This is what I don't understand. What would you use instead? Do you see another vendor attempting to recreate XUL-like extensions? Built in functionality like the stuff in Vivaldi doesn't count, since those aren't extensions.
Does not matter, Likely Vivaldi, or Chrome.
I will not reward FF or Mozilla, it may seem petty but I will not continue to use FF after mozilla ignored its users in this manner.
From day one Devs, users and the wider community has been telling mozilla we do not want these changes.
Clearly they do not want me as a user of their product so I will oblige them and stop using their product
I expect to be ignored by a large for-profit corporation like Google, if Mozilla is going to act like google I might as well just move to Chrome.
Got it, spite.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fP0MXJAQhmo
Chrome never tried to cater to users like you, so you'll reward that browser because they never bothered to try.
That is right, and that is the point. If you do not understand why or how that makes a difference I likely will be unable to explain it to you.
I may not go to chrome, Vivaldi, the new Opera, Some Fork of the good firefox, we are still a little ways away from the the day Mozilla commits Suicide so....
Also I do want to add, my problem is not them removing XUL, my problem is them removing FUNCTIONALITY, if they come up with something else that REPLACES feature for feature XUL fine, if they take everything people are losing and build it in as not an extension that would be fine to, if they Add a option in the Configuration for TreeStyle Tabs with out an extension that would be grand
I am not beholden to extensions, I am beholden to the FUNCTIONALITY.
Even if that's true, isn't it a pretty poor reflection on a product if its users dislike its direction so much that they are willing to abandon it in spite?
The direction of the product isn't the product itself, and reflects more upon the people who direct the "direction" of the product. This feels more like damage to the brand -- but as usual, I don't know whether the opinion on HN actually translates to the overall population of web users.
I mean, the new Macbook Pro is certainly a failure [doesn't go to 32gb ram], and hell wasn't that iPod a total failure [no wireless, less space than a nomad]? (I know, I know, that was Slashdot.)
Yes, but now we're talking about people who (likely) moved to Chrome because it just felt so darned snappy, not because it had great extensions (it didn't) -- or just had Chrome preinstalled.
If Firefox is faster, people who are after speed might just move over from Chrome. If the Firefox brand represents "faster than Chrome" rather than "it doesn't do tree style tabs anymore", they might still be okay. If they had Chrome preinstalled and had never used Firefox, they wouldn't miss the extensions, and probably wouldn't care that tree style tabs doesn't exist.
> And while a community like HN might not be accurately representative of users at large, it does tend to have a disproportionately high percentage of "trend-makers" who influence other people's decisions on technical subjects.
Meh. I think people just use what they want to use. How else do we explain why the Rio Karma didn't destroy the iPod? I mean, it's pretty obvious to me that technical, music loving "trend-makers" required gapless playback. How else do you listen to live albums/mixtapes/DJ mixes? The iPod is "just" an intuitive UI/UX and good branding! It makes you use Musicmatch/iTunes!
(Yes, I had a Rio Karma and I later switched my iPod over to Rockbox -- guess how much luck I had "recommending" people to switch to their iPods to Rockbox?)
Maybe, but I'd hesitate to throw an existing user out in hopes of wooing a new one. You're right that it might work, might even pay off in the end, but it's a risk that I'm not convinced they have to take.
> Yes, I had a Rio Karma and I later switched my iPod over to Rockbox
I only used the earlier solid-state Rio's, and never knew much about the Karma, so can't really comment there. I did try Rockbox and at least for me was a pretty dismal failure due to bugs and crashes...not something I would have recommended to anyone.
I think you confuse why people move to chrome over IE on windows. The normal every day user uses chrome for 1 of 3 reasons
1. They hit upon a chrome ad today or years ago when Google was heavily advertising chrome even when you searched now that is their browser and they stick with it
2. A person that works on, setups, or services their computer installed it
3. They are heavily in the Google Eco System and want all of the features and conveniences that come with using Chrome with google account (bookmark sync, alerts, hangouts, etc)
None of which has anything to do with Chrome's or firefox's speed, or security.
None of which Firefox can overcome or change by removing functionality.
People that use FF today generally fall into 2 groups. People concerned with Privacy, and people that want functionality that the other browsers do not offer
FF is rejecting 50% of their user base with move.
Security be damned