Mozilla criticizes Google, Apple and Microsoft for using their operating systems to force users away from other browsers
Mozilla has criticizes Google, Apple and Microsoft for pushing the default browser in their operating systems aggressively. It has published a report that highlights the anticompetitive practices of the tech giants that forces users away from other browsers.
The report, titled Five Walled Gardens, analyzes the problems caused by Google, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon and Meta (Facebook). Mozilla conducted a survey to find out how users around the world use browsers, and it wasn't impressed with the results. Over 6000 participants from Australia, U.S., U.K., France, India and Kenya took the survey, they were asked about their experience with using web browsers, changing the default browser, etc.
Image Credit: Mozilla
Operating systems push their default browsers aggressively
The report highlights the fact that there are just 3 browser engines used across different platforms, Apple Safari (WebKit engine), Google Chromium (Blink), and Mozilla Firefox (Gecko). This results in a lack of diversity of browser engines, which in turn offers users limited choices to select their preferred app. The research paper claims that there is practically no option on mobile devices.
Mozilla says that modern operating systems are designed against interoperability, and bundle various apps for messaging, email, maps, voice assistants, etc (Chrome, Gmail, YouTube, Google Maps, etc), and that such apps pose a risk to the user's privacy. The report goes on to underline the fact that it is not easy to remove a browser as the default option, or to delete the app completely.
It also took a dig at Apple for not allowing other browser engines on iOS and iPadOS, restricting app developers to the WebKit engine, stating that Apple's browser is limited to iOS, iPadOS, MacOS, and without Firefox's engine, Google's Chromium project would be the only browser engine available across platforms.
Search engines in operating systems
Mozilla criticized how Windows 11's Search bypasses the default browser preference, to open links and search results in Microsoft Edge, its aggressive attempts to promote its browser via Bing Search, and overriding the default browser setting to force users to use Edge. iOS uses Safari to perform a web search when you use the lookup feature. Android isn't any different, thanks to the Google widget on the home screen, which routes the search via the Chrome app.
Less than half of the survey respondents in some regions knew how to change the default browser on their desktop computer or mobile phone. The number of people who actually changed their browser was even lower, at around 10% to 20%. Mozilla says that this could be because of the numerous steps involved in the process, i.e, using the App Store or Play Store, searching for a browser, downloading and setting it as the default browser via the Settings.
Image credit: StatCounter
All these numbers add up, says Mozilla, adding that Apple Safari has an 27% share in the iOS browser market, while 65% of people who have Android phones use Chrome. StatCounter's latest chart (August 2022) shows that Firefox has a measly 3.16% user base across platforms (desktop and mobile), only higher than Opera which was at 2.2%, while Edge was slightly higher with a 4.3% user base. The chart toppers were Chrome and Safari at 65.52% and 18.78% respectively. I'd suspect these numbers will change drastically after Google drops support for Manifest V2 extensions, effectively killing ad blockers, which will create a domino effect and drive users towards Firefox, Brave and Vivaldi.
Would this be any different if operating systems like Android and iOS didn't have Chrome and Safari as the default browsers? That's what Mozilla is trying to say with its report, that it is an unfair practice that harms other browser makers and the users. You can download the report from Mozilla's website, it's a bit of a long read, but provides some valuable insight about the issues discussed in this article.
The UK’s Competition and Markets Authority is investigating Google and Apple in an antitrust case related to the duopoly of their browsers. Similarly, EU's upcoming Digital Markets Act will prevent big tech companies from unfair gatekeeping practices.
As much as I'd like to see it happen, I don't think that Apple, Microsoft and Google will ever ask the user what browser they want to use. What do you think?
Just make your own operating system Mozilla, oh wait!
@ Ashwin,
I think this is a better link to use for the Digital Markets Act since clarifies the purpose of the Act as regards what the Gatekeepers can and can’t: https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024/europe-fit-digital-age/digital-markets-act-ensuring-fair-and-open-digital-markets_en#who-are-the-gatekeepers
How effective the DMA will be will depend on how long it takes to force Big Tech to comply with the DMA’s requirements. A pessimistic view would see Microsoft especially taking no action to make it possible to remove Edge from Windows 10/11 together with all the bloatware until brought before the ECJ and ordered to explain why. How long that would take is anybody’s guess.
I remember when Firefox was by far in second place behind Noodle with 12% or higher in terms of world-wide market share. After a longgggggggg dirty laundry list of mis-steps they find themselves 4th behind Google, Edge, Safari with only 3.16% of the WW market, just above Samsung internet 2.5%.
With FF complaining about Google, isn’t that biting the hand that feeds them.
Firefox comes bundled with linux systems, and FF should be grateful for what the do have, not complain about what they don’t.
I use Linux and use either Falkon, or Librefox, or in a pinch I”ll use FF ESR.
Firefox…LOL aaaand the drama continues….. as with most dysfunction layered entities.
@Iron Heart
Iron Heart commented >> On the desktop? Yes, irrelevant.
Irrelevant to who exactly? You believe that the Linux community is irrelevant? A very ignorant comment from you. More like irrelevant to people like you, that say proprietary software is more secure than FOSS? What do you use for desktop, windows or mac? You sure as hell do not sound like someone that uses Linux on desktop or someone that really likes FOSS.
Do you enjoy using closed source operating systems?
Iron Heart commented > Also, they are faster without the multi-layered approval process for patches a company like Microsoft or Apple would typically apply? I am shocked, I tell you, shocked!
Are you stupid? You should not speak about things you do not understand. Educate yourself first.
The reason why Linux has better security is because there is more eyes on FOSS, than there is on proprietaty software. FOSS can be confirmed to be secure by an outside community (FOSS community) it can also be confirmed to be insecure because of such a community. With Proprietaty software, you would just have to trust the company that makes the software in telling you that their product is secure. CLOSED means CLOSED, closed software allows no peer reviewed process as big as something like the FOSS community can do. Proprietary software creates a lazy programming environment also.
Even if LInux distros were as popular as windows on desktop, i still believe that a FOSS product is much more secure and trustworthy than a proprietary product.
Iron Heart commented >> . You are comparing a minor rebuild like LibreWolf with Brave, who need to come up with all fingerprinting defenses themselves?
What fingerprinting defenses? Brave is absolute garbage as a privacy browser. They do not have a feature like “privacy.resistFingerprinting.letterboxing like in Firefox/Librewolf/Tor which has such a feature. Brave could not possibly compare.
Iron Heart commented >> . There is no reason Chromium’s window dimensions can’t be hardcoded to a certain value, you are being ridiculous.
Then why doesn’t your beloved browser of choice Brave have such a feature if they are all about anti-fingerprinting and privacy as you believe they are?
Seems they are more interested in CRYPTO than creating a privacy feature that can spoof screen resolution like Firefox can do.
Iron Heart commented >> Firefox did not support letterboxing initially either
Well it does now? So again where is such a feature in Brave?
Oh wait, they don’t have such a feature and probably will never have that feature.
Iron Heart commenmted >> I can do without fighting bot detection just to protect a low value fingerprinting vector (screen resolutions are not THAT varied) so far.
Screen resolutions are not that varied? Brave users have no such feature as seen in Firefox that can spoof screen resolutions effectively.
Brave is sub par. LACKING as a privacy browser.
Iron Heart commented >> Firefox doesn’t defend against fingerprinting by default. In a modified state, you have only created a highly unique fingerprint,
Double digit IQ moment for you? Since Brave browser has no anti-fingerprinting resistance feature to spoof screen resolution, It can be argued that the hardened Firefox or Librewolf crowd that do enable letterboxing to spoof screen resolution, look much more alike, than Brave browser users, that have no such feature in the browser to spoof screen resolution.
As i told you before, you have not a clue what you are talking.
Also, if you think that the IP address is not the most identifiable fingerprint in a browser, you are only fooling yourself.
Shut up please about anti-fingerprinting, because you do not know what you are talking about.
Iron Heart commented >> you should understand that someone somewhere will buy the Pixel phone anyway.
Yes, like you. Do you enjoy using google smartphone hardware as much as you enjoy googled authored code like the lacklustre chromium-based browsers?
Iron Heart commented >> Chromium is the basis of several browsers, not just Chrome
Chromium-codebase is authored primarily by the ad-tech company Google?
Still waiting for privacy.resist.Fingerprinting.letterboxing in Brave are you?
LMAO!
Iron Heart commented >> You are talking a lot about how I am supposedly making a laughing stock out of myself,
You are making a laughing stock out of yourself. I told you before, educate yourself before you type. It would be a better look for you.
Iron Heart commented >> , anyone using a Custom ROM (specifically to get away from privacy issues of default Android) is promoting Google as well, which is pretty laughable to be honest.
I do not care if people use smartphones or not. However, i am under no illusions about how privacy invasive smartphones can be, having a portable device with Mic, camera, bluetooth, wifi, imei is not exactly what i would call a privacy device. That sounds more like a tracking device. Also, by using GrapheneOS, people purchase google pixel phones which is essentially a google made product.
Iron Heart commented >> Actual base code analysis
Double digit IQ moment for you again? Proprietary software can not be verified to be secure from the FOSS community like FOSS can. With proprietary, you have to trust blindly, with FOSS people can evaluate whether the code is safe or not.
Iron Heart commented >> Windows and Chromium have something in common, you know.
Yes, BIG-TECH!
Iron Heart commented >> Relying on irrelevance for security is generally scoffed at by developers
Firefox and Linux is irrelevant?
Are you stupid? Who are you trying to fool with forming such an outrageous narrative?
Iron Heart commented >> The gap between Chromium and Firefox is huge,
True, Chromium-based browsers are massively inferior.
Iron Heart commented >> Number of CVEs is not how you determine security, this would be amateur hour.
No comment for this level of stupidity from Iron Heart.
Iron Heart commented >> I think Edge can be uninstalled still without anything major breaking.
Making excuses for Microsoft now right?
Iron Heart commented >> This would be an issue if I took Yash and his opinion seriously
I don’t take much of your opinions seriously at all. You are one of the/if not THE most ignorant commenters on Ghacks and that is saying something lol.
Iron Heart commented >> No, if it was heavily embedded you could not disable it and expect the OS to work stil
I would trust the opinion and perspective of @Yash on this topic, not yours.
Since Chrome limits ad-blockers with MV3 anyway, that is a form of embedded CONTROL for Google over what extensions people are allowed to add to Chrome.
As @Yash says it feels likes Google has a walled garden for Android.
IronHeart commented >> You should be the last one complaining about that, you are using walls of text
Some other people do not like arguing with people like you. However, i have no problems in making a laughing stock out of you on these discussion topics.
Keep commenting, i will comment back. You think using walls of text will scare me off from replying? Think again!
Iron Heart commented >> May I ask though, why are you not applying this filter in your uHide Origin installation?
I bet you are just wishing for me to ignore you lol.
Why should i ignore you? from reading your absolute stupid comments, i gain a new level of understanding of how ignorant people like you are. For me it is very enlightening and empowering to evaluate such stupidity. Lol.
Iron Heart commented >> Yeah, a lot of bullshit to deal with rather. I am hopefully done here.
Stepping off your soapbox so soon? Done here already really are you?
Best you shut up now, and step off the soapbox, because you have proven time and time again that you are not a reasonable, polite and respectful commenter here.
You get called a troll for a reason.
And stop using this emoji “XD” or other such crap, it only makes you look even more ignorant than what you already are.
@Anonymous
>> Firefox is better than Brave.
Correct!
Brave can not even spoof screen resolution like hardened Firefox can.
Brave is just inferior from a privacy perspective.
@T
>> but the end result will be they will bow to Google
Google is the KING, the AUTHOR of the chromium-based browser code.
This crap about chromium-based browsers like Brave or Vivaldi being better than Firefox or an alternative to Firefox is just one of the most stupid things i have heard.
LOok at the latest google chrome article here
Chrome 106 Stable fixes 20 security issues
https://www.ghacks.net/2022/09/27/chrome-106-stable-fixes-20-security-issues/
Lol, i am supposed to believe that chromium-based browsers are more secure than Firefox? I could never believe such BS!
Iron Heart will likely be in that comment section again, making excuses for google chromes shoddy security. Lol. Should be interesting.
The Google pixel smartphone fan lol.
Is this a question about limiting user choice or is it about product differentiation? I’ll stick to answering based on ‘limiting choice’.
Deliberately not giving the user a choice appears to be what Mozilla’s complaint entails. They apparently would like to see a list of browsers offered to the user when they setup their new system. If the OS vendor put their own browser at the top as ‘recommended’, I assume that Mozilla would get all prickly over that.
There are many users who wouldn’t have a clue that there are several browsers available for them to choose from. My entire family are members of that herd. They have Android phones and laptops with Microsoft Windows preinstalled. They all were IE users on Windows until it auto became Edge – just like sheep, they rely on the sheepdog to do it’s job. I use Linux and have used many browsers on different OS platforms. but they would never gaze beyond the paddock.
Mozilla will not influence any of the OS makers to give them a break. It will come down to Mozilla winning over new and existing users. There is only one way to do that – find out what pisses their users off and work on that. Prove they have created an FF that is ‘what users want’ and get some reliable (not corrupt) reviewers to get the word out.
Plain and simple Chromium, Chrome, are the same and is controlled by Google. There is nothing that Brave, Vivaldi, Edge can do when Google decides that the MV2 code should be removed. Once the code is gone your left with a builtin in adblocker that is inferior to UBO heck inferior to just about any adblocker, and im sure that they are not going to just use the builtin approach for all extensions that don’t or will not work with MV3. Brave, Vivaldi, and Edge are just fancy front ends for Chrome/Chromium and they can spew all the nonsense they want about keeping this or keeping that, but the end result will be they will bow to Google, or be forced to use outdated source that still has the mv2 code available in it. Or patch the crap out of it so it will still work.Rinse and repeat for every release.
Although the main gripe is that the adblockers will be neutered , there are other extensions that might/will be affected just talked about in a much lessor degree. Fact is Google is an ad based revenue model business and their narrative is to preserve that and they continue to do that all in the name of better user security and privacy. You can put lipstick on a pile of shit but the reality is, it’s still a pile of shit
@Iron Heart
Iron Heart commented >> . Irrelevant is not the same as secure, I enjoy typing this for the 100th time because you seem to stick with your bullshit narrative no matter what btw.
Linux Irrelevant? Ok, ignorance is bliss i guess?
Do you like making a fool out of yourself?
Linux programmers do a better job of patching security holes than programmers at Apple, Google, and Microsoft.
https://www.zdnet.com/article/google-project-zero-finds-linux-developers-patch-security-holes-faster-than-anyone-else/
New research suggests that Linux as a platform is more secure than Microsoft’s Windows and Apple’s macOS
According to the results, open-source programmers, on average, fixed Linux issues in just 25 days. In comparison, Apple took about 69 days to fix security holes in macOS, while Microsoft took a whopping 83 days to patch security vulnerabilities in Windows.
ttps://screenrant.com/linux-faster-security-fixes-windows-mac-chrome-google-project-zero/
Iron Heart commented >> Upstream code has no influence on downstream patches of forks.
Why does Brave have no feature like this “privacy.resist.Fingerprinting.letterboxing” in Firefox or Librewolf ????
Might it be because the Chromium-codebase is not exactly as privacy focused as Gecko by design? Since chromium-codebase is primarily authored by an ad-tech company Google? Tell us why Brave got an “x” in some tests here while Librewolf passes. Firefox can easily be hardened like Librewolf which is a fork.
FINGERPRINTING RESISTANCE TESTS
https://privacytests.org/
Brave does very poor here.
Media query screen height = Brave Fails But Librewolf passed
Media query screen width = Brave Fails But Librewolf passed
outerheight = Brave Fails But Librewolf passed
screen.height = Brave Fails But Librewolf passed
screen.width = Brave Fails But Librewolf passed
screenX = Brave Fails But Librewolf passed
screenY = Brave Fails But Librewolf passed
system font detection = Brave Fails But Librewolf passed
Hardened Firefox/LIbrewolf has better privacy features than Brave on desktop. Firefox has greater fingerprinting resistance for screen resolutions.
Time for you to shut up now? Or do you want to keep making a fool out of yourself by saying Brave has better fingerprinting resistance than hardened Firefox or Librewolf?
Iron Heart commented >> I like GrapheneOS which is exclusive to Pixel phones, this should be clear from my comments. But yeah, running GrapheneOS means I support Google
Without Google hardware like a pixel phone, GrapheneOS does not work? So keep paying for those wonderful Google pixel phones. You say you buy them used and not new? What difference does that make? You still are using a Google product and had to pay for it.
You spend a lot of time making excuses for Google Chrome’s security issues? And you expect people to believe you dislike Google? You don’t fool me, that’s for sure.
I have actually never seen anyone make as much excuses for Google as you do here on Ghacks.
Iron Heart commented >> A factual analysis just shows that Firefox is less secure than Chromium
What factual analysis? Do you mean a certain favorite outdated blog you claim to be good analysis? A guy that recommends windows over Linux for security and chromium-based browsers over Firefox for security?
No browser gets as much as security issues as Chrome and Chromium-based browsers according to statistics, no operating system gets as much security problems as windowsOS.
I trust in statistics and FOSS, not nonsense opinions and “what if” scenarios that make no sense.
Do you want to shut up now?
Iron Heart commented >> Just like your pal @Yash, you don’t understand that the default browser does not become part of the OS
It would depend on the OS. For example, Edge is much more integrated/embedded into the windowsOS than Firefox would be in a popular Linux Distro. Anytime i used Firefox on Linux distros, it behaves very well.
Some words from this news article,
Some Chrome and Firefox users are unhappy that Microsoft’s new browser appears to help itself to their current default browser data.
It puts an Edge icon on your desktop. It unsets your default browser, so next time you click a URL from a shortcut, you’ll have to re-choose your default browser. Apparently it ingests data from other browsers without your permission.”
https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-edge-is-stealing-chrome-users-data-i-asked-microsoft-if-its-true/
Want to keep making a fool out of yourself Iron Heart? As i said to you previously, go educate yourself before you type your nonsense. Or maybe time to just stop typing altogether before more people will agree that you have not a clue what you are talking about? @Yash already seems to think you have not a clue what you are talking about.
I do not use Android devices, but i would believe that @Yash would be far more knowledgable about the AndroidOS than someone as foolishly ignorant and naive as you, …. who has a lot to say, but rarely makes any sense.
Chrome is probably also very embedded into the AndroidOS
And anyone that takes the time to debunk some of your nonsense, has to write walls of text. Keep preaching some of your nonsense here, the fact that some people say they create UBO filters for you is proof of how annoying and foolish you can be.
You should learn when to just stop. You are very obsessive. Many people call you a troll now.
@Yash
Yash commented >> That alone shows he hasn’t got a clue of what’s what. In latest Android versions Chrome just takes about 20MB to update, way less than what a proper browser would. He doesn’t know Google has created a walled garden
I would agree with you for sure that he has not a clue what he is talking about
a lot of the time here on Ghacks, he says some really stupid things.
Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt.
Iron Heart has a lot to say. Lol.
@GNU Linux Sophistication
> Linux Irrelevant? Ok, ignorance is bliss i guess?
On the desktop? Yes, irrelevant.
The desktop is the main target for hackers, because private persons and organizations use it.
> Linux programmers do a better job of patching security holes than programmers at Apple, Google, and Microsoft.
So they are faster patching the few security issues found by the few hackers who care? Also, they are faster without the multi-layered approval process for patches a company like Microsoft or Apple would typically apply? I am shocked, I tell you, shocked!
Also, how fast they patch specific issues says nothing at all about the base code.
> Why does Brave have no feature like this “privacy.resist.Fingerprinting.letterboxing” in Firefox or Librewolf ????
Because it invites the attention of bot detectors, just like Tor or modified Firefox do. This is also why LibreWolf does not use letterboxing by default, it is too much of a headache for users to deal with. Brave therefore has this at low priority in their GitHub issues, there are only few users who would be willing to fight bot detection.
Also, LibreWolf did nothing, nada, zilch on their own. They are just rebranded Firefox with some settings changed, settings Firefox got from Tor as that took the maintenance burden away from the small Tor Project. You are comparing a minor rebuild like LibreWolf with Brave, who need to come up with all fingerprinting defenses themselves? If so, then that’s fairly ridiculous.
> Might it be because the Chromium-codebase is not exactly as privacy focused as Gecko by design?
No, this is not the reason. There is no reason Chromium’s window dimensions can’t be hardcoded to a certain value, you are being ridiculous. Also, Firefox did not support letterboxing initially either, just because something is not done yet (because low priority) does not mean it is impossible.
> Hardened Firefox/LIbrewolf has better privacy features than Brave on desktop. Firefox has greater fingerprinting resistance for screen resolutions.
You know, I can do without fighting bot detection just to protect a low value fingerprinting vector (screen resolutions are not THAT varied) so far.
> Or do you want to keep making a fool out of yourself by saying Brave has better fingerprinting resistance than hardened Firefox or Librewolf?
Firefox doesn’t defend against fingerprinting by default. In a modified state, you have only created a highly unique fingerprint, so that you get the feeling to have “done something”. It fixes nothing, there is also no sizable crowd to hide in unlike Tor (which never has an identical fingerprint with mainstream Firefox as it bases itself on ESR and does not suffer from major version fragmentation btw).
> What difference does that make? You still are using a Google product and had to pay for it.
Unless ideology has completely eaten away at your brain, you should understand that someone somewhere will buy the Pixel phone anyway. There is no reality in which declaring a Pixel boycott would work, therefore buying it used is valid, from a realism point of view. I know that you prefer ideology over realism though.
> You spend a lot of time making excuses for Google Chrome’s security issues? And you expect people to believe you dislike Google
Chromium is the basis of several browsers, not just Chrome. I use Brave which is based on it. Discussing the security aspects of Chromium is not the same as promoting Chrome. Further, privacy and security are not the same thing, but from experience I know that you can’t differentiate between outside exploitation and the data collection the browser developer may perform (the latter is not an issue in Brave btw.).
You are talking a lot about how I am supposedly making a laughing stock out of myself, what about you though who says I am promoting Google(‘s privacy violations), something anyone who is following me here unbiased knows is categorically untrue? You come across like a petulant child throwing various forms of shit at me, hoping that something somehow will stick.
By your logic, anyone using a Custom ROM (specifically to get away from privacy issues of default Android) is promoting Google as well, which is pretty laughable to be honest.
> A guy that recommends windows over Linux for security and chromium-based browsers over Firefox for security?
Actual base code analysis vs. misunderstanding / misuse of statistical likelhoods, madaidan and you, guess which is which.
> No browser gets as much as security issues as Chrome and Chromium-based browsers according to statistics, no operating system gets as much security problems as windowsOS.
Windows and Chromium have something in common, you know. Both dominate in their respective fields, so therefore many people use them and may find security issues.
Firefox and desktop Linux are hardly used in comparison, and are uninteresting to any malicious party. Uninteresting, irrelevant is not the same as secure though. I would only call them more secure if their exploit mitigations were more advanced than that of their competitors, however this is not the case. Relying on irrelevance for security is generally scoffed at by developers and for good reason, it’s also extra-laughable in your case because, while Firefox and desktop Linux are comparatively irrelevant, they are not quite irrelevant enough to be totally off the radar, just irrelevant enough to not draw anywhere near the attention Windows or Chromium do. Firefox is not quite Lynx yet, desktop Linux is not quite FreeBSD yet.
> I trust in statistics and FOSS, not nonsense opinions and “what if” scenarios that make no sense.
Statistics? Statistically, the most used browser will always have a higher nominal number of security issues since it is more searched for them. The gap between Chromium and Firefox is huge, so what do you expect? You are a fool for thinking that Firefox draws anywhere near the attention Chromium has to it, this is completely nuts.
Chromium could be ten times as secure as Firefox and still have a higher nominal number of security issues than Firefox, because it would still be the focus of hackers no matter what.
Number of CVEs is not how you determine security, this would be amateur hour. What you need to do is to compare the respective codebases which is easy here since both, not just Firefox, are FOSS. In the code, we can actually see that Firefox is lacking several important exploit mitigations and that it is thus not secure (reminder: irrelevance is no substitute for a relatively secure base code).
> It would depend on the OS. For example, Edge is much more integrated/embedded into the windowsOS than Firefox would be in a popular Linux Distro.
I think Edge can be uninstalled still without anything major breaking.
> @Yash already seems to think you have not a clue what you are talking about.
This would be an issue if I took Yash and his opinion seriously, but after many encounters with him I don’t.
> Chrome is probably also very embedded into the AndroidOS
No, if it was heavily embedded you could not disable it and expect the OS to work still, especially rendering of any web content would be affected. Why can you disable Chrome though? Because Chrome and Android’s web view are not the same component, that’s why.
You’ve just involuntarily proven your pal Yash wrong again, congrats.
> And anyone that takes the time to debunk some of your nonsense, has to write walls of text.
You should be the last one complaining about that, you are using walls of text (walls of nonsense, rather) as an opener to attack me on a regular basis.
> Keep preaching some of your nonsense here, the fact that some people say they create UBO filters for you is proof of how annoying and foolish you can be.
You mean Tom the Talker? He can hide my comments with uHide Origin, he does not value my contributions and I don’t value his, I think we are good.
May I ask though, why are you not applying this filter in your uHide Origin installation? If you are so convinced of that filter, you should act like an adult and apply it as well, but I suppose I am living in your head rent free and that’s why you cannot do it. Let’s just say, I wouldn’t be too mad at you using that filter as well, this would save me a lot of time.
> Many people call you a troll now.
You mean Yash does? As I said, don’t care.
> I would agree with you for sure that he has not a clue what he is talking about
a lot of the time here on Ghacks, he says some really stupid things.
Two clueless clowns sticking together through thick and thin, as far as I can tell. That’s great, does not render anything you two babble true though.
> Iron Heart has a lot to say. Lol.
Yeah, a lot of bullshit to deal with rather.
I am hopefully done here.
@IronHeart
Firefox is better than Brave.
@Anonymous
You know the drill: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWdd6_ZxX8c
Duckduckgo was crying in vain. But he wasn’t trying to improve his search engine. If anyone is reading from Firefox developers, you can’t attract audiences unless you fix performance issues. The individual user does not care about privacy. Speed, performance, low resource consumption these are your problems.
I do agree that othe3r software companies such as Microsoft, Google etc. do push their browsers at every oportunity. Bu I have used Firefox for nearly 30 years. The reason I have removed it from all my systems? It cannot compete for speed and ‘bloat’ !! I now use Chrome as my default browsers having tried ALL the others, going back to Netscape, which was the precursor to Firefox. You have to move with the times, and for me that is what Google’s Chrome has done… :)
@Bob Moore
If you have been using Firefox for 30 years, that means you were using it in 1992. Firefox did not exist until 2004, Phoenix did not exist until 2002.
How is this possible?
I do not know why people are rallying behind inbuilt ad-blockers like they are an absolute must and every browser should have them when clearly it can and often is a conflict of interest.
Would you trust an ad-blocker designed by Google?
If a browser’s ad-blocker or inbuilt component is not up to task or selectively bad then you are stuck with it and the entire browser is then compromised as such. If an addon/extension is not up to task or bad you simply remove it or do not install it.
The way I look at it is if you purchased or downloaded a movie and the subtitles were hard-coded (merged layer on the top) and cannot be turned off it would be pretty awful but of there was an option to turn them on or off that would be far greater and a better fit.
I enjoy the Firefox approach because it affords me the freedom to choose or to even develop my own ad-blocker or anything else for that matter and I feel that it is up to the browser to facilitate it thus there in lies the problem. If you cut away API’s or water them down you are only punishing people.
It’s kinda funny that people are insisting that ad-blockers should be built into web browsers in an article that is arguing about default browser in an OS. It would be like Microsoft coming up with their own telemetry blocker software like Shutup! and making it a part of their OS. Would you really trust it? I would rather look to a third party and make educated choices myself.
Another thing that has me perplexed is that people insist that extensions should be crippled because they can be dangerous but I don’t see people question the vast array of software they install on their system or the potential for them flipping and going rogue also. If [insert trusted FOSS here or even paid] rolled in an update that was nefarious would you argue that Windows needs to be crippled and restricted so people can no longer do such a thing?
This is what really annoys me is that this heavy handed approach is the problem, not only is it shortsighted but also destructive. There exists a middle ground and also some accountability on the users behalf.
Perhaps we should look at ways for extension authors to be verified and for them to be made accountable for their extensions. If they go rogue and start doing shady things then they can expect the law to be after them or at the very least fines. Accountability!
We want to encourage people to build good software but we don’t want to punish people for it or for using it.
“As much as I’d like to see it happen, I don’t think that Apple, Microsoft and Google will ever ask the user what browser they want to use.”
Unless they are forced to do so by the EU, the US government and other governments.
@Andy Prough
Andy Prough commented >> Firefox has the GNU/Linux distro market mostly to itself, since it comes pre-installed with nearly every distro. Google could actually complain about that in the same way if they wanted.
Why would they complain?
Chrome OS, is a Linux-based operating system designed by Google. ChromeOS is based on the Linux kernel. Without the Linux kernel, it would be nothing. Google Chrome is the default browser on ChromeOS. ChromeOS could quite possibly be more popular than all of the traditional Linux distros combined, because Chromebooks are getting very popular and ChromeOS is very popular according to statistics.
Chromebooks outsold Macs worldwide in 2020, cutting into Windows market share
https://www.geekwire.com/2021/chromebooks-outsold-macs-worldwide-2020-cutting-windows-market-share/
I expect chromebooks to get even more popular, because they are cheap and ChromeOS has better security when compared to windows or mac. No other operating systems gets as much security issues as windows according to statistics. ChromeOS is based on Linux, that is why it has better security than windows or mac.
ChromeOS is inferior though when compared to some of the best operating systems based on Linux such as Fedora, Arch, Ubuntu, Mint, Debian, Gentoo. No reason to use Google crap software or their proprietary browser when superior options exist.
As a user of some Linux distros, i would expect a FOSS browser to be the default on FOSS operating systems or i will not use such operating systems. If any chromium-based browser was installed as default on an operating system, i would not use such an operating system. I would never use use AndroidOS, Windows, ChromeOS. Even though ChromeOS is based on Linux, i would never use it, simply because Google is an Ad-tech company, and a proprietary browser is the default browser on ChromeOS.
The most popular FOSS browser according to statistics is Firefox. It makes perfect sense why it would be installed by default on the best operating systems based on Linux.
Competing Chromium-based browsers use Google engineered/authored technology, the chromium-codebase, which gives that browser-codebase a type of monopoly, where Google can dicatate as to what web standards should be.
When using a FOSS distro, it is good practice to use Firefox, because it is the only FOSS browser with its own unique engine (Gecko) that contains excellent privacy/security/customizability and having something like over 10% of its codebase in outstanding new technology like the safe RUST programming language.
Unlike Chromium-based browsers, around 10% of Firefox uses Rust, a safer programming language which is specifically designed to be memory safe.
Some things to think about from the article below.
Roughly 70% of all serious security bugs in the Chrome codebase are memory management and safety bugs
Today, Rust is considered one of the safest programming languages, and an ideal replacement for C and C++, primarily due to Mozilla’s early efforts.
Google engineers say that their approach to sandboxing Chrome’s components has reached its maximum benefits when taking performance into account, and that the company must now look to new approaches.
https://www.zdnet.com/article/chrome-70-of-all-security-bugs-are-memory-safety-issues/
Just read any tech news articles describing all the security problems/patches that Chrome or Chromium-based browsers get compared to Firefox. The so-called superior site isolation and sandboxing it has when compared to Firefox does not mean a whole lot, when it is Chrome that gets wayn more security problems according to statistics.
Google the ad-tech company are really the ultimate gatekeepers of what the Chromium codebase can do, they are known to have overwhelmingly the most commits to the chromium-project. It is no surprise why chromium-based browsers do not have as good privacy/customizability features as Firefox, because the chromium-codebase is PRIMARILY built for a proprietary browser. It is not a really intelligent argument to suggest that the chromium-codebase would have better security/privacy than Gecko/Rust, when one codebase is primarily developed for a proprietary browser (Chrome) and the other code has been developed for a FOSS browser.
Chromium-based browsers are inadequate, lacking, and sub par when compared to Firefox. An example why? Chromium-codebase is orimarily used for the development of a proprietary browser (Chrome). No security expert worth their salt would recommend proprietary software instead of FOSS. Another example? Mozilla invented RUST (Shows how talented they are) and Firefox on desktop is very customizable.
Also UBO works best on Firefox, but then again Mozilla is not Google, so that is to be expected. UBO Lite for inferior browsers lol.
Firefox is not perfect, but still more perfect than other browsers.
@Karl
Karl REPLY to JonSnow >> You sound just like Iron Heart
I also think it is strange how some Anti-Firefox comments sometimes sound a lot like something Iron Heart would say, as if to praise, defend or support a narrative of his obsessive negativity against Firefox in the comments section on Ghacks in many browser news articles. Never forget that people say they create UBO filters especially for him, to block his comments from view lol.
I think this sounds like something Iron Heart would write.
Boo Hoo commented >> I am tech savvy, I know exactly how to everything regarding my browser of choice and search on my os. I still won’t choose Firefox. Because it’s sh*t.
Which sounds like a comment in support of Iron Hearts comments here
Iron Heart commented >> There is a clearly described setting in all operating systems for changing the default browser, and people are obviously not too dumb to use it either, otherwise Chrome would not have replaced the default of Windows and macOS for most people!
IronHeart commented >> people having to go to the settings once to change the default, which they are supposedly too dumb to do, while they are clearly capable of doing it in real life. Laughable.
Weird!
@Yash
Yash commented >> I feel sorry for your lack of knowledge on certain subjects and yet pretending like you know it all. So next time better do some research. By the way actual research and not another madainwhatever nonsense.
The know it all attitude Iron Heart has whilst literally not having a clue what he is talking about is very annoying, i would agree. He says he uses Google pixel phones, i guess he likes Google products in his pocket? He likes Google a lot, likes Google made authored code like the chromium-codebase? He dislikes FOSS like Firefox? He says he laughs at people saying he likes Google? Well if he really disliked Google, he would not be using Google pixel phones.
See here some more ignorant nonsense from Iron Heart
Iron Heart commented >> Default browser just means that any type of external link opens in there, not that it literally becomes part of the system
Edge browser is a browser that is very integrated with windows operating system, so was internet explorer, Edge is a big part of windows 10/11, very embedded into the OS. A lot of Iron Heart knowledge about browsers and operating systems = Uneducated nonsense.
@GNU Linux Sophistication
While everyone is free to express their opinion I would advise you to not enter into a comment fight * [Editor: removed, please remain positive and friendly]
@Iron Heart – ‘you believe that Chrome is just a front end for web view which is demonstrably false.’
This is what he wrote in his last comment in above thread. That alone shows he hasn’t got a clue of what’s what. In latest Android versions Chrome just takes about 20MB to update, way less than what a proper browser would. He doesn’t know Google has created a walled garden where most of its apps and other apps, even ones available in F-Droid, have to use System Webview which is Chromium and can’t be replaced. You can disable Chrome but Chromium will still be there. This basic thing went above his head. No point in providing him more fodder.
@Yash
> comment fight with troll @Iron Heart
Ah so now I am a troll after I demonstrated that you were factually wrong in this comment section again, good to know.
> Stupid idiot. He really is just that.
Look in the mirror buddy, there you see a stupid idiot. I think I can say that after gHacks allowed this insult on your part.
> In latest Android versions Chrome just takes about 20MB to update, way less than what a proper browser would.
Brave is a 130 MB download for me and after installation, I receive 8 -12 MB updates raising it to a new version number. I know for a fact that Brave is not the web view of my OS. Incremental updates can be done for any kind of software and do not prove that Chrome is “just a wrapper” for Android web view.
Chrome and Android’s web view are two separate components both based on Chromium. They also get updated independently of each other (which would not be possible if they were the same component). Any Android developer, if you care to ask, will tell you this. I guess they are all as stupid as I am then.
> He doesn’t know Google has created a walled garden where most of its apps and other apps, even ones available in F-Droid, have to use System Webview which is Chromium and can’t be replaced.
That’s bullshit. Any app developer can have hyperlinks opened by an external browser if he / she so chooses, if web view is used exclusively then this is a design choice that was unforced.
> No point in providing him more fodder.
No point in writing up any more bullshit that I have to correct, that’s right.
In Android 11+ phones you either update Android System Webview using Play Store and then update Chrome. Chrome takes about 20MB to update.
Or if Play Store is disabled, you update Trichrome(from Apkmirror) and then update Android System Webview to not see a package error. Chrome still takes about 20MB to update. Same as DuckDuckGo Browser. It is just frontend to Chromium which is present in whole system.
Brave browser takes 234MB to install and then takes same amount of data again to update.
Now away from this heightened alpha male tension of which browser is better, I’d love to know from where the hell you said Brave takes 20MB to update and Chrome takes full data like a full browser? Since I’m using a phone with Android 12 built-in, I’d really like to know the story behind your fake numbers.
PS: When I talked about Brave using incremental updates, I meant the desktop version. On desktop, it is clearly not a wrapper for anything , proving to you that incremental updates are not in any way limited to “wrappers”, but rather can be applied to any application if supported. Downloads from the Play Store are always full file size because incremental updating is not supported there yet by the Brave team on Android.
@Yash
> In Android 11+ phones you either update Android System Webview using Play Store and then update Chrome.
You can also deal it the other way around, because the two components are, as said, separate from each other.
> Brave browser takes 234MB to install and then takes same amount of data again to update.
Brave does not use incremental updates, Chrome does. What type of patching you apply (incremental or full download again) does not demonstrate which relationship different components have with each other.
> Same as DuckDuckGo Browser.
DuckDuckGo Browser is really just a wrapper around system web view, you can tell from its install size. You can’t demonstrate this for Chrome with its much larger install size, and even then Chrome still exists outside of system web view which is yet another component with a large install size.
This gets tiresome, just ask any Android developer whether Chrome and Android web view are the same component, they will tell you the same thing I told you, perhaps you believe them when they confirm it for you.
Here is an excerpt from Google’s documentation btw, under the point “What’s the relationship between WebView and Chrome?”:
“WebView is built on top of the open source Chromium project, but it doesn’t share any data with Google Chrome.”
source: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/HEAD/android_webview/docs/faq.md#what_s-the-relationship-between-webview-and-chrome
This is true for all current Android versions, and proves that you don’t know what you are talking about even if your life depended on it. Same for @GNU Linux Sophistication.
‘You can also deal it the other way around, because the two components are, as said, separate from each other.
‘Brave does not use incremental updates, Chrome does. What type of patching you apply (incremental or full download again) does not demonstrate which relationship different components have with each other.
‘DuckDuckGo Browser is really just a wrapper around system web view, you can tell from its install size. You can’t demonstrate this for Chrome with its much larger install size, and even then Chrome still exists outside of system web view which is yet another component with a large install size.
This gets tiresome, just ask any Android developer whether Chrome and Android web view are the same component, they will tell you the same thing I told you, perhaps you believe them when they confirm it for you.
Here is an excerpt from Google’s documentation btw, under the point “What’s the relationship between WebView and Chrome?”:
“WebView is built on top of the open source Chromium project, but it doesn’t share any data with Google Chrome.”
source: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/HEAD/android_webview/docs/faq.md#what_s-the-relationship-between-webview-and-chrome‘
Never thought your I KNOW EVERYTHING PERSONA would burst in this way.
1. System Webview and Chrome are different. Chrome is just a wrapper around webview which even your link repeats. I never said it otherwise. Yet it still goes above your head. You had to share link to an article where it clearly tells what’s what and yet got it all wrong. That’s legendary achievement.
2. If you don’t know relationship between different components in Android, just shut up. Again I repeat the main point of the article – Chromium in System Webview can’t be replaced by anything else. This includes Brave. And app developers have to base their app around webview because in webview you have control over your app, while browser config can be changed by user. Main issue is user can’t change webview to solve lrivacy issue.
Clearly these things are above your head. All these comments when you don’t know basics of Android. Bravo!
@GNU Linux Sophistication (Sophistication? Rather idiocy…)
> No other operating systems gets as much security issues as windows according to statistics.
Yes because no other system is as popular and as attractive to hackers. Irrelevant is not the same as secure, I enjoy typing this for the 100th time because you seem to stick with your bullshit narrative no matter what btw.
> ChromeOS is based on Linux, that is why it has better security than windows or mac.
Ahahahaha, LOL. Linux can be trivially hacked, it’s just that nobody cares much.
Android is based on the Linux kernel btw, no kernel exploits possible there, right? Hehe, sure.
> i would expect a FOSS browser to be the default on FOSS operating systems or i will not use such operating systems. If any chromium-based browser was installed as default on an operating system, i would not use such an operating system.
Your weird ideology aside, Chromium is FOSS.
> The most popular FOSS browser according to statistics is Firefox
3% market share bro.
> where Google can dicatate as to what web standards should be.
Mozilla adopts anything Google comes up with anyway. And no, Manifest V3 is not a web standard and even there I’m highly skeptical.
> Unlike Chromium-based browsers, around 10% of Firefox uses Rust, a safer programming language which is specifically designed to be memory safe. (…) Roughly 70% of all serious security bugs in the Chrome codebase are memory management and safety bugs
Today, Rust is considered one of the safest programming languages, and an ideal replacement for C and C++, primarily due to Mozilla’s early efforts.
That’s cool. None of the most attacked code of Firefox is written in Rust though, including the code for memory management which is C++.
> Just read any tech news articles describing all the security problems/patches that Chrome or Chromium-based browsers get compared to Firefox.
Irrelevant is not the same as secure, same story as above.
> excellent privacy/security/customizability
Doubtful / No / Yes (don’t care about that last one though)
> Google the ad-tech company are really the ultimate gatekeepers of what the Chromium codebase can do, they are known to have overwhelmingly the most commits to the chromium-project.
Upstream code has no influence on downstream patches of forks.
> It is not a really intelligent argument to suggest that the chromium-codebase would have better security/privacy than Gecko/Rust, when one codebase is primarily developed for a proprietary browser (Chrome) and the other code has been developed for a FOSS browser.
Chromium is FOSS and fully auditable, the rest is weirdo nonsense.
Mozilla serves corporate interests as well, look where their funding comes from and who they are teaming up with (Meta / Facebook among others).
> Chromium-based browsers are inadequate, lacking, and sub par when compared to Firefox.
Hence their market share, because they are inadequate / subpar… Delusional dreamer.
> Chromium-codebase is orimarily used for the development of a proprietary browser (Chrome). No security expert worth their salt would recommend proprietary software instead of FOSS.
Chromium is fully auditable, hence why it is used for browsers like Vanadium (default browser of GrapheneOS). The rest is weirdo nonsense.
> Another example? Mozilla invented RUST (Shows how talented they are) and Firefox on desktop is very customizable.
None of the most attacked components of Firefox is actually written in Rust, and customization is not the same as security. You giving your browser a different theme will not give it e.g. proper site isolation, what a weird ass thing to say!
Also, Rust is no longer a part of Mozilla and they let these developers go btw.
> Also UBO works best on Firefox, but then again Mozilla is not Google, so that is to be expected. UBO Lite for inferior browsers lol.
I don’t need uBO. What would it do for me that Brave Shields doesn’t already? Answer: Nothing.
Firefox users need the bandaid fix because the browser doesn’t block ads by default and never will due to Google’s business influence on them.
> He says he uses Google pixel phones, i guess he likes Google products in his pocket?
I like GrapheneOS which is exclusive to Pixel phones, this should be clear from my comments. But yeah, running GrapheneOS means I support Google, you absolute weirdo.
> He likes Google a lot, likes Google made authored code like the chromium-codebase? He dislikes FOSS like Firefox?
Like / dislike, ugh, as if it matters… A factual analysis just shows that Firefox is less secure than Chromium due to shoddy security practices, my like / dislike doesn’t exactly change that. And do you know how we found out about this? Because the Chromium code is FOSS and actual comparisons were undertaken.
> Edge browser is a browser that is very integrated with windows operating system
Just like your pal @Yash, you don’t understand that the default browser does not become part of the OS. Some default browsers like Edge or Safari which are preinstalled ARE part of the OS, other third party browsers like Firefox can be made the default browser without becoming part of the OS. App developers (feed readers, E-Mail applications etc.) can always decide whether hyperlinks in their apps use web view or open an external third party browser when you click them. I know that you are not intelligent enough to understand how it works, however I hope other, more sensible readers of this blog are.
My os, my browser, my media player, my software…
Install whatever you want manually.
Can’t remember seeing other browsers besides Firefox on Firefox OS back then.
I wonder if anyone has considered that there are browsers that already include ublock Origin such as floorp and Librewolf (Librewolf from memory) which somewhat skews data then consider that people like myself have also downloaded ublock origin from github directly and not any Browser repository such as mozilla’s or even chromes webstore for that matter then you have an issue with the numbers so the numbers are definitely flawed and its not something I would attempt to use in an argument.
I would suggest that Mozilla develop their own search engine or look into searXNG or something and work from there they are at huge disadvantage in comparison the to other companies in question as they offer far more things that can tilt people in their favour such as an OS and some even on multiple devices such as PC and Mobile devices. There is definitely a need for a better search engine and something like that could definitely help them gather some influence. I would say it has definitely worked well for Brave.
Running their own version of SearXNG and helping develop it further would be a smart move if possible. They could slap their own branding on it and integrate it into their browser, promote their other paid services and go from there but at the end of the day they absolutely must maintain integrity and take many more steps to improve. Mozilla are not the best and there is certainly room for improvement. I will be the first to criticize Mozilla for their stupidity but lets be nobody should trust google.
Mozilla would be far better of diligently working on their browser and rebuilding relationships with the community that they turned their back on many years ago. They had the biggest and most enthusiastic community at one point but Mozilla felt they wanted to rebrand themselves and go it alone, they then savaged the extension system and rather than improve upon XUL or look at other methods they went for the watered down webextension and promised it would be developed further to be just as powerful if not more which was complete lie which is why we have people here lacking any faith in Mozilla suggesting that they will eventually fold and drop Manifest v2 given their past record.
They have a real public relations issue and that is obvious.
Their browser has a lot of issues too. Either improve this webextensions system or drop it all together and go back to XUL which would also resolve their theme and UI issues which seem to be a more consistent theme when it comes to themes and UI’s itself.
While we are at it Mozilla need to address bugs more swiftly. I have 64GB of ram on my laptop and 128GB so I am not seeing much issues in regards to memory leaks but I believe such things are spiked by particular websites.
In regards to Manifest v3 the biggest thing on the surface level is the artificial limitation that google has taken upon themselves to push which smells to high heaven. As many people have said this limitation is not limited just to ublock origin but many other extensions that maintain a block list or lists of things.
i have not looked into this all deeply but it is troubling and also insulting when you consider that there was no good reason for google to impose these artificial limitations other than obvious which is what is also ruffling feathers.
Fraudzilla crying as usual.
Whats the problem what that? They develop the software, they can do anything with it. Your browsers are bundled on Linux. I guess its fitting that a browser that can’t get the basics right (hobbyist browser) is the default on a operating system that can’t get the basics right, and barely works (hobbyist operating system).
Remember when Google came out with Chrome, and it destroyed every browser at that time (and still does to this day). Chrome was not bundled with Windows, and it took all of Internet Explorers users and market share.
Fraudzilla playing the victim, as usual. Instead of crying about it, do something about it. Google did!
Imagine saying this unrealistic demential rant by Mozilla to justify their failure.
Brave is not pre-installed and they keep growing, Opera is not pre-installed and it’s growing too, especially the GX version.
Chrome took over Desktop marketshare and it is not preinstalled… if you want to count the chromebooks okay, but I am talking about Windows mostly.
It is a weird excuse when still today people see Edge as a nice browser to download Chrome or whatever, even if it is great, because most people won’t use Edge.
Maybe they should focus on stopping firing people and giving their high position clowns a bigger check, because let’s be realistic, Google is the reason Firefox exists, and nobody but them get so much money for existing, it is just ridiculous the are not complaining EVERYONE is to blame but Mozilla and the way they have ruined the browser and making people just switch to Chromium-king browsers.
Only Firefox fanboys can believe Firefox will gain anything at this point, Manifestv3 is not going to change anything because not many use adblockers and the ones that do will not even notice when the updates are pushed and MV2 extensions get replaced with MV3… the only way they will notice is by articles and people saying “did you see it?” because it will keep working just the same, block the necessary, and don’t allow ads in most websites.
Excuses by Mozilla, just laughable.
I used to use Firefox but now using Edge. I wonder why Mozilla has not yet fixed memory leak problem since long time ago.
Chrome family might be using larger memory than Firefox but they don’t constantly increase like Firefox.
Even opening just a Youtube page will do that, memory usage will keep increasing and eventually Firefox will become unresponsive and need to be restarted.
After they removed the XUL and change to new system, this problem still persists, why?
As someone said above, what advantages Firefox offer from other browser? Privacy? That’s a niche area and can be done too in other browsers. Speed? Compatibility? Of course firefox loses.
Feature? They keep stripping features.. Now Chrome is starting to provide RSS reading while Firefox deleted that feature. Opera has integrated Whatsapp Web in their browser. Vivaldi offers much more customization. Edge offers great PDF reader and writer and visual search.
Of course there’s integrated browser in every system. But don’t you have to think the way to make people want to use alternative browser(Firefox)? How come the CEO or the managers of Mozilla don’t think of this? How sad what Mozilla has become.
@Anonymous
From my experience Edge uses the least amount of memory. Vivaldi uses the most and Firefox uses just under what Vivaldi does. I kind of hope the new development lead actually fixes the longstanding bugs and makes Firefox better.
I think that as long as people are ignorant of how the technology they use on a daily basis actually works, greedy people will continue to take advantage them for personal profit.
Mozilla is greedy enough itself. Taking Google’s money and pushing an inferior browser is not an excuse for unpopularity but native systems and them pushing their browsers is?
Lol. This is hilarious. Mozilla don’t need to worry about other companies pushing users away. Mozilla are doing an exceptional job at that all by themselves.
In 102 forcing a dark theme on people just because the color of the text on the tabs is light, with no way to revert that was the last straw for me and the 500 PCs I have to manage.
Jesus, a lot of people hating on Mozilla here.
A few points:
– The commenter saying Google can complain Firefox is default on Linux distros is missing the fact that Mozilla doesn’t own, nor role, nor bankroll any of those Linux distros. The other way is clear a brand is sponsoring its own browser.
– Mozilla had funding issues at around the time Google ($$$) decided to make and release their own browser. And it was fast and better than Firefox. But Chrome is a bait-and-switch. Mozilla haven’t been quiet and have made leaps and bounds on their browser, but that means nothing when a browser ties into the product, and that’s where Firefox is on its own.
– This whole thing smells of the IE vs Netscape issues, though that was down to Microsoft not allowing Netscape access to the Win95 API to build their browser. IE bundling was an issue but not the biggest issue with the browser wars.
Ultimately Mozilla can’t say there’s no competition, it’s just that competition will be hoarding your data. And the bundling of those browsers (and the OS in some cases using dark practices to prevent you using another) is what is going to cause their demise. Which is a shame, because if you try the browser you can see it’s still relevant.
Sometimes people ask me why there is no Windows port of XScreenSaver. The reason is that Microsoft killed my company, and I hold a personal grudge. They are a company with vicious, predatory, anti-competitive business practices, and always have been. They also happen to make terrible products, and always have. I do not use any Microsoft products, and neither should you.
The longer version:
In addition to being the author of a whole bunch of cool screen savers, I was one of the founders of Netscape, the company that brought the first usable web browser to the general public, and I was also a founder of Mozilla.org, the organization that you know best for Firefox. I’ve been involved in the free software and open source community since the mid-80s.
In 1994, while chasing the tail-lights of Netscape’s unprecedented success, Microsoft used their monopoly in one market — operating systems — to make competition with them impossible in a different market — web browsers. Specifically, they used their operating system monopoly to drive the market price for web browsers to zero, instantaneously eliminating something like 60% of Netscape’s revenue.
It’s hard for any company to survive an injury like that. Netscape succumbed to its wounds three years later.
In 1999, The Department of Justice found Microsoft guilty of Anti-Trust violations, but by then it was far too late: the company that I helped create had already been killed.
Microsoft’s lawyers also subpoenaed my personal email at one point, which I took specific offense to. So seriously, screw those guys.
Now, every now and then, someone ports some of my XScreenSaver code to Windows, usually because they don’t realize my feelings on the subject. When that happens, I usually send them an email something like this:
Hi there!
I see that you’re distributing a Windows port of my XScreenSaver program. I’d like to ask that you please stop.
Because of the license under which I released XScreenSaver, you are legally free to do whatever you want with it, so long as I am credited for my work. I put this license on my code because I believe in giving people the freedom to make their own decisions, rather than trying to force them to do the Right Thing.
But, I wish you wouldn’t release any Windows ports.
This is because I despise Microsoft’s business practices, and I would feel very bad if any of my work went towards making Microsoft more successful. A screensaver is a trivial thing, but if you like screensavers, then you believe your computer is improved by having them. So by porting my screensavers to Windows, you improve the Windows environment. Any improvement to Windows helps Microsoft. I do not want my work to be used to that end.
So though I cannot compel you, I am asking you — please don’t do that with my work.
I understand that you may not agree with my opinions, but I hope that you will respect my wishes anyway.
Thanks!
Usually they say, “Oh wow, I had no idea! Thanks for your 25 years of work on this!” and they do the right thing.
But sometimes, not. Sometimes they just don’t care about ethics or the wishes of a creator. Some people have the sociopathic attitude that if it is legal to do something, then that also makes it right.
There’s one guy in particular — and I’m not going to link to his site, for obvious reasons — but when I asked him to stop distributing my code, he started sending me porn. I’m not joking, he literally called me names and emailed me a bunch of porn images. It wasn’t even good porn. So if you have any respect for my decades of work, you won’t link to, advertise or otherwise promote that guy’s code. I’m sure it’s not very good anyway.
At one point he was even trying to sell it. You know, the thing I’ve been giving way for free for decades. I’m sure that went really well.
So, if you search around, you might be able to find someone’s old, partial, halfassed, unauthorized port of XScreenSaver to Windows. Maybe more than one. If you’re lucky, it might not be riddled with viruses. I ask that you — please — do not download it, do not link to it, and do not share if with your friends.
Thank you!
– https://www.jwz.org/xscreensaver/xscreensaver-windows.html
– The above was quoted by anonymous and copy/pasted here. I did not write the above article.
mozilla blew its chance, self inflicted wounds and all that. but hey, at least they got rich doing it. google must of slashed some of their funding and now they are grumbling. maybe its time to fire the decision makers, focus on useful functions others don’t provide, manifest v3 is an opportunity to stand out from the crowd, doubt they will take it, data collection is too lucrative.
I am tech savvy, I know exactly how to everything regarding my browser of choice and search on my os. I still won’t choose Firefox. Because it’s sh*t.
Very convincing argument points and an intelligent explanation why you do not use it!
I believe it’s a true assessment by Mozilla. But on the other hand, I feel it’s maker’s right to promote their browser to some extent. Making difficult to install and change the default browser is in my opinion against users that shall have freedom to chose. Unfortunatelly for Mozilla, this the world we live in. Look around – the more cash you have, the higher chances you have to suceed even if your product, idea is not the best one. Google had aggressive and massive promotion, offered a lot of side products combined under Chrome umbrella. Mozilla had not and still does not offer anything except a browser really.
Also, that manifest/adblocking thing wony change anything. The masses don’t care about ads, privacy, safety. Minority does, minority may switch, but I highly doubt if it goes from chrome to FF.
https://www.decalguy.com/prod_images_large/1052.jpg
Very interesting article! Thanks @Ashwin! :]
I used Firefox from the start of its birth up till 5 years ago then I switched to Chrome…because basically Chrome is much faster and has better capability…Firefox is just like a slow Grandpa and nothing to offer over competition…For that I say…if you can’t beat them why don’t you join them? Microsoft did with Edge because they saw they could not beat Chrome. You should too…..because that paycheck you get from Google won’t last Forever you know.
You sound just like Iron Heart, especially with the last line about Google paycheck. Chrome is faster in certain benchmarks but as a user of both, the difference in real life is barely noticeable. Maybe it was more noticeable half a decade ago. As far as capabilities, Firefox has much more, especially with about:config. Extensions are generally more capable than Google extensions as well, specific examples include uBlock and the various youtube extensions. I rate your troll attempt 2/10.
You should have said that Chrome clones such as Vivaldi or Brave are more capable. I would have given you a higher troll rating.
Let’s analyze this quickly, shall we? When people use their operating system, no matter which, they expect to have a tool at hand with which they can access the internet, this tool / software is called the browser, meaning a browser is necessarily present in all OSes. Since it is the only browser at the time of installation, it therefore becomes the default browser automatically.
You can’t hold it against an operating system that it ships with a browser, this is generally what people would expect, right? Perhaps you can hold it against them that they are not making it easy to change the default browser, but that’s basically it – however, even this is not really the case…
Firefox is a third party browser on all operating systems except for Linux, not sure what they expect? As their in-house attempt at making an operating system failed (Firefox OS), in which Firefox was the sole browser being installed and the default too btw, they are now expecting others to roll out the red carpet before them!? Why? Would they have done the same had they created a successful operating system, rolling out the red carpet for others? I don’t think so.
There is a clearly described setting in all operating systems for changing the default browser, and people are obviously not too dumb to use it either, otherwise Chrome would not have replaced the default of Windows and macOS for most people! I think Mozilla can’t compete and is pointlessly whining about a default browser being present, which is what people generally would expect, and about people having to go to the settings once to change the default, which they are supposedly too dumb to do, while they are clearly capable of doing it in real life. Laughable.
@ Iron Heart,
If my memory serves me correctly, the explosive growth of Google Chrome was primarily due to it being bundled with third party software initially. Users who chose the “Recommended” setting to install whatever app it was automatically installed Chrome whereby it became the default browser in the process.
Non-techie users who didn’t know how to switch back to Firefox reluctantly accepted the change, especially since Google did its best to dissuade users from taking that step by making the uninstall procedure extremely difficult.
Mozilla never went the bundled software route and didn’t have an answer to the significant loss of market share due to Google’s tactics.
Fast forward 14 years and Mozilla needs to take drastic action to try and regain its diminishing user base if it’s ever to become a fully fledged competitor in the browser market. Going the VPN route presented an viable opportunity to do something different, but Mozilla fluffed that one by not providing a trial period in which to test it until much later.
I think Mozilla has to learn to get its act together before embarking on yet another worthless venture which will only end up costing them serious money in the long run.
@TelV
Yes Chrome used to be bundled especially with Adobe Flash, so when Flash was in its heyday this surely generated lots of “accidental” Chrome installs. However, I think Flash ceased to be a major factor in Chrome’s adoption in 2012 at the latest, after Steve Jobs pretty much killed Flash off by not supporting it in the iOS version of Safari. Websites switched to HTML5 as a result, rendering Flash obsolete. I don’t think any other bundling was as “successful” for Chrome as the Flash bundling was, however, I also feel this is a bit overused as an explanation for Chrome’s growth – not only because it ceased to be relevant a decade a go, but rather because there were other, actual reasons to use Chrome back then:
– It was much faster compared to FF and IE, like, noticeably faster. It really made a difference back then and it smashed all JavaScript benchmarks.
– It had the superior developer tools, Firefox’s were subpar to a degree where developers felt the need to install an extension – Firebug – to get access to good dev tools in Firefox. Don’t get me started about IE, its developer tools were a joke.
– The interface of Chrome was not cluttered, making it easy to use. Some people consider overloading the interface with buttons a good idea, however the average user doesn’t. Chrome’s competition was IE8 and Firefox 3.x at the time, both insanely cluttered.
– Chrome’s extensions used an API system (WebExtension), making their development easy and ensuring that extensions didn’t break with every update. Firefox was the opposite of that, its extensions were hard to develop and could intervene deeply into the browser, which made them likely to break with each update. Firefox adopted WebExtensions in 2017 as a consequence.
– Chrome was multiprocess from the start, meaning it had comparatively great security and was rather resistant to crashes – a crashing tab did not frag down the entire browser while this is what happened on Firefox and IE. Also this contributed to the perceived speed differences.
– Its mobile browser on Android was and is the default and is relatively good for the Average Joe. I think its lack of adblock is horrible and makes it unusable, however it is speedy and stable and has great syncing with the desktop version, which is the main argument for most people.
– Chrome integrates with the Google account and thus other Google services. If you know how popular GMail, YouTube, Google Docs are, with people having accounts anyway, this is an argument for some people (it’s not for me!). You log in on Chrome, and you can see your E-Mails, comment on YouTube etc. without another login being necessary.
– Last but not least, a non-technical reason: I think the banner on Google Search and YouTube telling users that Chrome is the best / fastest / nicest / whatever helped a lot, too.
As you can see, there were good arguments for using Chrome back in the day and some, not all, are still relevant even now. It is and was not just about “bundling”. With the exception of Google account integration and the ads on Google’s websites, Mozilla could have competed with any of the above points, but didn’t, or did too late in some cases. This is how I see it.
> Going the VPN route presented an viable opportunity to do something different, but Mozilla fluffed that one by not providing a trial period in which to test it until much later.
Correct me if I’m wrong, isn’t their VPN just a rebranded Mullvad? In which case, they would have to share revenue with Mullvad and users would have no real reason to use it over Mullvad either (I think branding is not a reason). With a revenue sharing agreement in place and with how overcrowded the VPN market is, I don’t think this can ever become a viable revenue stream.
Or do you mean Mozilla should have competed when the VPN market was still in its relative infancy back in the 2000s? In which case, I agree, they should probably have done that instead of making themselves fully dependent on Google.
> I think Mozilla has to learn to get its act together before embarking on yet another worthless venture which will only end up costing them serious money in the long run.
As I’ve alluded to above, all the possible alternate revenue streams should have been tackled years ago – none of them are viable if started in 2022. Private search engine? There’s already DuckDuckGo, StartPage. Private E-Mail service? There is ProtonMail, Tutanota etc. already. VPN? Yeah they kind of do that, however they will never be a giant in this kind of market and have to share revenue with Mullvad as it’s just a rebrand etc.
Unpopular take on this though: It’s better for the wider privacy community as a whole that Mozilla didn’t get into all of these things, because if they had monopolized the market for privacy-aware tools, I would need to entrust everything to one party (Mozilla), the current split of many companies doing one thing each allows us to distribute trust better. Cheers.
I’m not here to add to the bickering, but I wanted to mention that Yash is somewhat correct.
In Android 10+, Google Chrome uses Webview as a backend. Look up Trichrome Library. That is a system-installed Chromium library. The Google Chrome app uses this library and adds their own customizations to it.
@Iron – you make a good point, Firefox has the GNU/Linux distro market mostly to itself, since it comes pre-installed with nearly every distro. Google could actually complain about that in the same way if they wanted.
I feel sorry for your lack of knowledge on certain subjects and yet pretending like you know it all. You can’t change default browser in Android from Chromium to Gecko. This is because there is a thing called Android System Webview which can’t be replaced by any other browser. Even if phone is rooted you can only replace it with Bromite System Webview which is based on Chromium.
System Webview and Chrome are two faces of same coin. I have Chrome disabled on my phone yet I have to update Android System Webview because it will always be present in phone. So next time better do some research. By the way actual research and not another madainwhatever nonsense.
Feel free to add your own method to replace Chromium if it exists. Spoiler alert – it doesn’t.
@Yash
Webview? I think you are really stretching it now in order to write something negative under my comment. No browser on ANY operating system replaces the web view component! Do you think Chrome becomes the web view on e.g. macOS when it’s installed? Nope.
Default browser just means that any type of external link opens in there, not that it literally becomes part of the system. Also, it is the decision of each individual app developer whether the web view component is used OR links are redirected to the browser.
Again if you don’t know anything, better not comment. When Chrome is disabled some apps direct their links to Firefox and it works fine. You know why? Because Firefox can work as a system webview replacement with its custom tabs. Unfortunately not all apps switch to default browser and so webview is used by some apps as well. There’s no way to stop that coz webview can’t be replaced by another browser.
On another note to improve your lack of knowledge on this subject – In Android 11+ phones Chrome only takes about 20MB of data to update. That’s because it functions as frontend to System Webview. That means even if Chrome is disabled, full Chromium browser is still present which you can’t replace. Now this knowledge isn’t shared by Daniel ‘moaning at every turn’ Micay and madainwhatever so I understand your lack of proper knowledge.
@Yash
> Again if you don’t know anything, better not comment.
Are you projecting? This could literally be your motto.
> When Chrome is disabled some apps direct their links to Firefox and it works fine.
Again, there are two different commands an app developer can use, one is for opening links in web view, the other is for opening links in the browser you have as default. Which of the two they use is up to them entirely, look it up. The web view command FORCES web view, you disabling Chrome is not disabling web view. A command for opening links in the default browser always opens the default browser, this can be Firefox if you set it as default, without the need to outright disable Chrome.
> Unfortunately not all apps switch to default browser and so webview is used by some apps as well. There’s no way to stop that coz webview can’t be replaced by another browser.
“Unfortunately”… Unfortunately for you it is the prerogative of the app developer what he / she decides to use, either complain to the correct party (the app developer) or shut up.
> On another note to improve your lack of knowledge on this subject – In Android 11+ phones Chrome only takes about 20MB of data to update. That’s because it functions as frontend to System Webview.
No, Chrome receiving incremental updates is not because it is a “front end” for web view. Firstly, web view is updated separately via the Play Store, there are “Android system web view” updates there on a regular basis if you care to look. Secondly, incremental updates are a thing for any application including desktop applications, I receive incremental updates for Brave on the desktop as well despite it not being the web view.
System web view and Chrome are different components, this is why you can run an older version of Chrome (in case you never update it) alongside a current version web view. Bromite web view is a different component from the Bromite browser as well, hence the separate download and file. Both Android’s system web view and Chrome are using Chromium as the base code, but they are not(!) the same component, same story for Bromite as said.
I am sure you will reply with some nonsense again that YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND, however I am done here.
‘Again, there are two different commands an app developer can use, one is for opening links in web view, the other is for opening links in the browser you have as default. Which of the two they use is up to them entirely, look it up. The web view command FORCES web view, you disabling Chrome is not disabling web view. A command for opening links in the default browser always opens the default browser, this can be Firefox if you set it as default, without the need to outright disable Chrome.
‘“Unfortunately”… Unfortunately for you it is the prerogative of the app developer what he / she decides to use, either complain to the correct party (the app developer) or shut up.
‘No, Chrome receiving incremental updates is not because it is a “front end” for web view. Firstly, web view is updated separately via the Play Store, there are “Android system web view” updates there on a regular basis if you care to look. Secondly, incremental updates are a thing for any application including desktop applications, I receive incremental updates for Brave on the desktop as well despite it not being the web view.
System web view and Chrome are different components, this is why you can run an older version of Chrome (in case you never update it) alongside a current version web view. Bromite web view is a different component from the Bromite browser as well, hence the separate download and file. Both Android’s system web view and Chrome are using Chromium as the base code, but they are not(!) the same component, same story for Bromite as said.’
You really didn’t understand a word, contradicting yourself in every paragraph. You can’t replace system webview in Android coz Google doesn’t allow it. Its as simple as that. I really feel sorry for you. You don’t know a thing, never used Android/used it just like a normie and now blaming app developers. That’s enough for your I KNOW EVERYTHING PERSONA when you use your device like an average joe. Enjoy it. Google holds a monopoly in Android where you can’t replace Chromium even if you’re an advanced user which you clearly aren’t. Anyway that proves the point in the article which Martin raised which got lost in all this endless nonsense as always created by Iron ‘a normie pretending to be an expert’ Heart.
@Yash
> You can’t replace system webview in Android coz Google doesn’t allow it.
I never said that you can replace system web view (except via root). In fact, I have explicitly said that even if you set a different default browser, it still never becomes part of the OS itself.
However, if there is a hyperlink in an external app, a developer can choose to deal with it twofold: either use the internal web view or redirect to the external default browser.
You have no clue what you are talking about, you believe that Chrome is just a front end for web view which is demonstrably false. You also believe that web view not being replaceable means that any app is forced to use it for any hyperlink, when in fact apps can be programmed to open the default browser (this can be Firefox) instead.
Further, look from whom you are getting applause. @GNU Linux Sophistication who writes similarly pointless and factually wrong comments. I mean, you two really belong to each other in terms of (lack of) quality, so at least it’s fitting.
‘However, if there is a hyperlink in an external app, a developer can choose to deal with it twofold: either use the internal web view or redirect to the external default browser.’
Tutanota – uses Android System Webview. There are limitations in using browser which are covered by System Webview which is Chromium. However those limitations are artificially created by Google where you can’t set Firefox or any other browser not even Brave to do those tasks. And System Webview has privacy issues like every Google product.
I suppose by your dim definition Tutanota’s developers are idiots right? Coz they can’t use other browser.
‘you believe that Chrome is just a front end for web view which is demonstrably false.’
That is the funniest line you’ve written on this site. This clearly shows you need to touch grass. Even madainwhatever wouldn’t agree on this with you.
That’s enough from me. I shouldn’t be wasting time talking to a person who doesn’t know what the hell he is talking about.
@Yash
> I suppose by your dim definition Tutanota’s developers are idiots right?
I hate to tell you this but yeah, of course they could introduce a setting that allows you not to use web view but an external browser like Firefox, any link in Tutanota would then take you out of the app and into Firefox. If they don’t do that, it’s lazy and / or dumb design leaving the user no choice.
> That is the funniest line you’ve written on this site.
Ugh, wow. Ignorance really is bliss.
Care to explain why there are two differently sized packages, one “Android system web view” and a separate one “Chrome”? Care to explain how I can run a current version web view while not having updated Chrome (Chrome still having an older version number), if Chrome is just a frontend? You can’t, because you are just factually wrong here.
Chromium exists twice for any Android installation, once for web view (slightly stripped down) and once for Chrome, and the two components are updated separately via the Play Store. On Android, the Chromium code has a larger size than it does on the desktop, because it really exists twice in Android. Look it up if you don’t believe me.
@Ashwin said – >”I’d suspect these numbers will change drastically after Google drops support for Manifest V2 extensions, effectively killing ad blockers, which will create a domino effect and drive users towards Firefox, Brave and Vivaldi.”
I suspect the same. Mozilla should be promoting that Firefox is fully open for business with respect to ad blockers. They could double their market share pretty easily.
@Andy Prough
Only 3% of all Firefox users even have uBlock Origin installed, for Chrome it’s likely even less. What does that mean? It means you are delusional.
“Double their market share”, LOL. Based on which potential users exactly? Not to mention that a share of those leaving Chrome will also likely settle for Brave, but even for Brave I expect nothing major.
@Iron-can’t-do-math:
>”Only 3% of all Firefox users even have uBlock Origin installed, for Chrome it’s likely even less. What does that mean?”
Since Chrome has 65% market share, if 2% of them are currently using uBlock Origin and left for Firefox, that would be about double the total number of current Firefox users.
(and that’s not counting the other chromium-based browsers)
It wouldn’t be surprising at all. Chrome has already lost 6% market share over the past 3 years. They are likely to lose at least another 6%, if not more, because of this decision.
And remember, it’s not just people leaving because of uBlock – it’s going to be a whole host of ticked off people whose various extensions no longer work, and whose extension developers are no longer willing to jump through Google’s hoops. I wouldn’t be shocked if Chrome loses 10% to 15% market share or more due to this decision.
@Andy Prough
According to the Chrome Web Store, uBlock Origin has 10 million users on Chrome (and this also includes Brave, Vivaldi since they are using the Chrome Web Store too), this is not 2% of all Chrome users when Chrome has over 3 billion users. It’s in the 0.0033% range of all Chrome users. If all 10 million users switched, with nobody going to Brave btw, that would be tantamount to 4.55% of Firefox’s current user base (220 million users).
Firefox growing by 4.55% would grow its current 3% market share overall (desktop + mobile combined) to 3.14% overall. Seems very “major” to me, and in case you do the math, this is not a doubling of FF’s overall market share.
> It wouldn’t be surprising at all. Chrome has already lost 6% market share over the past 3 years.
Yes, mainly to Edge.
Whatever Chrome “lost”, this did not turn into Firefox growth because Firefox is still at a net user loss and has been for over a decade now.
> and whose extension developers are no longer willing to jump through Google’s hoops
OK, but as an extension developer you also want to have somewhat of a user base. You can’t have such a thing on Firefox and won’t have it anytime soon. I think the popularity of cherrypicked extensions like uBO blinds you regarding the minuscule user base extensions with a different purpose have on Firefox generally.
> I wouldn’t be shocked if Chrome loses 10% to 15% market share or more due to this decision.
LOL. You overestimate the importance of adblockers for the general population manyfold. Feel free to quote me on this later, I expect no major shifts.
> As much as I’d like to see it happen, I don’t think that Apple, Microsoft and Google will ever ask the user what browser they want to use. What do you think?
I don’t think so as well. Neither do i think that Mozilla’s market share (in particular that of Firefox) is chargeable to the browser, its innovations, its unhappy users when a majority is satisfied. Most users, not being techies, face an availability information lack and technical skills when changing an OS’s default applications is made intentionally tough as mentioned in the article.
Business as it is, not as it could be, empowers the powerful with no limit and that means not even respect of healthy and free competition. Regulators don’t seem quite efficient. As we say in French, “Les chiens aboient, la caravane passe.” (“The dogs bark, the caravan passes”).
After having faced x grocery stores replaced by 1 supermarket we’re exactly in the same scheme with high-tech oligarchies : concentration, live & let competition die, all for me move over. But in a free world, competition, if boxed, is nevertheless not strictly blocked : users can still make the difference. Problem is, most of us quietly follow the crowd and perpetuate the snow-ball syndrome. I’m not very optimistic. Perhaps the happy few will never have been happier and fewer to think freely, invest a minimum of time and effort to understand the correlations between their privacy and what is done of it, consider alternatives and decide accordingly.
Mozilla had an opportunity to make great mobile system but FAILED. So.. let’s fix Firefox issues instead of criticizing other, what’s a shame..
20 years ago: Netscape sues MSFT…
Now: Mozilla criticizes…
2042: Snow has covered the planet…
Melted snow. Science is different to business and the law.
> I’d suspect these numbers will change drastically after Google drops support for Manifest V2 extensions, effectively killing ad blockers, which will create a domino effect and drive users towards Firefox, Brave and Vivaldi.
I think you’re wrong about this. Brave and Vivaldi are niche browsers and likely will continue to have a small user base. Firefox might gain some users only because it actually registers in the top 4 browsers for user stats, but I wouldn’t place any money on that happening.
What I think will happen is people will stick to Chrome, Safari and Edge, and if anything Edge will likely take users away from the niche browsers and Chrome. As much as I hate to admit it Microsoft did do a excellent job with their Edge browser, and lately I do enjoy Bing more than any search engine.
Just when you thought Mozilla couldn’t become any more pitiful than they already were.
Mozilla’s failure to compete is not something caused by Mozilla’s competitors. Mozilla’s plan involved removing as much user customization/features as possible, you know, to “trim down” dev personnel and such. Imagine that, users got fed up and left Firefox for [anything else]. I mean, they got what they wanted… and now they’re crying about it?
Exactly this. Was a very early adopter and early evangelical for Firefox. Converted many folks to long term users. Then, Mozilla decided to strip away their competitive advantage to become a chromeActALikeClone. To date my biggest complaints? Removing bookmark notes; used to store massive amounts of research in them. Then there was the whole forgot to renew the cert and broke all extensions thing. Then the removal of hot linking bookmarks !assholes@Mozilla!. Then hours spent trying to get Startpage working through the search box without using an addon. It got to the point trying to tweak Firefox took far more time then using it; including protecting my personal data from Mozilla with its 35 domains Firefox attempts to connect to whenever used – with many of the domains I specifically asked not to connect to via settings. Firefox has become a pox of its own making and chased long term users away. Personally I switched to Brave and will never look back.
One thing I will give Firefox. After you spend many hours isolating it, pounding it into submission, and killing off its useless features, it is usable. But the pounding requires external controls such as PiHole/DNSCrypt with constant monitoring to make sure Firefox behaves. Overtime the constant abrasion is just too much to deal with. Brave otoh, is much quieter, requires very little pounding into submission, and requires few external controls. Needless to say, I’ve become a Brave evangelical and continue to switch family and many friends off the pox Firefox and over to Brave. Mozilla’s market share woes are the result of Mozilla’s arrogance + user hatred than the laziness/ignorance of using default browsers.
Says someone that clearly hasn’t use FF in eons. The only thing worse than fanboys are hateboys.
one thing, they said couple of years back, that firefox doesn’t coming to support pwa on desktop. that was one of the stupidest thing and lots of users moved to chromium based ones just because of that. on chromium pwa support is one of the key features but mozilla rolls without it. just stupid.
No PWA…that’s a feature not a bug or oversight.
Didn’t Mozilla at one point try to create a Firefox/XUL based OS (or at least an environment)?
Yeah, I think it’s called KaiOS now. ;)
@allen
KaiOS is a descendant of that OS, and they boast 160mln users in 3rd world countries, but one can spot devices with KaiOS in EU as well. Mainly in dumb phones and phones for the elderly.
Oh my, get in line with Netscape and any other independent browser creator/company. I change my default browser as soon as I can download it with the default browser.