Hacker News Reader

Mozilla managed to do that because despite Microsoft's anticompetitive behaviour, the OS itself didn't restrict what code you could run on it.

Apple has codified their anticompetitive behaviour into iOS

Yes, I agree with that. However, the rest of my comment talks about the desktop where the situation hasn't changed much from decades ago - the incumbents use anti-competitive tactics, but people can still install alternative browsers and may do so if you give them a tangible reason to do so, but the hypothesis is hard to prove because Mozilla isn't actually interested in giving the masses a tangible reason to use its browser over the incumbents'.

You're not wrong, but every thread about browsers like this turns into people armchair running mozilla and complaining about their personal pet peeves.

I don't disagree that there's probably things Mozilla could do better in their desktop browser.

I do think it's an off topic distraction in a comment thread sparked by a report of how operating systems are abusing their position to limit competition in web browsers.

Google pays for an order of magnitude more engineers for Chrome. This is the only reason they're ahead of Firefox. They're doing this from an artificial law-breaking economy they built.

The same with Apple and their protectionist monopoly platform.

Both companies deserve DOJ slaps.

If you're a start-up founder, these companies are seeping you of the time and budget you need to succeed. They're unfairly sucking the air out of the economy for the rest of us.

Let's assume we live in a perfect world where Firefox has 100% compatibility-parity with Chrome.

Do you think Firefox would have a significant marketshare, and if so, why?

I don't see what out-of-the-box Firefox brings to a non-technical user compared to Chrome. Yes, it can be made significantly better than Chrome with specific configuration and add-ons like uBlock Origin, but non-technical users aren't aware of that and will not try (and those who are already use Firefox).

That isn't even an even playing field!

Google defaults you to Chrome on Android. That's 49% of users, and most won't know to switch.

Google assaults you with Chrome ads on their search page if you use a default browser without adblock.

Google pays for default search status on Apple. Then pulls you in.

Google is currently running a nationwide "better on Chrome" ad campaign. Billboards and murals everywhere.

Why are you intentionally avoiding the question? Tell me why a non-technical user should prefer even a hypothetical, 100%-compatible Firefox over Chrome.

Remember that they are non-technical, they aren't aware of FOSS or the history of Mozilla and have no ideological reason to pick Firefox, so the decision has to be made purely on functionality.

What groundbreaking, relevant-to-the-average-user functionality (dev tools and advanced, off-by-default privacy options don't count) does Firefox have out of the box that Chrome doesn't?

I'm not avoiding your question - I'm pointing to why Chrome is in the lead.

If Chrome didn't have Google backing it and Apple didn't mandate Safari, Firefox would likely have significant market share.

This isn't a battle over functionality, it's monopolistic invasion of an open ecosystem by giants that control all of the ingress points. They're turning the entirety of the web itself into an ad/product funnel for giants.

I don't care if Mozilla wins. I just don't think the world is healthy with two OS/mobile/search vendors controlling every major piece of technology.

The technology sector will be healthier if these companies are forced to break up. There will be more competition and more innovation as less is spent fighting for the last 1% of growth.

Firefox usurped the then-incumbent IE6 despite all odds. Chrome can be usurped likewise.

Unfortunately for the Mozilla fanbois, though, Firefox won't be an usurper a second time because as already mentioned it's degenerated into simply a Chrome ripoff.

A new competitor can usurp the throne, but it needs to be a genuinely better product to do that and Firefox today is not a genuinely better product.

I used Firefox back then because it was faster and performed better.

Then I used chrome because it was faster and performed better.

Now I use safari because its fast enough and chrome is getting creepy.

If you bother to read the research they've done it makes the case that most people never change the default browser.

That's basically how most people 'choose' their browser.

It also goes over how every other browser engine is actually a Chrome ripoff - some UX changes don't make that so.

What exactly does Firefox lack in this regard? I'm curious. I've used it for years and the only noticeable difference to me is that it doesn't nag me about having a Google account.

Well it's not really that it lacks, but that it also doesn't have any compelling features (for the average user) to switch either.

When it comes to nagging, Firefox is unfortunately also quite bad, every major update it will find some bullshit to nag you about such as "colorways", Pocket or a VPN.

I usually “sell” Firefox along with uBlock Origin. You’re correct that out of the box functionality for Firefox isn’t super compelling, but regular users notice the improved browsing experience that comes with the blocker.

> I don't see what out-of-the-box Firefox brings to a non-technical user compared to Chrome.

Respecting privacy.

I urge non-technical people to switch to Firefox constantly. People understand, often cannot be bothered.

Times change and more and more people are realising that in the twenty first century we need to protect ourselves not so much government oppression as corporate dominance and surveillance. So they bother

Part of that is using Firefox. In my experience, people get it. Be they computer programmers or plumbers.

> Respecting privacy.

Firefox in its default configuration does nothing about privacy because just the IP address and user-agent are unique enough to track you. It may actually make it even worse because Firefox' marketshare is so small that the user-agent sticks out like a sore thumb.

You need uBlock Origin to have any chance at privacy.

> Respecting privacy.

Firefox these days includes a number of features which threaten user's privacy that must be disabled. Their biggest sins I think were forcing Pocket onto people by default, their new tab page, searching from the address bar, and prefetch.

That isn't how this works.

Google is investing a lot in making websites run better on user computers, while protecting the users from malicious websites. This is a problem if you're trying to sell a browser. And an opportunity if you're trying to make a good website.

If Google was actually sucking air out of the ecosystem, all of the VCs would stop investing in websites because no money could be made. But they invest because Google isn't doing that, and there is a ton of air in the economy.

For a contrast, look at what happened to Windows applications in the 1990s. Microsoft really did suck the air out of the system. Startups really did die en masse. And VC stopped investing in Windows applications because your viable outcomes were fail, be bought out by Microsoft cheaply, or be wiped out by Microsoft's anticompetitive behavior. None of which made money for the VC.

> Google is investing a lot in making websites run better on user computers, while protecting the users from malicious websites. This is a problem if you're trying to sell a browser. And an opportunity if you're trying to make a good website.

Google is also investing a lot into gulping up large chunks of the market too, they're investing heavily into spying on user behavior and collecting as much info as possible. All in the name of improving usability.

Not saying only Google is the culprit here, all big players do it. What I am pointing out is that a lot of these are really hurting the user in the name of making things better for the user.

In Microsoft's case, there is an entire world of software that only runs on Windows. There are a lot of circumstances where businesses and users simply don't have a choice to run an operating system other than Windows because so much of the software world is built around it.

There software that runs only on macOS, but nowhere near the extent of Windows. The overwhelming majority of people using a Mac have made a decision to use an Apple product. For most Windows users, this was never a choice.

What Apple is doing is not anticompetitive because they own the platform. Microsoft was anticompetitive because they wound up dictating what OEMs could or could not do with the platform they built. Not the same situation.

Your comment doesn't make sense. Apple "owns" the platform because... why, exactly? Because they build the software and the hardware? Or because you can only run software that they approve?

The PC OEMs didn't "build" a platform, they licensed Windows from Microsoft and that license contained anti-competitive clauses. Apple's restrictions on iOS are also anti-competitive, regardless of the fact that they also built the hardware.

> Because they build the software and the hardware?

Yes

> Apple's restrictions on iOS are also anti-competitive

Why, exactly? Should Subway be forced to allow McDonald's to sell Big Macs inside of each of their locations? That's competition, not anticompetitive.

The iOS situation is closer to Subway forbidding me from taking my food home and putting McDonald's sauce on it, even though I bought the damn sandwich.

Should McDonald's be able to tell their franchisees that they can't sell Whoppers? That seems like the more apt comparison, and put like that it's hard to see why Microsoft would be in the wrong.

Yes, exactly the opposite of what you said.

Apple can do no wrong!

Look at where Firefox gets its funding and you’ll see why they might be reluctant to ship ad blocking on their flagship product.

Firefox does have Firefox Focus on mobile with built in ad blocking/tracker blocking. I use it all the time yet I’m still not sure whether it allows “acceptable” ads due to general ad blindness, though I know it doesn’t block everything (which could just be due to lack of community reports for that ad type, or something).

> Look at where Firefox gets its funding and you’ll see why they might be reluctant to ship ad blocking on their flagship product.

Great, then it means it's time to actually build a profitable business, or at least own up to their conflict of interest instead of blaming everyone for their inability to run a business without relying on handouts.

Actually Brave solved that part. It has a working business model with its opt in ad users. Actually impressive they solved it.

I like Brave a lot, but their business model is not providing enough revenue to build a full web runtime + browser either since they are a Chrome fork.

Seriously. It seems like the only "innovation" coming out of Mozilla these days involves finding new ways to complain about their marketshare dwindling that don't involve their browser being inferior to their major competitors in many ways.

Microsoft did anti-competitive shenanigans back in the day too

Did Microsoft do anything worse than bundling IE with Windows and integrating it into the file manager? Frankly Windows now is much worse than it was then, taking note of the hissy fit Windows 10/11 throws when you go to switch your default browser away from Edge.

MS lost the trial about IE and had to include a UI to allow switching the default[1] (1998-2001). Firefox v1 launched 3 yrs after that trial[2] (2004).

The idea that Firefox was able to get market share besides MS anti-competitive actions is incorrect. Firefox was better than IE in many areas, but the history will be different if users cannot switch the default browser.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor.... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefox_version_history

This never happened in the US.

If Mozilla bundled uBO into Firefox, I imagine they would lose Google as a search partner overnight, and tens of millions of dollars in funding as a result.

Google, an advertising company, pays for the vast majority of Firefox development in exchange for being the default search engine. Bundling an ad blocker with Firefox seems like a pretty bad idea in this situation.

And yet, Firefox is an antitrust fig leaf for chrome. EU regulators won't take kindly to Google having an effective monopoly on web browsers, all the more so since MS adopted the same browser engine. If the choices became chrome or WebKit, said regulators would likely be at least curious enough to look.

> Microsoft did anti-competitive shenanigans back in the day too and yet Mozilla managed to still get a significant marketshare despite that

pretty easy to do when the incumbent barely worked on their browser for 5 years because they had a monopoly. i would assume no one would be as dumb as balmer to choke out their own monopoly position to save a few bucks