For example, Hangout. I can no longer use Hangout using Firefox.
Or I think Gmail Inbox, which also came out only working on Chrome initially.
It's the sum of all these things that look very much like "best viewed with internet explorer" type stuff. I don't ever want to go back to such a world.
I wished that instead of switching to Chrome, people would instead move away from Google Services like Hangout (Skype, WhatsApp, https://meet.jit.si/) or Gmail (posteo, mailbox.org) whenever they see a "This works even better in Chrome" notice…
Also I can only use my U2F security key for Google when on Chrome. Firefox doesn't support it.
IIRC, there was s public notice by Firefox about the API change more than a year in advance. Google does not have the resources for implementation? Firefox support is just low prio for Google. I think it's a deliberate (non)-action because instead of switching away from Hangout, people rather start using Chrome... So not-browser-compat seems to help Google :-/ (see also my other comment)
Google has had three years to adapt to other browsers' standard WebRTC stacks, but it was apparently not a priority for the company as long as the legacy Hangouts plugins still worked in other browsers. Mozilla announced in 2015 [3] that it would remove NPAPI plugin support in 2017, so Google had plenty of notice that the Hangouts plugin would stop working in Firefox. Google's new "Hangouts Meet" service is supposed to work with standard WebRTC in Firefox and Edge, but Hangouts Meet is still in beta and its system requirements page still only lists Chrome.
[1] https://plus.google.com/103171586947853434456/posts/39TCW3Pc...
[2] https://webrtchacks.com/hangout-analysis-philipp-hancke/
[3] https://blog.mozilla.org/futurereleases/2015/10/08/npapi-plu...
It's certainly unfortunate that Google hasn't updated their software but Firefox didn't need to remove NPAPI. They chose to do that and when they did they broke software for lots of companies, not just Google. That's a trade off and decision that Firefox made and I'm suffering for it. They had their reasons for making that decision but that decision had costs and downsides for me.
Maybe you mean that there isn't a W3C standard and that's true as far as I can tell. I don't think that should be a blocker to Firefox adoption but maybe there is a reason it is.
As someone who has actually looked at implementing it... no, it's not, by the standards of modern web specs. That's part of the problem with it. The other problem is that its creators ignored a whole bunch of best practices for web API design...
Anyway, the FIDO thing (or an approximation of it, which was the best they could do given the quality of the spec) is what Chrome shipped and what they've been trying to backpedal from since.
If you want the gory details as far as Firefox is concerned, see https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/mozilla.dev.platf... for the discussion about whether to implement FIDO U2F in Firefox. Note that it's about 6 pages of posts, at least the way google groups shows it to me... The posts from Ryan Sleevi (representing Chrome) are particularly interesting.
Overall I think it's a tossup. Google makes sure their stuff works decently in Chrome, Edge, Safari, and Firefox (probably in that order).
Is that different from Hangouts[0]? That's worked and continues to work in Firefox AFAICT.