Hacker News Reader

> What exactly are these companies supposed to do? Web access really is the meat behind modern OS usage.

I mean, Europe used to mandate a selection screen on first boot that would just ask the user what browser to install; that seems pretty reasonable. Failing that, they could let the user actually change their default browser without harassing them or resetting it constantly (Windows) or allow people to actually use other browser engines at all (iOS).

> just work on making a competitive browser

They did. But it's hard to get people to switch when the OS vendor makes it artificially hard to switch.

they should first try to retain their users, before dreaming of switching others.

> and just work on making a competitive browser.

I think the issue here is that Mazilla feels that they do. The problem for the average user is not “Do I want to use a Porsche (Chrome) or a Mercedes (Firefox)?”. It’s “Which icon is the one that makes The Internet open up and show me all the things I want to see?” They don’t care beyond that.

> Maybe Mozilla can knock off the grandstanding, the money wasting, the back patting, and just work on making a competitive browser.

You can have the best product in the market but if the deck is unfairly stacked against you it doesn't matter how good your product is.

Firefox is by no means the "best" product, it's an average Chrome clone that's worse than competing Chromium derivatives (Brave, Vivaldi, Edge, etc) from a compatibility and performance point of view.

Back when Firefox actually was the best product, it stole ~30% (or even more?) marketshare from Internet Explorer, despite the latter being bundled with the OS.

Firefox can be the best browser with third-party add-ons (such as uBlock Origin) and a custom configuration, but Mozilla would rather puff more hot air like this (and their other commitments to "privacy", despite their telemetry implementation not even being GDPR compliant) rather than actually making Firefox the best product.

> Firefox is by no means the "best" product, it's an average Chrome clone that's worse than competing Chromium derivatives (Brave, Vivaldi, Edge, etc) from a compatibility and performance point of view.

1. I admire the irony of calling Firefox a Chrome clone when Firefox far predates Chrome.

2. That's purely your opinion. I personally find Firefox to be more performant and customizable than Chrome but to each their own. I'm not going to fanboy browsers here.

3. Where exactly did I claim Firefox was the "best" product? I made a generic statement saying that you can have the best product in the market but when the market discriminates towards you so that it's impossible to get users it doesn't matter how good your product is.

> I admire the irony of calling Firefox a Chrome clone when Firefox far predates Chrome.

You are right about the technical details, but my intention was to compare it from a non-technical user's perspective. For the non-technical user, modern Firefox is a Chrome clone (and strives to be that) with a very similar UI. The browser engine being different is a technical detail that isn't relevant to the average user who doesn't even know what a browser engine is, and they are not aware (and don't care) about Firefox's history. Stock Firefox is very similar to Chrome and Mozilla wants it to be that way, having removed many features that differentiated it in the past.

> but when the market discriminates towards you so that it's impossible to get users it doesn't matter how good your product is

Potentially, but you can't say for sure that market discrimination and anti-competitive practices are what is holding Firefox back when there are no compelling reasons for a non-technical user to use Firefox over Chrome, so I disagree with the argument that anti-competitive practices are what is holding Firefox back - Mozilla is holding Firefox back by not actually making it a better product to the eyes of a non-technical user (ignore the fact that FF can be a better product with enough customization & add-ons - people competent enough to do so already use Firefox and are its only remaining users).

When stock Firefox is good enough to appeal to and impress non-technical users out of the box (such as by having good, built-in ad-blocking), I will believe in the anti-competitiveness argument. Until then, my opinion is that it's yet another excuse for Mozilla to waste time & resources on anything but actually building a good browser.

> Firefox is by no means the "best" product, it's an average Chrome clone that's worse than competing Chromium derivatives (Brave, Vivaldi, Edge, etc)

This is software comedy gold. If Firefox is a clone of Chrome then what isn't a clone? Is Safari a clone of Chrome because it has the tabs that Chrome took from Firefox?

The questionable part is them re-asking "hey kid, wanna switch to Edge? we are cool now" after some updates.

I doubt your regular Firefox user falls for it but your parent's computer that you installed Firefox on will

> Also completely remove Pocket and anything else like it.

Yeah - hard agree. Pocket feels like a sheer gimmick. It cheapens the experience, and it hurts the trust people have for Firefox when they jam it in your face.

I remember the original Firefox ethos where it was just a browser, and that was awesome.

At one point Firefox's slogan was "Your web the way you like it."

Now it's more like "You can disable that new change by installing an extension and trusting its developer and whoever they might sell it to at a date TBD."

Yea. I'm just not thrilled to be returning to Firefox after over a decade of Chrome use. 2023 is going to be rough with the removal of the webRequest extension API.

I feel like Mozilla is having an identity crisis - but then again... when were they not.