Hacker News Reader

Comment by blibble | Hacker News Reader

> What I love about Firefox is that it really provides users with an alternative choice of a browser that is just genuinely designed for them

they can't seriously think this can they?

who was asking for telemetry, mr robot, pocket, VPN ads, "use our email" (relay) ads, "check your accounts!!" (monitor) ads and built-in AI slop generators

and soon, more built-in ads: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/advertising/

I don't think a single user wanted any of that

at least Chrome doesn't actually show you ads directly throughout the browser's interface

View on HN

> at least Chrome doesn't actually show you ads directly throughout the browser's interface

Of course, it doesn't need to. Google controls enough space in the web content itself. On Firefox there are options to disable that; at least it is a supported setting. For Google, you need third party extensions to take care of this.

Not saying that I like that Firefox displays ads / is ad supported, but Chrome not displaying ads in its UI is hardly a positive against Firefox.

“predatory pricing” or “cross-subsidization”. A strategy where a monopolist reduces the price (sometimes to zero) of a complementary product to increase demand for its primary product.

The parent comment was focused on the claim that Firefox is designed for browser users and not for Mozilla's purposes or the purposes of other, commercial entities. The commenter provided examples demonstrating Mozilla's interests in generating revenue and serving commercial entities on the web.

This reply however focuses on comparing Firefox and Chrome. Yes, Firefox is better.^1 But the parent's comment is still valid.

There is so much in Firefox's design that is not for browser users but for the benefit of others. Mozilla cares deeply about web advertisers and an online advertising "ecosystem". This is reflected in the design.

1. On average, but not in every respect. For example, in Chrome I can set the default search engine to any valid URL. I use a localhost-bound netcat that serves a useful web form^2 that I created in lieu of a "search engine". In Firefox, this is not possible.

2. It sends text clips from Chromebook Chrome to the "developer mode" (frecon) console stdout.

I just reacted to a sentence of the parent comment, rejecting one of its points where the parent commenter does compare Chrome with Firefox.

I do agree with the parent commenter that some things in Firefox are not designed for the user, but for the adcertisers. Which is something I don't like about Firefox.

> In Firefox, this is not possible

You can implement OpenSearch (which is basically a small XML file describing your search engine to write), then you'll be able to add your local search enigne: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/OpenSearch. It's a bit less straightforward than just a URL but if you implemented an actual search engine, it's nothing, and you probably want to handle suggestions, for which you need OpenSearch anyway.

Though for your use case, the web shortcuts feature of firefox seems a bit more convenient. I guess you don't always want to direct your searches to your web console, just sometimes, so you currently have to temporarily switch search engines when you want to do this. With a web shortcut, you just prefix your text with a word (which can be one char long). This works by adding a bookrmark, and setting this word in the bookmark.

"I guess you don't want to drect your searches to your web console."

The web form is for sending copied and pasted text to the frecon console.

For various reasons, I do not use the Ctrl-Alt-T browser-based "console".

I do not use a graphical web browser much. I do searches from the console. I type the search query on the command line or into a file if I am doing bulk searches.

As such, when I set a localhost address as a custom default search engine I am doing so as a way of disabling searching from the address bar. It also functions as a shortcut to reach local HTML files served by a localhost-bound httpd/netcat. For example, if the default search URL is set to http://127.0.0.1/%s.html and the local HTML file is a web form called clip.html, then I type "clip" in the address bar to open the web form.

Mozilla really wants to send everything that a user types in the address bar to a remote address, e.g., that of its business partner Google, before the user ever hits Enter. This desire, perhaps an implicit or explicit requirement of their contractual relationship, is reflected in the Firefox default settings, i.e., the design of Firefox.

Your use case is quite interesting but you do realize that it is highly specific and that not supporting it (though I told you a way with which you could use to make it work) is in no way a witness of the browser not being user-focused? Another way would be to bookmark clip.html and set the keyword shortcut to "clip", for each page you have. Or you could have a page displaying a form and set it as a new tab page. Or you could set up a keyword shortcut for local host/%s.html. There are several easy ways you can use to convince Firefox to do what you want to do, so much that it almost invalidates your highly specific example of "Firefox is not user centric". You are highjacking a feature related to search engines that was not made for this use case, and you are not using the Firefox feature Chrome doesn't have which is designed for exactly your use case.

> Mozilla really wants to send everything that a user types in the address bar to a remote address, e.g., that of its business partner Google, before the user ever hits Enter. This desire, perhaps an implicit or explicit requirement of their contractual relationship, is reflected in the Firefox default settings, i.e., the design of Firefox.

All browsers do this, including Chrome. There is nothing Firefox specifically does here. I don't like this feature but it is expected to be there by default from virtually every user. It is also very easy to disable this feature.

But I don't need to be conviced that Firefox is ad supported and doesn't have optimal defaults because of this. I know, and I wish it were not like this, and kinda hope another browser with another business model will somehow appear if Firefox can't be this browser, but for now every browsers are ad supported. Even Safari (which also has fundings from other sources of income that I don't like neither). And Chrome, of all browsers, is absolutely not a model that can be used against Firefox on the topic.

"All browsers do this, including Chrome."

Yet Mozilla apparently wants us to believe Firefox is different. If in fact it was a browser designed for users cf. advertisers, it would surely choose a different design. Alas, it chooses essentially the same design geared toward facilitating online advertising.

On the one hand HN commenters defending Mozilla argue Firefox is different, in fact better than Chrome. And yet on the other hand Firefox more or less matches Chrome, "feature" by "feature". HN commenters claiming to have worked for Mozilla in the past have stated this is intentional and makes sense. They are likely correct.

Anyway, I am not a graphical browser user. I use different, text-only software. I see no ads. This works and makes sense for me.

Comparing graphical browsers does not make much sense for me. To me, they all suck. They are more similar than different.

For others who rely on these graphical browsers, comparisons might make more sense.

Computer owners and internet subscribers striving to control their hardware, e.g., trying to prevent unwanted UDP and TCP transmissions. These so-called browser "features" seem to benefit advertisers and advertising corporations more than they benefit computer owners and internet subscribers.

Correction: Regarding #1 In Firefox it is possible. Apologies for the inadvertence.

>at least Chrome doesn't actually show you ads directly throughout the browser's interface

Chrome actively prevents proper adblockers from working as it has removed the extension framework integral to their function, and most web ads are Google's to begin with.

How else would you like for Mozilla and Firefox to diversify their revenue and remain relevant?

You can’t complain about them advertising their own services while still producing a leading browser.

simple: not being feckless over a 20 year period

this is not some small charity, they were generating $500 MILLION a year from the search deals

they should have shoved the the billions of dollars into an endowment

from that they could have funded a medium sized team focusing on the browser in perpetuity

but no, they blew it on obvious boondoggles (like Firefox OS)

Exactly. Look at Wikipedia for a counter-example, showing how to do things right. Sure, Wikipedia is frequently asking for donations, but in reality they have a large endowment and can go without new funding for ages, though they'd have to cut back on the unimportant stuff.

Mozilla could have done the same thing if they had a little foresight and didn't just assume the piles of cash would keep flowing in forever.

> but in reality they have a large endowment and can go without new funding for ages, though they'd have to cut back on the unimportant stuff.

And that is why I'm very annoyed by the fact that every year the donation begging is more in my face. Bigger, louder, harder to block.

Since they don't need the money that bad, why not keep it to a small banner and respect the users FFS.

Firefox OS was pretty cool and had it succeeded(Which it might well have if they'd stuck with Witch's plan of targeting the third world), Mozilla would be in a much stronger position to influence web standards and generate revenue nowadays.

Firefox OS is something that should have been developed by an organisation that wasn't beholden to it's main competitor for finances(and still is).

Mozilla should have done everything in its power to gain it's independence(and still should).

I have been a Firefox user since day 1. I rememember, it was Phoenix, then Firebird, and for the last few years, Firefox.

I still use Firefox, which makes me so sad to see how incompetent(or potentially just greedy) the Mozilla leadership is.

Great product, poor stewards.

You've created a beautiful alternative timeline. One that posits that the Firefox team had the technical chops to compete. Money isn't a panacea: Microsoft clearly threw a lot at the Edge redevelopment and that team apparently failed. Also the Chromium team are 10x superstars in my eyes.

The glimmers of technical hope within Gecko like Servo and Rust were chopped.

> but no, they blew it on obvious boondoggles (like Firefox OS)

I agree they wasted money on a heap of useless things (as we see plenty of failed companies do - like Borland).

But I thought Firefox OS was one of the most promising ideas. I'd still like to see a vendor try and produce a phone that supported browser-tech for Apps - the idea is clearly valuable for Apps delivered using WebViews on iPhone and Android.

Personally I think the rot is throughout the org - and blaming one section is pointless - it weren't just management or tech. Watching previously successful corporations die has a similar feel to me.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com