They dont have the advantage of owning the OS (android/chrome and iOS / Safari) nor the advantage of advertising on the google home page like chrome.
The "customers" they are courting are security/privacy zealots who constantly want them "just work on the browser" but never seem to have an answer on how to pay for that.
I am hoping the advent of LLMs allows more entrants into the space at a faster speed. Time will tell. Maybe as FF dies ladybird will take over.
They don't need to. Chrome does extremely well on Windows without "owning the OS".
> nor the advantage of advertising on the google home page like chrome
Very few people go to that page anyway.
> The "customers" they are courting are security/privacy zealots who constantly want them "just work on the browser" but never seem to have an answer on how to pay for that.
They already get half a billion dollars a year from Google for very little in exchange. They just need to spend that money on the website browser and not nonsense.
QFT. The biggest impediment to Firefox's success is the Mozilla Org, which sees it as a cash cow to fund a zillion projects no one wants (sacrificing the future of the browser everyone wants).
Most "internet users" are mobile. The ones using windows are doing it from work laptops that are locked down and use edge (chrome).
If windows was a growing market MS would not be so far down the extraction path they have gone with the OS.
Firefox as "just a browser" that is entirely dependent on funding from its main competitor just isn't a future-proof solution. That's why they keep on trying to come up with new revenue streams.
No they wouldn't. Everyone recommended Chrome, and it came long before Edge (given Edge is based on Chromium). People have got used to Chrome. That's why it does well. People don't even interact with those sites so much any more, as they've all moved to phone apps, but they all still use Chrome.
> Firefox as "just a browser" that is entirely dependent on funding from its main competitor just isn't a future-proof solution. That's why they keep on trying to come up with new revenue streams.
Just paying far fewer executives and putting money aside for lean years is a good start. Put aside $150m/year and spend $100m on servers and engineers and that'll get you a long way. But because it's free money it gets spent on nonsense.
If they stop paying tens of millions to their management, they could easily afford paying devs in perpetuity just from investing that money.
At $1M per year (equivalent to a good startup exit, but zero risk), that’s 70 engineers; probably senior to principal phd’s with 10 yr+ experience.
If that’s not enough to maintain a web browser, then pay them to simplify the damn thing.
I would not mind to pay for the browser, but they will not let me.
I'd gladly do the same for firefox, but they have not given the opportunity.
If I had the cash back then I'd do the same for B2G/firefoxOS.
We all know how that was paid for. Google. But instead of taking that money stream and investing it 100% into making it the best browser ever, they pursued a myriad of fancy distractions. Yes, making a sustainable browser project is hard. Making a sustainable browser project while being constantly distracted by side project and political activism [1] is even harder. I am not saying if Mozilla stayed focused the win would be guaranteed. But I am pretty sure doing it like they are doing it guarantees failure.
[1] https://blog.mozilla.org/blogarchive/blog/2021/01/08/we-need...
Firefox works everywhere I point it to, for now. "Let the user modify their own software" does not cost extra.