this post was submitted on 18 Jun 2026
231 points (92.9% liked)

Technology

85670 readers
3961 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 151 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (57 children)

If I was Mozilla’s CEO, I dunno what I’d do.

It doesn’t matter what Firefox implements; Google can spam instant “switch to Chrome” links in front of most of the world’s eyeballs. User couldn’t care less about privacy and adblocking performance, apparently. This isn’t Microsoft, and Mozilla is literally funded by Google as a token effort, so they can’t outdevelop Chrome nor attack it.

What are they supposed to do?

[–] doeknius_gloek@discuss.tchncs.de 213 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (21 children)

There was a blog post not too long ago, where an Ex-Mozilla engineer shared his thoughts on exactly this topic. The tldr was something like

"Don't try to be like the other browsers, chasing daily active users. Get back in touch with your userbase and understand why they choose Firefox every day instead of just mindlessly picking one of the larger browsers like the majority of users. Then build a browser for these users, instead of pushing them away by doing what the other browsers (which they actively try to avoid) do."

I share this sentiment, but it won't make the money people happy, so I don't think it'll happen.

EDIT: Found the post: https://blog.unitedheroes.net/5751

[–] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 33 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (18 children)

I dispute this as well:


“Don’t try to be like the other browsers, chasing daily active users. Get back in touch with your userbase and understand why they choose Firefox every day instead of just mindlessly picking one of the larger browsers like the majority of users. Then build a browser for these users, instead of pushing them away by doing what the other browsers (which they actively try to avoid) do.”

This is a nice sentiment.

But these aren’t the Internet Explorer days.

A browser engine with less than 1% market share isn’t going to be supported by web developers, and then everything about its development becomes an uphill battle. Major sites won’t work, and they can’t afford to fixe them all on an ad hoc basis. And again, it’s not like the IE days where the “default” browser is so unbelievably dysfunctional, the OS was more open, and the user base was a bit more technical.

I’d argue one of Firefox’s most important functions (alongside Safari) is to stop Chrome from becoming the de facto web standard, instead of the HTML spec.

And it’s been repeatedly demonstrated that “these users” the quote describes is an exceedingly small base. It’s reasonable for Firefox to want to expand that, instead of catering to an ever shrinking pie.

I do partially agree: Mozilla needs to touch some grass. They need to get sane. But there is no “option to pick” presented to most of the world. And if Mozilla caters to the same oldschool Internet users like they always have, Firefox will die.

I don’t have a good solution. I’m just arguing that sentiment is applicable to an era we are no longer in.


but it won’t make the money people happy

Aka pay the Firefox devs.

I understand Mozilla wastes a lot of income, but still. This isn’t a hobbyist piece of software, it’s an expensive, labor intense project that needs constant professional attention.

The income part isn’t trivial, unless they find some alternative source of funding (like the Ladybird project apparently has).

[–] T156@lemmy.world 6 points 5 days ago (1 children)

You basically see it with some sites now, where you're just told "use chrome if you have any issues", and then it reflects badly on firefox, because a casual user might just think it's the fault of the browser that it's poorly made and doesn't work properly.

For the websites, it's not worth writing around browser-specific quirks, when the vast majority use a chrome-based browser.

[–] greybeard@feddit.online 7 points 4 days ago

Linux has always had that problem. "Linux doesn't support any games!" or "Linux can't run Photoshop". That's the way it is always phrased and seen (and was much worse before Proton came along). Not "The devs didn't bother supporting Linux" or "Adobe sucks".

load more comments (16 replies)
load more comments (18 replies)
load more comments (53 replies)