I'll agree this is all true for power users but I think that catering to that small number of power users at the expense of having a faster, more stable, more secure browser earlier was a major mistake.
I loved Tab Mix Plus too and yes, there are some things you still can’t do in WebExtensions that you could do before. And that sucks. But I stopped using Firefox despite those options because it was so slow and unstable, especially on the Mac. By the time it got better, it was not only too late, but Chrome had extensions.
Catering to the loyalists is what killed Firefox. What’s more important to normal users is speed, not Tab Mix Plus.
I guess the issue is a different view of what Firefox should be; I feel that many people would be satisfied if Firefox was just a small(ish) browser catering to power users. There's nothing wrong with that: power users are users too (and there are more of them than many seem to think), and I feel that many people are somewhat frustrated that all software seems designed with only my grandmother in mind. This is an issue that extends far beyond XUL by the way.
> if Firefox was just a small(ish) browser catering to power users. There's nothing wrong with that
Except that it couldn't work in today's world, as more and more web sites would stop working in Firefox. Firefox needs significant market share to survive with an independent browser engine. Having an independent engine is key to achieving Mozilla's mission: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/mission/
You can build a browser focused on power users if you don't need to worry about the engine. Perhaps you want to take a look at Vivaldi?
When you have a browser that is USED by programmers, the programmers will know that their own site is bad. Problems started when it stopped being a browser for programmers and power users.
They were the ones marketing it. Mozilla cut the branch on which they were sitting and is now shocked that they lose maretshare.
> I feel that many people would be satisfied if Firefox was just a small(ish) browser catering to power users.
There's no way to do that in today's environment. Browser development is extremely expensive (there's only 3 companies in the world developing competitive browser engines) so you need money. For Firefox, the only way to get serious cash is to have serious marketshare.
And in reality there isn't that many "power users". I mean, even a lot of developers (like me) use barely any extensions and in any case prefer more speed than more extensibility.
Browser development is not that expensive. Developing of Web-Engines is the dark part that sucks all the money.
> For Firefox, the only way to get serious cash is to have serious marketshare.
Not true. That's only valid if your single income is marketshare-based. Mozilla for some unknown reasons hasn't made any serious attempts in the last 15+ years to get any alternative income, instead it was satisfied with being feeding on google and yahoo, while wasting money on some obvious dead projects.
> Browser development is not that expensive. Developing of Web-Engines is the dark part that sucks all the money.
Of course, but then there's enough Chromium skins, no?
Without independent browser engine you have no clout in defining and ratifying standard (as MS recently found out) which means giving Google full control.
> Mozilla for some unknown reasons hasn't made any serious attempts in the last 15+ years to get any alternative income, instead it was satisfied with being feeding on google and yahoo, while wasting money on some obvious dead projects.
They had some feeble attempts which largely failed.
Mozilla's main expertise is still browser technology based and it is probably difficult to monetize it.
> Most of them are more than skins. A browser is the interface and whole workflow, not just the way the website is displayed.
The user interface is just minor part of the browser.
Mozilla's mission is to "free the web". Something like that can't be done with slightly sleeker UI on top of monopolistic rendering engine. You need to have an influence on all levels.
> as MS recently found out
I've read it this week in some interview with the FF developers that ever since MS gave up on homegrown Edge engine and adopted Chromium/Blink their voice on the standards committee is weak and lacks clout.
No wonder. It's google who keeps strict control over chromium/blink. MS can discuss, propose, even send PRs, but it's google who will decide what gets in and what doesn't.
> They had no SERIOUS attempt. Well until now at least. They did some half-assed with pocket and now VPN-reselling, but never touched real business.
Well yeah. But it just sounds a bit simplistic to say "just earn that $500 million profits somewhere so you can sponsor your side project Firefox".
> Mozilla's mission is to "free the web". Something like that can't be done with slightly sleeker UI on top of monopolistic rendering engine. You need to have an influence on all levels.
That depends on behaviour.
> I've read it this week in some interview with the FF developers that ever since MS gave up on homegrown Edge engine and adopted Chromium/Blink their voice on the standards committee is weak and lacks clout.
As if they had much to say before...
But that's the point, your influence depends on what you do and who is backing you. Chrome-Edge is just too small and Microsoft is not doing much to build their influence at the moment.
> Well yeah. But it just sounds a bit simplistic to say "just earn that $500 million profits somewhere so you can sponsor your side project Firefox".
If you have a budget of some hundred million dollars and a very big and enthuastic community, then it's very easy to make money. Even having enough money at all can make you money, though this might be ruled out for Mozilla because of their legal status.
> If you have a budget of some hundred million dollars and a very big and enthuastic community, then it's very easy to make money. Even having enough money at all can make you money, though this might be ruled out for Mozilla because of their legal status.
Do you have ideas that can help Mozilla make money? Preferably without abandoning Firefox on the way?
Plenty have been voiced over the last decade. The problem is that none of the observations are ever received in earnest. Particularly starting in the Kovacs years and onwards, MoCo folks have adopted a default stance that if you're not within the figurative walls of @mozilla.com, then there's something you just don't understand as well as the anointed ones do. Meanwhile, none of the moves that the better-knowers have made have ever panned out. And in any discussion that does occur, there are all sorts of rhetorical tricks and intellectually dishonest maneuvers that are brought out to shut the conversation down. The Corporation's insistence on its own competence at this point is a lot like the "I have people skills!" scene from Office Space, only it's not a comedy and just depressing.
There's the separate matter, which is that Mozilla's problem isn't even a lack of money. Mozilla has money (and will continue to have money for at least some time). Mozilla's problem is its profligate spending and that it has chosen for itself a set of decisionmakers with Netscape-levels of ineptitude who can't be avoided.
If course correction is even possible at this point—and it's probably not—then the question is, who are the Hewitts and Blake Rosses and Ben Goodgers in 2020? Has Mozilla leadership even fostered an environment where those types can thrive? (Spoiler alert: the answer is no.)
I'm not OP, (and people at Mozilla have probably already considered this), but why doesn't Mozilla try a far more aggressive Wikipedia-like donation campaign?
Admittedly:
1. Wikipedia has more "users" than Firefox.
2. Despite this, the donations Wikimedia receives are only about a fifth of Mozilla's budget.
However, people use their browser far more than they use any single website and hence might be more willing to donate more to Mozilla. (For example, I love Wikipedia, but I've gotten even more value from Firefox.)
Overall, this would be unlikely to cover all of Mozilla's expenses, but I'd also be surprised if donations (after such a campaign) would be less than 10% of current revenue; in any case it'd be a valuable source of diversification.
It's possible that the legal relation between the Foundation and the Corporation doesn't make this possible.
Encyclopedia Britannica[0] isn't free ("libre"), but it is now free (gratis). Arguably, being libre isn't quite as indispensable in the case of cultural/educational works as it is for software.
Doesn't the same also partially hold for Firefox and Chrome, though?
They wouldn't start charging for Chrome, as that's not their business model, but they might move part of their development out of (open source) Chromium and into (closed source) Chrome or further curtail extensions (e.g. adblockers) etc.
Google has done that with Android, moving more APIs and features from the open-source AOSP core to the closed-source Google Play Services library. Google can then control which Android partners get permission to ship Google Play Services for a full-featured Android experience.
As more browsers move to a Chromium base, Google might have a similar push to move more of Google's value-add out of the open-source Chromium core to the closed-source Chrome product.
No. Firefox vs Chrome is a completely different comparison than Wikipedia vs Encyclopedia Britannica.
The first two are browsers; software, the second two are stores of knowledge.
Browsers have been free for the longest time now, they are a commodity; the 'for pay' browser market died a long time ago. Possibly that was a mistake but that's where we are now and the parties that supply browers (Mozilla, Apple, Microsoft, Google to name the bulk) all try to win marketshare because they benefit from having more users. Putting up a barrier will automatically play into the hands of the opponents.
Wikipedia is a free and much larger alternative to EB, which historically was very expensive. If Wikipedia goes away there is no longer any incentive for EB to have a free tier, which is the one thing they can do to erode support for Wikipedia a little bit.
I'm not disagreeing that (in these scenarios) EB would probably become paid-for, while Chrome never would. I'm just arguing that Chrome would become even more privacy- and user-unfriendly, which is the approximate equivalent of EB putting up paywalls. (Is paying with your attention and privacy better or worse than paying directly with money?)
Apple would continue offering a relatively privacy-friendly alternative — but would require you to switch OS to use it; Microsoft might fork Chromium, but I fear that they'd only pay lip-service to privacy.
Obviously these analyses are complicated by the fact that in both cases the forces that helped create Wikipedia/Firefox wouldn't disappear. If Wikimedia died, then people would put up their Wikipedia dumps online in their own MediaWiki instances. If Mozilla died, then people would either try to keep Firefox alive or try to maintain a set of privacy patches on Chromium. How successful they'd be is another matter...
The original design goal of Firefox was to be a "90/10" browser (relative to the old Mozilla suite). e.g. 90% of the people only need 10% of the features. Catering to power users was never the goal of Firefox and they lost users to Chrome when they did. What people want is a browser that loads webpages quickly and doesn't use a lot of system resources doing so.
These "most people only use 10% of the features, so we can drop the rest" ideas are just soo stupid & can quickly kill otherwise good projects.
And it's not just about chasing away power users, who are about the only advocates and marketing you have. Its mainly about the 10% being different for every user, effectively covering the full feature matrix!
Yet that seems to be precisely who they're targeting.
The only benefit Firefox now has over Chrome is a vague political notion of not using Google-made software, something that there isn't enough call for in the real world to drive significant marketshare. Their real differentiation was sacrificed on the altar of ease of development, and now what we're left with is an also-ran, in multiple meanings of that term.
Worse, an also-ran that's doing increasingly arational things, almost as if they're wildly groping about for the mythical marketshare.
Well, perhaps not the only thing: Tree Style Tabs opens in a sidebar in Firefox (and with user CSS, can be made to auto-expand), while in Chrome it opens in a separate window.
Well, Mozilla included email, chat, and whatnot. Regardless of what the goals were, it did cater to power users and clearly many people don't want the direction Firefox went in.
> and clearly many people don't want the direction Firefox went in.
A majority? I doubt it. I think it’s an extremely vocal minority that don’t care about the slowness of their browser (pre-e10s, pre-quantum), about things breaking (XUL extensions) or about UI features for the broad masses.
I’d bet money that FF’s 25% in Germany would be far closer to US numbers if they stayed where those vocal people want them.
All I'm saying is that based on my observations people's views on what Firefox should or should not be are different, and that this explains why people are still "angry" about the extensions breaking and such. I'm not having an argument with anyone.
I still miss the old Opera, including the built-in email client I used. So yeah, I agree.
Honestly, Opera is one of the best pieces of software I've ever used. It had tons of features and customizability without being slow or feeling "bloated". I never quite understood why it failed to gain marketshare 10 years ago while Firefox did.
Strongly disagree - I think the reason Firefox market share is in a tailspin is because once they "rationalized" the codebase by getting rid of power features - there was no moat around them to keep even simple upstarts like Edge away. Programmers often make the mistake of classifying all complexity as cruft - when much of that are use cases accumulated over time that reflect your competitive advantage - one that any competitor has to overcome. The more Firefox streamlines the more they will cede ground to better funded alternatives.
Firefox’s market share started declining when Google ran huge ad campaigns for Chrome and made some of the most popular sites on the web promote Chrome and, in the case of YouTube, run better on it. Microsoft Edge didn’t affect Firefox much, and fared equally poorly against that juggernaut.
Any theory which talks about niche features without accounting for that push is unlikely to be right.
Marketing gives you leg up, but at the end of the day, a product's merits have to live up to it. Both IE and Safari had an even bigger advantage than marketing by being built-in to their respective platforms, and both have lost marketshare to Chrome.
I'll say pointblank I don't know what people see in Chrome, but they clearly see something in it. To me today, Safari, Firefox, and Chrome are essentially identical, which is a bad spot to be in for everyone except the market leader, because there's no incentive to switch.
UPDATE: There's a stronger case regarding Google sabotaging Firefox, but I don't think that accounts for the magnitude of the switch, here's a detail of the accusation[0]:
> A Mozilla Program Manager named Chris Peterson accused Google of making Youtube performance slower on the Firefox explorer in July 2018. Peterson alleged that Google was aware that both Firefox and Edge, Microsoft’s browser, were performing better with regard to loading the popular video sharing platform YouTube and decided to switch to a Javascript library which was incompatible with Firefox.
Google Chrome became the dominant browser around 2012, after being released in 2008. That's an astronomically fast takeover, if there were any shenanigans that accounted for it, they'd have to be quite aggressive (and therefore discussed more at that time).
Back in the day, Chrome was faster — almost as fast as Safari to launch and faster when executing heavy sites. When it took IE and Firefox longer to load, installing Chrome was something which had an immediate benefit and Google's heavy promotion of it meant that most people gave it a try.
These days, I agree that the main problem is that any modern browser is good enough that people don't feel a huge pressure to switch. I prefer Firefox's developer tools but that's not exactly a mainstream need. The most obvious angle would be something about ad blocking and privacy where Google has significant financial incentives not to follow but I' m not sure how much of an audience that could add up to and it will definitely get hostility if effective.
My grandmother used Tax Mix Plus several years ago. I personally found it a bit laborious, but she liked organising her reading. That was such a wonderful extension.
People on HN make the mistake of assuming that the mythical 'average' user will not use such features. And convincing them otherwise is so difficult. The folks who love your product will plumb every depth of it. Not everything needs to be dumbed down to the dirt.
If normal users cared about speed they can go and use Chrome. The framing in many of the comments here seems to be that there is 1 ideal that all web browsers should be working towards; and it is represented by Google Chrome. That isn't really the case, there are multiple interpretations. It is very annoying that Firefox chose the path of being Chrome-but-worse. All the people who want Chrome are using it - or chromium - and they don't need Firefox trying to implement the same thing but in red.
Firefox has lost substantial features over the years - Chatzilla for example was a great little add-on. It is quite a bold strategy to write a blog post saying "we stripped out a bunch of features, but trust me you didn't want them". Even if it is true there doesn't seem to be the level of regret here that is appropriate for trashing an ecosystem that has never recovered.
> I think that catering to that small number of power users at the expense of having a faster, more stable, more secure browser earlier was a major mistake.
Catering to power users is the only reason Firefox ever had market share in the first place! Normal users do not install their own browsers. Normal users do not care about their browser. They barely even know what a browser is, other than it's the thing they use to get on the Internet.
Every bit of Mozilla's original market share came from power users wanting a browser with more features and power than Internet Explorer. And once the power users fell in love with it, they evangelized it relentlessly to their friends and family. There were campaigns for power users to go install it on grandma's computer. This is the only way Firefox ever got on a normal user's computer. (This was also the only way Firefox got headway in enterprise environments, though it would have made a lot more if Mozilla had listened to power users and system admins and added the group policy and installation options they asked for.)
Chrome crushed Firefox because it was a decent, fast browser and because of the massive marketing budget. Chrome was and is pushed hard on the biggest web properties on the world - you get notifications on Google and YouTube if you use anything other than Chrome. Various other installers also installed Chrome, unless you unchecked a box. There were TV commercials. It was the default browser on Google platforms from phones to Chromebooks. That's why Chrome won.
When Firefox killed feature after feature that catered to power users, power users cared less and less about evangelization, and some of them switched to Chrome because Firefox was becoming increasingly Chrome-like, Chrome dev tools were evidently pretty good, and many people perceived Chrome to be faster. I still use Firefox, but I honestly don't see any reason to other than ideological reasons, which are becoming increasingly tenuous and not really a winning argument even for power users.
This is why Firefox usage will continue to decline. It doesn’t matter how much faster Firefox becomes. It doesn’t matter how much easier Firefox development gets. Mozilla alienated their core user base, they aren’t coming back, and normal users are never going to start installing niche browsers that aren’t pushed hard by multi billion dollar companies. Mozilla has no path forward. They’ve screwed up irrevocably and the best they can hope for is to manage the decline and cling to their remaining user base. Unfortunately, it doesn’t look like they’re going to be able to manage even that.
I loved Tab Mix Plus too and yes, there are some things you still can’t do in WebExtensions that you could do before. And that sucks. But I stopped using Firefox despite those options because it was so slow and unstable, especially on the Mac. By the time it got better, it was not only too late, but Chrome had extensions.
Catering to the loyalists is what killed Firefox. What’s more important to normal users is speed, not Tab Mix Plus.