Chrome is able to capture the mass consumer market, due to Google’s dark pattern to nag you to install Chrome anytime you’re on a Google property.
Edge target enterprise Fortune 500 user, who is required to use Microsoft/Office 365 at work (and its deep security permission ties to SharePoint).
Safari has Mac/iOS audience via being the default on those platform.
Brave (based on Chromium), and LibreWolf (based on Firefox) has even carved out those user who value privacy.
What’s Firefox target user?
Long ago, Firefox was the better IE, and it had great plugins for web developers. But that was before Chrome existed and Google capturing the mass market. And the developers needed to follow its users.
So what target user is left for a Firefox?
Note: not trolling. I loved Firefox. I just don’t genuine understand who it’s for anymore.
I value my privacy and use Firefox. Honestly, I have trust issues with volatile “security focused” forks. I feel the risk of them been tampered are greater than the marginal gains.
Does a 7 day expiration matter if the tracker can just set new cookies with new 7 day expiration dates as it tracks you?
Also, Firefox partitions cookies by site (aka Total Cookie Protection), so first-party facebook.com cookies, cross-site facebook.com cookies on example.com, and cross-site facebook.com cookies on example.net all get separate cookie jars.
There's a few ways first party cookies can track you. Probably the biggest single way is Google Analytics which by default uses only first party cookies. Even without cookies at all, GA could track you across the web although first party cookies do make this a little easier and "better". However, first party cookies can help trackers in other ways like for CNAME cloaking[1] which basically makes a first-party cookie function similarly to a third-party one.
Disclosure: I work for a small privacy focused ad company.
> If I get logged out of every website on a weekly basis I'm going to be annoyed.
Then those websites should move to Passkeys.
> How do they use first party cookies to track you?
Because Meta and Google allows websites to submit advertising data to them server side using a self-hosted JS file which sets the first party cookies on your behalf.
Firefox target users are whoever need Manifest v2 extensions to work on Chrome after Google will completely remove it. So basically everyone who want working ad-blocker.
> due to Google’s dark pattern to nag you to install Chrome anytime you’re on a Google property
I'm not sure if that's true. I switched to Chrome because Chrome felt snappier than its competitors. Its multi-process model made Chrome more robust. It's developer tool had better usability than Firefox's. And Chrome's extensions, at least initially, offered better experience and wider selections. Oh, Google's integration of Chrome with Google's identity system was a nicer experience too.
After the Bundeswehr Taurus leak[1] there was a lot of speculation of how the meeting was tapped. One possibility is that they mitm't the guy joining from Singapore with a Certificate from a Chinese CA.
Now Google saw auch a possibility and introduced Certificate Transparenty a few years ago which burns the whole CA if it signs sich a mitm Certificate.
However, Firefox does not check for CT timestamps to this date.
Google, so they can pretend they don't have a monopoly so the antitrust lawsuits are kept at bay. And Mozillas CEO[0] so they can extract millions while fucking us all.
That is such a weird graph, because it doesn’t show Mozilla revenue.
On that same timescale, Mozilla revenue went from:
2009: ~80M
2019: ~$800M
That’s a 10x increase in revenue, for an organization already at scale.
It’s totally expected that a CEO of a company generating ~$1B revenue, would be making $2.5M. Heck, there’s FANNG individual contributors who earn that much.
I’ve clearly never understood the gripe in Mozilla CEO pay. Because how are you going to attract top talent to run an organization that big if you paid any less?
That would almost be a good argument but the reality is that they cannibalized their core product to increase their revenue but have done so to the point where it no longer remains viable in the market. Alas, the locusts have had their feast and we are all worse of for it.
> So in hindsight, if you were CEO of Mozilla - what would you have done differently that you believe would have maintained Firefox market share?
Integrated ad blocker, enabled by default. It’s the one thing Firefox can do that Chrome never will.
Most people aren’t tech-savvy enough to install an ad blocker. Most people really do see all the ads on the Internet. Blocking ads by default would make the browsing experience far more pleasant, and so browsing with Firefox would be far more pleasant than browsing with Chrome for most people.
And obviously, continue to invest in improving the core web experience instead of getting distracted by side quests and firing everybody working on Servo, etc.
> Integrated ad blocker, enabled by default. It’s the one thing Firefox can do that Chrome never will.
How would that work exactly ... given that Google pays Mozilla $800M to be the default search engine just so that they can serve ads to Firefox users.
If Firefox enable a default ad-blocker, Google doesn't then generate ad revenue and they would stop paying Mozilla. Mozilla entire org revenue stream would disappear.
If I were CEO of Mozilla I would have also killed the core product by implementing Facebook's user tracking shit and making Google the default search engine just so I can rake in something like $10 million personally.
Then I'd retire and start an open-source project to develop a good open-source browser that puts user's interests first.
The problem is the CEO of Mozilla doesn't do the second part.
OH MY GOD! Are you serious with this question?!? Or are you just mocking us?
Bring back editing the UI, custom toolbars, custom side panels, plugins for custom side panels, features Opera 12 had, such as Opera's Notepad, UI checkboxes for commonly used settings to be placed in custom toolbars (I would love a checkbox for JS enable/disable and a checkbox for Images enable/disable), directly editable UI colors without the need to search for a theme, smaller UI without margins/padding (90's style), HTML source code live patching with REGEX the way AdMuncher did it, save page link as .url files, a self-hosted sync server that can run on a OpenWrt router with 64MB RAM (no, I'm not talking about a nodejs crap that needs 8GB ram just for itself!), self hosted download manager as linux console app on a different computer (like Aria2, but with better integration), etc. etc.
This list is just what I could think of in 10 min. I'm sure that $$$ budget could build so much more. How about a new browser from scratch?
Edit:
Here's more: embedable engine allowing others to build browsers based on it, framebuffer support like "links -g" allowing it to run in linux console without X/wayland, ability to act as a remote rendering service to allow a very low power device to use it as a remote web rendering server to offload web page JS/CSS workloads (like Opera Mini worked, but with the intermediary server hosted by the user), integration with OS and/or DHCP server to request a new IPv6 IP for each page visited
Are you suggesting what you described above, 95% of global users care about? ... and that's why Firefox market share has gone down, because the general person wants a REGEX with live code patching?
Because right now, Firefox has 5% market share (based on the GP linked to graphic).
I'd wager that, 5% market share is roughly proportional to the global market of developers. And the 95% of the world who do not use Firefox today, are the same 95% who don't care about anything you described above.
FF doesn't need 95% users. 30% is enough. No browser should have 95%. That would be a monopoly.
30% was the market share it could have if the management direction was to attract Opera 12 users (and devs too) or at least not cripple FF like they did since v50.
I'm a Firefox use, and while I agree Mozilla neglected it, I think leadership saw the writing on the wall that they're at best the #4 player after Chrome, Safari, and Edge, and they decided to branch out in search of new lines of business. It turns out there isn't a story there (and probably never was--this was a desperation move), and now they're left with Firefox in an even worse state.
I used to be a die-hard Firefox user, but over the last 15 years software quality has improved, expectations have been raised, and I haven't felt that Firefox has kept up. It still feels like it's a re-skinned 2005 era piece of software. Placing it next to Safari, Chrome, or more recent competitors like Arc, it feels dated.
There are technical reasons for this, there are process/political/human reasons why it has stayed this way, and for many people it's not a big enough issue to switch, or other things take priority, but for me it just comes down to jankiness. Alternative browsers all have their own issues, none are perfect, but most feel less janky at their core.
I don't know if it's just my bias, somehow I feel that the response time of Firefox is longer than that of Chrome. Or maybe it's due to my lingering discomfort about a Netscape-era bug: after running Netscape for a while, Netscape may stop responding or crash. If it crashed, I would not be able to relaunch it unless I manually killed a hanging Netscape process. Netscape never fixed the bug and I ran into the same bug a few times after switching to Firefox, albeit a lot less frequently. I then switched to Chrome and never looked back.
Agree. I switched two days ago because the whole manifest v3. Unfortunately there is only Brave claiming to keep supporting manifest v3 and I'm not really believing that, once the code starts to diverge.
I will say that installing Firefox extensions makes me deeply uncomfortable. Everything requires access to everything.
My hope is an uodate to manifedt v3 that improves things so we can go back to chromium based browsers (not necessary chrome)
theres no point in having sentimental attachment to a browser. back then it was just dominated by a few, its the only reason you used it.
you couldnt care less to switch cause were lazy. very funny thing
computer people do is have such brand loyalty over a browser.
and we turn around and laugh at coke people, ford people, xbox, how silly is it when you hear people arguing about xbox or ps. this is no doubt even sillier
and as a bonus the only reason we say oh firefox has gone downhill but lol ill never use chrome and let them take my freedom and joy never ever... this is again just brand loyalty lol.... if you dont like firefox just switch, if you dont like that switch, if you dont like any browers... well you just have to choose and live with one then dont you. trust me google has all your info
so does apple depending on your phone. and trust that your phone will be your id, wallet, everything very soon. ask asia, we are always lagging in tech, it will happen
(ofc this isnt directed at you. im just talking sht outloud)
Regarding the Ad Tech section, I found value in the August 6th episode of Security Now titled "How Revoking!" where he's talking about 3rd-party cookies handling in Firefox.
Generally speaking, I'm sure it's difficult to find a general balance between privacy and usability, and I tend to want a purist viewpoint on blocking all 3rd-party cookies if I set Enhanced Tracking Protection to Strict. The above episodes explains why it's not 100% doing what we expect, which was troubling to hear!
I use Firefox on both Mac and Android and it works well. I'd just wish it was proper open source project with BDFL and public team of developers and not some corporate failure.
I’m looking forward for Ladybird browser to be released to the General Public. On the meantime, I’m using LibreWolf instead. I’ve uninstalled Firefox after noticing the surreptitious advertising check
"Thanks F3nd0! There are currently no plans to switch to a less permissive license.
And we're perfectly happy using proprietary services like GitHub and Discord as long as they make our work easier and more enjoyable. We recently evaluated a number of alternatives, and found that they all introduced more friction than we were comfortable with.
Although the task of building a browser is itself challenging, we're a pragmatic project :)"
I already love Firefox. Its Mozilla what I dont like. Fire the board and especially CEO, transfer assets to Firefox, dissolve foundation and never come back to software sector.
> "We’re finding that our messages are particularly sticking with younger generations"
Sure. Those are the people who don't know what a decent browser is. They never saw a browser with customizable UI, never saw Opera 12's notepad, never saw IE 5 Web Accessories (Links list, Image list), etc. etc.
I don’t know if Firefox can be saved. I say that using Firefox for iOS right now.
I use Firefox because it’s not chrome, not because it’s good. Mozilla’s reputation is trash, Firefox is riddled with ancient bugs, and the bleeding hasn’t stopped.
Worth noting that Firefox for iOS isn't actually truly Firefox. Due to platform rules, browsers on iOS are all required to use the webkit engine so they all are basically just reskins of Safari.
Back in the day, I was one of those who installed firefox on every computer. I used to love firefox. But then they took up california politics and activism. This decision has survived multiple ceos.
Mozilla has done it to themselves. New interim ceo wont be different. I can't fathom mozilla has any chance of selecting someone who could dig them out of their activist hole.
"Deep in the browser’s privacy settings, Firefox introduced an experimental “privacy-preserving ad measurement” toggle, enabling it by default without explanation or disclosure."
This isn't even the first time Firefox has collaborated with an ad or marketing company, rolled out a feature behind a checkbox that users didn't know about, turned it on by default. See the case of the 'Alternate Reality Game' ad campaign for Mr Robot a few years ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15940144
I stopped hearing when Mozilla talks about privacy or caring about users. Most companies that treat their users like Mozilla just do it, but it actually adds insult to injury that Mozilla tells you they care, tells you you're important while they do the same things. It's gaslighting or manipulation or lying or something but I'm not going to listen to them any more.
I agree, and am looking for other alternatives, that aren't chromium based; but not finding any modern browsers that fit that bill. So I still use Firefox. Any recommendations?
There's nothing left. That Ladybird Browser[0] is the biggest name in the game outside of Firefox and Chromium but it's pre-alpha and if they don't switch to a memory safe language there's no point to it.
That leaves you with Firefox and chromium derivatives, either LibreWolf if you want something Firefox based or Brave if you chose to get assimilated. Both have their issues: LibreWolf, like Firefox, lacks about a decade in security enhancements chromium implemented and Brave with their cryptoshit and questionable calling home behaviour hasn't been particularly trustworthy.
> Why build a new browser in C++ when safer and more modern languages are available?
> Ladybird started as a component of the SerenityOS hobby project, which only allows C++. The choice of language was not so much a technical decision, but more one of personal convenience. Andreas was most comfortable with C++ when creating SerenityOS, and now we have almost half a million lines of modern C++ to maintain.
> However, now that Ladybird has forked and become its own independent project, all constraints previously imposed by SerenityOS are no longer in effect. We are actively evaluating a number of alternatives and will be adding a mature successor language to the project in the near future. This process is already quite far along, and prototypes exist in multiple languages.
> That Ladybird Browser[0] is the biggest name in the game outside of Firefox and Chromium but it's pre-alpha and if they don't switch to a memory safe language there's no point to it.
There's WebKit, which shares lineage with Blink (Chromium) but is separate.
I liked Firefox a whole lot better back before Mozilla effectively became a UN NGO with a few developers working on a web browser in a God-forsaken basement somewhere, Milton Waddams style.
If they want me to love Firefox, they need to love Firefox. And show that love in the form of vision, resources, and better open-source, open-internet style governance. No execs saying "deplatforming is nice and all, but we really need to go even further beyond". As soon as a browser company makes it a mission to decide what people see online, they cease to be trustworthy as a browser company. So I may as well just use chromium (or ungoogled-chromium).
Mozilla wastes all its money on its CEO and bullshit DEI programs, while neglecting to develop Firefox, their flagship product. When they spend some money on the browser, they use it to implement user-hostile garbage like Facebook's client-side tracking bullshit.
Mozilla is completely fucked. I just hope the company goes bankrupt so its niche of an open source browser can be filled by an organisation that actually cares about its product, and is not just a sham for execs to get millions of dollars from Google for being faux-competition, while fucking over their users.
Dump gecko and spider monkey and build a UI over webkit. A "firefox safari" that properly integrates system password management/account management and is convenient to use.
Firefox tech is dead and not modular. It has no use to anyone else and is a major waste of resources.
Is there something fundamental to the design of firefox that makes it use tons of memory and be prone to letting web pages peg a core at 100%? Every time I try to use firefox I have to quit because sometimes it runs like a 90s java applet.
It’s always been a GPU driver issue when I’ve seen a meaningful difference in performance between Chrome, Safari or Firefox. (I’ve seen such issues on everything from 128 thread xeons to one core atoms, and also on Arm).
One of them ends up falling back on some legacy thing when the other two don’t.
Once, I encountered two identical machines with the same version of debian. Chrome was unusably slow on one, and Firefox was unusably slow on the other. The other browser ran great.
- Noscript Security Suite which has made it very obvious how absolutely fucked today's web is (there's sites which can't display static text without js, as though HTML and CSS are insufficient to display styled text with some markup).
- uBlock Origin because obviously.
- Multi-account Containers, which aren't quite as good as profiles, but get like 70% of the way there.
> there's sites which can't display static text without js
as developers, we understand how stupid that is and the utter insanity of javascriptium that got us there, but how is that a selling point? If I install that extension, I get a degraded experience and I get to be judgey because the framework the developer(s) they hired used some bit javascriptium that doesn't degrade nicely. am I supposed to feel smug that I've figured that out? why would I want to make things worse for myself? just for some small sense of feeling better than other people?
I don't think so? I admittedly haven't played around much with uBlock's js blocking, but I thought it was a binary on/off rather than the more granular control NSS offers.
I could exchange Firefox for Javascript and land on the same result... but people are going to be equally mad about it... the problem is not the browser.
Chrome is able to capture the mass consumer market, due to Google’s dark pattern to nag you to install Chrome anytime you’re on a Google property.
Edge target enterprise Fortune 500 user, who is required to use Microsoft/Office 365 at work (and its deep security permission ties to SharePoint).
Safari has Mac/iOS audience via being the default on those platform.
Brave (based on Chromium), and LibreWolf (based on Firefox) has even carved out those user who value privacy.
What’s Firefox target user?
Long ago, Firefox was the better IE, and it had great plugins for web developers. But that was before Chrome existed and Google capturing the mass market. And the developers needed to follow its users.
So what target user is left for a Firefox?
Note: not trolling. I loved Firefox. I just don’t genuine understand who it’s for anymore.