I don't know how many will come but if Google wants to implode their plugin ecosystem in favour of more advertising, and if that action increases Firefox adoption (and thus a healthy browser ecosystem via competition) then I am for it.
I think you're underestimating just how much annoyance the general public will put up with. Look at how popular streaming services are, even though they're constantly removing content. I see people complain about it all the time, but they keep signing up for more services.
Its one of my major annoyances, that sometimes I do get ads on my iPhone, even with Ad-blockers.
Architecturally, it is definitely possible to interleave ads from an ad network into your server's http3 response stream by doing server-side ad network integration. Only the measurement needs to be client-side and directly integrated with ad network, if at all. The same underlying mechanism used for content security policy can be used for ensuring integrity of ad content even when not served directly by the ad network. So, any domain/url/path/extension/dom-id etc based ad blocking mechanism isn't going to work.
Very likely this will result in superior technical performance (latency and measurement), and superior ad performance (due to richer backend data integration and better ad selection). It is just a matter of time.
I'm sure that such intimate server side integration will eventually result in legislative pushback for privacy protection, and the measure-countermeasure game will continue.
I do believe that Google doesn't want ads served through the site that's actually being visited, because it reduces Google's visibility into what's going on, which affects both Google's semi-legitimate interests, like being able to detect click fraud, and Google's total control over information that might be used for targeting.
I also believe that many of the sites don't want that, especially the smaller ones. It'd be more complicated for them to set up, and would mean they needed more bandwidth.
I do NOT believe that Google actually cares enough about user's privacy per se to do much about it. If that were the case, Google itself wouldn't collect about 95 percent of what it actually does collect.
User privacy sounds good as an excuse, though.
They might be able to address this by flipping things around. Instead of the ad service providing ads to the content provider for the content provider to them embed in the content and server, have the content provider provide content to the ad service which then puts in the ads and serves the content.
Let's say content provider foo.com wants ads from Google. One way this could be done is for foo.com to organize their site so that any pages they want ads on come from content.foo.com. They would set content.foo.com to point to a server run by Google. That server would provide a way for foo.com to put their content there, with some mechanism for Google to do the ad integration and then serve the pages.
If the industry moves to a place where only server-injected ads are profitable, something will surely give here. The end result will be more large conglomerates knowing more about us than ever before, unfortunately.
I'm surprised that's not already the case. Well, not that surprised, it's a business where at least one of sides is scum and server-side makes it a hell lot easier to cheat
It gives way too much power to the publisher: they want the ad money and therefore have all the incentives to commit fraud.
At the moment, having the ad distributed by a third party and a ton of other third party JS in the browser allow all parties involved to cross check each other.
The bot problem would be way worse with server side.
https://blog.google/products/marketingplatform/360/improve-p... https://developers.google.com/tag-platform/tag-manager/serve...
In the meantime, someone will build adblocker undoing what has been done server-side. And if this is hard to detect, that will be based on training/model. Data integration will be subject to GDPR.
I guess for Chrome that share is even greater.
Most people don't use extensions and don't know ad-blocking is even a thing.
> Firefox users should be a more tech savvy ones
Now in the same thread you're suggesting a tiny minority of users are tech savvy.
Sorry, but can't have it both ways - majority savvy and minority savvy. It's either-or.
I know I'm satisfied with Firefox built-in Enhanced Tracking Protection, so I don't have an extension installed for "ad blocking", but my problem is not ads but ad trackers. I don't mind "non-personalized, non-targeted" ads and I welcome them in many cases, but I do mind ad trackers and I loathe any attempt at "personalized" ads.
(Though I don't have 0 extensions installed even then, I like Tree Tab Plus and Multi-Account Container. Multi-Account Container is of course another reason the ad networks believe I "block ads" even though I technically do not. It seems better for me that Google, Twitter, and Facebook accounts are never logged in at the same time in the same tab.)
> Mozilla has renewed its lucrative nine-figure deal with Google to ensure its search engine is the default in Firefox in the US and other parts of the world.
...
> Moz will likely pocket $400m to $450m a year between now and 2023 from the arrangement
...
> More than 90 per cent of Mozilla's funding comes from web search providers that pay for the right to be the default search engine in Firefox in their regions. According to the organization's latest financial figures, $430m of its 2018 total revenue of $451m came from those internet giants – primarily Google
https://www.theregister.com/2020/08/14/mozilla_google_search...
https://www.ghacks.net/2022/09/24/mozilla-reaffirms-that-fir...
Now that they have Edge, they need neither. Because they can now pretend that Edge is something else but a glorified Chrome fork and follower.
See, for example, WebTransport which as a standard doesn't even exist beyond some scribbles on a napkin https://web.dev/webtransport/
--- start quote ---
The WebTransport features described in this article are shipping in Chrome, Edge, and other Chromium-based browsers, starting with version 97.
Firefox does not currently have support for WebTransport. Updates on their position can be found in this GitHub issue.
Safari does not currently have support for WebTransport.
--- end quote ---
Firefox will barely gain market share.
Chromium is opensource, so the basis for straight forward binary modding are already there.
Firefox needs to take the google money and throw it into aggressive marketing.
Firefox has never even held 10% browser share
That's very inaccurate. Firefox held a ~30% market share way back in ancient times (~2009), which decreased to around ~10% through to ~2018.
The substantial drop from ~10% to it's current position only happened in the last few years.
Animation of the browser market share over time, if that helps: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=es9DNe0l0Qo
Here’s a Mozilla blog post from 2009 celebrating hitting 25%:
https://blog.mozilla.org/metrics/2009/11/09/firefox-hits-25-...
That was the highest point.
Also those numbers seem to be highly inflated
Firefox held 32% market share in 2010.
It rose because Internet Explorer sucked and us technical folks made our relatives switch along with ourselves.
Same story with Chrome: pre-Quantum, Firefox was getting pretty slow and Chrome was the new, fast kid on the block, so we changed browsers and dragged the tech-illiterate along.
It's time for this to happen again. The Chromium monopoly is bad for the open web, and now that Google has consolidated power, they're using it to push ads.
It's time we switch back to the only viable, truly open source alternative and drag all our acquaintances along.
I can tell you with absolute certainty it won't happen, at least so long as we're talking about Firefox as the alternative in this kind of manner, and here's why:
Both the Firefox and Chrome usurpations happened organically without too much ideological dogma getting tossed around. It just happened: IE6 sucked ass, Firefox was great, usurped. Firefox (read: Mozilla) became putrid after usurping the throne, Chrome was great(ish), usurper usurped. It was all ultimately just happenstance, the commons did commons things.
Contrast now, where Firefox is being thrown around by a select handful as the supposed returning saviour with dogmatic fervor. As a witness of the original usurpations, I will say this isn't what happened ~15 years ago and it is impossible to force something to become a thing.
Chrome will eventually be usurped, but it's probably not going to be Firefox and it's going to happen regardless whether anyone forces the issue or not.
Ad blockers need to make no attempt to function at all with MV3. They should maybe even go out of their way to not work. Any ad blocker installed on chrome should just bring up a message that said (not 100% truthfully) that ad blocking can't be made to work on Chrome, please go to Firefox to continue ad free browsing.
This will shift a lot of users. Especially the more technical ones who then tell their less tech savvy friends and when they go home for Thanksgiving they can just install Firefox on dad's computer so he stops falling for stupid scam ads.
This can work, and I think work pretty well. This does not mean that Firefox is the end all, be all. That hypothetical usurper browser you mention can still swoop in and scoop up the new Firefox users as well as the poor saps who stayed on Chrome.
Likewise, any contender to Chrome today must demonstrate objective, practical superiority (and be honest about it). The commons don't know nor care what FOSS is, arguing FOSS to the commons is a fool's errand.
I appreciate gorhill, a trusted name, took the initiative to release a MV3 adblocker, because that simple act stopped fools like you who would readily deceive users to force an issue.
Also, pro tip: Deception doesn't last for long, and once it comes to light you are never regaining that lost trust and respect.
If the hobbled ad blockers get made anyway then the effect pushing to Firefox will be lesser but still there. Especially since ad networks will not be able to restrain themselves from abusing the initial crack in the door and users find themselves staring at more and more ads.
It's not ideology or deception, MV2 is just better for ad blockers.
It's just a matter of correctly conveying that to the masses.
Now a huge portion of net traffic is mobile devices. Those are far more locked down. It is not as easy to install and use a new browser on IOS or Android devices.
People around here seem to forget that for a large number of internet users a phone or tablet is their primary interface.
It might be trickier on iOS, but that's not a technical limitation and imo an antitrust case waiting to happen. We'll see if the Digital Markets Act forces their hand.
Chrome still fails to render a lot of scaled images though: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/37906602/blurry-downscal...
I doubt most users will go back though.
A bit different story with Chrome: you remember the installers that added toolbars to your MSIE? That's where Chrome went.
https://blog.mozilla.org/metrics/2009/11/09/firefox-hits-25-...
By 2010 there was some dispute as to whether or not they ever surpassed 24%
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2010/03/firef...
I remember reading that article when it was originally published :) It was all downhill from there.
Now imagine if you're a company that have 50k or 100k developers on payroll. Even that alone will actually spread your influence if you indoctrinate them right, might be worth hiring them just to double down on that influence, even if you may not necessarily need them.
The only reason mozilla switch "worked" is that at the time it was a significantly better browser
I distinctly remember firefox having at least 25% share in 2010. No source besides my memory.
https://blog.mozilla.org/metrics/2009/11/09/firefox-hits-25-...
The peak was 25%.