> a long list of negativity

I am a Firefox user since Firefox 4 (2011). The thing is, that negativity was not there prior to 2017.

I'm guessing they are making the assumption that if they keep approximating towards a Chrome clone, that it will somehow reduce the friction of new users joining. This a colossal strategy mistake from corporate/product people.

They cannot compete with Chrome/Edge on a massively unleveled playing field. They either have some giant corporate deal to come pre installed on devices other than linux distros or they accept that it will be a niche browser that wins users over by having killer features privacy/foss ethos etc.

The decision of removing things that were previously customizable or remove features because only a few hundreds of thousands of people use, is alienating users. In the discussions I always read Mozilla staff arguing that this is a vocal minority but the reality is that irrespective of which statistics you look at they lost a huge chunk of marketshare last year.

The way they are refusing to engage with the community on this matter is creating a lot of frustration. WONTFIX is pretty much a meme in Bugzilla at this point.

Firefox needs to refocus on being Firefox instead of half-trying to compete with other browsers. We need browser diversity and we absolutely need non chromium browsers in particular. I hope they will turn this around and engage with the community and user voice.

While it is true that most things that get used have people with grievances, using that as an argument to dismiss complaints is not productive.

> Plus for Firefox to grow in popularity/stay relevant you need people to care

Yes, and people care more when the browser developers care about them. Mozilla is intent on showing that only their design vision matters and customizability will go as soon as it slightly inconveniences them.

> and you need the browser to improve

But not all changes are an improvement.

Why, what happens to uBlock on chrome?

Phoenix for me.. 2002ish... I figured out if I renamed the executable iexplore.exe the company's antivirus scanner would let me run it instead of ie.

Computing UIs initially changed for two reasons.

The first? Newer display technology and processing power, allowed for more complex menus, decision trees, and visual effects/feedback.

The second? Computing was new, and we were still learning how to build basic, usable UIs.

Yet ever UI change distracts, causes lag for users, and the above two points are long factored in.

No one needs a fork to change. No one needs their remote control's volume button to change.

Worse, no one need it to change from one day to the next, on a weekly or even yearly basis.

Many users would be beyond overjoyed, if their browser UI didn't change for the rest of their life.

The back button doesn't need to move, become something else, leap from the top to bottom of the window, look wildly different as a default, behave differently.

Worse, almost every UI change I've seen in Firefox in the last decade, has been tiny little tweaks without any real value for the end user, yet alienated people.

And worse, forced on people. Way to keep market share.

Firefox could be #1 again, simply by firing every UI person, hiring developers with that cash, and just optimise, merge in new web standards (without creating or taking part in them), and fix bugs.

>Haters gonna hate, that’s just how it is.

I think that is the wrong end of the stick. People complain about Firefox not because they hate it. They complain because they care. It is the same thing with Apple or in fact any other brands. They want it to be better, they want to come back or keep using Firefox. And they want more people to use it ( for one reason or another ).

So the saying good there is no such thing as bad publicity. Firefox still getting the upvote to front page or being complained is a good sign many user or potential user still give a damn.

I still love Firefox, I just dislike Mozilla's management.

> Haters gonna hate

This is true for many UI changes, but I'm not convinced it applies here. This blog post points out many specific deficiencies in Proton: https://www.dedoimedo.com/computers/firefox-89.html

Or the fact that Google and Microsoft used their monopoly power and dark patterns to do it. Google asked every Firefox user to 'upgrade' to Chrome on all their properties, didn't work as hard to ensure Firefox compatibility leading to worse performance, and bundled Chrome with all kinds of stuff like Adobe Flash updates for Firefox to trick users into installing it (I uninstalled it from my Mom's PC 4 times). Microsoft resets default browser preferences or 'suggests' you switch to Edge for better insert random thing here pretty regularly as well. Mozilla has no such monopoly position to leverage.