Firefox Lost Almost 50M Users: Here’s Why It Is Concerning(news.itsfoss.com)
news.itsfoss.com
Firefox Lost Almost 50M Users: Here’s Why It Is Concerning
https://news.itsfoss.com/firefox-decline/
99 comments
I do feel like HN often needs to remember that HN readers are not even close to the average population. We are mostly engineers. The HN sentiment toward designers can sometimes be rather crass and I don't care for it. It feels like there's a general sentiment that the engineers on HN "know better" than designers.
One of the main reason designers exist is to help design things that most people can use and historically and generally, engineers are NOT good at this. Divisional labour through expertise.
Remember - most people don't care about stuff that we do. UI changes are generally based on research that we're generally NOT experts on. Just because HN readers and even redditors don't like Firefox's design doesn't mean it's bad design. These two segments make up a tiny proportion of the ~100m users.
I'm also not saying it's good design, but be careful when approaching this topic since it's more nuanced than you think.
One of the main reason designers exist is to help design things that most people can use and historically and generally, engineers are NOT good at this. Divisional labour through expertise.
Remember - most people don't care about stuff that we do. UI changes are generally based on research that we're generally NOT experts on. Just because HN readers and even redditors don't like Firefox's design doesn't mean it's bad design. These two segments make up a tiny proportion of the ~100m users.
I'm also not saying it's good design, but be careful when approaching this topic since it's more nuanced than you think.
On the other hand, I find that a lot of "engineers", if that's what we're calling ourselves, have a tendency to completely underestimate and denigrate the so-called "average user" [0]. They often construct some strawman that's dumb or oblivious or easily fooled when constructing an argument.
Well, I don't think that's the case. Yes, there are users out there who meet those criteria, but there are also "engineers" who do. By and large, just because they aren't "engineers" doesn't mean they don't largely have the same concerns as everyone else who uses a PC: They want to get their work done, they don't like interruptions to their workflow, they don't like change for the sake of it, and they don't appreciate slow and unresponsive UI. "Engineers" are a subset of user who just happens to think a bit too highly of themselves because they use VSCode and JavaScript instead of Excel or Photoshop.
We may not be experts on UI design, but you don't have to be a chef to know when the food you're served tastes lousy and you don't need to be a designer to know when bad UI is shoved down your throat.
[0] I submit that the very concept of "average user" is a fictitious entity which only exists to be a strawman. See: https://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2016/01/16/when-us-air-...
Well, I don't think that's the case. Yes, there are users out there who meet those criteria, but there are also "engineers" who do. By and large, just because they aren't "engineers" doesn't mean they don't largely have the same concerns as everyone else who uses a PC: They want to get their work done, they don't like interruptions to their workflow, they don't like change for the sake of it, and they don't appreciate slow and unresponsive UI. "Engineers" are a subset of user who just happens to think a bit too highly of themselves because they use VSCode and JavaScript instead of Excel or Photoshop.
We may not be experts on UI design, but you don't have to be a chef to know when the food you're served tastes lousy and you don't need to be a designer to know when bad UI is shoved down your throat.
[0] I submit that the very concept of "average user" is a fictitious entity which only exists to be a strawman. See: https://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2016/01/16/when-us-air-...
Thanks for your considered reply. I agree that it's easy and relatively common to denigrate/underestimate/misunderstand users in other 'categories' to oneself.
This is exactly why it's important to design for the common denominator (not intended to be derisory) when building a product that essentially needs to be the same (at its core) for all users, e.g. everyone downloads pretty much the same exact Firefox binary (excluding beta builds).
My argument is that I'm giving Firefox designers the benefit of the doubt that they're doing that and that the UI changes made aren't "lousy" and "bad UI", but rather, a carefully considered approach to have a net benefit for all users.
So, if you are suggesting that you consider Firefox to have "lousy" and "bad UI", that's fair but perhaps it's not what the average opinion is. I'm not claiming to know the average opinion on the Firefox UI changes but I'd guess that they're mostly indifferent if not positive.
This is exactly why it's important to design for the common denominator (not intended to be derisory) when building a product that essentially needs to be the same (at its core) for all users, e.g. everyone downloads pretty much the same exact Firefox binary (excluding beta builds).
My argument is that I'm giving Firefox designers the benefit of the doubt that they're doing that and that the UI changes made aren't "lousy" and "bad UI", but rather, a carefully considered approach to have a net benefit for all users.
So, if you are suggesting that you consider Firefox to have "lousy" and "bad UI", that's fair but perhaps it's not what the average opinion is. I'm not claiming to know the average opinion on the Firefox UI changes but I'd guess that they're mostly indifferent if not positive.
Im probably an above average user and im reading this on FF for whatever thats worth. Theres more to a browser than accommodating any individuals personal short-comings.
Firefox doesn't know who it's building a browser for anymore.
It's not regular folk, they can't outspend Google acquiring them.
It's not technical folk, they've been so tone deaf, forceful and unengaging that those people have left for greener pastures.
So who?
It's not regular folk, they can't outspend Google acquiring them.
It's not technical folk, they've been so tone deaf, forceful and unengaging that those people have left for greener pastures.
So who?
The market they're targeting is Chrome users.
The market that actually uses Firefox is people who rejected Chrome.
The market that actually uses Firefox is people who rejected Chrome.
This.
The direction Mozilla decided to take Firefox truly baffles me because of this. Turning FF into Chrome seems like a losing proposition: you'll lose the users who actively don't want something Chrome-like, and it'll be pretty hard to get users who enjoy Chrome-like browsers to switch from whatever their current browser is. Why bother, when you already have that experience? Even the privacy angle isn't good leverage, as there are established Chrome-like browsers that do well on that count.
It's never made sense to me.
The direction Mozilla decided to take Firefox truly baffles me because of this. Turning FF into Chrome seems like a losing proposition: you'll lose the users who actively don't want something Chrome-like, and it'll be pretty hard to get users who enjoy Chrome-like browsers to switch from whatever their current browser is. Why bother, when you already have that experience? Even the privacy angle isn't good leverage, as there are established Chrome-like browsers that do well on that count.
It's never made sense to me.
> 1. Firefox needs to stop with the UI changes.
For regular users, having software look great can be quite important. Especially when there is strong competition.
Firefox doesn't even make that many changes that breaks the workflow of regular users. From memory, the last time seems when the hamburger dropdown 'Applications Menu' was introduced. Normally UI-changes in Firefox are more non-breaking.
For regular users, having software look great can be quite important. Especially when there is strong competition.
Firefox doesn't even make that many changes that breaks the workflow of regular users. From memory, the last time seems when the hamburger dropdown 'Applications Menu' was introduced. Normally UI-changes in Firefox are more non-breaking.
Just a few months ago they renamed and moved around items in the context menu (view image and undo closed tab) and even crippled the functionality of the first one for no reason. I personally have not yet recovered from that change and search for these items every time I need them. Those are just the two I noticed because I use them regularly, I am sure there was more.
And the non breaking changes seem just as annoying, when elements move around or change their appearance, need more/less space etc. The thing is, the browser has been looking nice for years. There is just no need for constant redesigns that change things just for the sake of change.
And the non breaking changes seem just as annoying, when elements move around or change their appearance, need more/less space etc. The thing is, the browser has been looking nice for years. There is just no need for constant redesigns that change things just for the sake of change.
I see that as a minor UI change. The context menu is still there. Renaming and reordering stuff happens all the time in software.
The replacement for View Image changes functionality, not just UI.
The keyboard shortcut for Copy Link Location changed, something I use countless times each day (plus I can't forget the old shortcut while Firefox ESR still has the old menu).
The keyboard shortcut for Copy Link Location changed, something I use countless times each day (plus I can't forget the old shortcut while Firefox ESR still has the old menu).
> For regular users, having software look great can be quite important.
How many of Firefox's UI changes really impacted this, though? There was the big move away from menu bars and to a more minimalist UI, OK, great. But all the other changes since just reshuffled things that have no net impact, other than forcing users to re-train their workflows.
Though the bigger problem is all the other crap that doesn't relate to either the UI or browsing experience. Pocket, Hello, VPN, intrusive and forced extension-based advertisements, "Studies", anti-LGBT marketing, a failed mobile OS (justified, it was just awful), some vague IoT experiments nobody knew what the point of was, …
Mozilla has half a billion dollars in annual revenue, yet somehow most of it doesn't go to either Firefox nor Thunderbird. XULRunner could've been Electron 10 years before Electron, but Mozilla didn't even care.
How many of Firefox's UI changes really impacted this, though? There was the big move away from menu bars and to a more minimalist UI, OK, great. But all the other changes since just reshuffled things that have no net impact, other than forcing users to re-train their workflows.
Though the bigger problem is all the other crap that doesn't relate to either the UI or browsing experience. Pocket, Hello, VPN, intrusive and forced extension-based advertisements, "Studies", anti-LGBT marketing, a failed mobile OS (justified, it was just awful), some vague IoT experiments nobody knew what the point of was, …
Mozilla has half a billion dollars in annual revenue, yet somehow most of it doesn't go to either Firefox nor Thunderbird. XULRunner could've been Electron 10 years before Electron, but Mozilla didn't even care.
> XULRunner could've been Electron 10 years before Electron, but Mozilla didn't even care.
I dislike Mozilla a lot, but here I disagree. Electron is not necessarily a good thing.
I dislike Mozilla a lot, but here I disagree. Electron is not necessarily a good thing.
Those additional services are important to diversify their revenue streams AND they offer people basic solutions from a reliable provider like Mozilla. If anything, they should expand to offering more digital services under the umbrella of Firefox.
The steadily dropping user count indicates otherwise.
They might be useful if Mozilla wasn't cannibalizing itself and stretched so thin that neither these services nor Mozilla's actual products were competitive, but as it stands, Mozilla is just digging its hole deeper with every side project.
They might be useful if Mozilla wasn't cannibalizing itself and stretched so thin that neither these services nor Mozilla's actual products were competitive, but as it stands, Mozilla is just digging its hole deeper with every side project.
They overhauled their mobile version quite recently, dropping support for most extension. And they did a similar thing a while ago for desktop version
There are probably good reasons for such changes but users it is "hey, the thing I did yesterday is no longer working". But then we also have more questionable decisions like removal of "view image", which was doing everything and more of its replacement "open image in new tab"
There are probably good reasons for such changes but users it is "hey, the thing I did yesterday is no longer working". But then we also have more questionable decisions like removal of "view image", which was doing everything and more of its replacement "open image in new tab"
Firefox always looked great and I never noticed any reason (or any significance) in any UI change they would make. IMHO the only good change was the most recent when they switched to more native-looking tab handles.
>For regular users, having software look great can be quite important.
I don't think that many people care.
I don't think that many people care.
I use Firefox daily and the only UI change I noticed in the last few months was the tab bar looking slightly different. I might not even have noticed if it weren’t for articles pointing it out. Just me?
I've gone the other direction.
Firefox was my main browser 13 years ago. I switched out of curiosity to Opera which was fun for a while. Around 2011, I jumped on the Chrome bandwagon, which switched to Chromium as Linux became my daily driver. This year when Chromium stopped syncing across devices[0] I thought I'd give Firefox another go.
I'm personally avoiding Brave like the plague mainly because it's chromium based, but also because I don't trust them, and when I've tried it out, I didn't care for all the crypto/BAT pushing.
Since switching back to Firefox, I've been a very happy user - and I'm surprised by all the backlash they've gotten this year (mainly, seemingly from dev communities like HN) for UI changes, performance, "being funded by google". None of these are issues for me - a relative power user - at all.
One huge advantage for me is the mobile app just feels miles ahead of competition. Now that phones IMO are oversized, it's so refreshing to have the option to put the address bar at the bottom, AND I can have uBlock and Dark Reader on mobile! Personally I'm a fan of the v89/90 UI changes - I think people have been over-reacting.
Even if I started to feel UI or performance issues, I still wouldn't switch back on account of Firefox not being chromium based. I don't trust Google. I'm trying to de-google and would encourage others to do the same.
Support competition! Whether it be cloud providers, web rendering engines. Sometimes this comes at a minor personal cost but it can be for the greater good. Think long term!
[0]: https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2021/01/chromium-sync-google-api...
Firefox was my main browser 13 years ago. I switched out of curiosity to Opera which was fun for a while. Around 2011, I jumped on the Chrome bandwagon, which switched to Chromium as Linux became my daily driver. This year when Chromium stopped syncing across devices[0] I thought I'd give Firefox another go.
I'm personally avoiding Brave like the plague mainly because it's chromium based, but also because I don't trust them, and when I've tried it out, I didn't care for all the crypto/BAT pushing.
Since switching back to Firefox, I've been a very happy user - and I'm surprised by all the backlash they've gotten this year (mainly, seemingly from dev communities like HN) for UI changes, performance, "being funded by google". None of these are issues for me - a relative power user - at all.
One huge advantage for me is the mobile app just feels miles ahead of competition. Now that phones IMO are oversized, it's so refreshing to have the option to put the address bar at the bottom, AND I can have uBlock and Dark Reader on mobile! Personally I'm a fan of the v89/90 UI changes - I think people have been over-reacting.
Even if I started to feel UI or performance issues, I still wouldn't switch back on account of Firefox not being chromium based. I don't trust Google. I'm trying to de-google and would encourage others to do the same.
Support competition! Whether it be cloud providers, web rendering engines. Sometimes this comes at a minor personal cost but it can be for the greater good. Think long term!
[0]: https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2021/01/chromium-sync-google-api...
Mozilla needs to be run by engineers, and its funding needs to directed into making Firefox better than the competition, otherwise it will die.
I still don't understand how they spend that much money on projects, which are really not part of the mission, requiring even more funds.
Now, let's say there is 1 Mio. people who want an open, trustworthy browser. I bet, these would pay 50 USD/year to have that. For this, it should be possible to get ~500 FTE positions to fulfill all needs of the project (seems reasonable, as a) this would be a really idealistic venture then and b) seems a pretty good salary everywhere except SV...). Hardware and hosting should be pretty easy to come by, if sold to governments/big companies the right way.
BUT... for some reason, Mozilla has offices in Mountain View, CA and is lead by a highbrow lawyer earning a 7 figures a year. This is (together with wikimedia, where salaries don't seem that broken) actually the only job, where I am certain, I would be able to offer the same quality of work for a fraction of the cost (first act: ringing up all digital ministries in democratic countries and pushing FF to schools :))...
Now, let's say there is 1 Mio. people who want an open, trustworthy browser. I bet, these would pay 50 USD/year to have that. For this, it should be possible to get ~500 FTE positions to fulfill all needs of the project (seems reasonable, as a) this would be a really idealistic venture then and b) seems a pretty good salary everywhere except SV...). Hardware and hosting should be pretty easy to come by, if sold to governments/big companies the right way.
BUT... for some reason, Mozilla has offices in Mountain View, CA and is lead by a highbrow lawyer earning a 7 figures a year. This is (together with wikimedia, where salaries don't seem that broken) actually the only job, where I am certain, I would be able to offer the same quality of work for a fraction of the cost (first act: ringing up all digital ministries in democratic countries and pushing FF to schools :))...
Also, don’t forget, you cannot actually donate to Firefox. If you donate to Mozilla, it only goes to all projects that are _not_ Firefox, because Firefox is part of a different legal entity.
Bonkers.
Bonkers.
I do get it but it isn't good. Basically, what happened was that they were cuddled to death by investors after having some initial success bootstrapping out of the failing company that was Netscape. I say failing company in the sense that they had an golden exit followed by years of incompetent management by AOL just before the peak of the dot com bubble. Amazing timing. I guess one of the lucky spinoffs powered by that exit was Y Combinator (and HN).
One stroke of luck was basically the whole thing ending up being open source, which basically meant that the whole team just cut loose from AOL when AOL management got a bit too infatuated with themselves. They continued independently at some point and created the Mozilla Foundation shortly after basically a botched attempt by AOL to get rid of Mitchell Baker; who ended up creating and leading Mozilla after which AOL basically lost most of what remained of their acquisition.
From the ashes of that came Phoenix, which later renamed to Firebird and eventually Firefox. Around the time the Mozilla Foundation became a thing it was convenient for Google to back a browser that wasn't Internet Explorer and they were basically rolling in cash since then without too much obligation to deliver anything more and a vague ambition to do something anyway. That was two decades ago.
Since then, essentially everything they tried that wasn't a browser kind of failed, got neglected, or got killed before it ever saw the light of day. They blew through many millions in the process with no return on investment. The exception is perhaps Rust, which itself was kind of a happy accident in the sense that it was part of a decade plus long attempt to refactor the browser that is still ongoing that happens to have produced a nice language community as a side effect. They cut Rust loose since they couldn't figure out how to monetize that. But it's arguably the most successful thing they accomplished aside from the browser despite the lack of a return on investment. At this point it's independent from Mozilla who bootstrapped it with a lot of cash without ever reaping the benefits. Lots of money but a complete lack of focus has been their story. Too comfortable and no sense of urgency. Lots of little projects that consistently go nowhere.
They should just shut the door on the mozilla corporation part and move the browser development to where it belongs which would be the Mozilla Foundation. Even with a few million users less, there is plenty of money in the user community to keep that going on donations, revenue from deals with Google and others, sponsor ships, etc. Just look at the Wikimedia Foundation, the Apache Foundation, etc. It's a great model for ensuring important OSS software keeps on going.
That would mean letting go of a bunch of offices they don't need, a marketing and business development department that has failed consistently to create new revenue streams, and would allow them to focus on the one thing they are good at which is developing and maintaining Firefox. They have plenty of developer mouths to feed.
I love Firefox. I love using it. I love not having my browser history being sold out to advertisers. And I love their general attitude of them looking out for me. I rarely use Chrome and only strictly for development purposes (i.e. testing stuff in different browsers). Nothing I care about requires Chrome. I don't really care for the countless spinoffs either (Brave, Edge, Opera, etc.). They all have the same problem: corporations with dollar signs in their eyes chasing revenue, which in the end always takes precedence over user interests. I love the engineering mentality and lack of chasing profits in favor of just doing the right things technically that the Firefox team has. It's not always quick to deliver or efficient or even effective but they get there in the end and keep on producing a great browser.
Anyway, important to keep Google honest to have Firefox and Safari around. They are still big enough to matter.
One stroke of luck was basically the whole thing ending up being open source, which basically meant that the whole team just cut loose from AOL when AOL management got a bit too infatuated with themselves. They continued independently at some point and created the Mozilla Foundation shortly after basically a botched attempt by AOL to get rid of Mitchell Baker; who ended up creating and leading Mozilla after which AOL basically lost most of what remained of their acquisition.
From the ashes of that came Phoenix, which later renamed to Firebird and eventually Firefox. Around the time the Mozilla Foundation became a thing it was convenient for Google to back a browser that wasn't Internet Explorer and they were basically rolling in cash since then without too much obligation to deliver anything more and a vague ambition to do something anyway. That was two decades ago.
Since then, essentially everything they tried that wasn't a browser kind of failed, got neglected, or got killed before it ever saw the light of day. They blew through many millions in the process with no return on investment. The exception is perhaps Rust, which itself was kind of a happy accident in the sense that it was part of a decade plus long attempt to refactor the browser that is still ongoing that happens to have produced a nice language community as a side effect. They cut Rust loose since they couldn't figure out how to monetize that. But it's arguably the most successful thing they accomplished aside from the browser despite the lack of a return on investment. At this point it's independent from Mozilla who bootstrapped it with a lot of cash without ever reaping the benefits. Lots of money but a complete lack of focus has been their story. Too comfortable and no sense of urgency. Lots of little projects that consistently go nowhere.
They should just shut the door on the mozilla corporation part and move the browser development to where it belongs which would be the Mozilla Foundation. Even with a few million users less, there is plenty of money in the user community to keep that going on donations, revenue from deals with Google and others, sponsor ships, etc. Just look at the Wikimedia Foundation, the Apache Foundation, etc. It's a great model for ensuring important OSS software keeps on going.
That would mean letting go of a bunch of offices they don't need, a marketing and business development department that has failed consistently to create new revenue streams, and would allow them to focus on the one thing they are good at which is developing and maintaining Firefox. They have plenty of developer mouths to feed.
I love Firefox. I love using it. I love not having my browser history being sold out to advertisers. And I love their general attitude of them looking out for me. I rarely use Chrome and only strictly for development purposes (i.e. testing stuff in different browsers). Nothing I care about requires Chrome. I don't really care for the countless spinoffs either (Brave, Edge, Opera, etc.). They all have the same problem: corporations with dollar signs in their eyes chasing revenue, which in the end always takes precedence over user interests. I love the engineering mentality and lack of chasing profits in favor of just doing the right things technically that the Firefox team has. It's not always quick to deliver or efficient or even effective but they get there in the end and keep on producing a great browser.
Anyway, important to keep Google honest to have Firefox and Safari around. They are still big enough to matter.
They've genuinely made such an enormous amount of decisions that are alienating to their core audience (and make no sense besides) that it's starting to feel like it cannot be accidental. At the very least, whoever is driving these culture and technological changes needs to be removed forever and replaced with someone who actually cares about firefox.
Firefox has been dead to me since they got rid of text-reflow. There's an issue about it on Bugzilla dating back 9 years, which has been completely ignored
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=795552
Quite simply, I won't use a browser on mobile that doesn't have text-reflow as; with a huge number of websites, a combination of my middle-aged eyesight and developers not designing for mobile, means that text is literally too small for me to read without pinching to enlarge it and I sure as hell ain't going to suffer the inconvenience of having to horizontally scroll back and forward because Firefox's developers are too stubborn to admit they made a mistake and add text-reflow back in.
And, since I want to be able to use the same browser across all my devices, so I can share bookmarks / history / etc. that also rules out Firefox on all my desktop machines too.
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=795552
Quite simply, I won't use a browser on mobile that doesn't have text-reflow as; with a huge number of websites, a combination of my middle-aged eyesight and developers not designing for mobile, means that text is literally too small for me to read without pinching to enlarge it and I sure as hell ain't going to suffer the inconvenience of having to horizontally scroll back and forward because Firefox's developers are too stubborn to admit they made a mistake and add text-reflow back in.
And, since I want to be able to use the same browser across all my devices, so I can share bookmarks / history / etc. that also rules out Firefox on all my desktop machines too.
Since they positioned themselves against free speech and advocate certain ideologies, they have lost me forever. Good riddance.
I never worried about the performance of Firefox. It was good enough, and I miss some features like tags for bookmarks. But a betrayal of their original mission is unforgivable. Yes, other browsers belong to evil corporations, but at least they never claimed to be good to begin with.
I never worried about the performance of Firefox. It was good enough, and I miss some features like tags for bookmarks. But a betrayal of their original mission is unforgivable. Yes, other browsers belong to evil corporations, but at least they never claimed to be good to begin with.
Eh, I can think of one evil company that used to have "don't be evil" or something like that as their motto in the distant past. I hear they make a pretty popular browser now.
I'm actually also not a fan of Google anymore, but I can at least relate to the "don't be evil" issue. It simply wasn't well enough defined, as different people consider different things "evil".
That was the main reason I left FF after being a user since Mozilla 1.0
Context?
Not OP, but here is some context: https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/we-need-more-than-deplat...
Now you're putting words in people's mouths :) FF has been involved with politics on way more than that. I don't know about the OP but you don't have to be a Trumpist to be put off by FF's campaigns.
(I'm the OP) It's not about Trump it is about the stated intent to amplify certain news outlets (they link to the New York Times as a "factual voice that needs to be amplified") and tone done or censor ("deplatform") others. I don't want my Browser to do that.
Nor do I want my browser to violate its own intended purpose.
They are essentially preaching 'privacy' to those wanting to a privacy-focused browser and product and having that as its main unique selling point but then is paid by an anti-privacy company 'Google' which contradicts everything in Mozilla's mission statement.
Plus, Mozilla sort of did this to themselves anyway and turned Google into a direct competitor with Chrome.
They are essentially preaching 'privacy' to those wanting to a privacy-focused browser and product and having that as its main unique selling point but then is paid by an anti-privacy company 'Google' which contradicts everything in Mozilla's mission statement.
Plus, Mozilla sort of did this to themselves anyway and turned Google into a direct competitor with Chrome.
At this point, I'm thinking it is entirely self inflicted.
Once Firefox is out, Chrome(ium) will be able to ban ad-blocks.
Once Firefox is out, Chrome(ium) will be able to ban ad-blocks.
"In addition to that, there are also a few things that Firefox may have done wrong:
For current users any UI changes that break the current UI "ABI" is bad. I guess the pressure to do pet projects is big internally as usual.
Constantly breaking the user experience with major overhauls"
For current users any UI changes that break the current UI "ABI" is bad. I guess the pressure to do pet projects is big internally as usual.
I'm a "diehard" firefox user from back when it was Netscape, and just won't use anything else as my main browser until I'm forced to, but
Constantly breaking the user experience with major overhauls
I hate every change like this, and it's the worst thing (imho) about Firefox.
That said, now that I'm used to it, I think that having the address bar at the bottom on mobile is better and I wish they'd had it all along.
That said, now that I'm used to it, I think that having the address bar at the bottom on mobile is better and I wish they'd had it all along.
Sure, it is better on big screens but it is hardly worth the annoyance of messing with the user's day. They could have had an update nag screen "Do you want our fancy new position of the bar?" at start-up or something for such a big change instead of making it default for current installs.
You can change it to be the top if you want. URL bar on the bottom is half the reason I use Firefox to begin with. It makes 3000x more sense on today's giant screen phones.
Firefox can’t win really. They do anything and half the users complain and half the users state it made the browser finally usable.
While google does whatever they want and people just nod and move along.
While google does whatever they want and people just nod and move along.
I couldn't be bothered to learn the new place for URL bar so I just went to options and moved it back to top
I gotta say that for me this was a really nice change! It's way more ergonomic to use this way. There's also a setting that lets you choose if it's at the top or bottom so you can revert the change.
Not just UI changes. On mobile I lost the ability to block images on metered connections. This was the most important feature for me on mobile :'(
I had to adapt to it, but I really like it because it is easier to access. And that sums up a lot of Firefox UI changes. TL;DR: People don't like change.
> I'm thinking it is entirely self inflicted.
It was 'entirely self inflicted' from the start [0]
From [0]
> Mozilla can live without Google's money, Baker says
> We've spent a lot of time and energy making sure that Google understands that it cannot turn us into an arm of Google
Perhaps that was the signal that provoked Google to create Chrome in 2008 since Mozilla was going to walk away from them. Today, Google's millions still makes around 80% of Mozilla's entire revenue. Chrome has become more stronger and Mozilla is still heavily dependent on Google's millions and still haven't figured out how to make money without them 14 years later.
Mozilla needs to find itself some significant revenue by themselves which is compatible with their mission statement before preaching about 'privacy' and taking payment from a 'anti-privacy' company which is their direct competitor.
[0] https://web.archive.org/web/20120105090543/https://www.compu...
It was 'entirely self inflicted' from the start [0]
From [0]
> Mozilla can live without Google's money, Baker says
> We've spent a lot of time and energy making sure that Google understands that it cannot turn us into an arm of Google
Perhaps that was the signal that provoked Google to create Chrome in 2008 since Mozilla was going to walk away from them. Today, Google's millions still makes around 80% of Mozilla's entire revenue. Chrome has become more stronger and Mozilla is still heavily dependent on Google's millions and still haven't figured out how to make money without them 14 years later.
Mozilla needs to find itself some significant revenue by themselves which is compatible with their mission statement before preaching about 'privacy' and taking payment from a 'anti-privacy' company which is their direct competitor.
[0] https://web.archive.org/web/20120105090543/https://www.compu...
If Firefox is out and Chrome bans ad-blocks, Firefox will be in again, reborn from the ashes, just like last time.
People who use add blockers are a strict subset of the people who are capable of using downloaded, non-default code to browse the web.
It isn't like people will ever lose access to old browsers that work as well as they ever did. This isn't a serious threat.
It isn't like people will ever lose access to old browsers that work as well as they ever did. This isn't a serious threat.
Old browsers don't really work "as well as they ever did".
The web is a moving target, and after a couple of years an old release will be close to unusable.
Firefox is currently the only serious competitor to Chrome, Safari having its known defects and Edge -- well, Edge being Edge.
So it's crucial that Firefox remains in the game, even as a (usable) wavebreaker to Chrome.
The web is a moving target, and after a couple of years an old release will be close to unusable.
Firefox is currently the only serious competitor to Chrome, Safari having its known defects and Edge -- well, Edge being Edge.
So it's crucial that Firefox remains in the game, even as a (usable) wavebreaker to Chrome.
Instead of firing Rust/Servo-People, the double down on finishing a technically superior browser would probably have done the same thing that Chrome did years ago: slick, lean, ultra fast -> technical folks would not only recommend it in their circles, but also install it on their parents/friends/... computer -> adoption wave.
But what do I know, it seems that "adding features and modernizing the UI" wins everytime in upper management.
But what do I know, it seems that "adding features and modernizing the UI" wins everytime in upper management.
I wouldnt worry, they seem to have a highly paid ceo
$1mil in 2015 https://www.forbes.com/sites/georgeanders/2015/11/30/mozilla...
$2.5mil in 2018, and over $3mil in 2020. Someone compensated this well surely knows what they are doing!!
$1mil in 2015 https://www.forbes.com/sites/georgeanders/2015/11/30/mozilla...
$2.5mil in 2018, and over $3mil in 2020. Someone compensated this well surely knows what they are doing!!
In 2039 $10.5mil and only %0.01 of all web browsers.
This is extremely bad. I'm doing my part, and will be using FF on all my devices until it stops functioning.
Also, Google should probably be broken up, Android/Chrome should be moved to separate companies
Also, Google should probably be broken up, Android/Chrome should be moved to separate companies
Mozilla is the one to blame for all of this (and the possible reason why Chrome exists in the first place) as they did this to themselves and created Google from once a 'search partner' to a direct competitor; far worse outcome in this.
Google would create their own browser regardless of Firefox's actions, just like they created their own mobile OS despite partnership with Apple.
Move Android /Chrome out of Google and soon the world would be running on Microsoft Edge and Windows. And worse, all of the poor countries would standardize on Facebook browser/OS on cheap devices which will come bundled with their devices with data snoopind deals with the mobile carriers. And should you decide to break up all the silicon valley tech giants, all the non western nations would be running on WeChat or TenCent /AliBaba etc. based technology. There are no easy answers but breaking up Google is the dumbest course of action.
Do you have any reasoning to back up these grandiose claims?
Wishful thinking
[deleted]
It's losing because Firefox is now designers-driven product, not engineers-driven. Everything rots to the end when you give designers power over engineers.
This sounds like a false dichotomy but quite makes sense when it comes to browser market I believe. FF 'feels like' lagging behind for majority of users because of the hiccups here and there.
[deleted]
You do realize that without designers and tons of other people, there is no one to do the actual user research, UI, UX or general design work? Who would do this work?
A browser is to 99% a canvas for other software to draw on, and neither Safari, nor Edge, nor Chrome are investing terribly much into constant UX changes, so where does Mozilla's perceived "need" for UX changes come from?
I dropped it because they keep changing it.
Extension changes, Pocket integration, UI updates, even the bloody icon keeps getting updated. Just leave it alone for god sake.
On Chrome now which seems to change a lot less frequently (in a perceptible manner - I know they add a lot of stuff to Chrome every year, but for the most part its ignorable unlike FireFox changes)
Extension changes, Pocket integration, UI updates, even the bloody icon keeps getting updated. Just leave it alone for god sake.
On Chrome now which seems to change a lot less frequently (in a perceptible manner - I know they add a lot of stuff to Chrome every year, but for the most part its ignorable unlike FireFox changes)
My experience (Linux):
Firefox is slower than Chrome, especially on Linux.
Firefox consume less memory? I don't care, it still slower. It takes longer to startup and load the first web page.
Firefox not supports touch scroll out-of-the-box.
A lot of problems with video tearing if you have Intel graphics. It can be solved, but I don't want to spend time changing settings. I want to navigate right now.
This makes me sad to see. I've been trying to degoogle as much as possible, and Firefox potentially going away eventually seems like another battle lost.
I use Firefox as my main browser, but having to jump on a Teams call, or GoToMeeting, or really any Google service requires Chrome to get it to work fully, or even at all. And as I understand it, this is for no good reason at all. At the moment, I find myself opening Chrome just for those tasks alone, but the fact that I have to do that at all says a lot about Chrome's hand in the market.
I'm not sure what there's left to do as a Firefox user. One would be to donate [0], but it looks like donations to Mozilla don't make it to Firefox development according to this [1] post from a few years ago.
[0]: https://donate.mozilla.org/
[1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/a98gmi/donations_t...
I use Firefox as my main browser, but having to jump on a Teams call, or GoToMeeting, or really any Google service requires Chrome to get it to work fully, or even at all. And as I understand it, this is for no good reason at all. At the moment, I find myself opening Chrome just for those tasks alone, but the fact that I have to do that at all says a lot about Chrome's hand in the market.
I'm not sure what there's left to do as a Firefox user. One would be to donate [0], but it looks like donations to Mozilla don't make it to Firefox development according to this [1] post from a few years ago.
[0]: https://donate.mozilla.org/
[1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/a98gmi/donations_t...
Firefox has the best cross-platform user experience i've encountered so far. It supports full sync across Windows / Linux / Mac / FreeBSD / Android.
Previously Brave was the one i was using but it doesn't do full sync on iOS & can't be built on FreeBSD.
Previously Brave was the one i was using but it doesn't do full sync on iOS & can't be built on FreeBSD.
Still using an ancient Firefox/Fennec version on an Android tablet just because all the Firefox versions since then do not have a tab bar.
Firefox lost me for many years because it became unbearably slow. I switched to Chrome solely for it worked much faster (despite using more RAM), especially on my rather old Core 2 computers. Once they upgraded their engine a couple of years ago it became tolerable again but just adding some extensions I find essential slowed it noticeably again.
As I have upgraded to modern Ryzen PCs I immdiately switched back to Firefox and am happy although some people still tell me y browser looks very slow once they see me using it.
Using Firefox is a privilege many people just can't easily afford. Many people still tell me YouTube is too slow in Firefox but my experience shows a powerful PC solves this.
As I have upgraded to modern Ryzen PCs I immdiately switched back to Firefox and am happy although some people still tell me y browser looks very slow once they see me using it.
Using Firefox is a privilege many people just can't easily afford. Many people still tell me YouTube is too slow in Firefox but my experience shows a powerful PC solves this.
huh? FF quantum was faster than Chrome when it came out, don't know what the benchmarks are today but it's certainly competitive.
I suspect half the experiences being shared in this thread are of a 10 year old version of FF
As I have mentioned, my experience is about both: a 10 year old version of FF was crazy slow, Quantum is tolerable but still slower than Chrome, gets even much slower as soon as you install some extensions and still is uncomfortable to use on old PCs (e.g. 2013 MacBook Air). Chrome works perfectly fast on everything incl a >10yr old Core 2 Duo laptop.
I am a huge Firefox fan and don't even mind some tolerable amount struggle but have to admit this.
I once tried to migrate my girlfriend (who has the 2013 MacBook Air) to Firefox (Quantum). As she tried it she immediately told me she doesn't want it because it feels slow. Chrome apparently has some bug which makes eat up 100% of the CPU on the same machine often but works faster even when it does this.
This still has to be addressed if we want Firefox to become more popular. "Just disable all the extensions" (mostly meaning featured extensions recommended by Mozilla, e.g. uBlock Origin) is not a good answer, neither is "buy a powerful modern computer".
I am a huge Firefox fan and don't even mind some tolerable amount struggle but have to admit this.
I once tried to migrate my girlfriend (who has the 2013 MacBook Air) to Firefox (Quantum). As she tried it she immediately told me she doesn't want it because it feels slow. Chrome apparently has some bug which makes eat up 100% of the CPU on the same machine often but works faster even when it does this.
This still has to be addressed if we want Firefox to become more popular. "Just disable all the extensions" (mostly meaning featured extensions recommended by Mozilla, e.g. uBlock Origin) is not a good answer, neither is "buy a powerful modern computer".
Dupe from 5 days ago, but still a concerning issue:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28015335
I ended up abandoning FireFox years ago because the constant breaking of addons, and hideous UI changes that went from simple & functional to bulky, cluttery, and full of features I will never ever use while the features I do use get pushed into a more complicated method of accessing.
I'd love to use FireFox again, but it's just too much garbage and hassle to deal with. Every other version change felt like it broke some quality or function for worse.
I used Pale Moon, a fork of Firefox, but it was too much to tinker with to keep it working with modern websites. Now I just use chrome based browser Vivaldi, and for the past five years of using it, they haven't done anything horrendously stupid like overhauling the entire UI. It's not a perfect browser, but it's a huge improvement from dealing with FireFoxes bullshit.
I'd love to use FireFox again, but it's just too much garbage and hassle to deal with. Every other version change felt like it broke some quality or function for worse.
I used Pale Moon, a fork of Firefox, but it was too much to tinker with to keep it working with modern websites. Now I just use chrome based browser Vivaldi, and for the past five years of using it, they haven't done anything horrendously stupid like overhauling the entire UI. It's not a perfect browser, but it's a huge improvement from dealing with FireFoxes bullshit.
The add on breaking issue was solved. Now there is a stable add on api and updates will not break it constantly like they did
Mozilla did this all by themselves and turned Google into a competitor since they planned on walking away from their millions in the first place to make money without depending on Google.
Turns out that 14 years later, nothing has changed and the Chrome ecosystem is stronger than ever..
Turns out that 14 years later, nothing has changed and the Chrome ecosystem is stronger than ever..
Mozilla has been committing suicide last 10 years or so. I'm forced to use long outdated version because I'm too horrified by looking at screenshots of each new release, not to mention the obvious API and settings cuts.
To me it looks like the company suffers from poor management, unclarity of goals, and maybe unbalanced staff (e.g. more "UI designers" than there needs to be and fewer actual programmers than desirable).
I think it’s less Mozilla’s fault and more user’s shift to mobile that has eaten away at market share combined with the sync hook between mobile and desktop. People say it’s that they lost their focus on the browser or alienated power users, but really Firefox OS was their best shot at long term survival. There’s a vacuum in the mobile space for true OSS. Google has been effective at cutting them off at the pass with both Chromium and Android, but neither allows the true spirit of free software to flourish.
I wish brave forked from FF when Brendan Eich resigned, now im "stuck" removing crap once every so often that ff adds and recompiling and I have no interest in chromium.
Oh well, glad for FOSS!
Oh well, glad for FOSS!
I left for edge. vertical tabs out of the box - check. ability to remove window title bar without editing css - check. ublock - check. sending tabs between pcs and mobile devices - check. (actually this one thing drove me away from ffx when it stopped working. about a year ago my android firefox(es) stopped syncing reliably. some devices synced, some synced occasionally, some never synced. related to the arbitrary limit on amount of bookmarks and tabs that could be synced, by ffx devs)
Presumably, given the scale of this loss, there are people here who have recently moved away from Firefox: If that's you, I'd be really interested to hear why. It seems silly, but I can't think of any time recently where I've considered moving, what caused you to move away?
It has been a while since I switched away from Firefox but my experience was being fed up with UI changes.
I used Firefox from version 1.5 to version 30~32 alongside Opera (with the Presto engine), after that I switched to Palemoon since it had a pretty stable UI. A few versions later, before Quantum release, Palemoon felt really slow and webpages broke way too much for my taste. So I switched back to Firefox.
I got used to addons like Classic Theme Restorer only to be broken a few months later with the Quantum release and the addon apocalypse. I tried to stick with it for quite a while but it was quite tiresome to update CSS files every new release of the browser to keep the looks consistent.
Also, things like Google Docs/Spreadsheets, Office 365, JIRA really felt slow in Firefox... So I discovered Vivaldi, which has a lot of customization settings available and after giving it a few months trial I switched to it. And I've been quite happy with it, personally it's the best browser I ever used since good old Opera Presto, it's fast enough, clean and easy to customize. Heck, it even has CSS support and they manage to not break it with every new release.
I used Firefox from version 1.5 to version 30~32 alongside Opera (with the Presto engine), after that I switched to Palemoon since it had a pretty stable UI. A few versions later, before Quantum release, Palemoon felt really slow and webpages broke way too much for my taste. So I switched back to Firefox.
I got used to addons like Classic Theme Restorer only to be broken a few months later with the Quantum release and the addon apocalypse. I tried to stick with it for quite a while but it was quite tiresome to update CSS files every new release of the browser to keep the looks consistent.
Also, things like Google Docs/Spreadsheets, Office 365, JIRA really felt slow in Firefox... So I discovered Vivaldi, which has a lot of customization settings available and after giving it a few months trial I switched to it. And I've been quite happy with it, personally it's the best browser I ever used since good old Opera Presto, it's fast enough, clean and easy to customize. Heck, it even has CSS support and they manage to not break it with every new release.
Constant invasive changes (Pocket, Hello, Mr Robot advertisements, etc. pp.) coupled with performance issues (freezes for a single frame every second on Linux, on top of hardware acceleration issues) and lack of support by video chat softwares (can't get around that during a pandemic) forced me back to Chrome.
And honestly, I don't see why I should go back as long as the first issue isn't addressed by significant leadership changes. Mozilla has repeatedly demonstrated their willingness to trample my privacy, why should I ever trust them again?
And honestly, I don't see why I should go back as long as the first issue isn't addressed by significant leadership changes. Mozilla has repeatedly demonstrated their willingness to trample my privacy, why should I ever trust them again?
For me it was performance on my mac (esp. YouTube) and having to constantly switch browsers to use some specific sites I need that don't work on Firefox.
Can anyone confirm if scribens.com works reliably for you on Firefox ? 5/10 the page goes unreponsible and have to nuke it. Dunno
It does on Firefox mobile with ad blocking on.
no. i mean the desktop crashes on me 5/10 times
I cannot even load my personal homepage from local file for the new tab . Can this stupidity be fixed ? It loads local homepage for the first tab, but doesn't load it for the next ... if that is not stupidity then what is?
I mean really, browser that cannot load homepage is not functioning in my opinion, and nobody cares?
If they can't fix even such a basic thing what else can we expect from those people? What goes in their heads is beyond me.
I mean really, browser that cannot load homepage is not functioning in my opinion, and nobody cares?
If they can't fix even such a basic thing what else can we expect from those people? What goes in their heads is beyond me.
I say: let it go. We need to stop saying that it's the only alternative to Chromium and thus we must not lose it, because users would not have a choice. Users have already chosen and Firefox is out.
In a post-Firefox future we might have bigger Chromium forks and new choices for the user.
In a post-Firefox future we might have bigger Chromium forks and new choices for the user.
All Firefox needs to do for me to use it, is be the best browser.
I know it has a userbase that rounds to 0, but Firefox really should look at some of the more innovative up-and-coming browsers like Brave. There are much worse plans than throwing a whole bunch of technologies at the wall and seeing what sticks.
Copying Chrome is a safe strategy that just doesn't seem to be working.
Copying Chrome is a safe strategy that just doesn't seem to be working.
> Copying Chrome is a safe strategy that just doesn't seem to be working.
> more innovative up-and-coming browsers like Brave.
Copying Chrome is not a good plan, but copying a browser that engages in shady tactics, referral link hijacking, cryptocoin bullshit and... is a copy of Chrome... is instead your suggestion?
> more innovative up-and-coming browsers like Brave.
Copying Chrome is not a good plan, but copying a browser that engages in shady tactics, referral link hijacking, cryptocoin bullshit and... is a copy of Chrome... is instead your suggestion?
I'm just saying, one of those two has user numbers going in a better direction than the other.
The browser engine really isn't that important, if Blink is doing a better job then damn right we may as well all be using it. It is BSD/LGPL.
The "cryptocoin bullshit" is one of the biggest threats to Google's revenue I've seen this decade and closer to genuine innovation than anything I can recall Mozilla doing in the same timeframe. This is the difference between being and not being a beneficiary of Google money.
The browser engine really isn't that important, if Blink is doing a better job then damn right we may as well all be using it. It is BSD/LGPL.
The "cryptocoin bullshit" is one of the biggest threats to Google's revenue I've seen this decade and closer to genuine innovation than anything I can recall Mozilla doing in the same timeframe. This is the difference between being and not being a beneficiary of Google money.
what shady tactics is brave using?
2. Every time functionality works differently in Firefox, more companies drop Firefox support. At a prior job, we used datalist and FF seemingly implemented it differently than Chrome. At that point, we told the user that FF was no longer supported. If FF wants to win, they need to at least keep pace and not be a burden on developers.