Ask HN: Why is Firefox losing marketshare and how would you save it?

- Cut out all (or at the very least, most) initiatives that don't serve the goal of promoting Firefox's market share or sustainability going forward

- Donate the major money drains that aren't Firefox to the Apache Foundation or another worthy custodian

- Fire all inessential staff that don't want to work on Firefox.

- Get a CEO/upper management that are in it for the passion, not the money, and cut their salaries (bonuses tied directly to increase in Firefox market share).

- Make sure that all donations from now on are redirected to things that support Firefox development and nothing else, period.

- Make whatever partnerships are needed to have a steady stream of income, be that donation or selling out to Google or Bing.

Firefox is in trouble. Firefox is also Mozilla's raison d'être, and they should embrace that. We as a community, cannot afford to let Firefox languish until the only browsers in the world are Chromium derivatives. The diversity of truly independent browser engines is far too important to give up without a fight.

Being "Open Source" does nothing for me when Firefox engages in the same crap as other closed source browsers, like Pocket. Mozilla also allowed social issues to take precedence over retaining good engineers. Whether you like it or not, even assholes have a basic right to exist and the more recent culture of shun and cancel has had negative consequences for society as a whole. Maybe they were assholes, but I don't give a shit how nice the developers who made my web browser are.

I suppose the problem with Mozilla is the CEO/people who make decisions about Firefox, replace them and maybe Firefox could be revived. But I have extraordinary doubts that Firefox is salvageable at this point. Mozilla's priorities have strayed so far from mine that I cannot see them becoming something I care about any time soon. I suspect it is similar for others.

There is not one issue with Firefox, the people in charge are not competent. It's mistake after mistake after mistake. These mistakes are a direct result of prioritizing diversity over talent.

- Prioritise getting the new extension framework fully functional. And continue innovating on the capabilities that are exposed. Especially on mobile where the new fenix engine is still limited to a small whitelist of extensions

- Sort out the multi-profile story. Container tabs are great, but the chrome model is also a great fit for many workflow (e.g. different people in a house or home vs. work profiles).

- Try and work on making Gecko easily embeddable again. Webkit/Blink gets all the attention because it's easy to embed into things. I suspect Gecko needs to compete in this market if it hopes to survive. It needs to have more than one company invested in it.

This ship has probably sailed now as they've fired most of their Rust and Servo teams. But IMO they ought to have created a rust-based cross-platform UI framework. They tried to do it web-based with Firefox OS but that was too slow. But with a Rust solution I think they could have owned both the mobile and desktop application spaces, which could potentially have made them a bootload of money and been a huge win for linux.

----

Mozilla can't save Firefox. It's not that Firefox can't be saved, but rather that Mozilla as an organization is not capable of doing so.

My take is this - Despite a history of being relatively privacy friendly, the vast majority of funding for the organization comes directly from Google (To the tune of ~90% of their total funding, straight from Google so that Google can maintain its position as the default search in Firefox).

That leads to insurmountable conflicts of interest - They claim they are for people and for privacy, but they are funded almost entirely by Google, and have to secure search deals for their continued existence (the latest just this year: https://www.pcmag.com/news/mozilla-signs-lucrative-3-year-go...).

In this light - I believe it actually BENEFITS mozilla to keep Firefox relevant, but not good enough to replace Chrome. If the browser genuinely becomes good enough that customers start switching from Chrome to Firefox en mass, Mozilla needs a replacement funding plan because Google can essentially turn the lights off at any point by simply refusing to pay them for search at next contract renewal.

While they've dipped their toes into paid products... most of them are not particularly relevant or compelling on their own merits (that's not to say they're bad, just not all that innovative or likely to drive enough revenue to replace the 500million a year google is paying them)

So not only do I not believe that Mozilla is capable of "saving" Firefox in this way, I don't believe they have the right incentives to even seriously try.

Additional Key Strategies:

Google focused on developer experience with its tools.

Google shipped a good enough extension system.

Google invested in matching or beating a few key features but kept Chrome a leaner project overall. Worse is better and 80/20 rule.

Ecosystem evolution:

Google successfully got every major browser vendor to move to their rendering engine, except for Firefox. Gecko has always been harder to embed.

Slowly over time, some web devs stopped testing their work on Firefox since they were using Chrome and most browsers "just worked" like Chrome. Every week I hit a site that I have to use in Chrome because of a bug I'm seeing in Firefox.

Mozilla went all-in on trying to disrupt itself with a mobile phone operating system, which didn't work out.

Mozilla dabbles in many strategies (Privacy, Games, Advertising, WebXR), but none have been successful in growing active daily users.

Some people say Mozilla should focus on executing Firefox, but I think Mozilla is smart for trying to re-invent itself because the browser is a commodity, and if Google wants to own that on-ramp to the internet, it will.

Netscape and Firefox 1.0 were massive products. Mozilla needs a 3rd act to return to a significant marketshare.

Dudes, if saving Firefox was so easy that could be described in a single comment like that, it would have been saved already.

There are more people at Mozilla than the CEO, she is not responsible for all decisions. She is a quite nice person to be honest, has always been very kind to me while I was volunteering and later while I was working there. She is more into the Mozilla mission than many here.

Also, people need to understand that Firefox is not the reason for Mozilla existence, Firefox is one of the tools that Mozilla has (and depends on) to fullfil its mission. People need to wake up and realise that Firefox is the last remaining independent browser, and that fighting against Microsoft, Google, and Apple is damn hard.

There is a huge intersection between people who are often saying they know how to fix Mozilla and those using non-Firefox browsers. If people here who cares about Mozilla would volunteer, and also use the browser, Mozilla would be in a much better shape.

People who keep saying things like "cut their salaries", "cancel all projects", have absolutely no idea how all this works, or even how Mozilla works. I understand you're all frustrated, but you're going at it from the wrong direction. You need to remember that it was side projects that made Firefox. At that time the workhorse of Mozilla was the Mozilla Suite. It was also non-Firefox projects that brought up Rust and many other cool technologies.

Want to fix Mozilla? Take an active part in it.

very simple answer, because Mozilla doesn't control the infrastructure that runs on 80% of smartphones in the world and ships Firefox as the default browser.

It really has nothing to do with the bespoke features that people on HN pay attention to. Firefox doesn't control any platform and defaults matter. There's a reason Google pays them a gazillion dollars to be the standard search engine, which you can change with one click. It's also why Safari is still going relatively strong.

If you look at Wikimedia's metrics, Firefox still has ~10% market share of the desktop browser market[0], not too bad considering Firefox is not the default browser on any platform outside of linux systems for the most part, and that Mozilla is much smaller entity than competing browser vendors. Still down from the ~30%[0] desktop share they had, but now they have 2 large competing entities offering default browsers so the decline is somewhat expected.

Also, contrast this with Firefox's ~0.7% share on mobile[0] where Mozilla has never been able to get a good foothold.

As long as Firefox isn't available as a default on mobile and as the share of mobile device web browsing increases, Firefox will keep losing total market share as a percentage.

Strategy wise, refocusing efforts on retaining that 10% desktop share might be a good idea. From there, work on building up more of the desktop share and then try marketing the mobile browser to the desktop browser community to build up mobile browser share.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browser_market_share#Summary_t...

It feels like opening a Windows Me installation from 2000. I just want to get browsing done.

At a time when the web was dangerous, Chrome advertised security. Remember when Flash wasn't sandboxed? When Java executed automatically? When nothing had auto-updates?

Firefox caught up, but at best it's "as good". What's it really doing for me?

The answer is presumably privacy. And that's cool. But most people have a hard time understanding what "privacy" means. Further, you can say Chrome is weak on privacy, but it's hardly as bad as people make it out to be.

So basically Mozilla is, at best, equivalent to Chrome, but Chrome was way better for a long time. So it's got to convince people to come back, but its only selling point is really vague.

And then you have some other stuff like companies can manage Chrome via GSuite. So now your work computer is X% more likely to run Chrome. So now you have to choose to have a different experience at home and at work.

What would I do?

1. I'd refocus on the mission. Privacy is critical, security is critical. That would mean a number of things - how is it that Brave is the first browser to integrate TOR? Isn't that insane? TOR has been using Firefox by default forever, and no one thought "maybe we should just support this thing, and start heavily contributing to it" ?

2. I'd invest heavily in next-gen performance and security. Chrome has In-The-Wild zero days being exploited - that's an opportunity. The web is heavier than ever - that's an opportunity.

I'd focus heavily on that. I'd push benchmarks and I'd market those features heavily.

3. I would fire every executive who took a multi-million dollar bonus while firing tons of employees.

That's just day 1 stuff.

Going further I'd consider what it would look like to see Mozilla in the Enterprise. Integrations and management features built into the LTS releases are an obvious start.

Stop fsking with the UI and using creative non native looking stuff just to be cool like chrome, and instead focus on making the rendering/JS/developer tools engine best in class. Along with, stop breaking shit. Hiding shit in about:config and then silently removing the option doesn't make users happy, if they spent the time to figure out how to disable search in the address bar because they are tired of accidentally telling google/etc where they are browsing than actually honor that setting, or better yet, give them that option in the config UI rather than pretending they are all idiots and don't understand how computers work.

There are too many chrome only web sites, so make the developers happy with tools that make their jobs easier. About:memory is better these days, but its still a far cry from what it could be, and AFAIK its still doesn't have something similar for CPU or networking outside of the network and cpu tracing functions in the developer tools. I want to be able to manage my browser with similar functionality to my OS (aka what tab is sending/reading all this data, then drill into what/where its sending it along with better whitelist/blacklist functionality/etc)

Then for users, you will gain their appreciation if it feels faster than chrome, which far to often is still false (despite it too getting better). And yes, for tabs, menus and the like using the native widgets not only will make people happier when they change their system color schemes and firefox isn't doing its own thing, but the system components are frequently far far faster to render than firefox's. And yes, sometimes the code to have multiple UI toolkits is ugly, as is the code to support optimizing some JS path, deal with it, thats the job.

I could go on, but others have said some of my other points.

Firefox is difficult to save because it's been on constant life support from Google to misdirect antitrust investigators. Saving Firefox would involve not only raising its market share (which would probably have to involve a deal from Google/Microsoft/Apple or legislation because they currently preconfigure their systems/devices to use their proprietary browsers, which are mostly "good enough") but also find a way to wean Mozilla Corp off of the Google payments, which would mean investments in tangentially related services (like VPN, etc.)

Instead, mozilla should really lean in on catering to the techie who is going to come to the conclusion to use firefox no matter what mozilla really does anyhow, just from the fact that its not google and you can do more with privacy oriented extensions. It's always frusterating when mozilla does things they really don't have to do, like break certain CSS configs with the move to proton for no reason other than change is good I guess (like, why pull another python 2/3-esque debacle when you don't really have to and could just support legacy syntax?), or taking out niceties like the built in RSS reader, which I found handy to confirm a feed looked OK before throwing it into my actual RSS reader. There are other issues too. Maybe I'm not doing it right in firefox, but I have to go into chrome to find the correct CSS selectors to use in a given webpage for javascripting.

Winning against those requires not only better technology AND marketing AND consumer favor, but also leverage in the legal processes that enable/disable network effects. So anti-trust is unfortunately one of Mozilla's biggest hopes.

This "Have It Your Way" capability would be a profound differentiator and user value proposition to stand out from the sameness of Chrome and Safari. I still use FF but to make it usable I have to install my own UserChrome.css and User.js which isn't easy for non-tech people. On top of that I regularly have to go "fix" new UI behaviors that Mozilla's designers keep shoveling into the UX in a constant game of Whack-a-Mole.

1) become absolutely trustworthy again 2) become the power user's choice again

To me, 1) means absolute control over updates and network connections. Become the antithesis to the patronizing "Ask me again later" school of thought which has become so sickeningly widespread over the last few years, and instead accept that "no means no", whether you disagree or not.

And I don't have to mention "partnerships" with entities like Cliqz or sneaky downloads of marketing extensions.

2) - Firefox tried to appeal to average users and failed, losing a lot of what made it appealing to the power users and evangelists in the process. Reversing that will be painful, because it means allowing people to shoot themselves in the foot, and accepting that some people will do that occasionally.

Making a useful power user browser means accepting that a lot of its value will be created by other people, and supporting that with a deep and comprehensive extension system, instead of clinging to Googles table scraps. Having a useful extension system also means the ability to install from any source I want, no Ifs and Buts.

All of these are risky. Useful tools often are. Give Firefox back its USP and a reason to exist, because "it's not Blink" on its own simply isn't good enough... even if maybe it should.

There is no mass-switching campaign in favor of Firefox. The only foreseeable hope of one happening in the future, is if ManifestV3 kills adblockers, and people decide to switch to Firefox; but now there are so many competitors that oppose ManifestV3 (Brave, Opera, Vivaldi) that Firefox isn't ideally positioned to benefit.

Otherwise, there is no reason to expect the factors behind Firefox's decline to disappear.

Apple bundles Safari with their platforms. Google advertises Chrome on their web properties. Microsoft heavily discourages Windows users from switching away from Edge, and occasional "bugs" reset Edge as the default browser. Most corporations promote Chrome to their employees.

There is no major reason to expect any of this to change. The likeliest change is antitrust action, with "browser choice" screens[0], but I don't see why that would help Firefox more than other browsers.

There's no reason to think that continued incremental improvements in Firefox (the current path) can prevent its decline.

The ballsiest thing Mozilla could do is switch to a forked Blink engine (Mozillium?); they'd save tons of engineering resources which they could refocus on user-facing features & UX, they'd have better webcompat with cutting-edge things (VR, MIDI, etc), they'd still be a part of web standards decisions (since they could still choose how their Blink fork deviates from Google's), and could encourage other Chromium forks to rebase on Mozillium instead of Chromium. But Firefox's most diehard fans would never forgive Mozilla, and they might lose as many users as they gain.

It's hard to think of anything Mozilla can do to double Firefox's market share. Continued decline is the most likely path.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BrowserChoice.eu

Firstly it is much much harder to keep a clean sheet, when you focus on privacy, than when you merely focus on introducing features and pushing your own agenda like the Chrome project does. Just one misstep and you can already lose lots of believers of the good cause. And missteps Mozilla had more than enough of during the recent years.

Secondly they time and time again incorporate things, that privacy minding people do not wish to have in their browser and make the defaults so that it is "on" by default. This erodes people's trust in Mozilla's vision and where the journey is going.

Another reason, which is a huuuuge fail in my opinion is, that I still!! cannot donate specifically for Firefox, for Thunderbird, for whatever, but only to Mozilla overall. I cannot donate with a cause, but only with trust, which has been slowly eroded. They will not get those donations they hope for and then in turn make stupid decisions, thinking that not so many people want, what they are making now, because they do not donate. Duh! I would immediately donate to projects like Thunderbird. You can pry Thunderbird from my cold dead hands! They should shut up and take my money.

Can you imagine being the one to approve such a bone-headed design? I gave up and downloaded opera instead and it's been perfect. I have my desired links up when I open a new tab, nothing else, and life is good.

Because Mozilla became just another classic corporation that's laser-focused on extracting value for shareholders and executives and nothing else. A year or two ago an article about Mozilla made the rounds here: executives collecting fat bonuses (and some leaving afterwards?). Some mere months later they fired a lot of people.

Is that the right signal to send to a community that wants an open Web browsing experience? Squeeze any money you can and then fire staff. Those pesky people that have the audacity to want money for their work, how dare they!

As the (currently) top commenter @selfhoster11 says, cut out everything that's not Firefox or is not related to its mission.

I could probably agree to use some of their other offerings like Pocket or VPN, assuming they're done well. Mozilla needs the diversified income, like badly. They are at the mercy of Google and always have been. *THIS IS NOT OKAY* and should have been addressed like 10 years ago. If the expenses are so huge, well, again, fire everyone who's not working on Firefox or closely related to it.

Finally, Mozilla needs no "executives". Get a CEO, CTO and CFO who are passionate about the mission, get rid of everyone else at the top. It's a semi-charity organization, the hell does it need a board of directors for?

For myself, I am moving off of Firefox right now (I don't yet know to what though, recommendations welcome) for one reason: they keep changing the UI in ways that I find irritating and then deprecating the methods to change it back. For me it's really that simple. There are other issues I have with FF but that's the one that got me to the point where I'm ready to abandon FF entirely.

> What would you do if you were in charge of Mozilla?

Concentrate on docs, standards, and libraries. Be the "one-stop shop" for all the information and software one needs to do things with the Internet.

> How would you save Firefox?

First you have to answer the question, why save Firefox?

What's so bad about having fewer browsers? (I know most of the arguments, I'm not asking you to repeat them I'm asking you to revisit them.)

Rather than saving one particular browser, I would make it easy for anyone to create a custom web browser.

If you really want to save FF you have to discover or create something about it that beats the competition: speed, reliability, ...? Those are "table stakes" these days, so what is the differentiator that makes it compelling?

Secondly I wouldn't worry about browser market share. Mozilla's place is to supply browsers, and Web and internet tools, that are open source and free of corporate control. Market share is something for for-profit corporations to worry about; under my Mozilla so many other things would take priority: security, standards compliance, maintainability (the goal would be a "long now" browser that can exist and be maintained even if the foundation itself goes away), portability across platforms. Even with 5% market share, if Mozilla offers a viable alternative to corporate browsers for those who need one, that's a strong niche userbase to keep going on.

The current Mozilla organization is too unfocused to reliably provide a viable alternative to Chrome. That may ultimately be what kills Firefox.

If anyone has links I'd be interested in reading; I'm sure there are fingerprinting techniques, but ones that rely on JS would potentially be prone to being miscounted due to NoScript (365k+ users of it according to FF).

For the record, I do not doubt that chrome dwarfs everyone, but I'm curious about the way the numbers are being reported/studied.

Firefox will always be playing catchup because of this, regardless of their market share. This leaves three main reasons for using Firefox:

1.) decoupling from Google / ad privacy

2.) promoting browser ecosystem health

3.) familiarity / history of use

Unfortunately, these three items lead to a very narrow TAM, especially when talking purely about new users. The gap will continue to grow as sites that work in Chrome but don't work in Firefox, despite the site using things not in the W3C spec, will be seen as Firefox issues by non-technical users. These users will eventually default to Chrome.

Firefox itself is just one in a series of reinventions. I am at peace with using a Firefox branded chromium fork in some future date as I think a balanced corporate sharing economy similar to Linux is probably the best we can hope for.

On that theme, some kind of more loosely combined ecosystem that involves internet archive, Wikipedia, Mozilla, OSM, Atom, open standards, free software, royalty free tech and democratic governence and pro-consumer advocacy in a global context is probably a good idea, to counterbalance large corporate interests. It probably already kind of exists in some ad-hoc manner, but further moves in that direction would be good.

* Mozilla VPN ($5/month)

* Pocket Premium ($5/month)

And a way to monetize users:

* Google search ($500 million / year)

* Paid ads in the search bar

And a way to radicalize you to fight for privacy, so that you'll donate:

* Donations (400,000 donations / year)

Let it die, I say.

Personally I would have leaned towards the opposite approach to meet their stated mission of ensuring an open internet. Historically, Firefox has been the means by which Mozilla earned a seat at the table, but I would have liked to see them diversify their portfolio a bit rather than relying entirely on a single browser. If I had been in charge, I would:

Focus on developing Rust, Servo/Gecko, SpiderMonkey. Keep projects like Firefox and Thunderbird as reference implementations but encourage Microsoft, Brave, Opera, and open-source forks to build their own products based on Mozilla technologies. Assemble a broad coalition of companies that base their web browsers, email clients, feature phones, smart TVs, consoles, etc on Mozilla technologies. Explore using licensing and corporate memberships to offset decreases in advertising revenue. The end-goal being to ensure that Mozilla-based browsers capture enough of the market that they have a seat at the table with Apple and Google and then use that leverage to push for web standards that are beneficial to end-users.

Of course, that ship has sailed now that Safari and Firefox are the only browsers with a non-negligible market-share that are not built on top of chromium. Given Firefox's trajectory, Apple is realistically the only player left who can prevent Google from dictating the direction of the web. If Apple decides to throw in the towel or let Google drive, webpages essentially become Chrome-pages.

I don't think Firefox needs saving. Those who use it are active and committed to it.

As I understood it, Google doesn't really want Firefox out of the market since it keeps them out of anti-trust issues... which is why they pay Mozilla to be the default search engine. Without that money, Mozilla would fail. Mozilla obviously doesn't want to fail, so they keep taking the money from Google. I don't see anything about that flywheel which puts Mozilla/Firefox in the drivers seat of their fate. They exist as part of a cost-benefit analysis on the part of Google.

So to phrase this question in a different way, how does a fat-smoker lose weight and quit smoking? They just do. If Mozilla/Firefox wants to legitimately be competitive they're going to have to change the nature of their relationship with Google.

Now, if you were to ask me personally what I would do? ...I would probably try to strategically create an imbalance between the big tech firms by getting cozy with a specific firm, forcing other firms to compete in places where they don't want to. Facebook doesn't have a browser or a mobile offering... which is slowly hurting them (e.g. cookie apocalypse) they might make a decent ally. Amazon is similar, but they don't have an easy symbiosis, unless there was a way to create something between AWS or prime video. Samsung, Adobe, or maybe Salesfore are all bad fits, but if Mozilla created a product strategy to align and maybe have native support for adobe or Salesforce they might be able to make something happen.

In my opinion, I don't see anything like that happening in reality. Mozilla will probably slowly fade away, each CEO getting the comp that they can squeeze out while the business is still making money. Sometime 10-20 years from now we'll think of them like a sun microsystems or silicon graphics.

(*This was a quick throw together... I maybe incredibly off about the details of the Mozilla/Google relationship currently)

It has many little details that aren't as good as Chrome but I don't know how much that affects adoption. Even if it does, that last bit of polish is very expensive to fix and they would need users or another mechanism to fund it.

I would focus heavily on getting Linux to be more mainstream. There is already growing momentum behind Linux and a lot of room for organizations (like Mozilla) that can typically execute on long multi year strategies better than the anarchy of FOSS. There's a lot of work to be done on all levels - partnerships, marketing, technical, finance etc. so people in all roles could contribute.

Maybe that would even play out outside Mozilla, like people leaving and joining other companies that push OSS ahead until it gains enough users for Mozilla to be relevant again.

I think that Chrome and IE proved that the most important users are developers and business admins. If Mozilla wants to make the web a place for real human users in line with their ideals, then they need to focus on making their vision the default for developers and businesses.

If I were Firefox, I'd sue Apple to hell for abusing their dominance in OS and device market share to block me from competing fairly in the browser market.

The primary "author" of Firefox changed, and that had a similar effect to the change in author of the final season of Game of Thrones.

Mozilla can’t go anywhere because as a business, they have no incentive nor any culture needed to survive. They are spoiled by Google whatever they do.

They are like someone so rich that they don’t have any more goals in life. They are still there but they goes nowhere.

Ofc I’m talking about the company, not the employees that did put hard work into the great product that Firefox still is.

It’s too bad because the web have a great need of a Mozilla-like company/foundation.

Mozilla could have been the anti-Google and they could make tons of money by just providing some cloud services (mail, calendar, storage,…) but they just can’t see it because anything will be harder to monetize than their deal with Google.

I'm no expert and would actually like to know, from the experts here, if the following is my subjective experience or not:

I find that for not very heavy or for heavy, but well-behaved sites, I can't really tell the difference between FF and Chrome.

But for very heavy and badly designed sites, Chrome seems to be much faster and have much less latency.

There's this really obnoxious issue where search in the address bar has taken a complete dive recently.

For example, if I want to go to reddit.com/r/videos and it's a page I go to often, I can't just type "videos" because the suggestions that come up are links to threads I've visited recently. None of the suggestions are to reddit.com/r/videos which I visit far more often than a thread I've visited just once.

And it triple annoys me that this used to work just fine but then they recently changed it when they put in those stupid paid suggestions / ads.

  * Aggressive competition who are ready to use dark patterns on all platforms to push their own products. All of Google, Microsoft and Apple are doing it one way or another.

  * No financing. Pocket and Mozilla VPN are rather miserable revenue streams and therefore FF relies on the likes of Google for the bulk of their budget which means that they are limited in what they can do against Google.

  * Really old code base that needs to be adapted for the modern web which takes money and resources from other initiatives.

  * The Mozilla Foundation which seems to consider the browser a golden hen that will provide them nice profits to waste.

  * major legislation that must level up the browser market or an economic shift that will break Google, Microsoft and Apple dominance on the major user platforms.

  * a miracle new money tree should grow up in San Francisco such that it will be an independent revenue source for the project.

  * much more people and organizations should invest in improving the browser either with money or effort (magic tree or failure of all other browser engines).

  * Firefox should be liberated from the foundation and be a community project like Debian so that people have better feeling of ownership of the project.

Nobody wanted to use the original open source Mozilla browser because it was a weird groupware suite monstrosity derived from Netscape's code. A few clever people created a standalone browser using the Mozilla engine and called it Phoenix. It was eventually renamed Firefox in 2004.

Start another Phoenix that focuses on being a better, slimmer, faster browser than the Chromium ones, just like the original was a better, slimmer, faster browser than the Internet Explorer monoculture.