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%.