Mozilla can't push their browser. They don't have Android, Youtube, various other services with billions of users. Not even Microsoft is successful in pushing Edge (except for the corporate world) as they too have no giant consumer-facing services.
Moreover, Firefox is virtually absent on mobile (0.5% market share). On massive websites (some I see at work), Firefox doesn't even show up on dashboards, it's not even in the top 10. Some weird obscure regional browsers outrank it.
Technically speaking, Firefox is an irrelevant browser and has been for several years now. You may love it for sentimental or philosophical reasons, but the real world cares little about that.
Anyway, the bleeding will continue without a leverage to push the browser. It's not an engineering problem.
Back in the day Firefox managed to steal a significant chunk of Internet Explorer's marketshare just by being better.
It can pull off the same nowadays - there's a major disease currently plaguing the web that a browser is perfectly positioned to eradicate: advertising. The code is already written and licensed permissively (uBlock Origin) and all they need is to bundle it (just like they are currently bundling Pocket).
That's the ticket to Firefox's resurgence - be better than the competition in a way that the competition can't beat (because it would be counter-productive to their advertising-based business model). A simple side-by-side comparison of a major newspaper's homepage in FF vs Chrome will sell it to the masses.
You may be overlooking the larger point, it is just one thing: monopolization. If you control the defaults you win, as long as it doesn't suck too bad.
Why did IE so quickly destroy paid browser market then languish for so many years? Because they had a lock on desktop market share. Google and Apple just have to be mediocre because they own the hardware, services, and/or distribution.
Mozilla cannot take from other business arms to bankroll its browser. It has to sell defaults, ads, or find other markets.
Mozilla conquered a significant chunk of Internet Explorer's marketshare back in the day despite the latter being the preinstalled default.
The problem isn't just defaults, it's that Mozilla isn't giving people enough reasons to actually switch. A stock Firefox install isn't going to give you any major benefits over Chrome, and the only benefit (ad-blocking - but with an extension you need to install manually) isn't something Mozilla is looking to capitalise on.
Mozilla can win over the masses in one day by just embedding uBlock Origin and using that fact in their PR and marketing - no bullshit useless features such as "Colorways" or Pocket, no dubious social justice/political activism, instead, just say "the web sucks and Firefox makes it tolerable" with a side-by-side comparison of FF vs a stock browser on a popular newspaper's website.
> Mozilla conquered a significant chunk of Internet Explorer's marketshare back in the day despite the latter being the preinstalled default.
My point is what FF did then was unusual, requiring the incumbent to be negligent for a long time. Chrome and its derivatives are moving quickly. (Perhaps even wrecklessly so given security implications of some of their 'standards'.) Chrome also sets the standards Mozilla must now follow to keep up, and exceed to overtake it.
Isn't it strange that even huge well funded competitors have all given up and just fork Chrome? They do it because they cannot compete starting from their own foundation. Chrome is too entrenched and moving too fast.
> Mozilla can win over the masses in one day by just embedding uBlock Origin and using that fact in their PR and marketing.
Brave has ad blocking preinstalled, so does Chrome to some extent. I don't think Mozilla would stand out with UO alone. And even if it did and became dominant what would that mean for creators who are ad supported?
> requiring the incumbent to be negligent for a long time
But the incumbents are negligent. Their browsers, based on their business models, no longer serve the needs of their users. This is an opportunity for Firefox.
> Brave has ad blocking preinstalled, so does Chrome to some extent
Haven't used Brave so can't comment on it, but Chrome doesn't and can't have powerful adblocking due to its parent company's business model - not to mention that one reason to block ads would be privacy which is also a problem with Google, so it would be a non-starter even if it was blocking ads.
> even if it did and became dominant what would that mean for creators who are ad supported?
I wonder how we dealt with this argument back in the day where OSes were full of security holes and the antivirus industry was starting out?
But Firefox used to be the default. It's what people were used to because it used to be significantly better in the past. Then they stopped keeping up ...
Apart from FirefoxOS and random EU browser ballots I'm not aware of anywhere Firefox was the default. You seem to be saying because many people chose Firefox it was their default. But that's not a common use of the word in this context.
Mozilla can't push their browser. They don't have Android, Youtube, various other services with billions of users. Not even Microsoft is successful in pushing Edge (except for the corporate world) as they too have no giant consumer-facing services.
Moreover, Firefox is virtually absent on mobile (0.5% market share). On massive websites (some I see at work), Firefox doesn't even show up on dashboards, it's not even in the top 10. Some weird obscure regional browsers outrank it.
Technically speaking, Firefox is an irrelevant browser and has been for several years now. You may love it for sentimental or philosophical reasons, but the real world cares little about that.
Anyway, the bleeding will continue without a leverage to push the browser. It's not an engineering problem.