to compete on the same level.

It's like expecting people to eat vegan food when you call it the same as the non-vegan option... and then they don't want to, because it tastes nothing like what they expect.

In fact (I can't believe I'm saying this) I almost wish they were a Qt shell.

Every browser reimplements the native platform widgets. Even Safari! You have to, because the native platform widgets never support all the features a browser needs (CSS styling, JS event interception, etc etc).

Unfortunately, copying the look and feel of the native platform is an endless treadmill as those platforms evolve, and for obvious reasons Safari is always going to be better at keeping up with that on Mac than Firefox is.

Dude, I know - read my original comment, I'm clearly aware that Chrome had to implement their side of things.

Firefox goes out of their way to draw controls that don't fit in. Chrome, for all their faults, tries very hard to emulate the proper look/feel/functionality.

AFAIK Firefox does not "go out of their way to draw controls that don't fit in". On Mac and other platforms, the policy is that the controls look and feel like their native counterparts (unless overidden by Web authors) ... unless it's changed since I left Mozilla, and I don't think it has. In some cases, however, that has not been achieved. I haven't had a Mac for long time so I can't speak to the details of what works and what doesn't.

FWIW I use Linux and on Linux, Chrome makes no attempt at all to use the native platform theme, while Firefox does a pretty good job.

It's pretty off on Mac, sadly.

I will, however, apologize for saying they "go out of their way". I fired that bit of text off without thinking, but it's needlessly assuming (and likely outright wrong) on my part. Thanks for the correction.

On Windows and Linux, Firefox draws native-like (win32 or gtk) controls. On Windows (possibly Linux), Chrome draws custom controls (for <button>, sliders, and right-click menus).

Since I can't edit my above comment, I want to be clear: I'm talking about the browser chrome, not the widgets (select, input, etc) inside a page.

Wow, blown away by how much better the new password manager is! If they add support for custom fields on each login, this could almost completely replace my need for a 3rd party solution.

Couple other features I'd like: - Import from other formats (Keepass, or at least any format Keepass can export to) - Share items with someone else

I'm blown away that there's no import yet. How else am I going to switch from another password manager?

I also saw a comment from the dev team that they're "aware" of the need for such a feature but it's not on a road map yet.

Agreed. I'm thinking of cancelling my Dashlane subscription and moving to this Password Manager now.

Firefox's Lockwise App (on android) leaves a lot demanding though.

Wow, a subscription password manager.

Then what happens when you're on a different browser?

With a previous update 1-2 years ago, the password manager seemed to lose the ability to force-create and edit new items, which is necessary if you are using it as a general purpose password manager, or for sites that stubbornly refused to play nice. I switched to LastPass, which worked out fairly well, with the family option, so that my spouse and I can share subsets of passwords with each other. But this FF update does look like they've fixed that issue.

personally im trying to move away from keeping everything in one basket but maybe there is some benefit to having a password manager built in vs a 3rd party extension? less attack area?

earlier in this year I switched from bitwarden (which I would still recommend) to keepass because I wanted to fill desktop passwords... but there is the added benefit that you actually don't need a browser extension if you don't want to. instead ive been using the autotype feature that can be run from a hotkey.

So when some Firefox tab gets owned by some Javascript exploit, does that mean its integrated password manager could be compromised too?

Don't you still use a 3rd party solution for app logins on your phone?

Can't speak for Android, but for iOS Firefox has an app which does all the proper hooking into system autofill to be able to fill your passwords browsers/apps.

(There's an Android app, too. I'm just not familiar with Android's affordances for that sort of thing so I can't really comment on how it works.)


Does it only support passwords? I actually use 1Password for quite a bit of information. (Credit cards, bank accounts, email accounts, servers, and random memberships)

I will always use a 3rd party password solution since it prevents browser lock-in.

That's one of my reasons too, I use Safari on iPhone and iPad, and FireFox on my desktop. It's great to just be able to use 1Password everywhere.

This is wonderful. I wish they would make Pocket a little less terrible (no forced reader mode for links, etc)

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact