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.
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.
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).
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.
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?
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.
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.
Then I used chrome because it was faster and performed better.
Now I use safari because its fast enough and chrome is getting creepy.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.