At least that is my theory on it.
Content blockers in Safari are limited to 50k filters. uBlock Origin's default filters have more than that. Therefore, the choice is between a new, but much less useful extension, or no extension at all. uBlock Origin decided on the latter.
https://backstage.1blocker.com/say-hello-to-1blocker-x-8b55e...
Most studies[1] done in the last 2 years report between 20-40%, depending on the population and device type (laptop, desktop, phone, tablet) studied.
While I can't say what % you or GP would estimate or whether you'd be surprised that it's 20-40%, I think 20-40% is a lot.
[1]: Choose any study or summary of one: https://www.google.com/search?q=what+percentage+of+internet+...
I doubt uBlock Origin being removed from Chrome will change the status quo. Maybe in a few years when enough powerusers convince enough casual users. If you just look at software out in the world, it's clear that powerusers have next to zero influence. It's why desktop Linux use, for example, is still just a blip after all of these years.
the moment they can't find ad blocker that actually works they will stop switching ad blockers and switch browsers.
What's holding back linux isn't the lack of influence power users have, it's that it's still lacking in gaming, hardware compatibility, and ease of use (although those are improving all the time)
Who do you think the moms and friends all listen to? Their technical friends. This of course won't hit 90% of users but it's enough to have a large influence well beyond just power users.
Few companies survive pissing off the nerds when there is legitimate competition available in consumer products.
I wish this sage advice was part of every business executive's education. :-)
You're probably not wrong that there will not be a rapid initial migration. Maybe more over a longer time period. Maybe not.
And for small browser like safari it will be fast death
And for chrome
On mobile chrome is already (for me) dead coz it not allow extensions
The manifest v3 proposal takes chrome down to roughly the same level as Safari for ad blocking plugins. https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock-issues/issues/338#iss...
So, that day isn't far off. It was supposed to be in canary last month, I haven't checked.
The big difference is that the functionality problems 20 years ago were easier to explain, and therefore easier to get people upset about. It's a lot easier to weave a compelling political story about straight-up incompatibility than it is to weave one about degraded performance due to differing just-in-time compiler optimization behavior.
Also, we seem to be stuck in a situation where people are still so fixated on a monarch that hasn't been in power for over a decade that they maybe haven't been so concerned that the old monarch's overthrower has consolidated power to become a new monarch.
But I have seen sites that don't work in Safari.
(Scare quotes around "standards" because calling Chrome-only things standard nowadays seems a bit like calling AcitveX a standard 20 years ago.)
That's the only one I remember encountering.
Twitter doesn't work very well on Firefox for Android.
[0]https://www.microsoftedgeinsider.com/
[1]https://marketplace.visualstudio.com/items?itemName=ms-edged...
[0]https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2019/04/microsoft-edge-may-come-...
Like I said: ux-wise, I'm not impacted negatively by using chrome, at all. If my laptops resources were more limited or my local workload was bigger, I'd probably check out Firefox, but since I'm not bottlenecked, why bother?
>This is because since their core functionality is so similar, small advantages will tip the scales.
It is a a bold assertion, which is not backed up by the data. Despite Mozilla repositioning Firefox recently and reclaiming some lost ground, it is to a larger extent, still only maintaining a steady set of core users. To make an assumption that small advantages will tip the scales in favour of FF is wishful thinking, as demonstrated by some of the conversations. Furthermore, it is inherently not in the best interests of Google to actively promote ad-blocking policy unless it serves it's own purpose, coupled with the acute awareness of why power users and developers pick Chrome ─ they are well positioned to throttle any competition.
https://data.firefox.com/dashboard/user-activity
I think most people who wanted adblocking on Android switched to Brave instead, which is essentially a Chrome fork without the Google stuff and with better tracking protection.
What makes you say that? Firefox has been my primary mobile browser for over 5 years, am I missing something?
1. You are on this web page in Fennec[1], and you want to do a web search. Click the address bar, type in your query, hit go. Sometimes, Fennec will start the progress bar and act like it is searching, but will draw another tab in the main viewport before resetting the progress bar and changing the url to the SERP you want. If you don't know its going to do that, it looks like Fennec completely ignored your search and loaded another tab.
2. Fennec will sometimes lose its cool and stop rendering pages. The UI layers will respond, you can open hamburger menus, tab listings and thumbnails, but no matter what tab you select, it no longer renders anything but a blank canvas in the viewport. You have to force close Fennec to restore normal behaviors.
3. Fennec will after a long time of being active lose its extensions like noscript et al, you have to force close and re-open to get them to show up in the hamburger menu again.
Stated as a die-hard Firefox for Android fan.
[1] %s/Fennec/<whateverItActuallyIs/g
As in, the core browser is available and seems to work fine, but for many people there's not much point in switching until it supports extensions. It won't replace Fennec until it does.