Disabling extensions had nothing to do with their market share. We have extensions on desktop and they are still being squeezed out there. And judging by some other comments here there is apparently a fork of Firefox for Android that allows extensions - which even I had never heard of until now.
> Disabling extensions had nothing to do with their market share
It kinda did because it removed a reason to pick Firefox over its competitors.
If Firefox doesn't actually bring anything tangible to the table, why would people pick it over whatever they're currently using (which is likely to be Chrome)?
The average user doesn't hate Google like some people do, so a purely ideological argument of "it isn't Chrome" won't work (and didn't work as its marketshare kept declining). Users need tangible, non-niche features to switch.
>It kinda did because it removed a reason to pick Firefox over its competitors.
The reason to pick firefox over competitors is because they are the ONLY web browser vendor who isn't actively handicapping the internet. Firefox could smear my face with literal shit every time I use it and it would still be less hostile to end users than, let's see what chrome is doing this week, oh yes, forcing everyone to build attestation systems into the internet so that you eventually will be cryptographically prevented from blocking ads.
> The reason to pick firefox over competitors is because they are the ONLY web browser vendor who isn't actively handicapping the internet.
Nobody among regular people cares. Banking on ideology alone is in fact how you end up with a low single-digit percentage of market share.
Even if Mozilla actually had your best interests at heart, it still needs to have decent marketshare (including from people who do not know/care about ideology) to actually have any weight in web standards discussions, otherwise Chrome can just ignore it and push whatever agenda they have.
