What We're Working on in Firefox(blog.mozilla.org)
blog.mozilla.org
What We're Working on in Firefox
https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/heres-what-were-working-on-in-firefox/
273 comments
The dumbing down of applications, including FF, is incredibly annoying and off-putting.
I get it, though. FF probably wants to be friendly and approachable to the average non-techie person. I just wish that it (and other applications) would at least have an "expert mode" that isn't aimed just at the casual user.
I get it, though. FF probably wants to be friendly and approachable to the average non-techie person. I just wish that it (and other applications) would at least have an "expert mode" that isn't aimed just at the casual user.
I would love for applications and even web sites to have an expert mode. Maybe when the UX teams aren't looking devs could add a mode that puts Everything back in the UI.
The implication of what you're saying is that it somehow isn't friendly and approachable to your average non-techie person, which doesn't make sense because the UI paradigm of browsers hasn't really changed for 20+ years and Firefox has been just fine for technies to switch their parents/grandparents over to for years now.
The problem with Firefox isn't the UI, the problem with Firefox is mismanagement by the board that has been captured by Google and the lack of proper antitrust action against Google by the US and EU.
The problem with Firefox isn't the UI, the problem with Firefox is mismanagement by the board that has been captured by Google and the lack of proper antitrust action against Google by the US and EU.
First time I’ve heard Google being blamed for Mozilla’s self inflicted problems. Google is highly incentivised to make sure Mozilla survives with some reasonable market share. Without Mozilla antitrust enforcement becomes much more likely. That’s why Google pays Mozilla for being the default search engine provider. That’s the main source of revenue for Mozilla.
If Mozilla could maintain 10% market share in perpetuity and also keep signing search licensing agreements with Google that works just fine for Google. Sadly it has a lot less than that.
If Mozilla could maintain 10% market share in perpetuity and also keep signing search licensing agreements with Google that works just fine for Google. Sadly it has a lot less than that.
> Google is highly incentivised to make sure Mozilla survives with some reasonable market share.
Assuming that "surviving" is good and "reasonable" is... what... 3% and dropping?
Assuming that "surviving" is good and "reasonable" is... what... 3% and dropping?
First time huh? That's surprising. It's only mentioned every time Firefox and Mozilla come up.
I'm sure Google would like a slightly healthier captured 'competitor' but that doesn't mean that they didn't put them in this place through subversive practices.
I'm sure Google would like a slightly healthier captured 'competitor' but that doesn't mean that they didn't put them in this place through subversive practices.
> the UI paradigm of browsers hasn't really changed for 20+ years
(Checks calendar) ugh, it really has been 15 years since they ground up the url box + search box into the big mystery meat mash-up that mostly works but is so damn obnoxious when it doesn't.
(Checks calendar) ugh, it really has been 15 years since they ground up the url box + search box into the big mystery meat mash-up that mostly works but is so damn obnoxious when it doesn't.
I thought I would miss the search box when it disappeared but actually the "awesome bar" is pretty awesome :
You can disable search suggestions and it will only search your keywords in history/bookmarks/opened tabs and then you just tab into the list, else if there's nothing of interest in the list you can always press enter and it will launch a search in your default search engine. All that power accessible with just Ctrl + L, Tab and Enter.
You can also launch @search_engine $keyword directly in the bar, search bookmark/history/tabs directly with */^/% symbols.
You can't disable search suggestions on Chrome (I wonder why...) This is the main reason I am still on Firefox despite the weird UI design choices... which can easily be fixed with that script :
https://github.com/black7375/Firefox-UI-Fix
You can't disable search suggestions on Chrome (I wonder why...) This is the main reason I am still on Firefox despite the weird UI design choices... which can easily be fixed with that script :
https://github.com/black7375/Firefox-UI-Fix
I dislike the "awesome bar" quite a lot. Fortunately, as you say, you can disable a lot of its "awesomeness" (enough that I can live with it), but not all of it. You do have to do a bit of research to find out the various magic "about:config" settings you need to change.
It's easy enough to bring back the search bar without about:config though : right-clik on the chrome then drag and drop the search box item
Sure, but that's a bit different. What I'm talking about is that I want the "awesome bar" to be just a plain URL bar and not be overloaded with other functions like search. You can get very close to this with a few setting changes.
Whether or not you can enable the search bar is unrelated to this. You can enable the search bar without changing the behavior of the "awesome bar". In my personal preferred configuration, I don't enable the search bar and I disable searching in the awesome bar. When I search, I use the search engine's website. That's just my personal preference and I'm not recommending it to others. I'm just mentioning it to illustrate that the two things are independent of each other.
Whether or not you can enable the search bar is unrelated to this. You can enable the search bar without changing the behavior of the "awesome bar". In my personal preferred configuration, I don't enable the search bar and I disable searching in the awesome bar. When I search, I use the search engine's website. That's just my personal preference and I'm not recommending it to others. I'm just mentioning it to illustrate that the two things are independent of each other.
I'm glad you like it.
But yes, it's time to give Firefox another spin. Hey, looks like youtube is un-broken in base FF! Keeping FF "base" for debug purposes is far more important than fixing my petty grievances so I have to pass on the tips, but I appreciate the sentiment. Here's hoping its next stint in the "daily driver" seat is a long one.
But yes, it's time to give Firefox another spin. Hey, looks like youtube is un-broken in base FF! Keeping FF "base" for debug purposes is far more important than fixing my petty grievances so I have to pass on the tips, but I appreciate the sentiment. Here's hoping its next stint in the "daily driver" seat is a long one.
I like the approach where it’s configurable which items are available in menus and toolbars. The application can come with a default configuration that is suitable for the average and novice user, and power users can change the menus and toolbars to their needs. When not all items are shown, the respective menu or toolbar can have a “More…” item that opens the configuration dialog. That way it’s discoverable.
> FF probably wants to be friendly and approachable to the average non-techie person.
Yeah... the problem is that these people are frankly never going to use Firefox unless driven to by their techie friends, and Firefox seems to have given up on the power user market that they used to own.
Yeah... the problem is that these people are frankly never going to use Firefox unless driven to by their techie friends, and Firefox seems to have given up on the power user market that they used to own.
I'm also for user choice but this consistent notion that uncluttered UIs are only for non-techie people is very annoying. I'm a software developer by trade but that doesn't mean I want every UI to look like the inside of an airplane cockpit or a 90s teletext.
The trend in UIs to use space and reduce interface actions to the most important actions is both aesthetically more pleasing and more functional. I do not look back to the time where every interface cramped 20 buttons in a tiny space and five of the buttons did the same thing. (looking at you, KDE settings menus)
The trend in UIs to use space and reduce interface actions to the most important actions is both aesthetically more pleasing and more functional. I do not look back to the time where every interface cramped 20 buttons in a tiny space and five of the buttons did the same thing. (looking at you, KDE settings menus)
> The trend in UIs to use space and reduce interface actions to the most important actions is both aesthetically more pleasing and more functional.
Aesthetics is a matter of taste, of course, so there's no right or wrong there. Only if you like it or not.
But the trend towards minimalist UIs is something that actively gets in my way and makes the software more difficult for me to actually use. That's why I dislike it.
Aesthetics is a matter of taste, of course, so there's no right or wrong there. Only if you like it or not.
But the trend towards minimalist UIs is something that actively gets in my way and makes the software more difficult for me to actually use. That's why I dislike it.
[deleted]
It's a bullshit trend that goes away from the past where the UI was customizable to whatever level of simplicity or complexity one preferred to now where the developer decides what's good enough for you (in this case a totally dumbed down and limited UI targeted at the great unwashed, who despite all this effort continue to stay with Chrome). Don't like toolbars? Hide them. Remove buttons you don't want. This used to be the norm with all desktop apps until the 2010s when UX mandarins decided that nobody but smartphone users with their constrained screen space and system resources mattered anymore.
The amount of regressions Mozilla has inflicted on Firefox in recent years blows my mind. One of their few big advantages over Chrome is better user control, but they have been working continuously to destroy that.
Getting rid of most extensions and removing about:config are two big wtf decisions. All that does is piss off power users, which are the main advocates for this browser. Plus so many other baffling changes to remove or worsen existing features, along with the pointless UI reshuffles.
Edit: I should clarify that about:config has only been removed from mobile Firefox, so far at least.
Getting rid of most extensions and removing about:config are two big wtf decisions. All that does is piss off power users, which are the main advocates for this browser. Plus so many other baffling changes to remove or worsen existing features, along with the pointless UI reshuffles.
Edit: I should clarify that about:config has only been removed from mobile Firefox, so far at least.
> removing about:config
about:config is right where it's always been, unless I've missed something?
about:config is right where it's always been, unless I've missed something?
They're talking about the mobile application, where only a small subset of extensions was available for a few years. Access to about:config was disabled in official builds (but forks and custom builds such as some on F-Droid still have it).
https://github.com/mozilla-mobile/fenix/issues/21276
https://github.com/mozilla-mobile/fenix/issues/21276
> Access to about:config was disabled in official builds (but forks and custom builds such as some on F-Droid still have it).
From your link, there are problems that are specific to `about:config` only on mobile, due to Android OS and GeckoView API specifics:
Kinda reasonable, honestly? It sounds like more than just "page may render funny" types of footguns. Unknown quantities of unlabelled "Lose All My Data" buttons are probably what this site would call an antipattern.
> They're talking about the mobile application, where only a small subset of extensions was available for a few years.
On the above Reddit link, they also explain the extensions thing was because they were "literally not done implementing the APIs yet" and focused on the "highest priority extensions". So, the "big wtf decision" might be why they released it in that state, rather than "getting rid of most extensions".
From your link, there are problems that are specific to `about:config` only on mobile, due to Android OS and GeckoView API specifics:
- There are preferences that …is reset when the app restarts.
- There are many preferences that …do nothing.
- There are preferences …which breaks interacting with some websites.
- There are platform preferences that …result in startup crashes …and reinstalling results in the deleting of data like bookmarks, passwords, history, etc.
Look, it’s not like we’re insensitive to the desire for configuration; it’s that we know that on Android there are footguns that don’t exist on desktop!
We want to figure out a way to do this in a way that makes it difficult to break GeckoView. I’m sorry that this isn’t good enough for many of you, but with all due respect, you’re not the ones on the receiving end when somebody breaks their browser because they didn’t know what they were doing!
Kinda reasonable, honestly? It sounds like more than just "page may render funny" types of footguns. Unknown quantities of unlabelled "Lose All My Data" buttons are probably what this site would call an antipattern.
> They're talking about the mobile application, where only a small subset of extensions was available for a few years.
On the above Reddit link, they also explain the extensions thing was because they were "literally not done implementing the APIs yet" and focused on the "highest priority extensions". So, the "big wtf decision" might be why they released it in that state, rather than "getting rid of most extensions".
These seem like bugs that could be fixed, but it also seems like there should be relatively simple ways to work around them without disabling about:config, e.g.:
If some settings can cause a crash (and you don't have a complete list), create a separate launcher that only edits the settings in about:config without ever trying to run other Fenix code, so the user always has a way to revert settings if they're causing a crash on startup.
If some settings can be applied but are reset the next time the app runs, save the setting value itself and then re-apply it on each startup.
Other problems like settings doing nothing or breaking websites are just ordinary bugs. Until they're fixed, the user can just refrain from using those settings, or revert them if they cause problems. These sorts of issues are acceptable for users knowingly mucking around in about:config, it's fine, fix the bugs when you get time. It's no reason to disable access to the other settings that actually work in the meantime.
If some settings can cause a crash (and you don't have a complete list), create a separate launcher that only edits the settings in about:config without ever trying to run other Fenix code, so the user always has a way to revert settings if they're causing a crash on startup.
If some settings can be applied but are reset the next time the app runs, save the setting value itself and then re-apply it on each startup.
Other problems like settings doing nothing or breaking websites are just ordinary bugs. Until they're fixed, the user can just refrain from using those settings, or revert them if they cause problems. These sorts of issues are acceptable for users knowingly mucking around in about:config, it's fine, fix the bugs when you get time. It's no reason to disable access to the other settings that actually work in the meantime.
I don't think anybody's saying the issue is technically infeasible to fix or work around.
They just haven't had anybody to spend engineering time doing so yet. Perhaps:
https://codetribute.mozilla.org/projects/fenix
https://firefox-source-docs.mozilla.org/setup/contributing_c...
We may disagree with Mozilla's priorities, but they do have finite resources. E.G. Should the extensions API have been delayed even more than it already was, to first build this separate `about:config` launcher as a kludge?
They're not being wilfully bullheaded in this case, is what I mean. The "P5"/"Enhancement" Bugzilla issue is open, but unassigned.
They just haven't had anybody to spend engineering time doing so yet. Perhaps:
https://codetribute.mozilla.org/projects/fenix
https://firefox-source-docs.mozilla.org/setup/contributing_c...
We may disagree with Mozilla's priorities, but they do have finite resources. E.G. Should the extensions API have been delayed even more than it already was, to first build this separate `about:config` launcher as a kludge?
They're not being wilfully bullheaded in this case, is what I mean. The "P5"/"Enhancement" Bugzilla issue is open, but unassigned.
> They just haven't had anybody to spend engineering time doing so yet.
But this has been the other major criticism of Mozilla. They take the money they get from Google and spend it on not-Firefox when Firefox market share should be their top priority, because if that number goes to zero they're defunct.
But this has been the other major criticism of Mozilla. They take the money they get from Google and spend it on not-Firefox when Firefox market share should be their top priority, because if that number goes to zero they're defunct.
>you’re not the ones on the receiving end when somebody breaks their browser because they didn’t know what they were doing!
about:config already has a warning when you first open it that you'll screw up your settings if you don't know what you're doing. So if someone borks their install as a result, it isn't Mozilla engineer's job to apologize or hand hold them through it.
Every software until the 2010s (Windows itself, with its registry) has had this implicit disclaimer that you forfeit all official support if you dick around with the internals in an non standard way. So why is it now at the other extreme of 'fuck all power users, we will only target those who can't walk and chew gum simultaneously' ?
about:config already has a warning when you first open it that you'll screw up your settings if you don't know what you're doing. So if someone borks their install as a result, it isn't Mozilla engineer's job to apologize or hand hold them through it.
Every software until the 2010s (Windows itself, with its registry) has had this implicit disclaimer that you forfeit all official support if you dick around with the internals in an non standard way. So why is it now at the other extreme of 'fuck all power users, we will only target those who can't walk and chew gum simultaneously' ?
Hide those options then? I can imagine many ways to "fix" the issue of having all those bugs without ham-fistedly removing the entire feature
You've missed nothing, OP is full of it.
Yes! FF PMs and designers seem to HATE user customization, add-ons and power user capabilities yet those are the main reasons I came to FF and why I still use it. While FF is still the best browser for me (barely), it's only achieved this by all the alternatives enshittifying and dumb-ifying their browsers even faster than FF. As it is I have to spend significant effort under the hood customizing UserChrome scripts just to maintain minimal usability. (...and thank the heavens for Lepton (https://github.com/black7375/Firefox-UI-Fix), a regularly maintained, well-curated, all-in-one collection of essential Firefox fixes (which can each be turned off individually via flags.)
[deleted]
Firefox has enshittified itself if your reference point is the original Firefox of the early 2000s that unseated Internet Explorer's dominance. User customization has steadily eroded since version 4 when they started copying Chrome, from multi-process to removing the statusbar to introducing the hamburger menu to the insane practice of incrementing major version numbers into the triple digits.
>While FF is still the best browser for me (barely)
Give Pale Moon a try and ignore the FF fanboy propaganda of it being oLd aNd iNSeCuRe. It isn't, it's regularly updated to keep up with Google dominated web standards and security patches, and runs on an independent fork of Firefox's Gecko rendering engine. It is not a mere rebuild like Librewolf, Waterfox etc but a separate browser that retains all the full customizabiity of pre 2017 Firefox with full XUL extension and NPAPI plugin support.
>While FF is still the best browser for me (barely)
Give Pale Moon a try and ignore the FF fanboy propaganda of it being oLd aNd iNSeCuRe. It isn't, it's regularly updated to keep up with Google dominated web standards and security patches, and runs on an independent fork of Firefox's Gecko rendering engine. It is not a mere rebuild like Librewolf, Waterfox etc but a separate browser that retains all the full customizabiity of pre 2017 Firefox with full XUL extension and NPAPI plugin support.
Sounds like they hired GNOME devs.
> Getting rid of most extensions
What extensions did they get rid of?
What extensions did they get rid of?
They changed the extension model which broke the extensions using the old model. Many of the developers didn't have the resources to rewrite the extension from scratch, or the new model had restrictions that made what the extension was doing difficult to impossible, so they disappeared.
That was the switch from their own API and unsandboxed model to the standards-based one, right?
I think all in all getting sandboxing as well as making it easier to provide cross-browser extensions was worth the breaking change.
I think all in all getting sandboxing as well as making it easier to provide cross-browser extensions was worth the breaking change.
Mandatory sandboxing increasingly seems like a misfeature. Now you can't install an extension that does a lot of things that are useful, ostensibly to protect you from malware.
Optional sandboxing can be good because users can have more confidence that something can't hurt them. But it can also be bad because users will have more confidence that something can't hurt them, and then it does anyway.
Meanwhile the ability to exercise arbitrary permissions given the user's authorization is something we've lost. And what have we gained, when the user just runs how_to_actually_uninstall_mcafee.avi.exe and gets the malware regardless?
Optional sandboxing can be good because users can have more confidence that something can't hurt them. But it can also be bad because users will have more confidence that something can't hurt them, and then it does anyway.
Meanwhile the ability to exercise arbitrary permissions given the user's authorization is something we've lost. And what have we gained, when the user just runs how_to_actually_uninstall_mcafee.avi.exe and gets the malware regardless?
No, you can still grant permissions to web extensions, but the difference is that it's now explicit, and it is at least possible to design extensions with minimally-required privileges. This vastly reduces the blast radius of an extension publisher takeover or an insider attack, for example.
> what have we gained, when the user just runs how_to_actually_uninstall_mcafee.avi.exe and gets the malware regardless?
Nothing would happen if I double-click that file, since it doesn't run on my OS. On the other hand, a compromised browser extension could deal an incredible amount of damage to me.
Are you saying that because we can't protect all users from all harm, we should just give up?
> what have we gained, when the user just runs how_to_actually_uninstall_mcafee.avi.exe and gets the malware regardless?
Nothing would happen if I double-click that file, since it doesn't run on my OS. On the other hand, a compromised browser extension could deal an incredible amount of damage to me.
Are you saying that because we can't protect all users from all harm, we should just give up?
> No, you can still grant permissions to web extensions, but the difference is that it's now explicit, and it is at least possible to design extensions with minimally-required privileges.
The problem is the reverse. Some permissions are now considered "too dangerous" for the extension, so there is no facility to grant them even if the user wants the extension to do that and it has a good reason to.
> Nothing would happen if I double-click that file, since it doesn't run on my OS.
In which case the website could have fingerprinted your browser and served you the one that does.
> Are you saying that because we can't protect all users from all harm, we should just give up?
I'm saying that we should give people the tools and information they need to decide if and to what extent they can trust something, instead of presuming to decide for them.
The problem is the reverse. Some permissions are now considered "too dangerous" for the extension, so there is no facility to grant them even if the user wants the extension to do that and it has a good reason to.
> Nothing would happen if I double-click that file, since it doesn't run on my OS.
In which case the website could have fingerprinted your browser and served you the one that does.
> Are you saying that because we can't protect all users from all harm, we should just give up?
I'm saying that we should give people the tools and information they need to decide if and to what extent they can trust something, instead of presuming to decide for them.
I agree, and that mechanism is to introduce a new, permissioned API into Firefox's Web Extension API implementation.
Requiring them to maintain two completely different extension APIs (the old XUL-based one and Web Extensions) would work too but seems excessive.
Requiring them to maintain two completely different extension APIs (the old XUL-based one and Web Extensions) would work too but seems excessive.
> I agree, and that mechanism is to introduce a new, permissioned API into Firefox's Web Extension API implementation.
The problem is new WebExtensions APIs are not welcome.
The problem is new WebExtensions APIs are not welcome.
If XUL were to continue as it does on Pale Moon, here is no need for Web Extensions given they are a reduced subset in terms of functionality compared to the previous XUL/XPCOM versions.
And ironically for all the talk of making it more secure, the amount of cross browser malware has only shot up since Mozilla decided to dump XUL in favor of copying Chrome's extension system.
And ironically for all the talk of making it more secure, the amount of cross browser malware has only shot up since Mozilla decided to dump XUL in favor of copying Chrome's extension system.
WebExtensions is Chrome based not standards based. And Firefox had sandboxed and unsandboxed extensions before.
What Mozilla promised would have been worth it. Parity with Chrome's APIs. APIs to support popular features of old extensions. Support for extension developers to develop new APIs. But they abandoned these promises.
And they managed the transition badly. They chose an arbitrary deadline before evaluating scope or designing a migration path. They held the arbitrary deadline as they missed estimates. Extension developers didn't know when or if APIs they needed would be implemented. And no version of Firefox supported old extensions and reasonably complete WebExtensions APIs. These decisions made many problems for developers and users. And this was shortly after many developers spent much effort making their XUL extensions multi process compatible or converting them to sandboxed extensions.
What Mozilla promised would have been worth it. Parity with Chrome's APIs. APIs to support popular features of old extensions. Support for extension developers to develop new APIs. But they abandoned these promises.
And they managed the transition badly. They chose an arbitrary deadline before evaluating scope or designing a migration path. They held the arbitrary deadline as they missed estimates. Extension developers didn't know when or if APIs they needed would be implemented. And no version of Firefox supported old extensions and reasonably complete WebExtensions APIs. These decisions made many problems for developers and users. And this was shortly after many developers spent much effort making their XUL extensions multi process compatible or converting them to sandboxed extensions.
[deleted]
> Getting rid of most extensions
I am still butthurt
I am still butthurt
Welp. Name checks out.
Second-order name checkout
Third order if improperly prepared crustacean.
Stay away from Red Lobster. (Personal experience.)
I hope they don't put more of the menu items into unremovable buttons in the address bar (which already contains four icons: tracker protection, certificates, containers, bookmark) or next to it (both an overflow menu for extensions and an overflow menu for ..other things? and a hamburger for ..other-other things? in addition to the buttons I actually do want there). On my laptop I can hardly read the domain name of the url unless I fullscreen the window.
My cognitive style in using computer interfaces is to remember where things are, so features that move things around (or hide them) based on some algorithm are not only annoying but slow down my workflow and increase cognitive load.
Hopefully, they'll offer some way to turn this off.
Hopefully, they'll offer some way to turn this off.
IDK, they're just following what Chrome has been doing forever now, and it has worked there. I guess that really is what the vast majority of normal people want. And considering how even among my most tech-savy friends and colleagues Chrome appears to be the browser of choice, it seems even these folks don't really care...
That doesn't necessarily follow; a person could easily argue that Chrome won because Google abused its search monopoly to push it, then kept winning because of inertia. Unless your friends specifically prefer Chrome because of UX reasons, it could be unrelated.
Firefox certainly didn't help by becoming a bloated mess. Firefox was bad when Chrome came out. All Chrome did was the same thing Firefox did to IE in the same situation: take advantage of complacency. Google's heavy and sometimes ethically questionable promotion of Chrome was an amplifying force, but not sufficient.
> Firefox was bad when Chrome came out
Funny how different people's experiences can be. When Chrome came out in 2008 I remember trying it just for fun (more than once), and it never clicked with me, so I stayed with Firefox.
What was harder for me was keeping with all the unnecessary redesigns, empty eye candy, dumbing down, the Fennec debacle (exensions used to work, then they suddenly stopped for a bunch of years; plus, no keyword search for no reason).
By that time staying away from Google had become a goal in itself, but I understand who migrated to chrome.
Anyway, I am firmly convinced Chrome won because of Google's abuse of its web search monopoly. The innovations that its team introduced were groundbreaking from a technical point of view, but Firefox was a perfectly capable browser.
Funny how different people's experiences can be. When Chrome came out in 2008 I remember trying it just for fun (more than once), and it never clicked with me, so I stayed with Firefox.
What was harder for me was keeping with all the unnecessary redesigns, empty eye candy, dumbing down, the Fennec debacle (exensions used to work, then they suddenly stopped for a bunch of years; plus, no keyword search for no reason).
By that time staying away from Google had become a goal in itself, but I understand who migrated to chrome.
Anyway, I am firmly convinced Chrome won because of Google's abuse of its web search monopoly. The innovations that its team introduced were groundbreaking from a technical point of view, but Firefox was a perfectly capable browser.
> Google's heavy and sometimes ethically questionable promotion of Chrome was an amplifying force, but not sufficient.
I strongly believe it was sufficient. Which does not mean that Chrome was not better when it came out. But most people really don't want to try new tech: because you were excited by Chrome back then does not mean, by far, that everyone on the planet was.
I strongly believe it was sufficient. Which does not mean that Chrome was not better when it came out. But most people really don't want to try new tech: because you were excited by Chrome back then does not mean, by far, that everyone on the planet was.
Yeah, that was always funny to me too... Google built a browser that was actually faster and more secure, and then decided to be anti-competitive instead of just letting it win. Of course, they didn't actually get destroyed in court for it, so I suppose being evil works in this case.
> and then decided to be anti-competitive instead of just letting it win
Or precisely because it was not enough to have the better product? Don't tell me you believe that the better product usually wins. Marketing wins.
Or precisely because it was not enough to have the better product? Don't tell me you believe that the better product usually wins. Marketing wins.
Firefox was doing fine beating IE on merit once MS was prevented from behaving anti-competitively.
They did fine even before MS was prevented from behaving anti-competitively. When Microsoft had to put its browser choice banner in the EU, Firefox was already at its peak.
Microsoft did it to themselves, IE4 was a great browser for its time. It was bundled in Windows, for free, it was anticompetitive, but its technical merits made a big part of its adoption. But as it became old, and Microsoft did nothing to improve the situation. When Firefox came out, it didn't need advertising from a tech giant. It was a godsend for developers (it followed standards!), who advertised for it on their webpages, user tried it and loved the cool new features (tabs!) and installed it on their friends computers, the whole tech world except for Microsoft rooted for Firefox because it was just so much better.
When trade commissions arrived, the job was already done, Firefox had enough critical mass that it couldn't be ignored and IE-only sites were becoming a thing of the past (except for corporate intranets, these have always been the worst). If anything, they helped Chrome more than they helped Firefox as it was just launching during that time.
Marketing alone doesn't win for browsers. It is really easy to switch browsers, all it takes is to have some semi-geek friend to come by and say "hey, try this new browser, it is just like the old one, but better", and if it really is better, that's it. That's how Firefox was winning in 2010. And look how hard Microsoft is trying with Edge, and fail, that's because Edge has nothing over Chrome, unfortunately, Firefox don't have much over Chrome either (yeah, privacy, maybe 5% care).
Microsoft did it to themselves, IE4 was a great browser for its time. It was bundled in Windows, for free, it was anticompetitive, but its technical merits made a big part of its adoption. But as it became old, and Microsoft did nothing to improve the situation. When Firefox came out, it didn't need advertising from a tech giant. It was a godsend for developers (it followed standards!), who advertised for it on their webpages, user tried it and loved the cool new features (tabs!) and installed it on their friends computers, the whole tech world except for Microsoft rooted for Firefox because it was just so much better.
When trade commissions arrived, the job was already done, Firefox had enough critical mass that it couldn't be ignored and IE-only sites were becoming a thing of the past (except for corporate intranets, these have always been the worst). If anything, they helped Chrome more than they helped Firefox as it was just launching during that time.
Marketing alone doesn't win for browsers. It is really easy to switch browsers, all it takes is to have some semi-geek friend to come by and say "hey, try this new browser, it is just like the old one, but better", and if it really is better, that's it. That's how Firefox was winning in 2010. And look how hard Microsoft is trying with Edge, and fail, that's because Edge has nothing over Chrome, unfortunately, Firefox don't have much over Chrome either (yeah, privacy, maybe 5% care).
The base of internet users was a lot smaller and more technically-inclined in 2004 than in 2014
Was it though? This was well after AOL and the Endless September. There were rows of Complete Idiots Guides and For Dummies books on using the internet in major book stores. You've Got Mail made a quarter billion in the box office a half decade before.
This was the time of normies. All the @aol addresses still in use were minted here.
This was the time of normies. All the @aol addresses still in use were minted here.
> There were rows of Complete Idiots Guides and For Dummies books
Which says that people were trying to learn how to use their computer, right? Nowadays professors need to teach their university students what a file is... I can definitely accept that the users were more technically-inclined in 2004 than in 2014.
Which says that people were trying to learn how to use their computer, right? Nowadays professors need to teach their university students what a file is... I can definitely accept that the users were more technically-inclined in 2004 than in 2014.
You are North American? Most of the world was much less online in 2004.[1]
[1] https://ourworldindata.org/internet-history-just-begun
[1] https://ourworldindata.org/internet-history-just-begun
Which doesn't prove it would have been the case for Chrome. Especially if people had just changed to Firefox :-).
> That doesn't necessarily follow; a person could easily argue that Chrome won because Google abused its search monopoly to push it, then kept winning because of inertia.
Sure, for the average Joe I might buy this, but also it's the same kind of people who can't tell the difference between the address bar and the search field on the Google homepage, so I'm still kinda skeptical they don't actually refer a UI with as few options and buttons as possible....
> Unless your friends specifically prefer Chrome because of UX reasons, it could be unrelated.
... But I absolutely can't follow you here. What other reasons should there be? That that one or two websites they infrequently visit don't work? If you can't be arsed to just use chrome for these specific occasions and stay with the customizable, powerful alternative for the rest of the time, I don't believe you're someone who'd like a UI with more than three buttons anyways.
(And on that note I've yet to encounter a site that doesn't work in Firefox, but maybe that actually is a thing in places other than Europe...)
Sure, for the average Joe I might buy this, but also it's the same kind of people who can't tell the difference between the address bar and the search field on the Google homepage, so I'm still kinda skeptical they don't actually refer a UI with as few options and buttons as possible....
> Unless your friends specifically prefer Chrome because of UX reasons, it could be unrelated.
... But I absolutely can't follow you here. What other reasons should there be? That that one or two websites they infrequently visit don't work? If you can't be arsed to just use chrome for these specific occasions and stay with the customizable, powerful alternative for the rest of the time, I don't believe you're someone who'd like a UI with more than three buttons anyways.
(And on that note I've yet to encounter a site that doesn't work in Firefox, but maybe that actually is a thing in places other than Europe...)
IMO the vast majority of users cannot make the difference between Chrome and Firefox. They just use whatever they are used to and like it because they are used to it.
Over the years, I have converted people to Firefox, Chrome, Brave, Safari. The only common denominator is that they all strongly prefer the one they use now.
Over the years, I have converted people to Firefox, Chrome, Brave, Safari. The only common denominator is that they all strongly prefer the one they use now.
Quickly thumbing through my product book for "gaining market segment by making yourself indistinguishable from competition"
Yes, but the current design and direction are very clearly not working.
You can hardly blame them for trying to emulate what's currently working for everyone else when everything you've tried so far has led to your downfall.
You can hardly blame them for trying to emulate what's currently working for everyone else when everything you've tried so far has led to your downfall.
Their downfall came when they changed everything that they were doing, and subsequently nuked every reason why someone would prefer firefox other than that they weren't google. They transformed firefox into wonky chrome, even copying superficial UI stuff. And then got very hostile about any criticism of this project, actively destroying all of the goodwill they built up. That alienation of their stubborn, fanatical base took years to accomplish.
People would move back to firefox if it were still anything like firefox.
People would move back to firefox if it were still anything like firefox.
Not that I disagree with the alienation of their fanbase. I personally use Firefox mostly because it is not Google, certainly not because it is Mozilla (and to be fair I like the Firefox Containers).
But I am not convinced most people see it like this. Most of the people I know honestly don't make the difference between Firefox and Chrome: they just use what they know. I think Chrome won those people because Google managed to convince them that "Internet == Chrome", not because they consciously chose Chrome as a better alternative.
But I am not convinced most people see it like this. Most of the people I know honestly don't make the difference between Firefox and Chrome: they just use what they know. I think Chrome won those people because Google managed to convince them that "Internet == Chrome", not because they consciously chose Chrome as a better alternative.
> But I am not convinced most people see it like this. Most of the people I know honestly don't make the difference between Firefox and Chrome: they just use what they know.
And those people are not Firefox's audience. They don't care about their browser as long as it loads facebook.com, so they're just going to use whatever browser is more popular or pushed harder onto them, which is Chrome. If Firefox positions itself as just a Chrome clone, there's no reason to use it over Chrome.
If Firefox wants to survive, it needs to position itself as a niche alternative for people who actually have preferences for what their browser is like, and do not like Chrome. Of course, it won't ever be as popular as Chrome, but that battle was lost a long time ago.
And those people are not Firefox's audience. They don't care about their browser as long as it loads facebook.com, so they're just going to use whatever browser is more popular or pushed harder onto them, which is Chrome. If Firefox positions itself as just a Chrome clone, there's no reason to use it over Chrome.
If Firefox wants to survive, it needs to position itself as a niche alternative for people who actually have preferences for what their browser is like, and do not like Chrome. Of course, it won't ever be as popular as Chrome, but that battle was lost a long time ago.
> If Firefox wants to survive, it needs to position itself as a niche alternative
Or... I'm still hoping that the EU Digital Markets Act may help.
Or... I'm still hoping that the EU Digital Markets Act may help.
They have been dumbing down Firefox and making it more Chrome-like for years now. I would argue that is the strategy which is clearly not working.
Or is it Google deciding for you what you should want?
Before someone flags the above comment as trolling, read on:
"One thing Mozilla does have going for it is a lot of money—more than $1 billion in cash reserves, according to its latest financial statement. The primary source of this capital is Google, which pays Mozilla to be the default search engine on the Firefox home page. Those payments, which started in 2005, have been increasing—up 50% over the past decade, to more than $450 million, even as the total number of Firefox users has plummeted. In 2021 these payments accounted for 83% of Mozilla’s revenue."
source: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2023-05-05/why-go...
I read it as: "If Google says jump we jump".
"One thing Mozilla does have going for it is a lot of money—more than $1 billion in cash reserves, according to its latest financial statement. The primary source of this capital is Google, which pays Mozilla to be the default search engine on the Firefox home page. Those payments, which started in 2005, have been increasing—up 50% over the past decade, to more than $450 million, even as the total number of Firefox users has plummeted. In 2021 these payments accounted for 83% of Mozilla’s revenue."
source: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2023-05-05/why-go...
I read it as: "If Google says jump we jump".
What Google orders do you believe Mozilla followed?
> What about less used options?
Put them in sub-menus?
I really don't see what's bad about doing user research and organizing feature discoverability by importance (rather than, say, profitability, which a for-profit browser might be tempted to do).
Put them in sub-menus?
I really don't see what's bad about doing user research and organizing feature discoverability by importance (rather than, say, profitability, which a for-profit browser might be tempted to do).
Every time someone complains about "clutter" I suspect they're trying to turn users into lusers --- stunting their chance of growth by removing everything that could possibly catch their attention, so they can be lead blindly and exploited for whatever is most desirable.
Meanwhile monitors and their resolutions have grown tremendously, so there's a lot more space for things. Yet they'd rather you give up control and argue that the tiny extra amount of space you get is a good idea.
Meanwhile monitors and their resolutions have grown tremendously, so there's a lot more space for things. Yet they'd rather you give up control and argue that the tiny extra amount of space you get is a good idea.
I hope this means they're changing the main menu back to functioning like an actual menu instead of a weird panel thing, but somehow I doubt it.
I don't know if you know this, but you can still get the traditional kind of menu if you tap the Alt key. It won't stay permanently visible if you change focus back to the content page though.
If all actions and options were reachable from a fuzzy finder, then I'd be very happy with all UI components being hidden to reduce clutter.
And all the old documentation/forum help to change settings is obsolete, but google still has them Indexed.
The only company worse for this is Microsoft. Any google search for a setting has been outdated, the location has changed, the wording has changed.
I'm completely convinced that there are FAAMG plants in FOSS company that have 1 job: Make pointless changes to waste engineering hours. Firefox and LibreOffice convinced me of this.
The only company worse for this is Microsoft. Any google search for a setting has been outdated, the location has changed, the wording has changed.
I'm completely convinced that there are FAAMG plants in FOSS company that have 1 job: Make pointless changes to waste engineering hours. Firefox and LibreOffice convinced me of this.
> We’ve been listening to your feedback, and we’re prioritizing the features you want most.
> Tab Grouping, Vertical Tabs, and our handy Sidebar will help you stay organized no matter how many tabs you have open — whether it’s 7 or 7,500.
> Plus, our new Profile Management system will help keep your school, work, and personal browsing separate but easily accessible.
Wow, that ... actually is what users have been asking for, for ages. Nice.
> More streamlined menus that reduce visual clutter and prioritize top user actions so you can get to the important things quicker.
Oh, there's the other foot dropping. I wonder how SeaMonkey is doing...
> Tab Grouping, Vertical Tabs, and our handy Sidebar will help you stay organized no matter how many tabs you have open — whether it’s 7 or 7,500.
> Plus, our new Profile Management system will help keep your school, work, and personal browsing separate but easily accessible.
Wow, that ... actually is what users have been asking for, for ages. Nice.
> More streamlined menus that reduce visual clutter and prioritize top user actions so you can get to the important things quicker.
Oh, there's the other foot dropping. I wonder how SeaMonkey is doing...
I've been using multiple profiles in Chrome for years for keeping things separate… right up until my company started using Google's centralized browser/device management which infects the entire browser not just the single profile that is tied to my corporate Google account. Specifically, they forced a homepage setting browser-wide that can not be changed on a per-profile basis.
So multiple profiles are seemingly difficult to get right/fully isolated. I hope Firefox doesn't have similar limitations.
So multiple profiles are seemingly difficult to get right/fully isolated. I hope Firefox doesn't have similar limitations.
My guess would be that your company probably wants the MDM profile to be globally enabled or is alternatively limited by their MDM's or Chrome's capabilities.
> I hope Firefox doesn't have similar limitations.
I hope Firefox doesn't implement MDM at all, or at least provides a non-negotiable way for the user to opt out of it on a per-profile basis.
> I hope Firefox doesn't have similar limitations.
I hope Firefox doesn't implement MDM at all, or at least provides a non-negotiable way for the user to opt out of it on a per-profile basis.
> my company started using Google's centralized browser/device management which infects the entire browser not just the single profile that is tied to my corporate Google account
Personal profiles on your work computer? That's a no for me. The only account I brought to my work computer was my Github's one. And I'd rather use Incognito Mode or another browser if I want to do something I did not want associated with my google account.
Personal profiles on your work computer? That's a no for me. The only account I brought to my work computer was my Github's one. And I'd rather use Incognito Mode or another browser if I want to do something I did not want associated with my google account.
learn how to properly manage ssh keys and stop using your personal account.
Firefox does have profiles and has had for as long as I’ve needed them. For some reason they’ve always been hidden away and needed different args on start to change the profile being started, or the use of an extension to allow profile switching. I don’t use them anymore but from what I remember they worked well and were very isolated. Hopefully they’re using the current implementation and just making it more user friendly?
You can use the url about:profiles to manage profiles too, which is still hidden away and not a great UI, but at least you don't need to use an extension or the command line.
As of a recent update, the Profile Manager is available as a startup option if you right click the ff icon (on gnome at least, i assume this was implemented cross platform)
It's not just a GNOME thing, but it might not be that cross-platform. On Linux, there's a firefox.desktop file that describes the application to your DE/launcher, and it looks like this on my box:
[Desktop Entry]
Actions=new-private-window;new-window;profile-manager-window
Categories=Network;WebBrowser
Exec=firefox --name firefox %U
---snip---
[Desktop Action profile-manager-window]
Exec=firefox --ProfileManager
Name=Profile Manager
It's definitely not an option on macOS, at least.
Holding the "option" key is even somewhat of an UI convention on macOS to allow opening an alternative media library (e.g. for Photos, Music aka iTunes etc.), yet Firefox maps it to "startup in safe mode".
Holding the "option" key is even somewhat of an UI convention on macOS to allow opening an alternative media library (e.g. for Photos, Music aka iTunes etc.), yet Firefox maps it to "startup in safe mode".
Can you still launch chrome manually with the --user-data-dir=/custom/path option when MDM is enabled?
I remember around 2012 Firefox did use to have tab grouping, and they dropped the functionality after. I remember a friend of mine being annoyed for that, although I myself didn't appreciate much the functionality.
Oh, it's better than that: They had tab grouping as a native feature, and it was great, then they factored it out into an extension... and then they changed the way extensions worked, and didn't bother porting it. Kind of an insulting way to kill a feature IMO.
I could never figure out how it worked.
I really hope the profile management system keeps tab containers working the same. It's incredibly useful to have different containers automatically generated for AWS console sessions.
current implementation of container is terrible.
basically something a google PM thought of so you can shop incognito and not be incognito.
basically something a google PM thought of so you can shop incognito and not be incognito.
I'll take the "streamlined" menus if it gets me first party vertical tabs and auto segregation of profiles. The latter especially, I'm excited about whatever they come up with. The former, I think it'll take a long time to reach feature parity with existing add-ons, if they ever get there, seeing how they tend to keep novice users in mind.
honestly, container tabs are way more useful to me than profiles every were. I can have 3 different Gmail accounts and a bunch of AWS accounts open in the same browser, with different colours for each so that I can figure out which is which.
How about it they continued to iterate on container tabs and make it possible to pattern match urls to containers without a 3rd party addon.
How about it they continued to iterate on container tabs and make it possible to pattern match urls to containers without a 3rd party addon.
Oh yes, native matching would be faster and remove plenty of glitching opportunities if done right - you can often see the tab being reloaded into a proper container and taking twice as long to load as it should, and sometimes the tab ends up being duplicated. You also lose the tab's history when it switches between containers at the moment.
If you have rule that gmail should open in the red container, then it will always create a new tab if you try to open gmail from a non-container. This the correct behavior. Otherwise, cookies/browser data would have to be invisibly switched as the user goes back and forth in history. Invisible switching is bad design.
As it is right now, if you go to a containerized URL using the adddress bar you may end up losing the tab's history completely when it gets switched between containers, without warning. You can't even get the tab back with Ctrl+Shift+T cause it instantly switches to the new container as well. That's much worse design.
At least that's the behavior you get with Google Container and (Mozilla's own!) Facebook Container extensions. Twitter Container gets it right. Having it centralized could remove plenty of potential failure points.
I just accidentally clicked at a YouTube link from a comment on this very page and couldn't get back!
At least that's the behavior you get with Google Container and (Mozilla's own!) Facebook Container extensions. Twitter Container gets it right. Having it centralized could remove plenty of potential failure points.
I just accidentally clicked at a YouTube link from a comment on this very page and couldn't get back!
You should get the generic Firefox Multi-Account Container extension [1] instead of individual ones. It has a setting to either replace or open a new tab, when clicking a link.
[1] https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/multi-account...
[1] https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/multi-account...
Heeyyyy are we actually getting Tab Grouping back? Finally?
I just use Arc, it already has all of this
> I just use [yet another closed-source Chromium fork developed by some strange startup which forces you to sign in before you can do anything and will likely not even bother to continue supporting Manifest v2 APIs], it already has [such a long list of antifeatures that it could practically double as marketing material for the FSF]
ok?
ok?
If you had 7,500 tabs open, it would take firefox approximately three and a half weeks to start.
Having hit 4-5k tabs in a session, it's really not that bad of a perf hit. It's also an unreasonable thing to ask of the browser, but it holds up well enough.
I regularly have 10 times as much open in Firefox and it works just fine. Chromium barely works at a fraction of that (or at least used to, haven't felt the need to recheck for a few years now).
You have 75,000 tabs open?
I rarely have more than about 300 to be honest, how do you keep track?
I rarely have more than about 300 to be honest, how do you keep track?
> how do you keep track?
I don't. I usually work with just the latest subset of a few dozen or so, the rest just sits there until I decide that it's time to close them all (like I did last week, so I'm at just 700 right now). I also use vertical tabs, see my other comment here for how it looks like.
Keeping tabs open lets me quickly context-switch, which is super helpful when you get distracted and don't remember what you have worked on an hour ago. No need to clean them up, as they get eventually unloaded, but still remain quickly accessible if needed (which is much less cumbersome than the history view which I never really use unless trying to find something I was on months ago).
I don't. I usually work with just the latest subset of a few dozen or so, the rest just sits there until I decide that it's time to close them all (like I did last week, so I'm at just 700 right now). I also use vertical tabs, see my other comment here for how it looks like.
Keeping tabs open lets me quickly context-switch, which is super helpful when you get distracted and don't remember what you have worked on an hour ago. No need to clean them up, as they get eventually unloaded, but still remain quickly accessible if needed (which is much less cumbersome than the history view which I never really use unless trying to find something I was on months ago).
another case of someone refusing to use organized bookmarks. I've been there too
Performance of bookmarks also seems to take a nosedive in most browsers once you start getting into big numbers.
Bookmarks are completely irrelevant as they require intentional curation and are mostly useless to me.
> Intuitive privacy settings that deliver all the power of our world-class anti-tracking technologies in a simplified, easy-to-understand way.
> More streamlined menus that reduce visual clutter and prioritize top user actions so you can get to the important things quicker.
Stop it. Gnome-ification is incredibly user hostile. Almost every time folks "simplify" a UI, they actually make it far more complicated instead.
If your users now have to use dconf or userChrome.css to do the things they are accustomed to doing, you have not simplified anything.
> More streamlined menus that reduce visual clutter and prioritize top user actions so you can get to the important things quicker.
Stop it. Gnome-ification is incredibly user hostile. Almost every time folks "simplify" a UI, they actually make it far more complicated instead.
If your users now have to use dconf or userChrome.css to do the things they are accustomed to doing, you have not simplified anything.
It sounds like in your view simplifying a UI is not possible or has never been successfully implemented.
I think it is very much possible, very much needed by lots of software out there, but indeed it’s hard.
The hardest part is not alienating existing users when messing with muscle memory.
I think it is very much possible, very much needed by lots of software out there, but indeed it’s hard.
The hardest part is not alienating existing users when messing with muscle memory.
As a Firefox daily user, this list makes me better understand why Firefox has such a low market share. Reorganizing menus or adding alt text to PDFs won't make any impact on user adoption/churn because users don't care. The alt text specifically sounds like resume engineering for some developers that want "on device generative ai" as a bullet point on this LinkedIn. Bullet points like this wouldn't be a problem if Firefox had more resources, but the list of actually pretty small and doesn't have a lot of space for fluff. I think they should pick 2-5 things and focus on those, such as multi-device sync, privacy, speed, battery life performance, customization, etc.
> I think they should pick 2-5 things and focus on those, such as multi-device sync, privacy, speed, battery life performance, customization, etc.
They did; they've been pushing on speed and privacy for a long time. It mostly turns out that the problem isn't usually technical superiority, unfortunately. (The problem is that Microsoft shoves Edge in users' faces every chance they get, and Google has been giving Chrome an unfair advantage for ages (notice that when people complain about Firefox being slow, it's usually on Google sites).)
They did; they've been pushing on speed and privacy for a long time. It mostly turns out that the problem isn't usually technical superiority, unfortunately. (The problem is that Microsoft shoves Edge in users' faces every chance they get, and Google has been giving Chrome an unfair advantage for ages (notice that when people complain about Firefox being slow, it's usually on Google sites).)
Didn't they fire the Servo team?
They did. Servo was a test bed for experiments. It wasn't the only place for speed work. And was privacy a focus for Servo?
Without even scrolling down, there's a header describing the work they're doing for "Continuous work on speed, performance and compatibility", exactly what you asked for.
Anytime Firefox works on UI stuff, people seem to get really annoyed they aren't working on something else. You mention that "Reorganizing menus or adding alt text to PDFs won't make any impact on user adoption", I think it's the exact opposite. There is no greater thing the average everyday Joe cares more about than the UI, and if they just called it good 10 years ago, the project would be in an even worse state.
Anytime Firefox works on UI stuff, people seem to get really annoyed they aren't working on something else. You mention that "Reorganizing menus or adding alt text to PDFs won't make any impact on user adoption", I think it's the exact opposite. There is no greater thing the average everyday Joe cares more about than the UI, and if they just called it good 10 years ago, the project would be in an even worse state.
Are you saying that they should avoid writing about features that aren't "core" (privacy, speed, battery life, sync) when telling you about the work they've done? I mean, they do say that
> You can expect even faster, smoother browsing on Firefox, thanks to quicker page loads and startup times – all while saving more of your phone’s battery life.
and regarding privacy
> we’ve worked hard to make things like translation and PDF editing in Firefox happen locally on your device, so you don’t have to ship off your personal data to a server farm for a company to use it how they see fit
– so they seem to have ticked your boxes, but they've also committed the sins of boasting about design and used the "AI" buzzword.
Yes, "most people" don't care about "adding alt text to PDFs" but then most people don't even know what accessibility means. For the people who do need it, it's essential, and I think it would be awesome if it happens on-device instead of giving google/amazon/microsoft a description of every pdf image a blind person might want described.
> You can expect even faster, smoother browsing on Firefox, thanks to quicker page loads and startup times – all while saving more of your phone’s battery life.
and regarding privacy
> we’ve worked hard to make things like translation and PDF editing in Firefox happen locally on your device, so you don’t have to ship off your personal data to a server farm for a company to use it how they see fit
– so they seem to have ticked your boxes, but they've also committed the sins of boasting about design and used the "AI" buzzword.
Yes, "most people" don't care about "adding alt text to PDFs" but then most people don't even know what accessibility means. For the people who do need it, it's essential, and I think it would be awesome if it happens on-device instead of giving google/amazon/microsoft a description of every pdf image a blind person might want described.
I think this perpetuates the fiction of assuming browser share is directly tied to specifics of browser functionality instead of more important macro forces like differences in brand awareness and ability to leverage market sector domination.
There's been a proliferation of conflicting just-so stories purporting to explain the history of Firefox's browser market share, and they seem to relate to idiosyncratic preferences for customization instead of actual market dynamics.
There's been a proliferation of conflicting just-so stories purporting to explain the history of Firefox's browser market share, and they seem to relate to idiosyncratic preferences for customization instead of actual market dynamics.
> As a Firefox daily user, this list makes me better understand why Firefox has such a low market share
As another Firefox active user, I say this has nothing at all to do with it. I use Firefox because it lets me control what I need to control to be productive, but I recognize this isn't why most people used Firefox at its peak. 99% of the reason Firefox got so big was that IE was so awful. Edge is serviceable, so that takes away the vast majority of Firefox's former user base.
Firefox isn't going to grow as big as it was before Edge came along unless one of the major consumer OS provides a broken default browser on its platform and allows Firefox to run on its platform (iOS fulfills only one of the requirements). It won't grow as big as it was before Chrome came along unless both of the earlier requirements are met and Firefox renders Google sites better than Chrome.
As another Firefox active user, I say this has nothing at all to do with it. I use Firefox because it lets me control what I need to control to be productive, but I recognize this isn't why most people used Firefox at its peak. 99% of the reason Firefox got so big was that IE was so awful. Edge is serviceable, so that takes away the vast majority of Firefox's former user base.
Firefox isn't going to grow as big as it was before Edge came along unless one of the major consumer OS provides a broken default browser on its platform and allows Firefox to run on its platform (iOS fulfills only one of the requirements). It won't grow as big as it was before Chrome came along unless both of the earlier requirements are met and Firefox renders Google sites better than Chrome.
> Firefox isn't going to grow as big as it was before Edge came along unless one of the major consumer OS provides a broken default browser on its platform and allows Firefox to run on its platform (iOS fulfills only one of the requirements).
And even that “requirement” isn’t filled to anywhere the same degree — Safari has its issues but IE was on a different plane of existence in terms of brokenness, with some of the barest of basics being absent or needing hacks to make work (remember the DirectX filter hacks required just to have transparency support for PNGs?).
And even that “requirement” isn’t filled to anywhere the same degree — Safari has its issues but IE was on a different plane of existence in terms of brokenness, with some of the barest of basics being absent or needing hacks to make work (remember the DirectX filter hacks required just to have transparency support for PNGs?).
I know we aren't going back to peak popularity. The concern is that FF moves to so little marketshare that websites no longer build for compatibility.
How are they stretched for resources? Mozilla's revenue is around a half billion USD per year.
It's important to note here that Mozilla spends the majority of that money on non-Firefox projects (something that has pissed off people who have wanted to donate to Firefox specifically for ages).
Firefox itself gets a sliver of that.
Like many you are likely confused by the Foundation (MoFo) vs. Corp (MoCo) finances.
You can only donate to MoFo, and indeed it doesn't spend much (if anything) paying Firefox staff. This is because Firefox staff is on the MoCo payroll, which gets its revenue mostly from their search engine deal with Google. MoCo actually pays MoFo to use the trademarks that are owned by MoFo.
You can only donate to MoFo, and indeed it doesn't spend much (if anything) paying Firefox staff. This is because Firefox staff is on the MoCo payroll, which gets its revenue mostly from their search engine deal with Google. MoCo actually pays MoFo to use the trademarks that are owned by MoFo.
Specifically Mozilla Corporation paid Mozilla Foundation in 2022 under $20 million from over $585 million in revenue.
The relationship between Mozilla Foundation and Mozilla Corporation can make some details confusing. But most people who claim what they did never looked at Mozilla finances in my experience.
The relationship between Mozilla Foundation and Mozilla Corporation can make some details confusing. But most people who claim what they did never looked at Mozilla finances in my experience.
>something that has pissed off people who have wanted to donate to Firefox specifically for ages
Get pissed at tax law, not Mozilla. Mozilla Foundation cannot legally funnel tax-exempt donations into the development of products for a for-profit entity (Mozilla Corporation). That would be a crime.
Get pissed at tax law, not Mozilla. Mozilla Foundation cannot legally funnel tax-exempt donations into the development of products for a for-profit entity (Mozilla Corporation). That would be a crime.
Wow, if only there was a separate corporate entity which could accept donations but which wasn't the Foundation. I wonder what Mozilla would call such a Corporation.
IANAL - I kinda thought a company can't take donations? So obviously the answer is a Firefox Pro that is 99% the same but lets us give them money. Maybe give it crazy features like a compact layout and the ability to run extensions locally.
For profit companies can take donations. Most Thunderbird funding is donations to MZLA Technologies Corporation for example.
MoCo could start an OnlyFans for "donations", it's a pretty hot fox after all, what with being, y'know, on fire.
The alt text thing sounds like someone who thinks disabled access to the internet is an Important Thing. I'm not sure it will end up being better than an extension or doing the image recognition in a screen reader, but it's not necessarily cynical resume padding.
alt text is grate for blind people thanks.
Firefox has a low market share because Chrome is the default browser on so many systems and in IT departments everywhere. 99% of people don't think about which browser they want to use.
I still remember the launch of Firefox 3 back in the day. I'm so glad it's still around, and they keep working on it.
I don't think there's a single piece of software I've gotten more utility out of in all that time. It's definitely not perfect, but we'd be in a worse world without it.
I don't think there's a single piece of software I've gotten more utility out of in all that time. It's definitely not perfect, but we'd be in a worse world without it.
It's funny to think about in retrospect how exciting Firefox 3 was. Planning began in 2006, and release was 2008. Acid2! Cairo! Better Linux theming!
It was just such a different release cadence.
It was just such a different release cadence.
I have fond memories of 3 and 4... Started using it somewhen around 2 :)
I have fond memories of discovering Phoenix ~v0.1 during high school and mostly never looking back. Had a short stint with Chrome until it intermittently stopped even attempting to load pages. Switched back and couldn't imagine daily driving Chrome.
I remember when it was still called Phoenix — the lean pure-browser reborn “from the ashes” of the Mozilla Suite (SeaMonkey). Amazing run…
I stopped donating when they declared ‘rss is too complex to be maintained and is also old and gross and stuff, so we removed it’. Oh by the way totally unrelated here is Pocket(tm)!
Yes I agree that was some straight up bullshit
The way I see it, there was a time when FF had the chance to not accept the google contracts and go 100% independent with their own search engine or something similar. This would have resulted in FF actually siding with users. It would have resulted in FF radically rejecting ads, and this would have changed the entire web because people would have flocked to Firefox.
But Mozilla leadership did not have an interest in this, in light of endless google money. Google essentially captured Mozilla back in the day.
Now people have got used to ads because they only could chose between browsers that don't protect them.
Brave is trying to correct the mistake of FF and is attracting a small userbase, but not large enough to make a big difference, because the times have changed a lot.
Now with the new management at Mozilla and the dim outlook for the next 5 years, the realization is kicking in that listening to users is actually important. But the elephant in the room is the contracts with large ad-based search engines.
But Mozilla leadership did not have an interest in this, in light of endless google money. Google essentially captured Mozilla back in the day.
Now people have got used to ads because they only could chose between browsers that don't protect them.
Brave is trying to correct the mistake of FF and is attracting a small userbase, but not large enough to make a big difference, because the times have changed a lot.
Now with the new management at Mozilla and the dim outlook for the next 5 years, the realization is kicking in that listening to users is actually important. But the elephant in the room is the contracts with large ad-based search engines.
> This would have resulted in FF actually siding with users
Sure, but would the users have sided with FF? I'm not convinced. The users use whatever BigTech tells them to use, that's how I see it.
> Brave is trying to correct the mistake of FF
Brave is Chromium. I don't see how this would even begin correcting the mistakes of FF. The one thing FF does right is that it is not Chromium.
Sure, but would the users have sided with FF? I'm not convinced. The users use whatever BigTech tells them to use, that's how I see it.
> Brave is trying to correct the mistake of FF
Brave is Chromium. I don't see how this would even begin correcting the mistakes of FF. The one thing FF does right is that it is not Chromium.
> End users do not care about the browser engine
but they certainly care about the search engine. I remember several years ago when Firefox changed their default search from Google to Yahoo, so many clients that we supported complained that IT's response was just to switch everyone over to chrome.
To be fair the biggest issue was that yahoo was worse with dangerous ads in their results then Google was the time.
but they certainly care about the search engine. I remember several years ago when Firefox changed their default search from Google to Yahoo, so many clients that we supported complained that IT's response was just to switch everyone over to chrome.
To be fair the biggest issue was that yahoo was worse with dangerous ads in their results then Google was the time.
End users do not care about the browser engine. But as I said, Brave is trying. It won't be successful in the way FF could have been.
> End users do not care about the browser engine.
But that's the problem, isn't it? Google controls Chromium, everybody uses Chromium, so Google controls the web.
But that's the problem, isn't it? Google controls Chromium, everybody uses Chromium, so Google controls the web.
Not really. If everyone would use a chromium version that radically blocks trackign and ads, google wouldn't control anything.
> google wouldn't control anything.
The web is more than tracking and ads. Chromium is not an ad engine.
The web is more than tracking and ads. Chromium is not an ad engine.
> ...this would have changed the entire web because people would have flocked to Firefox.
One cannot compete with those who hold the choke points. Google owned the Web when they launched Chrome. Microsoft and Apple own desktop and mobile defaults. With three major competitors setting defaults, nagging users, and aggressively developing their browsers, Firefox was doomed.
Only unskippable browser ballots, with random order, and outlawing promotion of owns own browser from a dominant business would help.
One cannot compete with those who hold the choke points. Google owned the Web when they launched Chrome. Microsoft and Apple own desktop and mobile defaults. With three major competitors setting defaults, nagging users, and aggressively developing their browsers, Firefox was doomed.
Only unskippable browser ballots, with random order, and outlawing promotion of owns own browser from a dominant business would help.
15 years ago, lots of things were possible. Most people were using firefox, it had like 30 or 40% market share.
Only because Microsoft was asleep at the switch for years beforehand, allowing Firefox to establish a beachhead. Not long after Chrome launched and mobile phones grew in importance (~2010), Firefox was in steady decline.
My argument is that short of ballots and anti-trust enforcement, nothing could have stood against three chokepoint-holding and well resourced competitors.
My argument is that short of ballots and anti-trust enforcement, nothing could have stood against three chokepoint-holding and well resourced competitors.
Is a successful search engine such an easy thing to produce?
> search engine such an easy thing to produce?
Yes, I run my own independent search engine[0].
> successful
Now that's the challenging part, especially since Mozilla needs to fund browser development. The initial differentiation for a Mozilla search would have been difficult, but at their peak they had 30%+ market share, and if the default search on Firefox was Mozilla Search then they might have been able to make it all work financially. DuckDuckGo makes over $100 million in revenue per year[1], if a Mozilla Search made as much money annually, then even though it's below their current $500 million search contract with Google, with some fiscal responsibility they probably would have had enough to support a search engine and browser development concurrently.
[0] https://ichi.do/
[1] https://techreport.com/statistics/software-web/duckduckgo-st...
Yes, I run my own independent search engine[0].
> successful
Now that's the challenging part, especially since Mozilla needs to fund browser development. The initial differentiation for a Mozilla search would have been difficult, but at their peak they had 30%+ market share, and if the default search on Firefox was Mozilla Search then they might have been able to make it all work financially. DuckDuckGo makes over $100 million in revenue per year[1], if a Mozilla Search made as much money annually, then even though it's below their current $500 million search contract with Google, with some fiscal responsibility they probably would have had enough to support a search engine and browser development concurrently.
[0] https://ichi.do/
[1] https://techreport.com/statistics/software-web/duckduckgo-st...
[deleted]
I switched to Firefox about 3 weeks ago, what is killing me is dragging the tabs. It is so much worse with Firefox. Someone has made a video of this if one can't remember how they differ: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRuBDH32hPI
With Chrome I can drag a tab and it moves with me, with Firefox the tab being dragged blocks the view. Also since with Chrome, the tab moves with the mouse I can with one drag move a tab and use Windows' snap-to-edge feature. This is a two-step process with Firefox.
Firefox is an underdog, it should focus on making the UI familiar and fast, but keep customizability. Another thing I noticed is that Firefox doesn't allow to keep unpacked extensions loaded as Chrome does, there is no good reason why not, luckily I fixed that with some userChrome scripts.
With Chrome I can drag a tab and it moves with me, with Firefox the tab being dragged blocks the view. Also since with Chrome, the tab moves with the mouse I can with one drag move a tab and use Windows' snap-to-edge feature. This is a two-step process with Firefox.
Firefox is an underdog, it should focus on making the UI familiar and fast, but keep customizability. Another thing I noticed is that Firefox doesn't allow to keep unpacked extensions loaded as Chrome does, there is no good reason why not, luckily I fixed that with some userChrome scripts.
Mozilla asks people to contribute ideas on "Mozilla Connect", but then chooses to ignore most of the top-rated ideas. To be fair, better tab management is first and third of the list, so they are looking to improve that one. But PWAs is second on the list, and there's no mention of this in their announcement. Bringing back proper PWA support seems to align perfectly with Mozilla's mission, so it blows me away why they aren't actively working on it or talking about it.
The other things mentioned are just features that I would expect to keep improving over time, but are nothing groundbreaking.
The other things mentioned are just features that I would expect to keep improving over time, but are nothing groundbreaking.
PWAs, as in "File > Save Website As... > website.exe" on a PC?
The "PWA support" that people are clamoring for is the option to open a web page shortcut in a browser window without an address bar.
That's a big part of it, but PWA offers more than that!
For example it has facilities for caching the web application so that it can work offline. They can also register URL handlers on the system, which is very useful.
For example it has facilities for caching the web application so that it can work offline. They can also register URL handlers on the system, which is very useful.
Programs that don't require an entire web browser to run can already do all of those things.
They can also do a lot of other things that a browser's sandbox would not allow
Until Google decides to give developers the ability to let the browser invade the rest of the system, which, in six months, will suddenly be necessary for everyone to do things like bank online and pay utility bills.
Somewhere in the last two months Firefox Nightly got a massive performance boost on GNU/Linux. Thanks!
Nice that vertical tabs are officially coming back, although I've been using them in a DIY manner for years already; sidebar extension with a bit of userChrome.css can do wonders: https://dosowisko.net/firefox-tabcenter.gif
Nice that vertical tabs are officially coming back, although I've been using them in a DIY manner for years already; sidebar extension with a bit of userChrome.css can do wonders: https://dosowisko.net/firefox-tabcenter.gif
What do you mean coming back? I don't recall it ever having vertical tabs. Most people have just used treestyletabs for the past decade or two
It used to be a part of their Test Pilot program as "Tab Center", somewhere around 2016, but got discontinued. What's on the GIF above is a WebExtension-based reimplementation of that called "Tab Center Reborn" plus a bit of custom CSS that reimplements the original auto-hide behavior and makes it blend nicer with Plasma.
Looking at the comments, I'm not surprised about FF's low market share. They chose to target geeks and nerds, and let's face it, we tend to be whiny about almost everything and complain about any new change.
Meanwhile, Google Chrome doesn't even need to pretend like they care about privacy, so they automatically target the other "ordinary" people who are not so picky about every new release note.
This kinda teaches you something about the importance of product positioning.
Meanwhile, Google Chrome doesn't even need to pretend like they care about privacy, so they automatically target the other "ordinary" people who are not so picky about every new release note.
This kinda teaches you something about the importance of product positioning.
No, it's worse than that - they chose to target geeks, then decided to throw out the geeks in an attempt to target a more mainstream audience[0] and then failed to actually get the mainstream userbase, leaving them with neither the nerds nor the normies.
[0] Firefox has always been at its strongest as a power-user's browser, chock-full of extensions and tweaks. Mozilla met this advantage with... two extinction events for extensions, and removal of customization options.
[0] Firefox has always been at its strongest as a power-user's browser, chock-full of extensions and tweaks. Mozilla met this advantage with... two extinction events for extensions, and removal of customization options.
Yes, exactly. Google and Microsoft have huge anti-competitive advantages that they have been able to use to target casual users. As long as that continues Firefox will be facing an uphill battle to get casual downloads, but neither of those large companies care at all about power users. That gives Mozilla a big opening to get a niche of users that will heavily evangelize their browser and install it on friend and family devices.
Unfortunately Mozilla's leadership does not see it that way and have steadily pissed off a huge number of former fans, without making inroads with any other groups.
They are in a tough position regardless, but combining that with terrible product and organization management has gotten them into the state they're in now.
Unfortunately Mozilla's leadership does not see it that way and have steadily pissed off a huge number of former fans, without making inroads with any other groups.
They are in a tough position regardless, but combining that with terrible product and organization management has gotten them into the state they're in now.
No, Firefox never targeted geeks. It's just that, when it came out, the only people who used a browser other than Internet Explorer happened to be geeks. The audience came to them, rather than them going to the audience.
Power user features were part of Firefox's marketing from day 1. They never targeted geeks only. But they did target geeks.
It also does not help that many of the big businesses break their website if you do not let them track you.
I use Safari + Wipr Content blocker with iCloud Private Relay, and it is just so inconvenient to do anything on many major websites. At the least I have to reload the website without a content blocker, and at worst, I have to use Chrome, giving up my privacy.
If a somewhat computer literate person like me who knows about content blockers/iCloud Private Relay/VPN/ublock Origin has to relent and use Chrome, then what chance does a layperson have? They will just use Chrome and go on about their business. They want to spend their life doing other things, not figuring out why Target is not letting them order this clothing item they spent 10 minutes looking for because they are getting flagged as a bot or fraudster or simply not letting themselves be tracked.
I especially love when you block location access to a retailer's website, and then the retailer breaks their functionality for choosing the actual store you want to shop at. They have your billing and shipping address from previous orders, they have your 2FA login, and yet, every single time, they ask for access to your location, and when you decline, they set your store to some random store within a few hundred miles of you because (I assume) they are trying to use your IP address to show you the store.
I use Safari + Wipr Content blocker with iCloud Private Relay, and it is just so inconvenient to do anything on many major websites. At the least I have to reload the website without a content blocker, and at worst, I have to use Chrome, giving up my privacy.
If a somewhat computer literate person like me who knows about content blockers/iCloud Private Relay/VPN/ublock Origin has to relent and use Chrome, then what chance does a layperson have? They will just use Chrome and go on about their business. They want to spend their life doing other things, not figuring out why Target is not letting them order this clothing item they spent 10 minutes looking for because they are getting flagged as a bot or fraudster or simply not letting themselves be tracked.
I especially love when you block location access to a retailer's website, and then the retailer breaks their functionality for choosing the actual store you want to shop at. They have your billing and shipping address from previous orders, they have your 2FA login, and yet, every single time, they ask for access to your location, and when you decline, they set your store to some random store within a few hundred miles of you because (I assume) they are trying to use your IP address to show you the store.
I have the same problem in Safari with Wipr, and iCloud Private relay. But I still have it as my default browser.
Firefox with uBlock origin works much better, and I use for most reading, research, coding related things.
Arc for hacker news.
Then I only use Chrome when the above don't work. Which is very rare.
Firefox with uBlock origin works much better, and I use for most reading, research, coding related things.
Arc for hacker news.
Then I only use Chrome when the above don't work. Which is very rare.
[deleted]
I truly do not understand the complaints about Firefox, the browser (and not Mozilla's questionable stewardship thereof). Every time someone starts talking about their issue, it's either something super niche and inconsequential, or something that doesn't seem to have sufficient evidence to blame on the browser (turns out, crappy web apps will make any browser slow to a crawl). I used Chrome for a few years back in the mid-teens, then switched back to Firefox, and manage to use the Web just fine. It's a browser, it renders web pages. I really don't understand the fuss. Meanwhile, Google (the advertising company) would totally like you to use Google (the browser), for totally innocent reasons.
For me, the big thing Firefox needs is better power management.
Mac user here, and streaming video or doing a video call just kills my battery compared to Chrome or Safari.
Would love to see more focus on energy consumption optimization.
Mac user here, and streaming video or doing a video call just kills my battery compared to Chrome or Safari.
Would love to see more focus on energy consumption optimization.
Is this a comment from 2018? I thought FF on MacOS was pretty good these days.
And are you suggesting Chrome is similar to Safari in terms of power usage? That would surprise me
Safari will of course always be better. It's no competition
And are you suggesting Chrome is similar to Safari in terms of power usage? That would surprise me
Safari will of course always be better. It's no competition
My experience as well, it used to be bad, it's okay now.
I don't actively monitor it every day, but I feel it!
Intel MacBook from 2021.
My laptop gets so hot when running Firefox -- almost instantly (certainly after 3-4 minutes). But I can do a call for an hour on Chrome and it doesn't get nearly as warm. And the battery just drops accordingly as the fans struggle to keep up.
I like to use Firefox, but I end up doing all my calls when I'm not plugged in on Chrome as a result of the power use / heating issues.
Intel MacBook from 2021.
My laptop gets so hot when running Firefox -- almost instantly (certainly after 3-4 minutes). But I can do a call for an hour on Chrome and it doesn't get nearly as warm. And the battery just drops accordingly as the fans struggle to keep up.
I like to use Firefox, but I end up doing all my calls when I'm not plugged in on Chrome as a result of the power use / heating issues.
It's the opposite for me on Linux. Firefox can play 4k 60fps perfectly, while Chrome drops frames and gets hot. I guess hardware-accelerated video is hard to get right.
Mac user here as well. Chrome kills my laptop (though I've uninstalled it about a year ago and never looked back). Firefox is pretty good. Safari is better, at least in terms of power management.
Firefox is my main browser, and it's a beast. Very low footprint, snappy and very decent in terms of power consumption.
Firefox is my main browser, and it's a beast. Very low footprint, snappy and very decent in terms of power consumption.
> Mac user here, and streaming video or doing a video call just kills my battery compared to Chrome or Safari.
Is it not using hardware acceleration or something?
Is it not using hardware acceleration or something?
Probably need to check on this, but I’ve heard of issues around video decode and Firefox.
Could it actually be the hundreds of megabytes of JavaScript each website insists on executing?
Related news: Servo Web Engine Continues Advancing But Seeing Just $1.6k In Monthly Donations
https://www.phoronix.com/news/Servo-Engine-May-2024
https://www.phoronix.com/news/Servo-Engine-May-2024
I am happy it's nothing to do with Pocket, VPN or Colorways. Those are examples of visual clutter that I would love to see removed entirely.
Is anybody currently using Sidebery who could comment on how the Firefox "Tab grouping, Vertical tabs, and sidebar" compare?
They haven't actually shown off their vertical tabs yet, so there isn't much to say.
I am a Sideberry user though, and this excites me because a native implementation will likely look a lot cleaner, integrate better with your chosen theme, and actually allow the removal of the regular tab bar (you have to keep it with Sideberry because there is some functionality that cannot be replicated through an extension).
Theming in particular might be a big one, I had to spend a couple hours tweaking the Sideberry CSS to make it look nice with the skin I use in Firefox. Not having to do that sure would be convenient, especially for the average user who doesn't know what a stylesheet is.
I am a Sideberry user though, and this excites me because a native implementation will likely look a lot cleaner, integrate better with your chosen theme, and actually allow the removal of the regular tab bar (you have to keep it with Sideberry because there is some functionality that cannot be replicated through an extension).
Theming in particular might be a big one, I had to spend a couple hours tweaking the Sideberry CSS to make it look nice with the skin I use in Firefox. Not having to do that sure would be convenient, especially for the average user who doesn't know what a stylesheet is.
Given that they seem to have only prioritised those features, I doubt anyone can since there's nothing material to compare to.
I would like Firefox to be able to set extensions to run only on click or allow me to provide a list of domains, like Chrome does, so every extension is not running on every page. See https://support.google.com/chrome?p=enable_extensions and https://connect.mozilla.org/t5/ideas/option-to-allow-extensi....
You're describing userscripts, which is what site focused web extensions essentially are anyway. Install the Grease/Tamper/Violet monkey extension and you can find scripts from Greasyfork.org, or author your own. Each script defines a scope listing the sites it's allowed to run on.
And this is why I stick with Pale Moon. The desktop UX reached maturity years ago, Pale Moon in the spirit of pre 2011 Firefox (which introduced version 4 with many of the controversial Chrome imitating changes beginning from then) offers a powerful and fully customizable browser out of the box with no telemetry or third party bullshit needing 'hardening' tweaks to get rid of.
You get the separate search bar, tabs below addressbar and other features that can be changed to your liking directly from the preferences without having to go near about:config.
And goes without saying, full support for powerful XUL extensions and full themes that actually extend the browser's functionality and change its appearance the way it used to be on Firefox back in the day.
And goes without saying, full support for powerful XUL extensions and full themes that actually extend the browser's functionality and change its appearance the way it used to be on Firefox back in the day.
> More streamlined menus
For everyone here complaining about this, have you ever looked at how many ways there are to access your history on Firefox? At my last count, there were 4 different ways to do it, depending on which menu you picked first. Cutting down this kind of inconsistent, and repetitive flow is something that we should be applauding.
For everyone here complaining about this, have you ever looked at how many ways there are to access your history on Firefox? At my last count, there were 4 different ways to do it, depending on which menu you picked first. Cutting down this kind of inconsistent, and repetitive flow is something that we should be applauding.
After using FF for the past 7 years, every day at work I switched to Arc. It's been __okay__. I'm not a fan of them trying to nix the bookmark system and much prefer FF's implementation of just good old fashioned, indexable bookmarks.
If FF can manage a good implementation of vertical tabs, I'd switch in a heartbeat.
If FF can manage a good implementation of vertical tabs, I'd switch in a heartbeat.
Try TreeStyleTabs plugin, it's great. It also works well with Firefox Multi Account Containers, so you can keep peronal, work, research, shopping in different containers, so cookies aren't shared.
I love that I can start a web search open a bunch of links, each in a new tab, then once I have what I need, I can close the parent tab and all the child tabs are closed automatically.
I love that I can start a web search open a bunch of links, each in a new tab, then once I have what I need, I can close the parent tab and all the child tabs are closed automatically.
[deleted]
Prioritization that I'd like to suggest for Firefox, driven by needs of society (from high to low):
1. Representing the public interest wrt Web -- especially fervent respect for privacy in the browser, almost as much emphasis on security, fighting commercial excesses around de jure and defacto standards, and social equity within the scope of what Mozilla does (e.g., software accessibility, encouraging all volunteers).
2. Competitive browser compliance and performance. To be viable as a daily driver, to have impact.
3. Forward-looking R&D on Internet public interest things not currently considered "browser", but potentially big in near term.
4. Fancy browser features that actually increase uptake and retention. (Much lower than the first 3.)
5. Designer's opinion/portfolio UX changes. (Could be improvements, and there's value in an appealing and moving-target modern appearance, but misalignment is a risk to be careful of.)
6. Necessary-evil money-making compromises. (Very, very carefully. Many past ones were negatives. And we still see arguable dark patterns around some of those, such as as Firefox updates sometimes reverting users' express Search-related preferences.)
A marketing challenge of these priorities would be that even most techies can't assess how well you're doing #1.
But that mix of things you do can include things understandable to your typical user, such as superior blocking of abusive ads. (But don't drop the ball on things that your typical user can't understand -- they're entrusting you as an expert to act in their interests.)
Educational outreaches can also help. And if you get to the point that you're generating an order of magnitude fewer security vulnerabilities than your competitor, then marketing people can run with that. But be careful with positioning, so that communications about smart, hard activities don't get conflated in people's minds with confusing mission drift and fluffy PR.
1. Representing the public interest wrt Web -- especially fervent respect for privacy in the browser, almost as much emphasis on security, fighting commercial excesses around de jure and defacto standards, and social equity within the scope of what Mozilla does (e.g., software accessibility, encouraging all volunteers).
2. Competitive browser compliance and performance. To be viable as a daily driver, to have impact.
3. Forward-looking R&D on Internet public interest things not currently considered "browser", but potentially big in near term.
4. Fancy browser features that actually increase uptake and retention. (Much lower than the first 3.)
5. Designer's opinion/portfolio UX changes. (Could be improvements, and there's value in an appealing and moving-target modern appearance, but misalignment is a risk to be careful of.)
6. Necessary-evil money-making compromises. (Very, very carefully. Many past ones were negatives. And we still see arguable dark patterns around some of those, such as as Firefox updates sometimes reverting users' express Search-related preferences.)
A marketing challenge of these priorities would be that even most techies can't assess how well you're doing #1.
But that mix of things you do can include things understandable to your typical user, such as superior blocking of abusive ads. (But don't drop the ball on things that your typical user can't understand -- they're entrusting you as an expert to act in their interests.)
Educational outreaches can also help. And if you get to the point that you're generating an order of magnitude fewer security vulnerabilities than your competitor, then marketing people can run with that. But be careful with positioning, so that communications about smart, hard activities don't get conflated in people's minds with confusing mission drift and fluffy PR.
[deleted]
>4. Fancy browser features that actually increase uptake and retention.
Yeah, I would say I think these are actually a good thing as long as the cost-benefit ratio is acceptable and it doesn't compromise core efforts (people have asserted this kind of compromise has been happening, but rarely with any coherence or substantiation).
I would consider the example of Opera in its heyday - whether it was Turbo, "widgets", extensions, or Unite, which in my opinion was a triumph of originality and innovation that went unsung. Those are good when done right.
Yeah, I would say I think these are actually a good thing as long as the cost-benefit ratio is acceptable and it doesn't compromise core efforts (people have asserted this kind of compromise has been happening, but rarely with any coherence or substantiation).
I would consider the example of Opera in its heyday - whether it was Turbo, "widgets", extensions, or Unite, which in my opinion was a triumph of originality and innovation that went unsung. Those are good when done right.
Some time in the last few years firefox changed the new boommark poput to be unresizable and very small. If you have more than twenty bookmark folders it is very difficult to use. Ive been forced to use sideberry, which I dont like.
As a recent newbie attempter as switching to Firefox
Vertical Tabs and Profile Management system - seem good. I was a bit shocked that to get the tree style tabs working properly I had to go typing code (to stop the old tabs being there too).
The thing that got me back to Chrome this time was I started getting out of memory errors which I have not had in any other software in a couple of years of using the M1 macbook. Maybe they'll fix that under the "speed, performance" stuff?
Vertical Tabs and Profile Management system - seem good. I was a bit shocked that to get the tree style tabs working properly I had to go typing code (to stop the old tabs being there too).
The thing that got me back to Chrome this time was I started getting out of memory errors which I have not had in any other software in a couple of years of using the M1 macbook. Maybe they'll fix that under the "speed, performance" stuff?
Lack of PWA / installable apps is why I switched back to chrome after trying to daily drive firefox for a while. Really wish they'd reconsider the decision to drop it.
Untested, but I think this Firefox fork added support back: https://floorp.app/en
I believe a lot of the work comes from: https://github.com/filips123/PWAsForFirefox
P.S. the project you linked is no longer FOSS.
P.S. the project you linked is no longer FOSS.
Interesting, thanks!
Hear me out, I know this might sound crazy, but, how about letting users to customize menus to their own liking and workflow. Link UI customization to profiles and you will have many happy users. In example, I would remove most development related options (hey there, "Inspect Accessibility Properties") from my "leisure" profile, but would move those to more accessible places in my "work" profile.
I wonder how much money they get from their ads and spammy home menu. (Oh you can turn it off! /apologists)
I boot up a fresh Linux install and everything looks A+ nice, then you open up firefox and it feels like I'm on M$ Windows 11 + Edge. Chromium doesnt have ads!
I'll be happy when something replaces Firefox, they are a legacy company that might only exist due to anti-trust purposes. Something that is merit based would be an improvement.
I boot up a fresh Linux install and everything looks A+ nice, then you open up firefox and it feels like I'm on M$ Windows 11 + Edge. Chromium doesnt have ads!
I'll be happy when something replaces Firefox, they are a legacy company that might only exist due to anti-trust purposes. Something that is merit based would be an improvement.
One thing I wish they'd work on is making saved credit card information work correctly and reliably. I use FF on Macos laptop and FreeBSD desktop, with multiple profiles on each. I have different profiles where CC saving work fine, and others that don't across both OSes. I'm so annoyed at having to pull out my CC that I've gone back to chrome a lot of the time when I need to buy things...
I am looking forward to synced tab groups.
Currently using an addon, but that's not synced among PC and Laptop (or phones, but there I don't need it)
Currently using an addon, but that's not synced among PC and Laptop (or phones, but there I don't need it)
>Tab Grouping, Vertical Tabs, and our handy Sidebar will help you stay organized no matter how many tabs you have open — whether it’s 7 or 7,500.
Finally. Chrome has this feature for a while and it's really handy when working with lots of tabs, but I use Firefox on my main machine so I couldn't take advantage of this feature (and I don't like vertical tabs).
Finally. Chrome has this feature for a while and it's really handy when working with lots of tabs, but I use Firefox on my main machine so I couldn't take advantage of this feature (and I don't like vertical tabs).
I wish there was an open way to save all your settings across devices - you could host them yourself. maybe webdav?
The current firefox sync where they are probably the only folks who can host it is not that good. (there's an old sync server but it requires a non-local account)
Also, I wish firefox would stop uncontrollably phoning home.
The current firefox sync where they are probably the only folks who can host it is not that good. (there's an old sync server but it requires a non-local account)
Also, I wish firefox would stop uncontrollably phoning home.
I wish they'd finish up their webcodecs implementation. Even Safari at least supports VideoDecoder.
Only 81% of revenue from Google, who has a competing browser that they beg you to switch to...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Corporation#Finances
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Corporation#Finances
I just hope there's an option to totally disable the AI junk.
I'd just like a simple, secure browser that gets the hell out of my way and let's me extend it however I want (i.e., with an adblocker). I don't need or want AI models involved in the process.
I'd just like a simple, secure browser that gets the hell out of my way and let's me extend it however I want (i.e., with an adblocker). I don't need or want AI models involved in the process.
How about making it so all those stupid purple pop-up messages on mobile that tell me what I already damn know can be swiped away instead of sitting on my screen blocking the UI for an eternity every time I dismiss a tab or full-screen a video?
I still miss the icons for items in the hamburger menu, this was one of the worst changes ever for me personally.
> More streamlined menus that reduce visual clutter
If this means the same as for Thunderbird, I'm going to have to switch after 20 years...
> More streamlined menus that reduce visual clutter
If this means the same as for Thunderbird, I'm going to have to switch after 20 years...
I love that Firefox continues to be been focused on performance. There was a while where FF perf was looking kind of bleak compared to Chrome. These days FF and Chrome have similar performance. FF might have the edge now.
Nice! Firefox is in a good place, because the browser, at this stage (version 126), is really good and fast. And this post seems to point that the development is going in a good direction.
That site needs a dark mode. I'm surprised it hasn't.
Multiple rows of tabs, even more through mouse-wheel scrolling, and fixed width tabs for easy closing. Like Tab Mix Plus.
Multiple rows of tabs, even more through mouse-wheel scrolling, and fixed width tabs for easy closing. Like Tab Mix Plus.
Priority feature could be, well... Catching up with the standards? It hurts my meow meow when i have to run chrome to use bt or usb api
Those web APIs aren't actually standard (WebUSB, for example, is still in draft status), and they have some gnarly privacy implications.
Google steamrolls over standards bodies, and then somehow people believe their browser is the standard. I'm not sure if this is a concerted marketing effort by Google, or simply intellectual laziness. Either way, though, Firefox is not at fault for not supporting non-standard Web APIs.
While I’d never personally use Chrome, you can describe this in another way too.
“Chrome supports draft standards like webUSB, which more and more hardware tools and platforms have started to adopt to enable being able to support users regardless of platform, without needing to design native apps for them.”
You can argue this is good in other ways too, it means that instead of a potentially invasive hardware application for something you might configure or update once, you are using something heavily sandboxed that has to request permissions for anything outside the normal. Another benefit is that depending on what the hardware device is, suddenly these hardware devices can be configured on platforms like Linux and FreeBSD, where vendors are much less inclined to support or cater to natively.
Say what you want about draft standards, but Firefox not playing ball and adopting commonly used ones is a massive miss on its part that hurts its ability to be competitive.
“Chrome supports draft standards like webUSB, which more and more hardware tools and platforms have started to adopt to enable being able to support users regardless of platform, without needing to design native apps for them.”
You can argue this is good in other ways too, it means that instead of a potentially invasive hardware application for something you might configure or update once, you are using something heavily sandboxed that has to request permissions for anything outside the normal. Another benefit is that depending on what the hardware device is, suddenly these hardware devices can be configured on platforms like Linux and FreeBSD, where vendors are much less inclined to support or cater to natively.
Say what you want about draft standards, but Firefox not playing ball and adopting commonly used ones is a massive miss on its part that hurts its ability to be competitive.
Why can I not auto fill credit cards in Firefox mobile even though I know this is a feature offered in other countries?
As long as I can hide the address bar to have more screen real estate and vim extensions work, I am happy..
AI generated text should always have a way that identifies/tells the user that it's fake.
When will Firefox will support webrtc encoding/ decoding offload on Linux?
I didn't think I'll ever get to see native vertical tabs in FF.
Not very exciting, to be honest.
I would like certain apps to open always in private browsing.
I would like certain apps to open always in private browsing.
I'm still upset that theyve removed the "compact" style.
Granted, between ublock origin and tree style tabs Firefox is still my favorite browser, but why are they changing this stuff...
Can someone please ELI5 - what does "more streamlined menus" mean?
Granted, between ublock origin and tree style tabs Firefox is still my favorite browser, but why are they changing this stuff...
Can someone please ELI5 - what does "more streamlined menus" mean?
[deleted]
Subtle reminder that ManifestV2 phase out now has a timeline at Chrome[0]. The best moment to switch to Firefox is now.
[0]: https://blog.chromium.org/2024/05/manifest-v2-phase-out-begi...
[0]: https://blog.chromium.org/2024/05/manifest-v2-phase-out-begi...
Great, now please give me back the option to set my new tab page without resorting to extensions.
Does setting it in about:config do it for you? I see what you mean though, since the option right above that in the menu lets you set custom url(s) for your start page.
That would help a lot yes, what option am I looking for? A custom URL used to be a setting in all browsers back in the days.
What about catching up with PWA?
This is the crowd that "listened to user feedback" then decided to add a button (that can't be removed) to the taskbar whose only purpose in life is to open the Extensions page.
An action that's used once when setting up a browser, and never again. And you're not allowed to remove it to put something else there instead that's actually important.
Fucking Arseholes. :( :( :(
An action that's used once when setting up a browser, and never again. And you're not allowed to remove it to put something else there instead that's actually important.
Fucking Arseholes. :( :( :(
I have a suggestion for Mozilla: find use cases that benefit your users and are not possible in other browsers. For example:
Browsers are terrible at accessing devices on a local network. Make this work well in Firefox, extending protocols as needed.
Browsers are terrible at configuring IoT devices. It device makers are terrible at making apps for this purpose that don’t suck. Make Firefox (on desktop and mobile!) be the premier way to usable and securely configure IoT devices. Get device vendors to sign on: someone could (and probably would) sell a gadget where the instructions suggest installing Firefox to set up the device.
Leverage the same technology to go after enterprise users. Ever seen a piece of high-end, expensive networking gear with a web UI? Ever contemplated how pathetically insecure this is? Ever contemplated how unpleasant it to provision certificates to make it secure? Make this work, easily and securely, on Firefox, using new protocols as needed. Make everyone else play catch-up.
Heck, start small. Allow setting domain constraints on imported root certificates.
The moral: do something new and better.
Browsers are terrible at accessing devices on a local network. Make this work well in Firefox, extending protocols as needed.
Browsers are terrible at configuring IoT devices. It device makers are terrible at making apps for this purpose that don’t suck. Make Firefox (on desktop and mobile!) be the premier way to usable and securely configure IoT devices. Get device vendors to sign on: someone could (and probably would) sell a gadget where the instructions suggest installing Firefox to set up the device.
Leverage the same technology to go after enterprise users. Ever seen a piece of high-end, expensive networking gear with a web UI? Ever contemplated how pathetically insecure this is? Ever contemplated how unpleasant it to provision certificates to make it secure? Make this work, easily and securely, on Firefox, using new protocols as needed. Make everyone else play catch-up.
Heck, start small. Allow setting domain constraints on imported root certificates.
The moral: do something new and better.
Please, no.
None of these things are in scope for a program that is supposed to browse the web (by fetching web pages and rendering them).
How is securely connecting to a device that isn’t, itself, connected to the cloud, fetching a webpage from it, and rendering it out of scope for a web browser? Certainly URLs like http://192.168.1.1 have been in scope for decades — why can’t a web browser figure out how to support that use case well?
Web browsers can already do that. I'm not sure what else is desired beyond what they already do.
It sounds dumb, but honestly modern browsers feel way closer to the JRE than they did things designed to fetch and render sites.
> Customizable new tab wallpapers that will let you choose from a diverse range of photography, colors, and abstract images that suits you most.
Can we just make this include some sort of dark mode. There is an addon that kinda works, but not all the time. That bright white flash is pretty annoying.
Can we just make this include some sort of dark mode. There is an addon that kinda works, but not all the time. That bright white flash is pretty annoying.
If Firefox natively integrated TreeStyle tab or Sidebery and made it lightning fast, searchable and syncable, I would probably return to FF on that day.
Definitely not yet another "reduction of visual clutter".
Definitely not yet another "reduction of visual clutter".
I really love Firefox. I even organized events for them on my home country, so don't get me wrong, wouldn't it be best for the web/devs that they switched to chrome's engine? They can still implement whatever changes to privacy and their changes just like MS does, and devs will only have to target one engine. Or am I missing something? Please discuss it if you agree or disagree, do not downvote. Thanks.
Monoculture in software rarely goes well. Right now Safari and Firefox exist to push back on Google completely controlling the fate of the web. You do not want Google to have the same unquestioned power Microsoft did in the IE6 era.
But that wouldn't be the same. Everybody can work on the engine. Worst case, if google wants to take over, the others can push their own version of the engine, compatible whenever they feel like, and different otherwise. IE was different because was totally closed and only MS could add features.
What do you mean if Google want to take over? They control Chromium now. And maintaining a fork is harder than you think. Even harder when the fork maintainers have different agendas. Even harder when the upstream maintainers are hostile.
Look at Manifest V3. Microsoft said the harm to extensions would be acceptable. Opera hedged and echoed Google's FUD about the removed APIs. Brave acknowledged the problem, recommended their integrated blocker, said they would support MV2 until Google removed the code, and declined to promise more. Vivaldi said similar.
Look at Manifest V3. Microsoft said the harm to extensions would be acceptable. Opera hedged and echoed Google's FUD about the removed APIs. Brave acknowledged the problem, recommended their integrated blocker, said they would support MV2 until Google removed the code, and declined to promise more. Vivaldi said similar.
Chromium is open source, so unless google closes it, in which case you can continue from the pre-close corde, you can maintain a fork without the parts that you don't like. I imagine it has to be much simpler than to maintain a full engine that is sadly almost irrelvant with 2.88%. Chrome (65%) + Edge (5.5%) + Opera (2.6%) have almost 75%. Again, I was a huge suporter of Firefox/Mozilla, but I think they didn't know how to fight chrome.
> wouldn't it be best for the web/devs that they switched to chrome's engine?
Why would that be best? I don't think the problem with Firefox is the engine (anymore), I think it's the design choices Mozilla continues to make.
If Firefox switched to the chromium engine, then why would I bother to continue to use it? Surely it would be better to switch to one of the "privacy-oriented" Chromium-based browsers that have been around for a long time now.
Why would that be best? I don't think the problem with Firefox is the engine (anymore), I think it's the design choices Mozilla continues to make.
If Firefox switched to the chromium engine, then why would I bother to continue to use it? Surely it would be better to switch to one of the "privacy-oriented" Chromium-based browsers that have been around for a long time now.
I would prefer it if Mozilla continued is great rust rewrite, and innovate the core technologies. Just adopting Chrome's crumbs will mean giving up control and voice in stearing the web technologies.
Bring back xul or keep your promise on supporting tab tree, please.
[deleted]
Are you bringing back XUL? No? Then please cease operation.
PaleMoon - http://www.palemoon.org/ - is a hard fork of Firefox that still supports XUL.
Although PaleMoon is great, it creates a brain split
Firefox had very advanced addons for the time, and very good developer community. XUL removal just gave everyone PTSD
Don't know how good is the continuous fragmentation of the community
Firefox had very advanced addons for the time, and very good developer community. XUL removal just gave everyone PTSD
Don't know how good is the continuous fragmentation of the community
Which I already use. Thanks though.
[deleted]
Oh no, more of this.
What about less used options? How much slower? How much less discoverable?
Desktop applications are already for power users almost by definition, let’s not slow them down for the sake of reducing “clutter”. Absolutely annoying trend of the last 15 years or so.