Their browser is fine. But so is Chrome, and Chrome wins by default because it's installed by default on Android and Android really pushes you to it. Once you're using Chrome on Android and have all your passwords saved there, Firefox is a difficult sell.
I can't think of a single Firefox feature that's better than "I don't have to faff around with passwords". Maybe if they allowed adblock on mobile, but last I checked they were fannying around requiring nightly builds and whitelisting extensions...
I agree with your logic but I think the facts lead to the opposite conclusion, because uBlock Origin is now both easy and painless to use with Firefox on Android. That's why every Android user should now have Firefox installed. And if you're using Firefox on Android, why not use it on desktop too with Firefox Sync? I don't actually know how good the Firefox password manager is (I use 1Password) but it's on both desktop and mobile, just like Chrome's is. And it's really nice to send tabs back and forth from mobile to desktop.
Ah I didn't know they've finally done that. I'll have to give it another try. If the password manager works well (e.g. with apps) and I can make the app drawer search open in Firefox then I'll probably switch.
Curious about you mean here. On my android phone the "search for more apps" link in the app drawer search goes to the Play Store app. Why would you want it to open a browser?
After investigation it's actually a feature of the Pixel launcher. In the app drawer there's a search bar that searches apps and the web. It opens search results in the "Google" app, and when you click one by default it uses Chrome.
I found you can make it use Firefox by disabling the setting "Open web pages in the app".
IIRC Firefox still doesn't have their Site Isolation (Fission, currently marked as P3 aka Backlog on Bugzilla) ready, which is the reason I don't use it on Android.
If you're one of the ~72% using Android and you're one of the ~43% who install an extension of any type and if you're the ~20% that choose to have uBlock origin installed when you do then you're one of the ~6% for whom this is but a single reason to consider one browser over another for all of your devices.
I love uBO, you love uBO, most of HN loves uBO, actual users either don't care enough or prefer built-ins like Brave over manual customizations and extensions. When specifically discussing mobile users who care about ad blocking also consider many prefer whole phone solutions rather than managing per app solutions, even if it means slightly worse ad blocking in certain apps.
Also remember Firefox let those specific Android users rot on the old, poor performing, and battery eating engine for 2 years longer than the desktop version. Then when they did update only some of the users who picked Firefox for extensions had support. To this day it still hasn't had basic TLC like site isolation implemented. I.e. most Android users who were willing to give Firefox a run already had a bad experience anyways, even if they did care about uBO specifically.
Firefox loses, because they are doing barely anything to be better than chrome. Brave, Opera, Vivaldi, they all build and sell their own unique identity and seem to be successful enough with it. But Firefox? Basically just exists. Something about privacy and not being the big kraken, but so are all other now too. In the meanwhile Mozilla is just continuing wasting money on pointless projects which do nothing to solidify their cash cows future, while adding nothing of worth.
Yes, the default Browser wins (which BTW is not always Chrome), and Mozilla does not put up a fight to change it.
To me, firefox is a much easier sell on mobile. I use it religiously on mobile because of ad blocking, while on desktop I switch between Chrome, Firefox, Edge and Opera without feeling too much of a difference
> Maybe if they allowed adblock on mobile, but last I checked they were fannying around requiring nightly builds and whitelisting extensions...
uBlock origin has been one of the allowed extensions for years. As far as I know it's the only browser allowing extensions on phones. It's a shame the allowed extensions is limited compared to desktop but I use uBlock everywhere anyway. What adblocker are you trying to install?
You shouldn't use your browser as your password manager, sometimes you might need them in another context and that creates friction.
> As far as I know it's the only browser allowing extensions on phones
In iOS, Orion browser allows both chrome and firefox extensions. Not all of them actually work, but ub:o does. Prob the only way to run ub:o on an iphone.
Their android browser is kind of terrible. It's significantly more sluggish than chrome, bordering on unusable on some websites. Maybe there's a state of the art flagship phone out there somewhere that can run firefox android and see it perform well, but I've sure never seen it run well.
I have used ff on android with ublock for 5 years on an s20. It has been superb for me. The only complaint from me is that the bookmark page as "tile" doesnt work.
on mobile I would not know. On Desktop I want and need 'full-screen-api.ignore-widgets'. I want my full screen to match the browsers window instead of taking my monitor.
In my opinion, the browser has been much better since 2017/2018. Have you used it in the last few years? Complaints about Firefox aside, the Manifest V3/uBlock Origin issue should be a major concern for tech-savvy Chromium-based browser users.
I was a hardcore Firefox user for many years. Today, Chrome just blows it away. Platforms are Android and Gnome Desktop.
I tried Firefox again about once a year, up until about 2022, and left disappointed again each time. Rust was important. Servo too. I'm not just hopping on the 'Mozilla blows money' train for no reason, I'm sad to see the browser languish while they blow money on things that don't matter. This doesn't matter.
I use Brave now, which has a whole host of haters, some for good reason. But it blocks ads and runs circles around Firefox on every platform that I use.
As a person who never used Chrome in a capacity to replace Firefox (I just refused to give up), I'll just share this [0].
As I understand, no amount of words can convince you because I neither know what your standards are, nor I have the right words to convince you to try Firefox again. So, you have to give it a try and see it for yourself.
As a matter of principle, I'd never use a browser which is funded by an advertisement company which lives off my data to show me ads and rob me of my privacy and cognitive capacity.
In my book, Brave is even worse on that matter.
Edit: To clarify: I still have Chrome installed for the odd, unmaintained site which happens to require something Chrome specific, but I just don't open it, since Firefox works for everything and works very well.
The problem is, benchmarks are never a fair game. It's the nature of the benchmark as a genre. You can always bias a benchmark towards some code path to show that you're superior.
Also, there are other factors to consider:
- Some of the benchmarks are "lower is better", so reading Y axis is important.
- Some results are very close (e.g. speedometer), but the zoom makes difference bigger, so reading the Y numbers again is important.
So, Firefox beats Chrome on WebAudio, StyleBench, AssortedDOM. However, this is still "benchmarks", The real world performance is very, very close.
The bigger picture is, when you look at longer histories, the performance is still being tuned and improved. So, Firefox people are not sitting on what they have.
Lastly, Firefox is way more sensitive to DNS response time when compared to Chrome, and a crowded site makes tons of requests. A fast DNS makes a ton of difference, which is way overlooked.
I used to run a DNSMasq instance when my ISP DNS was very slow. Now, my routers have their own tuned DNSMasq instances, so DNS is instant, so Firefox is as well.
> As a matter of principle, I'd never use a browser which is funded by an advertisement company which lives off my data to show me ads and rob me of my privacy and cognitive capacity.
Sure I do think we need to be pragmatic which is why I was questioning your original principle, but you don’t seem willing to abide by your stated principle at all. I’m just not sure why you said it if you have no intention to stand behind it
Just tell me a viable alternative. I'll migrate to it.
- Not funded by an advertising company / data broker, etc.
- Not chromium based.
- Not a Firefox fork.
- Works on Linux & MacOS natively.
- Daily-driveable (i.e. functionally equivalent with Firefox).
There isn't one, which was my point. By your originally stated principle, you are screwed, but now you seem to be just pretending you never stated that principle. I can quote it again if you like:
> As a matter of principle, I'd never use a browser which is funded by an advertisement company which lives off my data to show me ads and rob me of my privacy and cognitive capacity.
That is what YOU said. All you've been doing is against your own quote. I think the quote is stupid, for the reasons you pointed out. I'm just trying to show you that you're the one who said it, but you seem to be totally unwilling to admit that you did, even though it is clearly publicly there
Still upcoming (already in Nightly), but I'm very excited about vertical tabs, tab grouping, and a better profile UI. And proper uBlock Origin support is table stakes for me.
Better does not mean good. Quantum indeed fixed many of their old performance-problems, but at the same time they lost so many in terms of ability, and performance still feels second rate compared to Chrome. But to be fair, this also depends on what you do with them. And yes, I do use them both.
Firefox is genuinely fine, great even, I've used it for years and have no complaints.
But you notice in all these threads, everyone who theoretically ought to use Firefox comes up with their own little list of nitpicks that justify them not using it.
"I can't use it because I was disgusted when they dropped feature x"
"I won't use it because they spent their money on feature y instead of just doing z"
Meanwhile Chrome doesn't give a fuck what you think and does whatever it wants and people keep using it regardless.
Firefox is doomed to be left with the niche audience of people who ignore the 95% of what it does right to focus on the 5% that it does wrong.
You're right in a way. The problem is that Mozilla seems unwilling to accept that that's their audience, so they keep trying to appeal to the 95%. If they would just double down on the "power user" audience they could make a killer browser. But instead they alienate those nitpicky users with pointless UI changes, breaking extensions, and so on.
Ignoring 95% of a uniform market to target the 5% of users who all have niche and conflicting preferences is a ridiculous strategy for stability, growth, and profitability.
I don't think there's any real future in catering to the most demanding users, most of which are completely unwilling to actually pay for a power user browser.
People just like to justify their choices. Whether it Windows or Chrome they will shout from the rooftops about how the open source/privacy respecting thing doesn't do X, but then totally absolve the massive company for doing another anti-consumer/anti-privacy thing. The conclusion is that privacy and software freedom are just not important to the majority of people.
> Meanwhile Chrome doesn't give a fuck what you think and does whatever it wants and people keep using it regardless.
As a Firefox user since 2002 who has never switched away, this part of the situation feels insane. People nitpick over Mozilla and decide they'd rather be steamrolled by Google. What?
It could have been nice to see the Rust rewrites finished instead of shelved due to costs. AI is very expensive so if they have the money for this, they could've probably started that up again. Firefox is generally good feature wise but Google gets to almost usurp the W3C because pretty much every other browser is using the Chromium codebase over Mozilla's.
It was sold as supporting a much more concurrent rendering engine, which they felt was basically too hard to write correctly/safely in C++, but presumably would be considerably faster.
My interest in a rust web engine is absolutely memory safety, because it's a fun game at work to post the "RCE o' the week" seemingly caused from exposing literally millions of lines of C++ to the wild Internet https://chromereleases.googleblog.com/search/label/Stable%20...
