Ask Slashdot: Why Is Firefox Losing Users? (itsfoss.com) 408
This weekend finds some long-time Slashdot readers debating why research shows Firefox losing market share. Long-time Slashdot reader chiguy shares one theory: "Firefox keeps losing users, according to this rant, because it arrogantly refuses to listen to its users."
Slashdot reader BAReFO0t countered that that can't be the reason, "because Google does that too." (They blame Chrome's "feature" addition treadmill, where "they keep adding stupid kitchen sinks for the sole and only purpose to make others unable to keep up.")
Long-time Slashdot reader Z00L00K thinks that "All those totally unnecessary UI changes are what REALLY annoys users. Not only the immediately visible things in the header but also the renaming of items in the menus just bugs people." But long-time Slashdot reader AmiMoJo argues that "the most popular browser, Chrome, has all those things. In fact all the browsers that are more popular than Firefox do, so the idea that those are unpopular and driving people away doesn't really hold up... Firefox's decline is mostly due to Chrome just being really good, and [Firefox] not having a decent mobile version."
I'm still a loyal Firefox user. (Although the thing that annoyed me was when Firefox suddenly changed the keyboard shortcut for copying a link from CNTRL-A to CNTRL-L.) The "rant" at ItsFoss argues that Firefox's original sin was in 2009 when it decided to move tabs to the top of the browser, and when favorite features could no longer be re-enabled in Firefox's about:config file. But that's what I like about Firefox -- at it's best, it's ultimately customizable, with any feature you want easily enabled in what's essentially an incredibly detailed "preferences" menu. Maybe other browsers are just better at attracting new users through purely mechanical advantages like default placement on popular systems?
Long-time Slashdot reader zenlessyank is also a long-time Firefox user -- "Been using it since Netscape" -- and countered all the doubters with a comment headlined "Firefox rocks!"
"Doesn't matter to me how many other users there are or aren't I will still use it as long as it stays updated."
But what are your thoughts? Feel free to share your own opinions and experiences with Firefox in the comments.
Slashdot reader BAReFO0t countered that that can't be the reason, "because Google does that too." (They blame Chrome's "feature" addition treadmill, where "they keep adding stupid kitchen sinks for the sole and only purpose to make others unable to keep up.")
Long-time Slashdot reader Z00L00K thinks that "All those totally unnecessary UI changes are what REALLY annoys users. Not only the immediately visible things in the header but also the renaming of items in the menus just bugs people." But long-time Slashdot reader AmiMoJo argues that "the most popular browser, Chrome, has all those things. In fact all the browsers that are more popular than Firefox do, so the idea that those are unpopular and driving people away doesn't really hold up... Firefox's decline is mostly due to Chrome just being really good, and [Firefox] not having a decent mobile version."
I'm still a loyal Firefox user. (Although the thing that annoyed me was when Firefox suddenly changed the keyboard shortcut for copying a link from CNTRL-A to CNTRL-L.) The "rant" at ItsFoss argues that Firefox's original sin was in 2009 when it decided to move tabs to the top of the browser, and when favorite features could no longer be re-enabled in Firefox's about:config file. But that's what I like about Firefox -- at it's best, it's ultimately customizable, with any feature you want easily enabled in what's essentially an incredibly detailed "preferences" menu. Maybe other browsers are just better at attracting new users through purely mechanical advantages like default placement on popular systems?
Long-time Slashdot reader zenlessyank is also a long-time Firefox user -- "Been using it since Netscape" -- and countered all the doubters with a comment headlined "Firefox rocks!"
"Doesn't matter to me how many other users there are or aren't I will still use it as long as it stays updated."
But what are your thoughts? Feel free to share your own opinions and experiences with Firefox in the comments.
Longtime user here (Score:4, Informative)
Longtime user here, since NutScrape 4.0 on slack 3.
All of the above are correct. For instance FreeBSD has long term stable "extended support" versions of FF in their ports. Why the hell isn't Firefox themselves doing this ???
Re:Longtime user here (Score:5, Informative)
Firefox literally has an extended support version available for download [mozilla.org]. Why didn't you use Google before commenting?
Re:Longtime user here (Score:4, Interesting)
The ESR version is totally completely useless and fucked. It contains the same drivel changes as the "great unwashed" version of FIrefox. Not to mention that you cannot switch from a fucked-up version of Firefox to the ESR version without reformatting the computer, re-installing the Operating System,, and reconfiguring Firefox ESR from the get-go.
This might be useful if you could simply install the ESR version and it would work, but you cannot do that.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, as if what you want is what everyone wants.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, NutScrape. Back when the choice was between painfully clunky and bloated, or ending up with over 9000 involuntarily installed toolbars.
Firefox needs a better financial model (Score:2)
Parent deserves FP. (I don't reject your "longtime" Subject, but I want to shift the focus. I, too, am a longtime user of Firefox, but these days it is mostly because the alternatives are controlled by corporate cancers or have even worse management than Firefox.)
My answer is because the financial model is wrong. When you are driven by big donors, you (1) want to show big results and (2) the big donors tend to call the shots, including some bad shots.
My alternative financial model would be cost-recovery dri
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Bull. Shit.
Firefox-devs are constantly removing features and customizability, removing settings from about:config that people have been using for years and not giving or even planning to give anything as a replacement. They are deliberately dumbing the browser down further and further and it'll probably end up eventually becoming completely unuseable because of this.
I'm only using Firefox because there's nothing better, but the devs' attitude of not listening to anything and removing of features and configurability pisses me off endlessly.
without Firefox, with all its faults, what is there left apart from the Chrome monoculture?
Re:"at it's best, it's ultimately customizable" (Score:5, Insightful)
without Firefox, with all its faults, what is there left apart from the Chrome monoculture?
Nothing. That's why Firefox must live and thrive. That's why it's so infuriating to see Mozilla fuck it up so much that firefox barely survive thanks to google's pity.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That's because there's no freedom actually offered. The argument is propagandist warping of reality, where reality is the exact opposite.
Take for example their much sold "Quantum upgrade". What did they change? They removed XUL, which allowed for freedom to customize your browser to your near exact preferences. And instead gave us Chrome-lite addon system.
Today, firefox offer less "freedom" than many chromium derivative browsers. Those of us who were after freedom left firefox long ago.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You make it sound like there was no upside. By ditching XUL and moving to a proper add-on API that is now a cross browser standard they massively improved performance. Multi-process sandboxing and performance was impossible before they did that.
Try PaleMoon. It's unusably slow on my machines.
Re: (Score:2)
without Firefox, with all its faults, what is there left apart from the Chrome monoculture?
Safari, but that's only an option for Mac and iOS users.
Re:"at it's best, it's ultimately customizable" (Score:4)
Waterfox, Palemoon, Chromium,...
Re: (Score:2)
I tend to prefer lynx and curl at this point.
Re:"at it's best, it's ultimately customizable" (Score:5, Interesting)
Firefox-devs are constantly removing features and customizability, removing settings from about:config that people have been using for years and not giving or even planning to give anything as a replacement. They are deliberately dumbing the browser down further and further and it'll probably end up eventually becoming completely unuseable because of this.
Bingo! It's quite clear to those of us who have been using Firefox since before it was Firefox (Phoenix), that the number of customizable settings has significantly declined. One can compare more recent versions with one another to see what's been removed. Go get a copy of a pre-proton version and compare it to the most recent version. The pre-proton has significantly more options in the menus to choose from and more granularity. Now, it's essentially all or nothing. Even something as simple as whether to check for updates has been neutered. The option to never check has been removed. At best, you can say check, but ask, which means being harassed throughout the day with an annoying notice.
One other issue, not that significant, is Firefox requires one to be an administrator to install it. Chrome, being spyware, does not.
Regardless, the folks at Mozilla have been going down the Microsoft path for a long time: each iteration removes functionality from the end user.
Re: (Score:3)
Firefox requires one to be an administrator to install it.
I installed Firefox on a Windows system on which I didn't have Admin rights; it installed everything somewhere under my AppData folder. That was a few years ago, and I don't remember the version, so things may be different now, but it worked just fine then. Don't know if that would work on Linux.
Re: (Score:2)
Because those features were an unmaintainable mess of incompatibilities and odd configurations that made improving the browser nearly impossible.
Maybe you should get together with all the other people here who liked the old Firefox and just pay someone to develop it for you. Or just donate to PaleMoon.
Have a look at Waterfox too. It's based on modern Firefox but does have some tweaks you may like, like tabs under the address bar. Personally I prefer them above, but whatever floats your boat.
Re:"at it's best, it's ultimately customizable" (Score:4, Insightful)
Because those features were an unmaintainable mess of incompatibilities and odd configurations that made improving the browser nearly impossible.
Well, the end result is that either:
a) Firefox offers nothing better than Chrome and its derivatives, so there's no specific reason to prefer it.
This point hasn't been reached yet, there still are add-ons for Firefox that Chrome doesn't offer (and vice-versa, but I prefer the Firefox-exclusive ones), but as Mozilla removes more and more features that positively distinguish it from Chrome, the less reason anyone has to switch from Chrome.
Case in point, at work I stopped installing and configuring Firefox, and now instead configure Edge. Works as well as standard Chrome, has more Microsoft (which is bad) but has much less Google (which is excellent), is mostly maintenance-free, and, differently from Firefox, doesn't break things every few months.
b) Or on occasion it offers something worse than Chrome.
This has happened to me on mobile multiple times. First it removed my ability to use add-ons I liked. Then removed usage of device-specific certificates and of accessing about:config to re-enable it, breaking AdGuard (which works flawlessly on all other mobile browsers). The instructed us who wanted to be able to use device-specific certificates to go with the beta version, which kept about:config accessible. Then kept breaking support for device-specific certificates every few betas, to the point one had to enter about:config and re-enable it every time the browser was opened. End result: I switched to DuckDuckGo's browser.
In short, I'll keep using Firefox on my own desktop for as long as my current Firefox-specific add-ons continue working. I'm more a user of those add-ons than I'm a Firefox user. If/when those add-ons break, off to Chromium-land I'll go.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly this. The reason Firefox is losing users is very obvious: they have reached the phase in software development were features and customisability start to disappear. And not long after, so do the users. Not much of a mystery.
They're not dumbing the browser down (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The reason they're pulling features out is they don't have the resources to support them anymore.
They have the resources. They just choose to squander those resources on "new features" and other changes that no one asked for or wanted.
Re:"at it's best, it's ultimately customizable" (Score:4, Interesting)
And yet people have flocked to Chrome. There is no rational explanation for this
Not looking hard enough.
There are other qualities than customising that matter to many, even if they might not to you.
For me the biggies are:
* Solid versions for all the platforms I use, including my android mobile
* Smooth replication of bookmarks and other settings between them all with no extra effort/config from me
* Brilliant developer features on desktop version
* No-effort sso with google mail, maps, docs, and keep, all of which I use extensively
I respect the criticisms against chrome, and Google in general, but for me the convenience and fit with my life trumps it all.
If your situation and/or priorities are different, that is fine.
"people are generally stupid"
People are generally not you.
Deal.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:UI changes (Score:5, Informative)
[... all the tab changes ...]
More to the point, I don't understand the reasoning behind the tab UI (and some other) changes. The floating/disconnected tabs visually convey less information because they're less distinct and not attached to the window. Maybe it's easier to implement or maintain, but who knows?
Or all the new extra (way too much, annoying) space in the menus now. WTF? Why isn't there *at least* a "density" setting that works for that. Obviously, "Normal" is cutting it -- maybe "Desktop", "Tablet", "Phone" instead? I've fixed that via the userChrome.css, but I shouldn't have to. My mouse isn't a finger.
Perhaps if Mozilla would explain why they want/need to do (or, let's face it, did) something it would help us out -- even if they won't listen to us complain about it.
Re:UI changes (Score:5, Informative)
I have to agree with you about the new tabs in Proton. Otherwise it's fine, but the lack of separator between tabs is just bizarre and a usability issue. Very strange.
Re:UI changes (Score:4)
Seconded. I am now regularly hesitant to close a tab by middle clicking it, because it has happened to me multiple times that I closed an inactive tab instead of the active one due to the difference being incredibly unclear.
So now when I want to close the active tab I use CTRL+W, which requires me to move my hand towards the keyboard. It is absolutely inexplicably awful.
Re:UI changes (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I stopped using the mobile Firefox when they changed the UI. The url bar was moved to the bottom, but when you typed into it, it moved to the top. Then when you hit enter, it moved to the bottom.
Don't worry, in the next release, the URL bar will be displayed in a random position every time you use it, even in the middle of a window -- like a Whack-a-Mole game. :-)
If I wanted Chrome, I would use Chrome. (Score:5, Insightful)
Firefox's changes have all been to make it more like Chrome. Romeving the window decorations, removing the menu bar, removing the toolbar, putting everything under the "hamburger" menu, "simplifying" everything, removing functionality that "only a small percentage of users use", causing every extension to have to be redeveloped in order to work more like Chrome (webextension plug-ins, removing UI modification ability of plugins / XUL), searches-from-URL-bar (including giving Google every mis-typed address!), removing FTP, and etc.
If I wanted Chrome, I would use chrome. And so, it seems, would a great many others. Firefox is trying to be Chrome, but there's already a better, shinier version of Chrome: so people are using that instead of FireChrome.
I can't remember specifics since I haven't used Firefox in years, but it seems like there's also been a lot of bloat added, where the original intent of Firefox was to be extremely lean and fast: because the original Netscape became a bloat-show. So, Mozilla just shirked all the original reasons anyone ever had for using Firefox.
Re: (Score:3)
THIS! I use edge most of the time but kept firefox around as an alternative browser. When I got my new PC a few months ago, I really had no interest in installing firefox because the last few months of usage was it going to more and more like Chrome, which i don't use. I won't install Chrome because it's a google produce (I'll use their services but I don't want their code on my devices.
Firefox seems to be going out of their way to remove the differentiation they had, they are the opposite of everything
Re: (Score:3)
>"THIS! I use edge most of the time [] I won't install Chrome because it's a google produce (I'll use their services but I don't want their code on my devices."
I have news for you- if you are against Google having control over the web, using Edge is not helping much. Edge, like all other non-Firefox, multiplatform browsers, is Chromium with a different wrapper around it. Chromium is a project controlled completely by Google and with barely a token of input from the "community". No matter how many UI
Re: (Score:3)
if you are against Google having control over the web, using Edge is not helping much.
Not from the mono-culture point of view perhaps, but at least Edge tracking is de-googlified. You can argue it's been "microsoftized" instead, but IMO Google, whose main source of income is ads, is a much worse threat to my privacy than Microsoft.
While I'm still one of the (apparently microscopically few) Firefox users, in a pinch I'd go with Edge over Chrome every time.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a great point. Especially the UI changes, they still bug me and no I'm not getting used to them any more than I was the first day. I'd still want my old UI back.
Re:If I wanted Chrome, I would use Chrome. (Score:5, Insightful)
Firefox's changes have all been to make it more like Chrome./p>
If I wanted Chrome, I would use chrome.
People refuse to learn from the mistakes of the past. Making your product more like your competitors almost never works out.
In the mid 1980s Coca-Cola was losing market share to Pepsi, so they changed the formula to make it more like Pepsi and introduced "New Coke" which failed spectacularly because everyone said "If I want something that tastes like Pepsi, I'm buy Pepsi".
In the mid 90s IBM released a new version of OS/2, that could also run Windows programs. And just like New Coke, people said "If I want to run Windows program I'll just continue using Windows.
Re: (Score:2)
Firefox's changes have all been to make it more like Chrome.
If I wanted Chrome, I would use chrome. And so, it seems, would a great many others. Firefox is trying to be Chrome, but there's already a better, shinier version of Chrome: so people are using that instead of FireChrome.
Perhaps they're trying to make it look similar enough to Chrome (and now Edge) to lessen the learning curve and think they can then distinguish Firefox solely on the basis of privacy, operational customization, and other non-UI things to attract users, and there's some logic to that, but that assumes that Chrome's UI is the more desirable one -- for me, it's not. I'm also not a fan of the FF Desktop UI changes that seem to be more appropriate for tablet/phone use, like the new way-too-much space in menus
Re:If I wanted Chrome, I would use Chrome. (Score:5, Insightful)
That assumes that your users are stupid. If we make that assumption, then the users aren't intelligent enough to know about the privacy concerns, perform any customization, or deal with non-UI things at all. (In fact, they're removing most of their "non-UI" things because their telemetry suggests no one uses them -- telemetry that is probably turned off by the advanced users, concerned with privacy, that use those things.)
The reason Firefox is on its way out is probably because they alienated the advanced users who would always recommend Firefox to other users (me). As I don't use Firefox any more, because they removed all of the reasons I used to use it, I no longer recommend it to inexperienced users. They just use Chrome (because Goggle recommends it!)
So maybe the answer to the question is:
- bad management
- bad usage of invalid surveys
- alienating users
- minimizing users' concerns (the low-usage metrics being removed because "very few users use these things")
Actually, that last part. Where a small set of users use feature A, a different small set uses feature B, another small set uses feature C, and so on -- amounting to a _large_ number of users using little-used features -- Firefox rips out all of those features and alienates a large number of users. So by removing 100 features used by 0.5% of of the userbase each, they've now removed 50% of their userbase's features. That's been their argument all along: "So few users use this, so we're going to remove this. And this too. And this. This too." Now there's nothing left.
Re: (Score:3)
removing the menu bar,
Press 'Alt'.
You're welcome.
Because we don't know. (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact that we don't know the answer to this question IS the answer. Mozilla should already have a good grasp on why people are disatisfied. Where are the usability studies? Where's the AB testing? Marketing research on what their customers want? One of Mozilla's key weaknesses is that rather than research what the customer wants and needs, they just guess and do what they feel like.
Even worse, when questions are asked, they're asking the wrong people. Why ask people like us who are hard core IT people? We make up a very small percentage of Firefox's userbase, and there's no reason to believe that what we want is representative of what the broader community wants.
You see this as a weakness with a lot of open source products. It's not enough to be good at developing software. You have to be good at figuring out WHAT to develop, and how to pay attention to what your users want instead of what you want.
Re:Because we don't know. (Score:5, Insightful)
Between Edge being built into Windows, and Chrome being so heavily pushed by Google, if people are going to install Firefox, they need a reason to. Enter all the 'hard core IT people' in their lives who they generally look to with their computer questions. As long as the top level interface meets the 'easy to use' floor, and as long as every site just works, there's zero reason to keep stripping out features that power users like because that's not gaining you anything in non-technical users. Removing those features that you need to dig into the options or about:config or addons to take advantage of offers no benefit to non-technical people, while driving away power users, who might as well just use Chrome if Firefox is no better. With them goes the only force making a case for why people who really don't care should use Firefox.
Back in the day, my parents and a few friends used Firefox, because that's what I installed on their computer and told them to use, because of how great it was. Now I recommend Chrome, because I'm pissed off at Firefox, and Firefox no longer offers things Chrome doesn't (that anyone, technical or not, would care about, anyway). So by removing features I want, they didn't just lose me, they lost another dozen installs minimum. And for what gain? Non-technical users aren't out there clamoring for "Removing that option buried in about:config! Reduce addon capability!". That's not winning them new users.
(They haven't technically lost me yet, but more and more sites are refusing to load on Firefox 56 and once it becomes too inconvenient, I'm done, but what software I recommend or install for others did change years ago)
Re:Because we don't know. (Score:5, Informative)
>"Between Edge being built into Windows, and Chrome being so heavily pushed by Google, if people are going to install Firefox, they need a reason to. "
^^^ THIS. This is the reason for Chrom* taking over. Yes, there are people like us that are concerned about privacy, customization, open-standards, community involvement, etc. But we are GROSSLY outnumbered by the masses who have no idea about any of that and don't care. They use whatever is pushed onto them. Google harassed users FOR YEARS with nag banners on every one of their products to "use Chrome" "Download Chrome". And it is installed on bazillions of Android devices. And now Chrom* is the default browser in MS-Windows.
Mozilla can only fight back by being DIFFERENT. They already have parity in performance and security. So they need to tell users more about those remaining differences and why they are important- most notably:
1) Open standards, open community
2) More concern for privacy
3) More UI control and customization
They are still shooting themselves in the foot with #3. And the other thing that hurts them is quickly ruining the mobile (Android) browser by stripping it of even more features and control than even the desktop version of Firefox.
Re:Because we don't know. (Score:4, Insightful)
Even worse, when questions are asked, they're asking the wrong people. Why ask people like us who are hard core IT people?
I guarantee the hard core IT people weren't saying "take everything off the toolbar and put it in a single menu then replace it with pocket"
Re: (Score:3)
The fact that we don't know the answer to this question IS the answer. Mozilla should already have a good grasp on why people are disatisfied. Where are the usability studies? Where's the AB testing? Marketing research on what their customers want? One of Mozilla's key weaknesses is that rather than research what the customer wants and needs, they just guess and do what they feel like.
Actually, that's not true. Every time Mozilla removes a feature, every time they change something for no good reason , every time people complain about Firefox being ruined, Mozilla says that their research shows that nobody uses that feature so it's perfectly OK to change it or remove it.
Every. Fucking. Time.
Chrome was superior when introduced (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it's pretty simple. At the time it was introduced, Chrome was technically superior. It ran better than Firefox, taking advantage of multiple cores, had better crash protection, and looked shiny and modern. Anyone who wanted a non-Microsoft browser now had a great alternative.
A few years ago, with the introduction of Quantum, I think Firefox finally regained parity in performance, but at the same time, they abandoned their existing add-on infrastructure.
By this time, there was really nothing to recommend Firefox over Chrome except for some sort of ideological purity, and that was weak enough, since Chrome is also open source and available cross-platform. Firefox pretty much became irrelevant. The only people who are using it are probably like me, who never really stopped using it, mostly out of sheer inertia. It's unlikely I'd specifically choose Firefox as a new user today, because it really offers nothing substantial over Chrome.
Chrome had the advantage of a huge marketing push by a massive corporation, but that alone doesn't explain their success. It wasn't inevitable. Look at Google's inability to crack into the payment arena, or to build a chat/communications program worth a damn. But their browser was certainly superior when it was first released, and it maintained that lead for long enough to become entrenched.
Re: (Score:2)
For me you are right the main reason to use Firefox is ideology, google controls enough of the internet that I don't to control more. Once competitors like Firefox are gone google will simply turn chrome into more of an advertising platform.
I do notice however Firefox is much less likely to let web sites track you, but I don't think enough people care.
Re: (Score:3)
It's unlikely I'd specifically choose Firefox as a new user today, because it really offers nothing substantial over Chrome.
It still has the best privacy support and it's not made by people who want to sell my data. That's two big plusses.
Re:Chrome was superior when introduced (Score:5, Insightful)
At the time it was introduced, Chrome was technically superior
I think that's the real reason, and a point that I make really frequently: Reputation matters. Chrome developed a reputation for being faster and smaller than Firefox early on, and many people believe that it still is.
However, reputation has a way of becoming a myth. Firefox has been smaller (in its download, its installation/disk footprint, and its RAM footprint) than Chrome for a *long* time, and hasn't been slower than Chrome for a long time, either.
Firefox is a really good browser. I use Firefox personally, and Chrome on my work laptop where it's required. I *much* prefer Firefox, especially because its address bar makes it a lot easier to navigate by keyboard. Chrome seems to prioritize search engine-provided suggestions much too aggressively. Mozilla has made huge improvements to Firefox, but the technical work isn't translating to an improved reputation, and I'm not really sure what they can do in that area.
Re: (Score:2)
It's also the IE effect. Web Standards are great, but even within web standards there is going to be inconsistency in feature coverage and at least still small discrepancies between implementation. Web developers will always target the most common user as the true "Standard". Today, between Android, Chrome and Edge that's Chromium. Followed by Safari for the Apple ecosystem.
If anyone actually tests their website on Firefox it's going to be a secondary consideration and lower on the bug fix list. S
Re:Chrome was superior when introduced (Score:5, Informative)
>"A few years ago, with the introduction of Quantum, I think Firefox finally regained parity in performance"
They did
>"but at the same time, they abandoned their existing add-on infrastructure."
They had no choice. To advance performance, use multiple cores, and accomplish their goals, they had to break backwards-compatibility. And it wasn't long before all the important, major addons were available.
But where they failed was to restrict access to UI in the new addon API to the point that plugins could no longer restore some UI control many users expected. Thankfully there is still a way for much of it with projects like:
https://github.com/Aris-t2/Cus... [github.com]
>"By this time, there was really nothing to recommend Firefox over Chrome except for some sort of ideological purity"
And privacy, which is not ideological. Although it is less understood by many.
>"It's unlikely I'd specifically choose Firefox as a new user today, because it really offers nothing substantial over Chrome."
Privacy, and still more user control (in addition to openness and such). That should be enough for any geek. Although it will not be enough for the average user.
Mozilla, Like Some Firefox Fans.... (Score:5, Insightful)
And I use Firefox and Mozilla on desktop and have since the Navigator days. But Mozilla keeps making unnecessary changes. It doesn't matter what other browsers do, or how their users react. Firefox devs and Mozilla need to concentrate on their own user base, because if you piss them off they will leave. Not having stupid changes all the time is a feature in itself. If people wanted to use a browser that makes unexpected changes willynilly there are others out there. And if Firefox starts doing the same thing, well there is one thing that differentiates themselves, gone. There's nothing wrong with adding features, it's a good thing. But continuously removing things that people like, or rearranging the UI is annoying as fuck. Personally I hate the tabs being at the top, and one of the things I liked about Firefox was that it allowed me to move them to just above the window. Now I can't do that. I don't like it and now it's just all the other browsers. It's no wonder it bothers me less to use those other browsers if I find they have an addon that Firefox doesn't. And speaking of addons, Firefox has nerfed so many. I'll just summarize by saying Mozilla really doesn't seem to listen or care about the userbase. They have fallen into the developer mind trap of thinking the user exists to give the developers someone to tell how they should do their work and play; as opposed to being their to help the userbase do their work and play.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>"Personally I hate the tabs being at the top, and one of the things I liked about Firefox was that it allowed me to move them to just above the window. Now I can't do that."
Trust me, you can't hate tabs-on-top more than me. And yes, you can do tabs-on-bottom. But it does require installing some custom stuff (which does have to be updated sometimes):
https://github.com/Aris-t2/Cus... [github.com]
It is actually simpler than it looks. And you can do a LOT more than just moving the tab bar. If you haven't seen it bef
Competition doesn't suck (Score:2)
Firefox became dominant because the competition sucked so much that even normal users saw that firefox was a lot better. Firefox had and still has flaws, but ie was orders of magnitude worse.
Compare to today, chrome and edge are good, some would argue they are better than firefox. Point is, Firefox's only significant advantage is that it's free and more respectful of user privacy. Not many people care about that.
On the other hand chrome and edge have the unfair advantage of being pushed by 2 companies with
Firefox decline for me (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I've read Slash for over 20 years but never commented until now.
Wrong. You commented in 2007 and were modded down.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
>"So I donâ(TM)t use it anymore because I donâ(TM)t want to be associated with the values that it espouses so publicly. "
So instead you use Chrom* which is controlled by a company that supports all kinds of left-leaning stuff? I don't think companies or projects should take political stances. But let's not pretend that Google is any less political than Mozilla has been....
Proton whitespace (Score:2)
Instantly looked at other browsers when that was force enabled. Always preferred Netscape/Firefox because it tended to have good customization from plugins and whatnot. Now its going down the Chrome path of 'we know what the users want, here everyone do it the same way'.
Also didn't like the hypocritical removal of the Dissenter plugin from the extension library on the basis of how it could be used, which falls flat in the face of the fact that the browser itself is undoubtedly directly used for endless '
Here's my answer (Score:2)
Interesting counterarguments (Score:2)
"That can't be it, Chrome does that too!"
Precisely.
Firefox's userbase consists to a large part of people who explicitly do not want yet another Chrome clone. So guess whom you're pissing off when you make your browser yet another Chrome clone?
It ain't rocket science.
Yes (Score:5, Informative)
That's pretty much the only answer you can give, and I say that as I'm writing this post using Firefox. I go all the way back to Netscape 3 Gold on Windows 3.11, and used Firefox when it was still called Phoenix. So, IMO, it's been a culmination of different things.
The first was when they decided to get rid of XPI extensions. That was a major selling point for Firefox, where extensions like NoScript and Adblock could literally stop scripts from ever being loaded or ads being downloaded. It also meant awesome extensions like Tab Mix Plus were no longer possible. You also couldn't have skins that were fully transformational, and now it's basically limited to a background image. As I understand it, this was necessary to make Firefox multi-process, but it still stung. At that point, there was little to distinguish Firefox from Chrome except the UI.
Which brings us to the second point. The first time Firefox decided to "revamp" the UI they claimed that it was necessary to support future features and all that. It was also supposed to be a one-off. There's the usual bitching and moaning from people who are just adverse to change no matter what or where, and for the most part the "new" UI was pretty similar to the "old" UI. Then slowly they started abandoning the "necessary" features for the new UI like the tab candy stuff. So people were rightfully wondering why they needed this new UI when all these supposedly necessary new features were being discarded.
As the years pass, Mozilla keeps copying Google more and more on the UI front and the desktop UI also becomes more and more like a mobile app. Gone (by default) is the menu bar, replaced with the hamburger menu. There have been one or two major UI overhauls in that time as well, and every time Mozilla does a worse job explaining why the change is necessary.
That gets to point three. Early on Mozilla would post big long articles or spend a lot of time explaining to people about the changes they were making. They'd explain why they were necessary and what they hoped to gain as a result. As time has gone by they've done less and less of this until now it's basically unless you are a frequent visitor to sites like /. or use the preview builds of Firefox, a lot of these changes just sort of show up one day. Even if you're someone who frequents tech sites like this, you only get maybe an extra week or two to prepare. They should have spent a lot of time talking up their WebRender feature, which aims to deliver a consistent 60fps on every page, but I'd feel pretty comfortable betting that most users aren't even aware it exists.
Finally, there's just a sort of release fatigue. Ever since Mozilla adopted the "accelerated" release cycle of Chrome, it just gets to be a little overwhelming. More than that, you had to manually check and download updates until only just very recently, whereas Chrome would just silently update itself after you closed the browser and restarted it. The several years it took for Mozilla to release Firefox 4 was obviously too long, but now releasing a new version every four weeks is swinging the pendulum way too far in the opposite direction. Four weeks doesn't really give a lot of time for major new features to be implemented, so developers are always working on a moving target and then users, like me, who have a bunch of tabs open all the time have to deal with the hassle of closing the browser and restarting it, potentially losing something on one, or more, of those tabs.
Other minor contributing factors do include the fact that a former CEO of the org was contributing to a campaign to deny people rights based on their sexual orientation. Admittedly there was probably no good way to handle that, but it seems like Mozilla handled it about as badly as possible. Also the fact that Google has long been pushing Chrome on people when they go to any Google site. It will probably be worse now that Microsoft might again be making it more difficult to change default browsers and has been leveraging Windows to push Edge. Also, most of Mozilla's funding still comes from Google, so I'm sure they figure it's only a matter of time until Google cuts them off and they're just trying to prolong that date by not really going after Chrome the same way they did IE. Chrome also doesn't have the same issues with security that IE6 did, where for several years barely a week went by without there being some new serious exploit being discovered, and the fact that for several years Microsoft didn't bother making any improvements to IE6 after Netscape was dead.
It's not any one thing that's caused the sorry state of Mozilla as it is now, it's a culmination of many things, some large, some small.
Re: (Score:3)
I'd add the accelerated release schedule means it seems more unstable. I've noticed Firefox has a hard crash more frequently (and certainly more frequent than Chrome that I use at work) than in days past, taking the OS with it.
While it is no worse than some other software I use, I do have it in the back of mind that web browsing with certain delicate work is verboten.
That is the last impression you'd want from a web browser.
It's pretty simple. (Score:5, Insightful)
For the last long while Firefiox has been perfecting "Surprise and Annoy."
I've been a Firefox user for decades and I will continue to be so long as their design goal isn't "funnel all my info to Google."
I have a tip for Mozilla, fire all the UI people. You're done. There doesn't need to be innovation in a web browser. The damn thing should be a standards compliant blank canvas for web pages to be displayed with.
Re: (Score:3)
User interfaces are supposed to "Surprise and Delight" while being discoverable.
For the last long while Firefiox has been perfecting "Surprise and Annoy."
I would argue that "surprise" should not be part of a user interface. The best UI is one which you don't even think about - it let's you get the job done without drawing attention to itself or getting in the way.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
>For the last long while Firefox has been perfecting "Surprise and Annoy."
And when I opened up Firefox this morning, I was greeted with another "Surprise and Annoy". The overflow menu for the bookmarks bar is now spaced out twice as much as it used to be, so you can now only see half as many bookmarks as you previously could.
STOP F'ING WITH THE UI
I stopped using it after Webextensions (Score:4, Informative)
The old extension model allowed FF to be a great browser on many levels. Without those powerful extensions FF became just another browser.
Re: (Score:3)
The old extension was Firefox's biggest problem. The only "modern" browser on the market which couldn't handle above a certain limit of tabs, had huge memory leaks, couldn't multi-thread, a crash or lockup would take down the entire browser, they made them slow, they were a security nightmare, and the API was such a clusterfuck that every other release broke extensions.
I miss a lot of things about Firefox that got lost over the year, but I never shed a tear over the old plugin system, hell I actively piss o
Really annoying changes (Score:3)
I used to use Chrome/Chromium, but switched to Firefox when they began to ship their Quantum engine update, which I liked. Now I'm at version 91.1esr with that stupid Proton UI with no chance at all of reverting to the previous UI (even the about: settings for doing that are gone). I find the new UI annoying to the point of making me consider to switch to another browser again. So yes, I'd say that inconsiderate UI changes are a good reason why many people leave Firefox.
Re: (Score:2)
>"Now I'm at version 91.1esr with that stupid Proton UI with no chance at all of reverting to the previous UI (even the about: settings for doing that are gone)."
Almost all of Proton, and most other UI changes can be reverted/changed with:
https://github.com/Aris-t2/Cus... [github.com]
Firefox is better (Score:2)
Firefox uses less memory, and is faster.
strawman (Score:2)
the most popular browser, Chrome, has all those things
That doesn't mean they don't lead to people leaving Firefox.
If your home team is losing game after game, you'll probably still stay loyal. Then they fire the trainer and you've had enough. That some other team also fired the trainer and didn't lose fans doesn't mean a thing.
The stupid UI changes bug me to no end, and almost made me switch. I don't care if other browsers do the same shit - the Firefox UI has become worse and worse with all the idiotic attempts to stay "modern" (aka "unusable, but cool lookin
You WILL care (Score:2)
>"Doesn't matter to me how many other users there are or aren't I will still use it [Firefox] as long as it stays updated."
You won't feel that way when the full effect of the second coming of the "IE Only" age takes hold. And it is coming. It starts when you see things like "Works best with Chrome" appear on sites. Or you try to report a problem to a site and they just tell you to use "Chrome". Then there will be mysterious problems with other sites or a popup saying they don't "support" your browse
Re: (Score:2)
>the whole taking away "tabs on top" was just the first of many things that have pissed me off.
Reply to self: that was an error. I meant, of course, taking away "tabs on bottom" or the ability to revert "tabs on top."
I stopped upgrading FF (Score:2)
at version 88
I used it because it wasn't IE (Score:2)
I started using mozilla because it was competition to Internet Explorer. I kept using it because it worked well enough for me.
I was always leery of chrome when it came out because I didn't want google to control the browser AND search, since that would give them too much power.
For the most part, nothing has really changed as far as my motivations go (except that IE is dead and we have Edge now).
Brand awareness (Score:2)
Put the Firefox icon on the desktop next to Chrome and Edge and I bet 90% of users will instinctively click on the "Simon Game" icon.
Of those few who will indeed select Firefox will not set it as the default browser (too many counter-intuitive clicks) and that'll mess up all automatic/stored logins
Ctrl-A Ctrl-L, that was my limit (Score:2)
Most of the UI change are superficial at best. But messing with a decade of muscle memory under the guise of a word change and the new word not having the letter 'A' in it (except "Inspect" apparently has a 'Q' in it), not to mention moving it to the wrong hand on the keyboard, that pushed me to find a sensible alternative.
Why? (Score:2)
Second class browser (Score:2)
Because every time you go to google.com (Score:3)
Only one thing to add. (Score:3)
Spacing for Mobile NOT needed to Desktop (Score:2)
Not much practical point. (Score:2)
For years, Firefox has pretty much just tried to imitate Chrome UI, but with a subtly different rendering and javascript engine.
So practically speaking, it's a slightly incompatible knock-off of chrome now, with a site ever so often not working correctly. The only reason to use it is a more philosophical concern that Google would otherwise pretty much have unilateral control over every web users experience. As of the current platform, there are no longer any firefox addons for which there isn't a chrome e
Dear 20 something's at firefox (Score:3)
Removing interface features to make a desktop browser look and act like a phone app is only a change, not an improvement.
Surprisingly, many of your users can read, and would prefer explicit english words in their interface instead of three bars or a square with a broken arrow in it or whatever obfuscated icon you've dreamed up.
Adrift (Score:5, Interesting)
All the funds earned by the Foundation should be invested into the Firefox browser, because it's essentially paying the bills through search engine deals to the tune of hundreds of millions of $ a year.
Mozilla should've doubled-down on investing in rewriting Firefox to Rust. Instead they've laid off a large part of the Rust developers whilst making illogical and arbitrary UI changes (such as making it impossible to see which tab is currently active!).
Sometimes I wonder if Mozilla management isn't being paid to kill off the Firefox browser by making changes that drive away users so Google can use its Chrome dominance to mold the web as it sees fit (and pull in even more profit).
The question is: how can we get back control? The first thing Mozilla needs to do is to cut loose the Mozilla Corporation and fire all its executives. The Foundation should strive to invest all its funds into improving the Firefox browser. Also, engineers should be in control of the Foundation, not MBA's.
eliminating features and options (Score:3)
Re:Because the management are SJWs (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Because the management are SJWs (Score:5, Insightful)
I didn't know about that blog post. It's seriously disheartening to try and support a product made by a company who seems everyday more at odds with my beliefs.
The sad part is that if that post was titled "What we need instead of deplatforming", I would have agreed with it.
Neutrality (Score:5, Insightful)
When the developer of my web browser starts telling me that I need to be protected from words on the internet, I go looking for a new web browser.
Spend less time worrying about what people read on the internet and more time making a decent web browser. /Switched from Firefox to Brave and Waterfox after Firefox nuked every useful extension I like to use, then making the UI awful.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Yep. As soon as they canned Brendon Eich, that was it for me.
At least we got Brave out of the deal.
Re:Because the management are SJWs (Score:4)
Re: (Score:3)
If there are more than one Data, the other one is called Lore.
Re: (Score:3)
...vs. the people who fired your patron saint James Damore for his scientific-misogynist post to a company forum, and who censor all the "conservative" hate speech/disinformation from Youtube and Google search suggestions and the App Store?
Actually considering Chrome's numerous privacy snafus, it's probably best if you stay on Chrome, need to keep tabs on you for September 18th...
Folks do have a point (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Because the management are SJWs (Score:4, Interesting)
Right now, FireFox is still the only real choice for anyone interested in privacy and freedom.
With the politics of the Mozilla foundation as they are, the days of this being true are soon to be a memory.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Firefox has been broken on Reddit for like 2 years now. Just try cutting and pasting into the text box, no worky.
That's a Reddit problem. Same issues with macOS Safari. Paste into the text box can break the text box entirely. Only fix is a page reload. There's so much code behind that text box that I fear soon it will turn into a browser itself.
Re: (Score:3)
Reddit works fine in Firefox.. I have uBlock Origin, uMatrix, Privacy Badger Disable HTML5 Autoplay all turned on, no problems, everything works.