Honest question... who did they lose to? Google Chrome?
For me personally, Firefox has been better than Chrome for several years now. The only reason I still load up Chrome is when I want to stream to my Chromecast.
Netscape lost. Original Opera lost. IE lost. Edge lost. As in killed off by creators and no new work is done on it.
Mozilla Firefox at this point is going strong and growing. It is a better browser than Chrome for me.
I was under impression things were going up since move to new faster engine.
Pretty sure android firefox should be going up.
I'm not helping things by having the stats reporting turned off as a first thing.
People may have made different decisions to chose their browser for good reasons, but Google also built a monopoly for very good reasons, too. Users were and are still constantly pushed and incentivized to use Chrome, because of extensive, multi-year PR campaign, digital and outdoor ads, but also technical tricks.
This shouldn't be an issue if you run your secondary instance with -no-remote -profile="your separate profile".
>Using Chrome for casual browsing was just less of a headache.
That still doesn't answer the original question though. Why choose chrome over firefox, when it has no legacy firefox extensions? Does chrome have those legacy extensions' features built in? Was chrome better than firefox, and the only thing keeping you on was the legacy extensions?
No surprise they lost all their market share.
- that started the race later slowing the to put certain "new" tech in it from the get to go instead of trying to retrofit it later
- Google had far more money for engineers and marketing.
- Google has a kinda unfair advantage through Android and Google Search.
Especially starting later after some technological shifts happend allowed them to get a technological advantage over Firefox for some time, combined with the much better image they had in the past and Android/Google search it was pretty hard for them not to become the dominant browser.
The question is why thinks didn't shift noticably in recent years?
This brings the problem that the futures doesn't look too good given the power Google now has to just push through theire stuff and given that there has been a bunch of cases where certain Google program _seem_ to have been intentionally "optimized" to be fast on chrome but _only_ on chrome and no other browser...
Edited for spelling fixes.
See this other comment I made: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22299884
There's s link to a video by DataIsBeautiful which, if you think of OS market share (notably switch to mobile big time at the detriment of x86 in the early 2010s), is as clear as it gets. Mainstream users in their vast majority do not even think of using a different browser — there's one out-of-the-box, right?.. more pressing concern is getting on with one's life.
The only reason I use Chrome now is for that pesky site that still hasn't gotten away from Flash. Unfortunately this is the case with some online training modules we are required to finish. At least now I can throw away Google Chrome and use Microsoft Edge. A tiny political victory, perhaps.
And that's a really, really hard thing to pull off.
I recall when Mozilla made it a central goal to adhere strictly to web standards, at a time when it was really tedious to get cross-browser compatibility, and other browsers followed them.
To me, that alone is a big win.
Arguably you could say they lost some market share to Chrome and Safari, but realistically they never won much in the first place.
And that is from someone who followed Firefox development before it was even called Firefox.
I tried fx_cast but it didn't work with Plex.
Since Firefox switched to Quantum, I am exclusively using it on my work, home and portable computers. Chromium on my Arch Laptop was buggy, had a memory leak, and would consume all my 16G of RAM after keeping tabs open for a while. Firefox solved that for me.
With uBlock, Privacy Badger, Cookie AutoDelete and FF's built-in blocker I have a functional defense-line against privacy violating practices (not totally immune against fingerprinting yet).
The reader mode helps me to get rid of the clutter and read the text, very happy with that.
I also use Firefox and Firefox Preview on Android. The latter is specially superior in performance and has less bugs. For example on Firefox Android I had non-finishing download bars, not any more in the Preview. The performance is obviously superior. Nighly builds support uBlock now.
The "Send Tab" feature is also very practical (I have a FF account for syncing purposes). I send tabs to my other devices which helps me to follow things on my other machines and also to memorize things by seeing them in a short while on another machine.
There are two things about FF that I dislike. First thing is the massive amount of outdated articles and ancient support tickets online. Good luck with searching for a technical solution for a FF problem!
Next thing is the source code. I have compiled it many times in order to fix a niche bug. I even bought a better PC to compile it faster. This aside, it is hard to understand the code. There are zillions of moving pieces, and ad-hoc bug fixing is not an option. You have to follow things for weeks if not months to get to the right information. This probably can be improved by better docs explaining the code to contributors and new comers.
Overall I'm happy with it. Moreover, it is important to have alternatives otherwise we might lose the open web as we know it.
Edit: add paragraphs
The code is already written, I just think they are still too scared to ship an extension that works against their primary sponsor.
It's quite clunky to set up though. To add a site to a container, I have to open a new tab in the target container, go to the website, check "always open in this container" in the container menu, then open a new tab, then say "yes, always in this container" at the prompt.
It also helps to be even-handed and call out when Mozilla and/or Firefox does something right as well as when they do something wrong.
If you can't recognize something as a fact, it doesn't mean it isn't. I don't care about downvotes on such topics though, I didn't even know I was downvoted until someone pointed it out.
Not only that, but it also connects to Google's SafeBrowsing servers. Is that required by their search engine contract with Google? Shouldn't be turned on by default.
Pocket is basically their version of Read Later, etc...And it’s completely optional whether you want to use it or not. So I’m not sure I understand this complaint.
Mozilla’s first integration of Pocket was poorly done, and rightfully raised complaints. But since they have purchased it, a lot of those complaints have been resolved.
As a privacy enthusiast, what's wrong with Google's SafeBrowsing service? It provides protection from low-hanging fruit with anonymized data (hashes of URLs).
Matches _what_ ? Firefox doesn't send hashes to Google Safe Browsing. This would not only be a privacy problem it would also make the browser much too slow. Instead Firefox periodically downloads a summary of what might be unsafe, and then it compares hashes to that summary. If there's a match in the summary (rare but it happens) it fetches more detailed parts of the total Safe Browsing map to make a decision.
As a rule of thumb I'd say when a person complains about Safe Browsing without any clue how it actually works I'm confident they're exactly the type of "power user" who most needs Safe Browsing to keep them out of trouble because they're falsely confident in their own abilities.
Anonymization is a very tricky subject, and there is a lot of techniques that get trumpeted but are absolutely not effective assuming a bad faith actor.
IF the prefix is a match, which is relatively unusual then the browser requests the full list for that prefix. But also, no, Google just sends back a list of full hashes and not URLs.
> that is what can be brute forced with relative ease
OK. 1f6866 is a hash prefix, quick "brute force" it with this supposed relative ease, what am I looking at?
How about 0aebaf? Ah, trick question, that's just noise stirred in automatically by Firefox (yes their implementation silently does this, typically the noise drowns out signal by a ratio of 4:1 but it's configurable).
Or wait, maybe the first one was noise and this isn't. Google neither knows nor cares.
Still, you'll just use "relative ease" to brute force every 24-bit number and then er, more brute force to figure out which ones are bogus. You can do the same with my phone number. One of the digits is a "five" - quick, brute force the whole number and tell me what it is to show how great "brute force" is at hand-waving impossible problems!
> if you already have a stream of previous they are visiting
I know this trick. Hey, pick a number, then add two to that number, then take away the number you first thought of. The number you're now thinking of is two - tada!
Yes, if I know where you are then I can "magically" tell where you are using seemingly unrelated information, by simply discarding it and already knowing where you are.
But this "technique" works perfectly well without Safe Browsing and so it has no bearing on whether Safe Browsing is in fact safe.
> Anonymization is a very tricky subject
Brain surgery is also a tricky subject. But Google's Safe Browsing project doesn't do Brain surgery either.
Why Mozilla is hellbent on pushing this upon their users is beyond me, it just hurts their image in my opinon.
It's one of their many attempts at finding a revenue source that isn't Google. Their hope was that people would love it so much that they'd sign up for the pay version.
I have a huge amount of sympathy for Mozilla on this issue. They get slammed for being funded by Google, but pretty much every time they do something that could generate revenue and get them off of Google's wallet, they get roundly slammed for that, too.
I don't see that at all, I mean they've been funded by Google for practically their entire existence.
On the contrary it seems to me that Firefox users find that funding the project through selling the default search engine is a good compromise as it is both easy to switch to a different search engine, and also that the vast majority use Google either way.
Also it's not as if Pocket will ever come anywhere remotely near making Mozilla self-sustainable, it's all so weird to me as this really hurts their image as a 'users-first' organisation.
Off-topic, but I find current integration equally poor. Why do I have to spend extra clicks to login every time I want to add something to Pocket? Why it doesn't use stored credentials just like Sync does?
If you sign into Pocket with your Firefox Sync account, this is the behavior.
It should only prompt you to re-login if you've cleared cookies. Even then, you can re-login via FF Sync without entering the password in again.
If you're logging in with a service other than FF Sync (ex: Google), I'm not sure how you expect FF to know what your credentials are to log you in.
Looks like Cookie AutoDelete extension somehow affects Pocket but not Sync. Thank you for hint!
FWIW, I believe all the Pocket client code is open source.
"Equality, discourse, and diversity" are the very principles that enable people to "magnify divisiveness, incite violence, promote hatred, and intentionally manipulate fact and reality." Any attempt to promote freedom of expression while simultaneously silencing the worst of humanity is inherently at odds.
Hatred is a naturally occuring phenomina, not a learned behavior. You can't just quarantine it to make it go away. That only makes it worse.
The internet is not a breeding ground for hatred. It's just a reflection of how bad we can really be.
The question is - do you need to re-write the internet economy as Brave are trying to to achieve it, and not just block trackers?
The third element is that governments are becoming addicted to the vast trove of information gathered - will they be willing to give that up if a technical/business model solution takes off.
I do agree that changing the internet economy would be great though, but at this point I'm not entirely sure I trust Brave to do that. They clearly want a piece of the advertising cake under the guise of "disrupting" things, but should they end up being successful I'm not yet completely convinced that it'll change things fundamentally. I'm definitely curious to see if they manage to do it though, even if it ends up as a failed experiment it will have been an interesting one.
If, for example, an effective adblocking browser takes off, huge amounts of revenue to content providers will disappear. So content providers will start to resist in the only way they can - by blocking people with adblockers.
If you want to avoid either massive reduction of content, or the blocking of ad blockers, then you need to offer an alternative.
As I said, whether Brave's model is the right alternative is an open question - but at least they are having a go.
You could argue the garbage is the problem - taking ad money from better sources, however if you have a blanket ad block then there is no discrimination - the Brave model offers you a chance to discriminate but still use ad payment model.
The alternative is to move to 'pay to view' models - the problem here is that then competes with free content that is free because it's paided propaganda.
Even something as simple and obnoxious as donation nagging, like Wikipedia, seems preferable to what Brave has proposed.
Technically the browser is nice, but there’s something nice about a for profit org whose incentives are aligned with mine. For now, I use a FireFox for similar reasons, but I like Brave’s mode for the web better than the “bad ad” model that google and Facebook push.
I used to like Opera for similar reasons.
And nobody has ever demonstrated that this ostensible "dependence" has any adverse effects on Mozilla's policy.
And you're right, the non-profit-status doesn't imply that, they could just as well do the same as a commercial enterprise. It would be more obvious that way.
Would Mozilla make the step to ship an adblocker with Firefox? It would certainly be what their users want (the most popular extension by far being uBlock Origin), but it would pretty much decrease their worth to Google to zero, hence kill the funding. And there's your conflict of interest.
And perhaps you and I know how to disable an ad blocker selectively. An average user might simply see problems with websites and uninstall Firefox as "not working", tanking its marketshare even more.
So Google doesn't necessarily factor into that decision, really.
It very much could lead to the opposite too. "Oh hey, the web works when you're using Firefox". My mother has become a missionary (for adblockers, not firefox) since she's once witnessed how websites look on a friend's PC. She told her "I think your computer is broken", which lead to confusion & a presentation on my mother's PC... which lead to them calling me asking how to make her friend's PC do that too.
It might, ironically, also be a great signal for Google's bots. I've never seen a quality site that tried to block me for using an adblock, and even "hey, please turn adblock on" is a strong signal for me that it's SEO content and I should go on looking for something else.
There are other (maybe a bit more complex) ways to tell what browser you're using, and whether you block ads.
> I've never seen a quality site that tried to block me for using an adblock
...yet. This is starting to change, and a lot of websites still have ads as their main source of revenue. Either that, or subscriptions, and the latter (for online newspapers, for example) is taking off very slowly.
Again, our usage patterns are in the minority, so whatever tough choices we might want to make are not necessarily to everyone's benefit right now.
At least in theory, I support the Better Ads initiative by Adblock Plus. Even though I've mostly been using uBlock Origin lately...
Yes, and doing so will escalate the arms race. I believe that browsers will come out as the winners, and that's a good thing for privacy.
> This is starting to change, and a lot of websites still have ads as their main source of revenue.
Sure, but then again, most sites I see on a daily basis in Google are pure shit - made only to display ads, with the same content that is also on a million other pages, slightly rewritten so Google considers it unique. Nothing of value will be lost if the all burn up and go away.
I'm sure you're right, there will be unforeseen consequences, but I feel like appeasing the adtech industry by not stopping their surveillance is not going to be helpful.
Better Ads focuses only on perception: A flashy, dumb static banner is bad, a stalking text-ad that sends information back to its creepy owner where it is then correlated with MasterCard payment data, your location, the interests of your friends etc and saves all of that into a shadowy profile that follows you around is fine, because it's text only and is labeled "advertisement". I can't decide whether it was just an extortionist cash-grab or a smart way to redirect the attention from the actual problem to the surface problem ("it's bright, and it's animated").
Even if I agree with you on the rest, we're back to Firefox not having a majority marketshare.
Mozilla could make a choice to only serve our particular niche, to the exclusion of less-technical users, but I don't think it's a good choice for it, or for the whole web.
Mozilla Foundation has google as it’s biggest revenue source , so if Google ever decides to change this it will cripple the org.
I think this would be different if revenue came from many donors so this risk would be lower.
I use FireFox and support Mozilla, but it’s challenging to donate to FireFox as Mozilla runs quite a few projects.
Nobody is perfect, but non-profits have risks like any organization.
 was yahoo for a while, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Foundation
Not really. They do have a rainy-day fund, and they have experimented with partnering with other search providers in the past (such as Microsoft, or country-local search engines like Yandex). The main reason they still use Google is that the users prefer it. But if Google decides not to pay anymore, Mozilla will survive.
The user just deposits something like $10/month from their credit card and spreads it across their favourite websites.
They can do that and be completely ignorant that everything is running on ethereum. Which is really the way it should be in the end. Ethereum is just a hidden value transfer backend that saves a company money.
I mean, I support their efforts and all but I am forced to use a chrome based browser because FF has poor windows/sso integration and absolutley horrible memory management. A tab of any tool's webui that does a lot of work with a lot of data will not only bring firefox to a halt but the entire system. I can at least try to use it for soft workloads but you never know when visiting the wrong page will cause this issue again. Why can't it manage it's impact on the rest of the system?
My job performance would tank dramarically if I used firefox exclusively!
Why can't they work to make it better than Chrome? They were throwing Rust at it a few years ago,so what happened? Do they just not test against the right sites?
I mean, the mozilla foundation is not poor. They have money. Is it just politics or do they think getting gmail and youtube to work is all that is needed? I am only saying all this because i like firefox. Mozilla needs a wake up call. Do they not get the problems at hand or do they not care or do they lack some resource or motivation? I mean I will be happy to even buy a license for firefox if they get it to even come close to Chrome's performance. Maybe they have too many well intended fanboy's cheeeing them on?
So my suggestion is to file bugs for any websites that perform particularly badly for you.
This changed recently with Firefox Quantum, which was v69 or v70. I noticed a significant speedup at that point.
I keep 'Edge-ium' around if I encounter any rare use cases that necessitate it, but that's relatively rare
I just about exclusively use FireFox with nine containers on my Linux and macOS laptops. Being able to segregate data is a game changer.
On my iOS devices, I feel stuck with Safari since other browsers sit on top of Safari. I appreciate the privacy features in Safari but still feel the need to frequently remove all cookies and use private tabs when using sites like FaceBook. I just wrote about this yesterday https://mark-watson.blogspot.com/2020/02/protecting-oneself-...
Because I like to sometimes use my Chromebook, I am stuck using the Chrome web browser. Deleting all cookies frequently helps.
When non-tech friends ask how much of a hassle it is deleting all cookies, I point out that the passwords are saved and reliving in is quick.
All private tabs is obviously better, and I will do that more often.
More importantly, Safari is the anointed web browser that opens all web links. If you could designate Firefox to be the primary web browser, I'd do so in a heartbeat, because "Send to device" is so damn useful when you're using Firefox everywhere.
1) parameters that include word "telemetry"
2) everything that looks like a unique token
3) "mozilla.org" URLs
you'll see that the sum is steadily going up with every release.
It leaves me under impression that Mozilla is trying to follow Facebook and Google. Lately they removed setting to use a custom page for the new tabs, leaving only choice between blank page and Mozilla-provided "interest based" homepage. I am still using it as the main browser, though, as "lesser evil", but discrepancy between Mozilla's slogans and actual features is pretty chilling.
Calling it anything except tracking is super bullshitty.
Firefox does let you disable the telemetry with one exception, though. The exception is that they have a special telemetry ping to tell them when someone has disabled telemetry. While that's obnoxious and prevents me from saying "it's perfectly done", that you can disable the rest is head-and-shoulders above pretty much everyone else.
I mean I mostly agree that telemetry is different, but how can we be sure Mozilla isn't sharing their telemetry information with ad networks to help fingerprint you?
It seems the only way to be truly sure is if we could verify the browser sent no information at all, right? Or else it's just about trust, same as any other browser.
I think Cliqz incident and Shield Studies AR Game incident prove that you can trust Mozilla as much as any other huge corp.
2) Sure, and like the rest of the Mozilla community, I'll keep an eye on those trends. I'll revisit my choice of browser once they're actually worse than the others. Or more likely, work with the rest of the community to prevent that from happening.
They also disabled the ability for extensions to work on mozilla pages and things like about:addons by default, where mozilla uses google analytics.
They add new tracking crap on the browser in every release, so you are at a loss what to disable first in about:config as the online guides tend to get outdated easily.
> that's good for trolls and surveillance organizations and violent groups
Only "surveillance organizations" is relevant to privacy. The others make me think of centralisation and censorship.
The most relevant extension - uBlock Origin - works just fine on mobile Firefox.
It's a real game changer, especially with screen real estate and energy usage being quite important on mobile.
That extension alone is why I have and use Firefox on mobile phones (aside of the usual compatibility testing on other browsers for certain web projects).
And opinion discarded
> That's how Mozilla works: slowly, collaboratively, trying to speak for everyone.
I don't remember Mozilla works collaboratively. By the way - remind me where they publish their income sources again?
> "the power of the internet used to magnify divisiveness, incite violence, promote hatred, and intentionally manipulate fact and reality."
Yeah, well, so has the printing press. When someone suggests we should keep a "healty press", that's oligarchic censorship. Reminds me of the US Comics Code.
> Mozilla has spent the last several years fighting harder and louder than ever for the future of the internet.
Must not have been loud enough, because I believe few people have noticed this.
> the company's vision of a more user-centric, privacy-conscious web.
"user-centric" web? Don't know what that means. It's like "reader-centric books". As for privacy - when something like uBlock Origin and EFF Privacy Badger is installed by default, and when TOR is an easily-accessible option, and when Mozilla funds some TOR endpoint routers (in countries outside US reach of course), then we'll talk.
> But what if people could also use them to keep Facebook from snooping as they traveled the web?
If Facebook was prevented from snooping entirely, that would not be that much of an issue.
> Firefox has long held the not-entirely-flattering distinction of being the most popular browser not made by a huge corporation
It's bankrolled by huge corporations. IIRC it was mostly Google for a while. Also, see below about their new VP.
I am reminded how Mozilla had, for years, neglected its email client in favor of the browser, thus effectively helping to promote webmail, stored and spied on by these corporations. It certainly did nothing to promote end-to-end encryption of email, which has been quite possible with Thunderbird, and would have prevented (some of the) spying on users.
> So far, Firefox has blocked 1.6 trillion tracking requests
That means it doesn't block most tracking requests.
> Alan Davidson ... new VP of policy ... has been working ... at Google and then as President Barack Obama's director of digital economy
So one of the top people at the spying-B-us corporation and the "can't have privacy and security" administration is the new VP who'll help protect us from his former colleagues and bosses? Uh-huh.
Maybe I'm too optimistic.
Update: Loved chrome, used it for years, I also love most Chrome engineering and all the innovation they added to the field - it's just good to have alternatives.
Its certainly low, but I also think FF usage is under reported due to built-in tracker blocking. For reference, FF uses the level 1 disconnect.me block list, which blocks StatCounter scrips from loading on 3rd party sites .
Of course it's not perfect source, but CloudFlare for instance have client detection purely by SSL handshake fingerprint and it's show 6-7% for Firefox:
Long ago Wikimedia also had own statistics that was pretty much relevant, but I guess it's discontinued.
Thus it's useful to consider market shares for all end-user internet-browsing devices, wherein x86 today is dwarfed by mobile and general ARM. The fact is you can pretty much correlate browser market share¹ with OS market share (which I guess retrospectively validates the anti-trust case against MS in the 90s).
- IE dominance throughout the x86 era (until early 2010s),
- then stratospheric rise of Chrome as Android took over 80-90% market share on mobile and probably 3-4x as many devices as Windows. Chrome took over everything else.
- Safari steady around 5%, about half of Apple's market share in both x86 and mobile (as low as half is surprising to me: since all iOS devices use Safari, the discrepancy between Apple's market share and Safari's must come from x86 MacOS, and I would have expected much more people to use default Safari on that OS, especially given its battery optimizations, compounded by Chrome's relative cost in RAM etc).
- Firefox is at an all-time low (still second though). Given the current trend of OS makers to expand into "ecosystems" (multiple devices/OS + cloud services), I don't find it surprising: mainstream users are more and more entrenched in the more-or-less walled "gardens" of each variety.
Clearly, Google is winning that game as of 2020 in terms of numbers, but Apple is winning too within its own (much smaller but more profitable!) userspace / customer base. MS is but failing so far, TBC, but meh it's Chromium underneath.
- Mobile internet use surpassed desktop.
- Tablets never caught on
- Windows 7 is more popular than MacOS
- Safari (mobile, undoubtedly) is the second most popular browser. IE(!) is third.
Sure you can spoof it, but it would be the same for the stat counter.
Now I say the same about chrome and find FF much lighter and efficient.
Delighted that FF are taking a bit of a stronger stand here in the privacy dept too .
I use it on my phone now as I don't support AMP at all, and it still has some weird issues compared to Chrome. The main annoyances for me are:
- Kinda hanging occasionally when you have 40 or 50 tabs open. Sometimes have to close and reopen it, sometimes it'll start being responsive again. Never had these problems in Chrome.
- Never ending loading bars. While it might be true that some script hasn't loaded, I don't need to know and it's just annoying to have a half complete blue bar at the top of the page. It adds to the perception that there's something wrong, and it feels like somethings wrong with Firefox Mobile not something's wrong with the web page.
- I want to pull down to refresh. I know it's silly but 6 months on I still do it out of muscle memory, and then remember you have to click the menu, then click the refresh. Pull down is just great, far superior to their solution.
- Thumbnails of old tabs that are still open get flushed, never happens in Chrome. What it means is that you can't scan the tabs for an old open tab you want by the look of the thumbnail. for example, I have a jambalya recipe I tried and like but haven't got round to transcribing and every two or three weeks have to hunt through the damn tabs to find it.
- Their tab solution is not as nice as Chrome's. I really don't like the layout, or find it as usable, even months on. When Chrome initially switched theirs I was sceptical, but really learned to love the concertina style.
I am also finding it quite hard to get proper ad blocking working. It's working for some sites, but no matter what I do I'm still getting google ads and now certain login pages hang completely including some google driven ones. Why is it so hard to do? I'm pretty competent with computers after all! (Yes, I've turned off things like acceptable ads and checked the whitelists).
Don't be optimistic, but don't be pesimistic either.
Do what you can - donate time or money, or just recommend everyone to not use the piece of carp that is Chrome. Anything based on Chromium counts as well, their codebase is dictated by Google, one way or the other.
My mom had so many issues with ads until I installed Firefox for her, and honestly, the ad blockers make the internet a much better for navigation.
Or if you are building web products, please use Firefox as your dev browser, that's what I'm doing and it automatically insures that whatever I build will work on Firefox.
As I understand it, donating money to Mozilla does not fund Firefox in any way but rather their other social initiatives (see the Mozilla Foundation page for a list). Firefox is under the Mozilla Corporation which is funded by things like search deals with Google.
The Modern US / Silicon Valley mentality is you have to be optimistic at all cost. Being Realistic is counted as pessimism.
I know my browser usage is used for marketing purposes, but as long as it doesn't harm me in anyway I can live with that.
Firefox also not only sync's between all of my devices, including my cell phone. Each device has the ability to send a tab to another device, which I don't recall Chrome having.
Just some data points in case you're ever interested in trying something different.
Might be obvious, but consider that more people than you estimated, while understanding implications and directions, decided differently than you did. It's dangerous to attribute behaviour different from your own to lack of understanding.
It's funny because Firefox has been pushing their login thing pretty hard (the yellow "oh no" exclamation mark icon if you're not logged in, the account icon that keeps placing itself back onto my toolbar, occasional full-page ad/nag screen, ...).
Not only that, but on new installs and after some updates Firefox nags you to sign up whenever it can, for instance when you log into a website - right after you save the password it will show some animated crap in the address bar to nag you to "Sign in to sync..."
I just opened Firefox (on Linux no less) to confirm every single one of these things.
Chrome (my default browser) actually nags me less and in less annoying ways.
Because they just log you in without asking, as noted in the comment you're replying to. It also has more severe implications in Chrome privacy-wise, directly linking your Chrome profile with all kinds of other privacy-sensitive Google services. Since Google is in the business of making money from the data they have on you (and hence collects as much as it can), I'd be much more concerned about this than I am about my Firefox account.
I see no way to opt out of all the nags Firefox gives me.
The very first screen on first open nags you to signup, the top menu item is “Sign in to Firefox”, there’s a notification dot on the user icon with the Sign in nag there, the Pocket button asks you to sign in and after I log into a website I immediately get an animated recommendation nag to also sign in to Firefox.
It’s absolutely 100% plastered around the Firefox UI.
I don't particularly care whether nagware functionality is benign or not.
You might not consider that use case important, but I wouldn't call it questionable.
It's the kind of "oops haha just a mistake that we did the bad thing again" shenanigans that Mozilla employees complain about Google doing.
On the other hand I find Pocket a much more questionable addition.
I've used and loved Firefox from before it was called Firefox. I really, really, really want to like the modern Firefox, but I just can't. I find it limiting and irritating. So, sadly, I don't. I don't use Chrome either, though.
There are two things that I find limiting. First, the configurability has been seriously reduced. I really dislike Firefox's UI, and it's no longer possible to make the browser look and feel as I prefer. I can get most of the way there -- but to even do that much is a rather serious pain in the butt. Second, the neutering of the extensions hurt badly, and the only way I can retain the functionality that I want is to use something pre-Quantum.
Waterfox has neither of these problems (well, the extension problem is starting to impact Waterfox, which is why I'm no longer updating it. I need to find another browser, but I haven't found a different one that works for me yet. Until I do, Waterfox it is.)
I’ve actually used FF as my main development browser for most of those years because it’s the only browser where extensions aren’t controlled by our IT department, and I kind of need extensions on the fly. So I’ve seen the good and the bad of it. I personally prefer Chrome. I also like privacy, but I’ve tried the Duck and it just doesn’t work for my language, leading me to add the !g on almost all my searches, and if I’m google that much anyway, so I really benefit from using FF? Doesn’t FF also use one of Google’s engines to check site security?
Anyway I’m rambling, so let me get back on track. I’ve been testing the new Edge, and it’s Microsoft’s best browser, and what are the risks? Is it really better to have all the browsers on different engines instead of having multiple big guys work on the same open source engine?
2) Tracking from Google and Facebook
3) Cookie warning with no way to opt out
4) You can only opt out if you live in California:
> Opting out of the sharing of your personal information by Protocol with marketers: Please send an email to firstname.lastname@example.org with the following information: -Name -Email -Confirmation of California residency
Thinking carefully about the ethics of the company you work for, especially those in-demand employees who largely have a choice like software engineers, is definitely important. This is not a partisan issue.
Sure, you may not get your chance to own the libs, but that stuff is a bit childish, isn’t it? What does the phrase SJW actually mean to you? If you don’t believe that “social justice” is good, what do you find appealing about the alternative of “social injustice?”
That said, at least Mozillas "wokeness" is limited to a degree that is livable.
>If you don’t believe that “social justice” is good
I don't believe your definition of "justice" is good, and I don't believe that the people who had attempted to implement your ideology in practice brought any good to the people they've promised that justice to.
Hate online is a huge problem, and if Mozilla think they have potential to solve that problem, I’d say they can go for it. It’s their budget, not mine or yours.
Mozilla right now should focus their efforts on being profitable (or at least sustainable!) without relying on Google, Baidu and Yandex. Ideological or political pursuits should come later.
So is climate change. They really should focus on that problem, because it's literally endangering our planet, not just the Internet.
Or they should keep their focus on a more narrow topic that they actually understand and have some success in working on.
I've yet to see mission creep that didn't turn into a problem very quickly.
> I think being “woke” is only “not good” if you subscribe to the Fox News Cult.
I've never watched Fox News (outside of the odd clip that has Bill O'Reilly saying something insane). I am not from the USA. "Woke" isn't well defined but most people when they use it are referring to the insane left wing hypocritical politics. Believe it or not you don't have to be "ignorant right winger" to disagree with insane policies.
Also you've managed to do this nonsense of saying "well you must be one of these [ignorant people] so I can dismiss your opinion". Which must be some sort of fallacy. I don't know what it would be called, but it is certainly fallacious.
> Thinking carefully about the ethics of the company you work for, especially those in-demand employees who largely have a choice like software engineers, is definitely important. This is not a partisan issue.
Many of these companies expose "woke" ideas and make nice adverts while quite happily paying sweatshop wages in Asia. Many people see this as hypocritical.
Also developers need a reality check. You can and will be replaced by someone they can hire for cheaper if you don't want to do the job. There are what seven billion people on the planet? You are not special.
> If you don’t believe that “social justice” is good, what do you find appealing about the alternative of “social injustice?”
Social Injustice isn't the opposite of Social Justice it is Justice. Justice should be kept to the courts.
From what I've seen Social Justice normally normally includes things like harassment campaigns (and yes there are organised harassment campaigns), de-platforming of speakers and going after people's income known as "breaking their rice bowl" or they do some sort of insane "reverse racism". All of which I oppose.
woke/Fox News Cult.
All populist politics needs to appeal to its clientele with simplistic, easy to grasp utopias that are claimed to be in easy grasp after "we" win power, whether it's
the classless society of Marxism,
notions of paradise in various religions (e.g. 72 seventy-two houri in Sunni-Islam), libertarianism's coercion-free optimal resource allocation,
anarchism's absence of social hierarchy,
Robespierre's "liberté, égalité, fraternité", and many others.
"Woke" culture is clearly a contemporary evolution (rebranding) of the
socialist tradition emerging out of the French revolution, and made politically potent by Lenin, Stalin & comrades, channeled into the modern western world via Gramsci's cultural hegemony, and nowadays spread by powerful branding organisations like Avaaz  and Purpose .
I've seen plenty of people "talk the talk" but act in a way that is completely disingenuous, manipulative, harmful, and often hypocritical. Other people don't examine their words too carefully and suck up to them just because they "talk nice", leading to various degrees of cults of personality.
It's exactly the same as pretending to have e.g. Christian values to gain popularity and respect but not following any of the principles, only you've replaced Christian with climate change or LGBT activism or charity or whatever.
replaced Christian with
If I would work for Google or other openly SJW companies (including, apparently, Mozilla), as a man I would be at the mercy of my colleagues who could shoot me down at will with unjustified accusations. Why would I subject myself to that? (See James Damore for a prominent example. Mozilla has their Brendan Eich, as another prominent example). They would shame me in mandatory diversity trainings, make me shut up in meeting so that I don't "mansplain", force me to use "gender neutral" language and things like that. That's not just "Fox News World", those are borders I am not willing to cross.
We don't have to discuss it, as it has been beaten to death. I just wanted to say that people's values differ, and unfortunately mine don't align with Mozilla.
I wish more companies would focus simply on creating good technology, and stay out of politics. I don't mind if individuals are political, but there is no need to involve the companies. What is there to gain?
It's at least 30 times slower than chrome. So somethings wrong Right?
> Making private browsing more private was a success, which is to say less data was collected and users didn't notice the difference.
> The same trackers, though, help users log into sites and pay for goods, and blocking them would break the internet for lots of users.