Choose Firefox Now, Or Later You Won't Get A Choice | Hacker News Reader

Choose Firefox Now, Or Later You Won't Get A Choice

robert.ocallahan.org

390 pointswalterbell309 comments

Almost every other comment that have been posted so far are complaining that FF tabs are not independent processes. Let me express my contrarian opinion. For my use case FF is just excellent and has served me well, I have absolutely no complains now. There was a time when FF leaked, and held a lot of memory, that time has since passed, at least seams so.

I regularly keep several hundreds of tabs open for months on end on my PCs one a 32 bit m/c another a 64 bit both with about a Gig of RAM (one a shade below 1 Gig). Trying to do the same with Chrome has been a torture.

I have used Chrome, its pretty good, but am very happy with FF. Some people get allergic reactions when I mention keeping so many tabs open, I have commented about it here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2936369#up_2936784

A few others have a snark ready, "buy some RAM", I perhaps could, but I would rather use my RAM for other purposes than clogging it with a browser (cat pictures), window manager eye candy etc. In addition, this low RAM environment has turned out to be a good filter, software written without much attention to detail or resource efficiency just doesnt run well, and thats perfectly fine with me. I like hanging out with better ones.

My experience with multiple tabs has been same. In my exeprience (and I read somewhere as well), Chrome shows up UI faster, then responds after 2-3 seconds. Firefox is respnsive from start.

Multiple tab management with Panorama is much better (Chrome has a few similar extensions but don't work that well!) and I like the scrolling interfacce of multiple tabs rather than Chrome's approach of compressing everything!

Recently, Chrome has crashed more for me than Firefox and some of the extensions and features on Firefox are miles ahead.

Have to agree: For me firefox performance is much better. I currently have 413 tabs open, use a 3 year old lenovo laptop, everything works flawless and is responsive, unlike chrome.

what tab addon do you use?

Not op, but I just use the built-in one. On OS X, press CMD+shift+e and you'll get a overview of tab groups, you can create new groups, etc. I have a "main" group (the default one) and one group per pet project, subject, etc. I tend to use these instead of bookmarks, since they stay around even if the browser crashes.

Tab Groups are great. Its one of my favorite Firefox features.

Vimperator

Vimperator is the top reason why I use firefox.

413 tabs?? why?

Why not? That's the way I use the web. If i need it at some point the next week I don't close it.

I usually bookmark (^D) and tag everything that I think I'm gonna need in the future, then I look for it by typing the tag/s in the address bar.

Why not? Because finding an open tab is an O(N) problem, whereas searching bookmarks is O(1).

Its not you can search your open tabs in firefox. I also maintain sets through tab groups that allow me to bring up several things that I'm working on with out having to type in several urls.

As a Firefox stalwart, my only sustained complaint about it is that the plug-in architecture is pretty crappy, but that's mostly a minor complaint so long as you avoid installing anything but very well understood and mature plug-ins. Chrome doesn't do all that much better here, since although its plugin architecture doesn't suffer quite so badly reliability-wise, plugins can still violate your privacy pretty much arbitrarily (modulo the relevant appstore blacklisting it, which is a pretty impotent reactive measure, as we've seen).

Firefox memory usage has always been, and I suppose will likely to continue to be far ahead of Chrome, since the desktop implementation is now largely identical to that used in Firefox OS.

I want the independent processes for security reasons, not memory reasons. Firefox continues to be the most hackable browser because it's lacking that, and also a terrible choice for Tor, as long as it doesn't get it.

I also keep several hundreds of tabs open for months on end. I use Firefox and have simply accepted that it will crash about four times per day, requiring me to wait a few minutes while it restarts and reloads the tabs.

You can set Firefox to only reload tabs on access.

I think that's the way my browser is set up, but there's still a huge spike in internet connections whenever I restart it. Maybe Firefox doesn't load every tab, but still loads one page per open browser window, and it feels slow because I sometimes have 30-40 windows open?

In fact, the infamous memory leak Firefox was 'famous' for was fixed in version 2.5 which tells me that anyone who still complains of memory leaks in Firefox is one who you do not want to listen to for advice.

EDIT: I may have the version number wrong, it's been a long time, and, yes, the "leak" was a combination of things and not just one thing but my point is the same.

The leak points to a slack development/release process (is there one?). Its expected to check for leaks, crashes before releasing a point build. That this dog got out points to a systemic problem. Was that fixed by 2.5? Or was just the leak fixed.

What makes you so sure that there was ever only one memory leak? What makes you so sure that one or more new ones haven't been introduced since then?

I've seen and heard a lot of reports from many different Firefox users about Firefox using an unreasonably large amount of memory, even when using fresh installations of the most recent version, and when engaging in very reasonable browsing patterns.

As a software developer faced with a large and frequent volume of reports of such a nature, the only responsible thing to do is to assume that there is truly a problem. This should be assumed even if the developers themselves may be having trouble reproducing the problem. Denying that the problem exists is usually the most counterproductive thing that can be done, because the problem likely does actually exist, and it doesn't get fixed.

By the way, I don't believe that there ever was a Firefox 2.5 release. Perhaps you mean Firefox 3.5?

Users have been reporting memory leaks in Firefox up to and including last week. Users should not be used a source of what a memory leak is cause 80% of users do not know what a memory leak truly is much less be technically competent to recognize and report one.

I often make the error of saying the fix was in version 2.5 but perhaps it was in v1.5 or v2.0. It doesn't matter. They were fixed long ago is my point.

Once again, nobody is denying anything about memory problems. But there are two things at play here:

1. One person's experience is not universal. With a web browser as customizable as Firefox, there will be certain configurations causing problems that aren't caught by tests or by dogfooding. Some people are probably seeing leaks that users with a default configuration don't see. For example: https://blog.mozilla.org/nnethercote/2014/08/15/the-story-of...

2. People need to report their problems in ways that are actionable. HN is not a bug tracker. If somebody on HN (Hacker News! News for programmers who presumably know how a bug tracker works!) is having memory issues, (s)he should have no problems filing a bug in Bugzilla. Firefox has had about:memory for years now; save that report and attach it to your bug.

No memory leak was fixed in 2.5, because there was no 2.5 release[1]. What firefox then became famous for was a team of developers who adamantly insisted there were no memory leaks in firefox... right up until some of them admitted there was a problem, and the healing process began[2]. Any software product of this size is going to have SOME memory management problems, and that's fine. Firefox's history of even admitting these exist is spotty at best.

[1] Go ahead and check. I'll wait: https://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/ [2] https://wiki.mozilla.org/Performance/MemShrink

There have always been memory leaks in Firefox, and before 4.0, they were always worse on a new release, and improved with bug fixing releases. I don't know whether it's aurora, or the increased pace of the development cycle, but I haven't noticed any serious memory leaks like there were back in the day.

Of course, any program the size of Firefox is bound to have memory leaks. So we can't totally eliminate them while we still use C++.

Some time ago I made a very (very) light-weight extension for myself that works well for situations in which I have hundreds of tabs opened. It closes them all and stores the linked titles in a simple HTML page (thus searchable), ordered by tab session. It is inspired by OneTab and it is open-source.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/tab-grenade/

Thank you! I looked pretty hard for a OneTab-like extension for FF about a year ago, and couldn't find one. It's the one thing I really miss about Chrome; making my own was on my TODO list.

I have been a long time FF user and can only echo your experience. But sometimes, on (badly written) JavaScript heavy pages, the entire browser locks up instead of just the rogue tab. I've tried enabling electrolysis[1] on my nightly, but it isn't quite there yet. Firefox may not be perfect, but it really is the only option for me, and it's getting better thanks to the amazing community behind it.

[1]: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Electrolysis

PRODUCTIVITY of 100 TABS? Why not show us how productive you are with hundreds of tabs open in FF? Or for that matter any other browser?

It's really easy with an extension like [Tree Style Tab](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/tree-style-ta...), or by using Tab Groups.

Now why would I need to use this tree style tab versus just setting bookmarks?

Plus, show me how productive you are with hundreds of tabs EVEN with the tree style tab versus say just using bookmarks?

With bookmarks I can save it, export it, move to another computer.

But lets go back, how productive can one be with hundreds of tabs open even with a tree style versus bookmarks?

How exactly do I quantify my productivity? I like the workflow better. It works better for me, and apparently it works better for the parent poster. What's it to you?

I had a similar experience with Chrome (or rather, Chromium) on my netbook. It consumed so much memory with normal usage that I had to switch to Midori[1] so I could do other things while browsing.

[1] http://midori-browser.org/

This is actually very true. Having Chrome/V8 out there has definitely improved the state of browsers as far as performance; especially in regards to JavaScript. But now we face a situation where Google is getting such a market share with Chrome and their other web properties where lock in is a very real possibility, and the only way to keep an open, standardized web is to make sure there are still other browsers with major market share.

I once switched from Firefox to Chrome as Firefox became bloated and drifted away from its original mission to be a light weight branch from Mozilla (the browser). Now it is much better, but I still end up using Chrome when doing front end development as the developer tools on Chrome are fantastic. I do notice lately though that Firefox is putting new emphasis on devtools.

I think the developer tools in the latest Firefox are absolutely fantastic. I don't think Chrome offers anything substantially better currently for frontend development.

Agreed, and each release they just get better and better. For example, the updated scratchpad in FF32+ is pretty neat with it's code hinting and completion.

And the integrated app-manager for FirefoxOS apps and devices is just icing on the cake. I say Mozilla is doing a good job here, improving integration on multiple fronts and giving developers something that works right away. I am impressed at how well it works.

Make sure to checkout https://ffdevtools.uservoice.com if you have any suggestions for the firefox devtools dev team.

Firefox built in dev tools are clunky as anything, right down to not being able to resize bits so you can see the data in the panels. However firebug fixes that instantly.

Lock-in has already begun on Chrome. Now you can't install Chrome extensions from anywhere else but the Chrome store (which means only stuff Google agrees with). Chrome is as closed-down as iOS and WP8 right now (For shame, Google!). It's actually the main reasons I'm waiting to switch from it soon. But not until Firefox gets a security sandbox.

This is not lock in (not for the purpose of lock-in anyway) - it's for security reasons and it is in fact exclusive to Windows. Chrome was getting abused by thousands of extra-crapware installers which would install extra extensions etc. They have taken a gradual response to the issue but it always came down to ">99% of outside extensions installed on windows are crapware. This is exclusive to Windows due to its permission model. This gives users a very bad impression of chrome. Now what?"

I get it, honestly. But hey, if you don't want lock in, the hell are you doing on Windows?

additionally, on the google help page explaining all of that, it also has a guide explaining how to get around the restriction (which is easy as, drag from the download bar onto the extensions page (last time I used it at least))

You cannot do that anymore. You cannot install extensions from outside Chrome Web Store. Period.

Believe developer builds and Chromium are the only choices.

are you sure? I just did it on release channel, developer mode turned off

build: 36.0.1985.143 (Official Build 287914) m

The lock is also active on Mac.

But on both OS, you can get around it by enabling the developer mode and installing unpacked extensions.

Not sure. Extensions are locked down in Mac as well unless developer builds are used.

Chrome was getting abused by thousands of extra-crapware installers which would install extra extensions etc.

Chrome is a prime offender in the "installing unwanted add-ons" game. I'm using Firefox right now, and it has a "Google Update" extension installed that I certainly didn't put there. My system has a silent Google Update process that runs in the background as well. Neither of these, to my knowledge, gave me any choice about installing or even actively announced their presence or what they're doing.

Chrome is a prime offender in the "undermining the system security model" game as well. Just look at how Chrome is installed and handles auto-updates on Windows. It actively circumvents the normal user access control system and pollutes a data directory with executable code, with all the negative consequences that come from that.

Maybe Google should clean up their own yard before they spend too much time criticizing everyone else's?

1. They are not criticizing, they are preventing. 2. You are full of it. Everything you are talking about is part of the Google Updater. An open source program which keeps Chrome (and various other google products if installed) up to date. Needless to say, these updaters don't even exist on Linux and are only there on Windows because of the latter's absolutely moronic handling of updates.

As for Chrome undermining the system security model: [citation needed]

It's very hard to be locked in to an open source browser. If Google fucks up badly enough someone will fork it.

It's possible to install extensions manually without having to go to the Chrome store. That's what I do. The only "inconvenience" (which is actually a convenience to some) is that you have to update the extension manually.

I was in the same boat as you, switching to Chrome when Firefox went in a direction I didn't agree with. I never really liked the uncustomizable Chrome but I tend to vote with my feet if I can.

Months (years?) later of chrome-only usage I still disliked Chrome and decided Firefox was superior after all (just can't get used to some Chrome things), especially now that I no longer needed Firebug (everything is now available in Firefox itself). So I switched back a while ago and have no thoughts of switching again if Firefox keeps this up.

> we face a situation where Google is getting such a market share with Chrome and their other web properties where lock in is a very real possibility

I agree that Chrome has a high market share among web developers. The statistics I've looked at for all users have never put Chrome above 50%.[1][2] I've even been seeing web developers saying "nobody uses Firefox" and "everyone uses Chrome now".

[1] http://gs.statcounter.com/ [2] http://www.netmarketshare.com/browser-market-share.aspx?qpri...

How can everyone--including O'Callahan--be giving Apple a free pass on this issue? Pointer events are a great example of Apple's obstructionism. The W3C tried for years to standardize touch events and Apple blocked them several times by claiming patent rights. Microsoft proposed pointer events, and everyone seems to agree that they are much better as a future standard and a way to unify pointer models, but Apple seems to have no interest in implementing them.

Whether you agree with Google or not (I don't), be realistic and admit that any web platform standard like pointer events that lacks an Apple implementation won't help developers--how good is a "standard" that doesn't work on the iPhone/iPad? My guess is that Apple sees no reason to move quickly on improving web standards, since they'd rather have people develop for their proprietary walled garden. They just created a new proprietary language to do so!

Microsoft and Mozilla lack the market share in mobile devices to be able to move standards in any direction by themselves. Google is in the driver's seat. Apple is willing to sit quietly in the back and we seem to be okay with that?

apple are nowhere near googles market share.

I didn't read that he was giving Apple a free pass, more like the lesser of 2 evils.

As someone who switches browsers about every six months, I feel that Firefox is still quite a bit behind in terms of stability and performance. I mostly blame the single-process model, which makes crashes and hangups way more global than they should be in 2014.

On Windows, there's also the 32-bit issue. On machines with 8+ GB of RAM, having all tabs share a 2 GB address space just doesn't cut it. Especially when your addon model, one of the key features that sets Firefox apart from other browsers, eats an additional 4 MB of this limited space per tab (and that's just for one addon).[1]

Having said all that, I know that brilliant people are working on fixing this, and there have been huge improvements in the past year. And that's how I hope they'll win back users: by building a better browser, not just by appealing to open-source ideals and fear.

[1] https://blog.mozilla.org/nnethercote/2014/05/14/adblock-plus...

Personally, I use firefox nightly and i get a couple of crashes a year...

I also use chrome extensively... and i get crashes about once... a month (im not talking about tab crashes but entiere browser crash)

So im not convinced by the whole multi process thing for stability reasons. It seems like a good idea for sandboxing or "webapps" and only so IF you also have separate cookie jars, etc.

(and i trust chrome more for security)

I'd rather have 2 processes, one for the GUI, one for the tabs ;)

I use Chrome on everything, no plugins. I can't remember a crash in the last year on Windows or Mac but Linux has lately been telling me it did crash but it really didn't. What are you on? Got any plugins?

Multi process is coming soon, it will be enabled by default at version 35 in nightly.

I feel the same way about Firefox's performance. If it can be overcome, I'd not have a reason to touch Chrome again.

> * Multi process is coming soon, it will be enabled by default at version 35 in nightly.*

Please let that be true. Do you have links at hand where these near-future roadmap decisions could be tracked?

For more information on the multi-processing feature, check out this blog post: http://www.ghacks.net/2014/07/12/mozilla-plans-release-elect...

Some general information regarding the features of coming-up versions can be found here: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Features/Release_Tracking

Thank you. I had read about Electrolysis, probably back in February, but had managed to forget about it. "Didn't work, needs more love" results from back then probably contributed to my ignorance.

The second link just went into bookmarks. Even though it didn't mention anything about this particular feature (has content only until R34), it will be helpful for me to know something about the oncoming changes before they happen.

Firefox is definitely behind (on Linux) when it comes to UI fluidity. It also seems like pages load faster in Chrome, but that might also just be one of its UI optimization techniques.

I disagree. I'm having to force quit Chrome about 5 times a day on OSX and it breaks with amazing regularity on my android phone.

Not joking but Firefox just works for me.

It's annoying because, despite warning to the contrary here, the Google ecosystem just works.

Not sure if you're trolling? You say chrome breaks 5 times day, and then later in the same post say the Google ecosystem just works.

Seriously, what are you trying to say?

> eats an additional 4 MB of this limited space per tab

Small technical correction: it's 4 MB per page + 4 MB per embedded frame on that page.

Developers, please stop making add-ons and extensions for Google products. You accelerate Google's domination and vendor lock-in when you do.

I could say the exact same things about iOS apps. Or Android. Or Windows. But a bit of competition is generally good.

Yeah, no offense to GP but that is possibly the worst way of looking at it.

There are platforms where developers need to stop developing. iOS was the main one; it has extreme lock in, an unfriendly development environment, an extremely unfriendly publishing environment and is actively doing evil things. But no, all aboard the ios apps train!

Windows I could say similar things about but given the competition I really can't. Android... Definitely not. Some of the most free mobile OSes run atop of android.

But when it comes to developing on platforms in general, developers absolutely need to use themselves as a voice to tell other platforms what is good, what is needed, etc. There are excellent general desktop features that people have found on mac os, windows and linux alike. Without developers to make use of them, regardless of the "open" or "closed" state of the platform, users are worse off.

This is a very important point. I switched to Firefox mainly due to intertial scrolling and better fonts (Chrome looks crap till this 37 beta and needs a flag).

Extensions are more powerful on Firefox but I think they are coplicated as well. There are many popular extensions that just don't have updates on Firefox. One example is Evernote. I used it a lot on Chrome but their Firefox extension is almost 1 year old version and Chrome/Opera extensions have much better UI now. I hope this improves soon.

You can try the latest Beta build (August 14) of Web Clipper 6 here: https://discussion.evernote.com/topic/60185-web-clipper-6-fo...

You could say that about building an app or add-on for literally any product.

Not with a straight face.

So? It's a matter of degree.

Creating an add-on for a product with a smaller market share is not that bad. But for a product with 60%+ that also belongs to a company that "owns" Search, Maps and Email and is known to play dirty it's a different story.

What are we to do? We build data visualization software, but firefox is REALLY slow at rendering SVG (so no d3 for us). We have a choice of asking our customers to run ie11 or chrome, since both run quickly.

We would recommend firefox, since we really like the Mozilla foundation, but the performance of it is so bad we have to steer people away from it.

It is a sad state of affairs.

I'm a little surprised by this. I can believe that Firefox is slower (I haven't done the comparison myself), but even so it's still capable of rendering hundreds of thousands of points or thousands of complicated geometric shapes.

I would have thought it you had more data than that then the points will all be rammed together and hard to distinguish, so it would be better to switch to density plots.

I've also noticed it slower on an SVG based app. Not terribly slower, just enough to make it look slightly glitchy compared with the smoothness of Chrome with interactive actions like drag n dropping components around.

If you make software (which people want to use, of course) and notice a mainstream open source browser (in this case Firefox) being slow at something in particular, wouldn't it be advantageous to you and everyone else if some of you could briefly look under the hood to see what the problem is? Maybe not fix the bug, but at least let Mozilla know that there is a pain point somewhere (perhaps with specific source files or functions which take forever). Probably gets it fixed much faster as when you just keep using Chrome and disregard Firefox completely.

Have you ever "looked under the hood" ? Browsers aren't your average weekend open source project, they're behemoths :)

I once checked out chromium in order to test out whether file writing would be easy to do. The size of the project alone meant it took me forever to find out where to patch it.

(Edit: This was something like 5 years ago before I started to grow a distaste for Chrome)

Have you ever "looked under the hood" ? Browsers aren't your average weekend open source project, they're behemoths

I've sometimes wondered whether the barrier to entry is the biggest thing holding back FOSS.

I'm an experienced developer, quite capable of diving into the kind of code these projects run. Now and then I have enough spare time that I might be able to make a useful contribution. I would be happy to support some of these projects in the spirit of giving something back.

Every single time I look at a major FOSS project where I'd like to help, the very first thing I run into in the developer documentation is an installation/build process a mile long with absurd overheads. Large FOSS projects often require a whole set of custom tools. Many don't comply with normal conventions on the host OS; I'm on Windows, and assuming every developer in the world runs Linux is a particularly common problem. Quite a few require installation of a specific version of a certain compiler toolchain.

I understand that portability is difficult. I've worked on projects that had to be compiled on many different platforms. I've worked on projects that had to be cross-compiled from one platform to run on another. The issues raised by these environments aren't trivial.

Even so, I have never worked on a successful professional project that managed to make things as complicated as large FOSS projects almost always do. And while I'm happy to help out if I can, I simply don't have time to ensure that I've got this week's project's specific preferred version of a VCS, Bash, GCC, and so on installed so they clutter my standard file system, environment settings, registry, editor/IDE preferences, and all the other things that any developer surely wants as clean and tidy as possible while they work.

> Large FOSS projects often require a whole set of custom tools.

I was about to say that for the two projects I've tried this with, Filezilla and Firefox, it was actually quite reasonable. Especially Firefox, given its size, was surprisingly simply even if compiling took longer than I thought.

But then I read you are on Windows. Yeah, that's hell. I tried a few hours on Filezilla before deciding that it's just too messed up.

It's certainly worse overall on Windows, but problems like requiring a specific compiler toolchain apply everywhere. I am always amazed by project that want to encourage an open, community-style development process, and yet the first thing they do is start writing in non-standard C++ that relies on specific GCC functionality, and then linking to libraries that do the same thing. Before you've even started, you've limited your potential contributor base to those who are willing to install not only your choice of compiler (not such a problem on Linux or MacOS, at least) but maybe even a specific version of that compiler (much more of a problem, because usually dev tools are installed system-wide).

Do these projects expect that everyone will just set up a dedicated VM with exactly the right development environment for their code or something? I think that's probably the most practical solution in that kind of environment, but presumably it's a level of of commitment that only dedicated, long-term contributors are likely to make. Certainly it's a disincentive for anyone to contribute one-off fixes or improvements in specific areas, and a significant barrier to entry even for those who might become long-term contributors if they get that far, which surely can't be helping these projects.

> Have you ever "looked under the hood" ?

Actually, I have. I know it's not small, but Firefox' code was quite structured.

Have you filed any bugs for it?

For those saying Google is a benevolent company, here are a few signs that the bean counters are taking over:

Tracking Google Apps for Education and even paid Google Apps for Business emails to build ad profiles, making misleading statement to the public that they're not doing so, and then when it finally came to statements to federal court, lacking the dare to continue lying and finally confessing the truth and then claiming the consumer Gmail policy applied to Apps for Education data.

http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2014/03/13/26google.h33.ht...

Conspiring to kill SkyHook(and succeeding) with its 500lb outsized influence like Microsoft used to.

http://www.theverge.com/2011/05/12/google-android-skyhook-la...

Tracking the physical location of Android phones for ad purposes without properly informing users and disabling things like Google Now if you disable the tracking.

http://digiday.com/platforms/google-tracking/

Google employee access personal information of others. Google says it has fixed the issue, but how do we even know? Is there any legal safeguard against someone at Google reading your email?

http://gawker.com/5637234/gcreep-google-engineer-stalked-tee...

Paid inclusion for shopping search results

http://marketingland.com/once-deemed-evil-google-now-embrace...

Ranking Google+ reviews over Yelp results even if the user explicitly searches for Yelp

http://www.searchenginejournal.com/yelp-complains-outranked-...

Decreasing contrast in the background of ads, this especially hurts older people as ability to see contrast decreases with age, and the FTC found that almost half the people fail to notice that there are ads on the page, thus forcing products that are first in the organic results to pay Google for ads.

http://ppcblog.com/fbf0fa-now-you-see-itor-maybe-not/

http://blumenthals.com/blog/2012/01/31/is-google-intentional...

http://wallstcheatsheet.com/stocks/ftc-googles-ad-practice-i...

Making people literally cry with the forced Google+ integration into Youtube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ccxiwu4MaJs (warning, NSFW language)

Extracting petty revenge on CNET for googling(!) information on its CEO

http://money.cnn.com/2005/08/05/technology/google_cnet/

Edit: I can't edit my post, perhaps due to the downvotes(why downvote without replying?), so here's a couple more.

Tying Android App store to having Google search engine as default on Android, ensuring that alternative search engines cannot be shipped as default.

http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2014/02/12/documents-shed-light-...

Stopping Acer from shipping Aliyun OS by threatening to pull the Play Store and Android beta access. Bonus points for enforcing this by the duplicitous moniker 'Open Handset Alliance' doublespeak

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2012/09/report-google-threate...

Your profile is green (meaning new), maybe that's why you can't edit. I never noticed downvotes having anything to do with it. I found your post interesting and it contributes to the conversation, not sure why anyone would downvote (care to explain, downvoters?).

I did not downvote. But I disagree his post contributes to the conversation.

Nobody believes the strawman argument that Google is a "benevolent company". Of course they are being assholes to make their services more used. Everyone is aware of that. Moreover, "Google is evil" => "Google wants to create a lock-in for Chrome or Android" is a total non sequitur.

None of what is mentioned means or even implies that Google wants to create a vendor lock-in for Chrome and Android. Nothing in that list has to do with creating a platform lock-in at all. In fact, it shows that Google are being assholes mostly about their services. It is their services that bring in the money, and I think Google really does not care if you use Firefox, Chrome, iOS, Android or whatever. As long as you use their services.

Posting a list like that does not contribute at all to the discussion about Google's alleged vendor lock-in. It only makes this a Google hate thread, and muffles proper discussion.

> Google really does not care if you use Firefox, Chrome, iOS, Android or whatever

I think they do. Maybe it's not a huge deal, but it's an advantage to control more aspects of what users use (ISP, OS, browser, and finally the service itself).

With Google Chrome they can make anything the way they want and support any feature they like, whereas with Firefox they'd have to wait for the guys at Mozilla to agree with something. Let's just name something silly: a pdf viewer that does OCR so that website authors can put relevant ads there if they want. I can see how Mozilla developers would sleep a night on that feature while for Google it would be a no-brainer that makes them money.

> I think they do. Maybe it's not a huge deal, but it's an advantage to control more aspects of what users use (ISP, OS, browser, and finally the service itself).

Fair enough. Make it "Google really does not care much if you use Firefox, Chrome, iOS, Android or whatever".

The point is that even if Google prefers that you use Chrome, it's not an argument to go for vendor lock-in. It's an argument maybe for wanting to increase market share. This piece suggests that Google has motivation for breaking other platforms though, which I find ridiculous as it will only diminish their returns.

They do try to break other platforms, like refusing to make a YouTube app on Windows Phone and then sending a takedown on a Microsoft written app. YouTube and the content providers do get hurt with these actions but Google doesn't care because they're willing to hurt themselves in order to hurt Windows Phone. Even Vimeo has a Windows Phone app since many years.

Also, interesting that this article seems to have completely disappeared off HN very suddenly.

> YouTube and the content providers do get hurt with these actions but Google doesn't care because they're willing to hurt themselves in order to hurt Windows Phone.

This is false. Having third party apps that do not adhere to the ad- and video distribution policies hurts Google/YouTube's money sources. So they have valid reasoning - evil, yes, but valid. The browser app does follow YouTube's policies, so Google's reasoning here is still valid without breaking access to their platform. The browser and MetroTube still work, so it's not as if Google is actively breaking WP access to their services. They just did not accept Microsoft's "official" app.

I do agree that Google should stop being such a scumbag about Windows and just make some apps for them. But "refusing to make an app" does not equate to "breaking another platform". There is/was no official YouTube app for BB10 or WebOS either, and Google is/was not trying to break them either.

> Also, interesting that this article seems to have completely disappeared off HN very suddenly.

This article moved directly from #2 to #247.

It's not obvious why an entire thread of 255 comments was moved, instead of downvoting a single sockpuppet post.

The post was a duplicate.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8185935

> It's an argument maybe for wanting to increase market share. This piece suggests that Google has motivation for breaking other platforms though, which I find ridiculous as it will only diminish their returns.

I'm going to guess you weren't active in the industry when Microsoft was at it's "peak".

Try this little scenario in your head:

Google owns web properties that are highly trafficked on a variety of devices/browsers.

Google then says "hey guys we're going to make the web better by building a browser ourselves!".

They're quick to focus on making it faster using existing standard technologies.

A bit later they create some non-standard stuff for their browser like Dart, Native Client, WebP, etc.

Slowly they start to rely on these new things they've created on their highly trafficked websites, and encourage people to use their browser because it will give "a better experience".

Yes, some people will find an alternative (if they are able to make that choice, and it hasn't been bought out/squeezed out by Google's "free" offering) thus "hurting" Google, but if they have to sacrifice some of their user base in order to have more control over the rest of the user base, they will absolutely do that.

> I'm going to guess you weren't active in the industry when Microsoft was at it's "peak".

Microsoft sold their platforms for money. Microsoft never open sourced anything. All of this "non-standard stuff" is open sourced. Dart and WebP work in Firefox as good as they do in Chrome. NaCl is open source and it looks like a failed project. How is this even remotely comparable to Microsoft's practices?

Google are being assholes often and they should be called out for it. I agree that it is frightening that they are getting so much power.

But this "Google is the next Microsoft" meme is demonstrably wrong and should die.

> Microsoft sold their platforms for money. Microsoft never open sourced anything.

Remind me when Internet Explorer or Hotmail or MSN/Bing was sold for money?

> All of this "non-standard stuff" is open sourced.

Show me where Chrome or Chrome OS are open source.

Explain to me how Android can be considered open source when companies are forced to ship it with Google's services?

> this "Google is the next Microsoft" meme is demonstrably wrong and should die

and yet you haven't really demonstrated that?

You are twisting the argument. Their "extensions" to the web, each and everyone of them, is open source. Find me one of web projects that is not open source. They are giving their platforms away for free and are mostly open source. They compete for use of services.

Microsoft used embrace, extend, extinguish. All of their platforms cost money. They compete(d) for use of platform.

This is exactly why they are different. Maybe equally evil, but different. That is why I say "Google is the next Microsoft" is wrong. Could you please respond to that instead of twisting the argument?

Firstly - to be the next something, you don't have to be exactly the same. If you are exactly the same, you are not the next one - you are the previous one, but late.

Secondly - as far as Google is concerned - their services ARE their platform. The browser/device used to be a "thin client", but once you start doing shit like putting remote desktop functionality into a browser, there is nothing "thin" about it. So now they have a server-side platform, and a client side beluga whale browser that makes their platform "work best".

Google's tactics in general terms are similar to Microsofts. They use their position in the market to (attempt to) introduce technologies that they control. Their continued (ab)use of the term "open source" is fairly standard for them now:

create/buy <something>. announce/change it as "open source". nerds rejoice. release actual closed source product "based on" the open source version, with no way for user to verify the differences between the two.

You stated facts, with sources. I can't see why someone would downvote, and that too without stating the reason. I upvoted to counter at least one downvoter.

They also created a new account to post a mixed list of random complaints. Sorry it's actually a repost given that this identical list was posted by angularfan -- also a fresh new account created purely to post this list -- 20 days ago. Is that really the behavior HN wants?

didn't know that this was a repost of a previous post, in this case OP should've just linked to that. I stand corrected.

> Is that really the behavior HN wants?

He/She might have good reasons for anonymity. As long as the post contributes to the discussion I don't really care if the account is 10 years or 10 days old or if it has been posted 20 days ago.

It doesn't contribute to the discussion. It's a wall of noise hit list of entirely random quality, that draws absolute, nefarious conclusions from complex situations.

If someone hates Google, then sure, it's "contributing". If you're just looking for information it's just extremist nonsense.

Indeed, this very submission was already submitted a week ago (just as that hit list appeared before), and of course would have been blocked by HN as a dupe but made it through courtesy of the fun of querystrings.

Right, because on a comment thread about google's ever-increasing control over the web/etc, the following are irrelevant:

* A court case about breaching US federal privacy laws

* A court case about Google using it's relationship with device manufacturers to negatively impact a company with a competing service

* An article about how Google tracks mobile users and the disclosure/notification about said tracking, with input from the EFF

* An article about how Google was less than open and transparent about the handling of an employee who spied on/stalked four underage users of Google services

* Several articles about what are basically deceptive practices - paid inclusions, much less identifiable ads compared to organic search results and artificially increasing the search rank of it's own properties when a search mentions a specific competitor

* An article about Google's decision to refuse any interaction with a news agency that posted an article discussing Google in relation to privacy concerns, in which they demonstrate the risks by publishing material about Eric Schmidt that was found via google searches

But no, you are right. None of them are relevant. Remember what I said in another comment about cult-like status? Should I call Rick Ross for you?

Yes, it's interesting. Anything that is remotely critical of Google gets downvoted pretty quick here on HN. Now I don't know if it's because many Google employees browse HN or because people still believe in that "don't be evil" marketing babel.

As I said in another comment, google has reached cult status with a lot of tech people.

Sarcasm does not further a debate. If you want to froth at the mouth and show your agenda, sure, but not actually having constructive discussions.

Posting enormous gripe lists is not useful on any board, relevant or not, even minus the comically skewed narrative provided with them. In this case it wasn't even original but instead is a "create a puppet account and paste the complaint list again" tactic, which is just boorish and cowardly.

Go make a "whygoogleisevil.com" site and casually reference that in a legitimate post, sure, but not this.

And your whole "it's a cult" angle is ridiculous. If you convince yourself that people who find this strong polarization unconstructive must be in awe of Google, you have a very binary view of a complex world.

Edit: you have to take some of the blame for the sarcastic tone. It seems to be a result of the inability in this discussion to consider that discussion of Google's shitty aspects (there is much that has been good), on an article that is about these shitty things, could really be a thing. Enumerating badness might (?) be inelegant but it's a wholly valid thing to do in a discussion.

I started to realize that google had gone down the "let's be like Microsoft" path when, among other things, it flung itself head-first into the whole schema.org patent fiasco. It made me wonder if Google itself would have been successful if its rivals Yahoo & friends had tried to pull something similar back in the day.

Discussing the fact that Google's maneuverings are barely distinguishable from other giants in history is not "Frothing at the mouth". Especially forcing Android-using vendors to ship chrome - I challenge you to think of a more 1990s Microsoft scenario!

However, not that I have time or energy to care - it just seems like the natural lifee-cycle of successful companies.

Back in the 1990s I had the energy to care, and I enjoy working in/on/with Linux/BSD today but believe me when I say I just can't find the same energy to pick apart google (or Microsoft!) in the same way today.

And yet even I can see it's obvious that there is at the very least a case to say that Google's dominance could hurt the web. Hence the article. Hence this discussion.

"Frothing at the mouth", "binary view" indeed.

Anonymous posting is one thing. Anonymous copy-pasting of generic mostly off-topic link lists to influence opinion is something else. The latter is, hopefully, not behavior HN wants.

I downvoted and flagged him because he spams this post on Google threads, using a sockpuppet every time.

He is not interested in discussion, he's interested in frothing.

Did you flag the entire thread or the single offending post?

If true, that's abusive. If you email links of previous instances to hn@ycombinator.com, we will investigate.

I believe they're linked elsewhere on this thread. (On a phone, can't go searching)

Don't sweat the downvoters.

> Google employee access personal information of others. Google says it has fixed the issue, but how do we even know? Is there any legal safeguard against someone at Google reading your email?

I would also ask if there is a "legal safeguard" at any email service? You could equally call out Yahoo and Microsoft for lack of transparency in their internal procedures around email. They just lack a publicly reported incident of an employee over-stepping bounds.

>how do we even know? Is there any legal safeguard against someone at Google reading your email?

The same way you do for Microsoft and Yahoo and every other mail service.

Your other complaints have to do with marketing that any company would do and does. You may not like it but that's how selling works.

I don't view Google as either evil or benevolent. I view them as a corporation that acts in its own self-interest (as you'd expect). They do a lot of good things for the tech community such as releasing open source code. However, I often avoid their products because they are not open about what they track and record. That doesn't matter to many people, including many people in the tech community, but it matters to me.

Google arguably tracks online activity more than any other company. They propbably know more about your online behaviour than you do yourself. They have made tracking appear to be a perfectly reasonable and normal thing to do. They even have an OS (ChromeOS) that tracks everything you do from the apps you use to the web pages you visit, to even the documents you print (all routed through Google's cloud print service, even if your printer is sitting next to your ChromeBook). This isn't even done anonymously given that you have to sign in to use these services (you can't use a ChromeBook without signing in, using it as a guest limits what you can do). How many people would be happy to sign in to MacOS, Windows, Linux and know that everything they were doing was being recorded and tracked? Meanwhile, the tech community just gives Google the easiest ride possible on such matters.

I don't believe Google does anything remotely sinister with the data it collects. But it is a staggering amount of data that they capture. And if you read their lengthy privacy policy, it's notable how little it tells you. How is my data aggregated? Who sees it inside Google? How is it anonymised (if indeed it is - no mention of this in their privacy policy). Some of Google's services ask for very personal info: date of birth, mobile phone number. It's reasonable to want to know what Google uses this data for. Is is really just for security and verification? If they cared about privacy, they'd actually tell you. Their statements about privacy are always framed in terms of security. Yes, privacy is not possible without security, but security does not equal privacy. To me Google's attitude is summed up thus: we'll do everything to keep yoru data secure but we won't stop tracking you to death.

Separate process tabs? Rendering and javascript speed? UI features? I know it's popular on HN to focus on technical features, but that entirely misses the point of this post.

Technical features will continue to improve over time. The browser that is "best" in any given area will change as the code evolves. Most of the other reasons to like a given browser are the subjective opinions we all have or the particular use cases we have in mind.

None of this matters. When comparing Firefox and Chrome, the substantive difference isn't which browser is faster or which browser uses less memory. The difference that matters is the power of monopoly and what their dominance means for our future. Supporting Chrome by using it is a vote in support of Google being able to dictate standards. Chrome already sends way too much data[1] for storage[2] and analysis.

Even worse, using Chrome instead of Firefox will eventually damage the Free Software[3] ecosystem. While most people focus one the availability of source code, barriers in interoperability is the more fastest and most effective way restrict both developer and user freedom. This is why the LGPLv2 puts a special restriction on static linking; you (usually) can't replace or modify the Free Software components unless they are dynamically linked[4]. We already see Google following Apple's lead in restricting phones. Do you really want the browser to end up with Android-style limitations[5]?

Even though I don't think it's a good idea to let anybody aggregate and analyze all the data we generate, I can respect the decision of someone who actually wants Google/Chrome to win over Firefox. I'm primarily suggesting that there are Big Issues going on around us and - intentional or not - there seems to be a lot of people being distracted by stuff that won't matter in the long run.

    "...we have to create the future, or others would do it for us."
        - Ivonova, B5/"Sleeping In Light"

[1] Firefox has problems here as well, unfortunately.

[2] Even if Prism and XKeyScore didn't exist, that data is still merely a subpoena or "national security letter" away from the NSA or any other branch of government.

[3] "Open Source" is not the same thing.

[4] (lack of) interoperability is also the problem a lot of us have with systemd. Too much focus on technical features that distracts from the threat to interoperability.

[5] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/android-and-users-freedom.htm...

The reason to stop using Firefox on my Mac was battery life, Safari handles this so much better that it was impossible to ignore. On Windows 8 whenever I use I tend to use Internet Explorer as it's better optimised for HDPI screens. But I still love Firefox and I'm ready to return to the nest again as soon as the battery life issue is fixed.

Honestly I think the OP's title should really be "use something other than Chrome." The fear here is that Chrome (and Google) are approaching critical mass that would allow platform lock in.

I personally think that Gmail is the greater threat. In looking at users signed up on a service of mine, I see almost all GMail. It's breathtaking. Pretty soon Google will have the ability to basically embrace-extend-extinguish the Internet's most useful service.

I too use Safari on Mac. Better integration with the OS. Chrome is slightly faster but meh.

I use Google Apps for Business because I no longer have to think about the bullshit around mail and spam, and that's not going to change until the alternatives are worth the time they require me to invest. I get the argument regarding Gmail, but if you want somebody to not use Gmail, you're gonna have to be better than Gmail. Nobody is. (Outlook.com is okay, but their web client is garbage and email is one of fairly few things I want as a web app.)

I don't disagree. GMail conquered the world by investing a lot in overcoming the spam problem.

I've gone back to FF after using Chrome literally form the day it landed. I changed because of vimperator + the ability to theme the header slimmer (i'm on laptop 24/7).

But frankly it kind of sucks a bit and I have to jump over to Chrome a lot because almost no videos will play in FF.

Can you elaborate a bit about how you've slimmed Firefox header? I am also working 24/7 on a laptop and I value my screen estate a lot so one of main reasons I dont use Firefox is that its header and tabs consume the largest amount of screen space from Chrome/Safari/Firefox trio...

In Vimperator you can do this:

  :set toolbars=nonavigation,notabs

(it will remove tabs and the navigation menu)

Yep, I can't stand having them completely gone though.

I modified an existing theme [0] and now it looks like this http://imgur.com/kkXpFHX still not pretty but it stays out of the way so I don't really care at the moment.

[0] https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/littlefox-for...

I dont mean to insult you, but this looks just ugly, and the UI seems to be way too small to be used with comfort. I wonder if there's really no way to stop Firefox from wasting that space above the tabs, just like Chrome does it...

> I wonder if there's really no way to stop Firefox from wasting that space above the tabs

Don't put the tabs on the top of the screen. You are probably concerned about vertical real estate because you have a 16:9 display. Horizontal bars just don't make sense any more.

Install the Tree Style Tab extension. Shove all your tabs into a sidebar. Now your browser has an eye-friendly aspect ratio. Plus you can have more than twenty tabs open at once without reducing the page title to a mere favicon.

Do you look at the mantle piece whilst poking the fire ;)

Personally I wouldn't care if it looked ugly as long as it renders stuff right.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/hide-caption-...

personally I use it along-side

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/ft-deepdark/

http://i.imgur.com/AvBjeSz.png is the result on windows 8 with a bit of settings changes

Yeah that's what I said "not pretty". But honestly it is so small I don't even look at it anymore.

And the UI to be used? I haven't clicked a UI element in any browser manually for years (at least that what it feels like).

Which theme are you using in FF to make the header more compact?

I replied to the same question in another comment, just trying to avoid repeating.

Chrome has Vimium, but I haven't used either enough to compare them. On laptop, I sometimes ctrl+shift+b to hide the Chrome toolbar.

I use Vimium and I like it, but it's crippled by Chrome's extension model. Extensions aren't really part of the browser, they run in the context of the page you're looking at. This means Vimum's shortcuts don't work on the new tab page or when viewing PDFs, and they're unresponsive when repeatedly changing tabs. I'm trying to switch to Firefox + Pentadactyl, which seems much less hacky, but there are enough differences to make the change difficult.

I used Vimium for a couple of weeks, 1 minute of using Vimperator made me switch to the whole browser.

Firefox 33 will have native h.264 support so that will solve the video problem.

September 2nd will bring 33beta

Together with the developer tools this will be a hell of a release. 33 sounds nice.

That sounds like an event I will be first in line for.

I really like firefox and still use it as my main browser. But you guys started to force users to your own standards. By locking or removing many options.

For example, you have locked (left and right) arrows and now refresh button. What's next home button ? I don't mind arrows been locked, even throught I like to have a choice. But having my refresh button locked in one place without ability to move it to alternative spot is just rediculous.

Then you guys completely removed JavaScript disable option, even throught I can still enable it by going to "about:config" and switching "javascript:enabled" from "true" to "false".

Another weird option which is missing is ability to disable PDF view inside firefox browser. Again I can use "about:config" and switch "pdfjs.disabled" from "false" to "true".

But having this options in Preferences will be much better.

Not to mantion a lot of websites load much faster in Chrome or Chromium then Firefox.

I think this is why many people ether user it as second browser or switching from Firefox to Chrome/Chromium.

As for Google search engine, I have been using "DuckDuckGo.com" as alternative for some time now. For email use "ZoHo.com" instead of Gmail.com

We need a community-edited index of debatable changes, linked to bugzilla issues where the rationale is discussed. This would be a subset of the overall changelog, which has many technical changes that arent controversial among users or the developer ecosystem.

There is a non-about:config process to choose the PDF viewing method. See https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/view-pdf-files-firefox-...

I think what they to with the settings is actually correct. I'd say most of the users don't even think about changing the stuff you just said. Therefore it's correct to, in order to make the settings easier, remove not widely used settings.

And, as you say, it's still easy to change the settings in about:config - which is exactly targeted at people needing to change more things.

I agree with Paul Graham on this one. "Has any other company grown to Google's size and remained as benevolent? (Not saying they're perfect, just the best that big.)" (https://twitter.com/paulg/status/495948643149426688) I'll stick with Chrome for now as I find it slightly better than firefox.

While I do agree, there have been many signs that times they are a changin'

Please enumerate at least some of those signs.

A different user replied with a very comprehensive list that is now inexplicably deleted. It included a story about Google using its leverage to oust location services competitor SkyHook: http://mobile.theverge.com/2011/05/12/google-android-skyhook...

Edit: looks like they changed it to a top-level comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8186125

We obviously have very different ideas about what “benevolent” means.

That's not a word that comes to mind when I think of Google+

If the premise here is that Google is the evil empire, why is Google still on the Home Page when running Firefox?? Apparently large sums of money can have an effect on ethics.

Obviously the underlying goal here is a plea for more FF marketshare, but it's a tad hypocritical if the message is to not use services from a company you're promoting yourself. That's do as I say, not as I do type stuff.

It's not like they have a choice now, the other choice here is to shut down the company. That's also why they launched Firefox OS, they hope in the future to depend less on Google.

What effect on ethics? There's no duality at play here. Many great developers are complete assholes. Will you stop using their work?

Google is keeping Mozilla alive. Do as they do. Keep Mozilla alive.

It's not hypocritical. Google pays Mozilla to be the default search engine, and this is the main source of Mozilla's money.

If you don't want them to be so dependent on Google, then donate - every dollar you donate to Mozilla brings them closer to being independent from Google: https://sendto.mozilla.org/page/contribute/Give-Now

Sure it is hypocritical. Mozilla could just sell to someone else.

Keep mind that Google was initially installed as the default search engine years ago, because FF users voted for it to be so. Only after Google saw how many search referrals they then got from FF, did they, that is Google, suggest an actual deal (which paid, incidentally, only a few percent of the market value for those referrals.). That deal doesn't include anything preventing users from changing the defaults.

Consider as well the Awesome Bar. The ability to search your history easily resulted in fewer users going back to Google and generating search referrals. Mozilla implemented it anyway, because it was good for the user.

You seem to be missing the point that overthrows your assertion. Yes, there is still a deal with Google, but Mozilla doesn't care if doing and advocating what's good for the user makes that relationship less and less valuable for Google. They are, in fact, sacrificing potential financial gain for the sake of their principles.

Mozilla has numerous, egregious faults, but this kind of hypocrisy and ethical lapses aren't among them.

> Mozilla doesn't care if doing and advocating what's good for the user makes that relationship less and less valuable for Google. They are, in fact, sacrificing potential financial gain for the sake of their principles.

Ahh, No. They're biting the hand that feeds them while they're still being fed, which just makes them look tacky. They admittingly see the writing on the wall, with declining mind and marketshare to Google which is what's prompted this post - which isn't in the users best interests, it's what's in their own. Users also end up using what they believe is the best or most convenient choice. Which is fine, everyone has the right to do what's best for themselves.

Mozilla had their opportunity to go with another Search Provider in Dec 2011 when they renewed their agreement with Google: https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2011/12/20/mozilla-and-google-...

I use Chrom(ium), Firefox, IE, and Opera, and even Lynx, so I have no particular loyalty to any one browser, but it doesn't feel like there is all that much of a choice anymore among the "mainstream" ones as they all seem to be converging in design. Even Opera, which used to use its own rendering engine, has moved to WebKit, and Blink is not all that different from WebKit either. I certainly hope Mozilla will never choose to turn Firefox into yet another WebKit shell, and neither Microsoft with IE.

Web developers trying to make their pages look exactly the same in "all browsers" may enjoy a browser monopoly since it reduces the effort, but I think that's the wrong way to do it; instead, they should aim for "similar enough" - after all, content is what site visitors are after. The idea of progressive enhancement/graceful degradation, which can make for a better environment for browser diversity, seems to be completely lost on many developers.

"Web developers trying to make their pages look exactly the same in "all browsers" may enjoy a browser monopoly since it reduces the effort, but I think that's the wrong way to do it; ... The idea of progressive enhancement/graceful degradation, which can make for a better environment for browser diversity, seems to be completely lost on many developers."

Sometimes it helps to remind them of IE6 in order to make webdevs realize that a monopoly wasn't that good for them either.

Minor correction: Opera has followed Google on to Blink.

If your only argument is ideology, you are in serious trouble. I know from experience.

Firefox changed the game back in the early 2000s not only because it fought for the open web, but because it was way better than the competition.

Granted, beating a very actively developed product is much harder than a stagnant one. Google's got a lot of smart people working on it. I think Mozilla is going to have radicalize and go places where competition isn't willing to be. Crazy different features and UI besides evangelizing on privacy.

If eye candy is more of a feature to you than privacy then what does that say? Would you give up all privacy and choice for something flashy?

If user interface is eye candy to you then what does that say?

Do you really feel like the Firefox UI is subpar?

No, but being on equal footing is not enough.

Sure it is. If Firefox and Chrome have similar UI, similar performance, similar functionality, but Firefox also has the added benefit of respecting your privacy, the only reason to use Chrome over Firefox is an emotional one.

So, basically keep the same course of action. It's not working great, hence the article.

Mozilla can't advertise their browser on every search query or offer better integration with Google services. If they continue to pursue being similar to Chrome they'll just keep sliding away into irrelevance.

Ff fan here. Running Aurora on desktop, laptop and mobile.

Love the project, have nothing but minor complains. Currently leading the list: For quite a while FF on Android has a 'broken' long press menu on links. Someone thought that it should be

Share Link ->

Open Link in New Tab

Open Link in Private Tab

Copy Link

Bookmark Link

I.. guess I don't understand how others use their browser. The last action doesn't make sense to me (bookmarking a link I haven't visited/open?), but worse: The first item annoys the hell out of me. Same question applies (share a link that isn't open?), but reserving the top spot for that? In my world you use the 'open in *tab' operations or copy a link. I regularly hit 'Share Link' and curse about the UX and shake my head trying to figure out what process lead to this design.

Minor quibbles.. :-) Best browser, hands down.

> (bookmarking a link I haven't visited/open?),

Yes, to read it later. I don't, but I know many people use it this way.

> The first item annoys the hell out of me.

It's not that huge to get around. I have yet to use any share button in any OS or application or website (I copy the link to chats or forums or where I need them if I want to share anything), but I don't really mind it either. Would love to see stats on how often the UI options are used, though. I don't know anyone using those share options. But then again, I don't have many "mainstream" (non-techies) friends :p

Oh, I use the 'share' feature. For sites I'm looking at right now. In that case it is a prominent button right next to bookmark.

I haven't used those features on a random link (vs. page). Agreed, some telemetry about these features or the story behind those would be interesting.

Here is a heatmap with data on how often these different buttons are clicked: http://starkravingfinkle.org/blog/2014/07/firefox-for-androi...

Whoa. Thanks a lot, that's amazing.

Now I'm torn on whether I should open a bug report about it. A useless/unused entry in the most prominent spot, and open link in tab is (not surprising imho) red hot below.

Worth a try?

They make great stuff but it is worrying they control everything and buy everything they don't and it feels like they're locking small businesses out of the search results these days, preferring to only link to major established sites.

I read this and said, yep, let's switch for all my home surfing. Nevertheless, I only use my iPad for browsing at home (running Chrome). As soon as I went to the Mozilla site to download Firefox for iOS, I realized Apple is blocking it. I can only imagine what would happen if Microsoft blocked Chrome from installing on Windows. It is time for some laws to be made around this topic.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8151180

Prior discussion

Correct. We've demoted the current thread as a dupe.

I was fully on the Chrome train. For a long time. It was a good ride, until I really started to suffer Chrome bugs. I would often find a huge discussion on the chrome google group, and sometimes the thread would be months old. It became clear to me that Google doesn't care about fixing bugs that affect users.

At the point that the bugs were interfering with my daily life, I switched to Firefox. There are a few extensions I miss, but overall, it's made my life better.

The only thing I really miss is the separation of tabs from each other, so that one tab can't bring down the entire browser. It is very rare, but I was visiting a site yesterday that did it. It was painful to wait until the UI would be responsive enough to kill the tab.

Firefox on Windows is nice, but on the Mac the UI feels just slightly off, presumably thanks to the XUL layer. Until they finally ditch XUL and just start doing native UIs, I suspect they'll always be playing catch up in the "feeling native" game. Here are a few examples:

* Still no elastic scrolling, 3 entire years after that became the standard scroll behavior for all Mac apps (this started in Mac OS 10.7)

* Still missing HiDPI icons for most toolbar and sidebar icons, 2 years after the first Retina Macbooks were released

* Took nearly THREE YEARS to adopt the new scrollbar style first seen in Mac OS 10.7 [1]

[1] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=636564

Elastic scrolling was actually activated for a while, but they disabled it since it caused performance issues (especially on retina screens) due to the way it was coded: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=673875 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=939480

Interesting! That is also a great example of how XUL tends to force the developers to re-invent the wheel every time the OS GUI elements change, causing Firefox to lag considerably behind Chrome and Safari's UIs.

Everyone's mentioning this separate process business and subtle engine differences web developers compensate for and I never experience. However,I really don't care about all that. Chrome is just nicer to use: one search/url bar, few buttons but all purposeful, can drag and split windows easily. Best browser. Only recently annoying thing is it asking me to sign up for some sort of sync constantly. I have no idea why I'd ever want to do that. When I load up Firefox I'm just overwhelmed by how much stuff there is. If someone made a chrome-like Firefox I'd use it no problem.

Firefox separates the search and url bars in the interest of the user's privacy - your search query is sent to Google only when you explicitly intend to do so.

Also, if you try the 'tree style tab' extension for firefox, it'd be very hard to go back to chrome ;)

Chrome is just nicer to use: one search/url bar, few buttons but all purposeful, can drag and split windows easily.

This is why the browser market is challenging: to me, all three of the things you mentioned are negatives.

I don't want a single URL and search bar that sends every character I type to the mothership. I value my privacy and am particularly aggressive at defending it on the Web.

I don't want a slimmed down UI where everything is hidden away. I have nice, big screens in front of me, and I want features I use all the time available with as little effort as possible. Almost every change Firefox has made in its UI recently has been a step backwards for me.

I don't want splitting and dragging windows to be too easy. I have desktop management software to lay things out properly, and those big screens. The last thing I need is an accidental drag when I pushed the mouse button a moment too soon and picked up a tab splitting everything up so I have to spend the next half-minute fiddling around to put it back again.

YMMV, and the next guy's mileage may vary from both of ours. Pleasing a large market is difficult. But I can't help thinking that Mozilla's current strategy, which seems to be the bastard child of Microsoft (make it the same on all platforms) and Google (hide almost everything in the UI by default), is doomed to failure if only because they probably can't beat either Microsoft or Google at their own games and they'll alienate the people who liked Firefox because it wasn't those things as long as they try.

> "Other bad things are happening that I can't even talk about."

This may be true but it doesn't seem to do much to bolster the argument. I just want to know - what are those things?

"Google is bent on establishing platform domination unlike anything we've ever seen, even from late-1990s Microsoft." [citation needed]. I think this is an assumption, and it needs to have some basis. Can somebody explain to me why it would be in Google's interest to obtain platform dominance?

I find their own reasoning for making Android and Chrome in the first place quite compelling. They're making platforms from which it is easy to use their services and distributing them freely. With that in mind how is creating lock-in in their interests? What motives would they have for creating a lock-in with their platforms? Why would Google want to risk less use of their products from other browsers and platforms? Google makes money from the use of their services, but not from Chrome directly. The only way they're making money on Android "directly" is the Play Store.

The examples mentioned in the blog post are not very strong examples of Google creating lock-in. Of course offline Docs is coming to Chrome (and Chromebooks) first. Google has long announced that Chrome would become Android's default browser (and was criticized when it was not). I don't think they are particularly laudable actions on their own, but I don't think they are evidence of a bigger Google plan to create lock-in.

Also, if it's lock-in, they're handing out the keys. Android and Chrome are open source, and you can easily download all of your data out of most of their services.

Android is open source in the same way that I can eat a cockroach.

In theory, yes. In practice, you can forget about.

It doesn't matter whether you can download the source for the devices you buy in the store. Not in the context of this discussion about vendor lock-in. You're using a red herring.

The point is: if you don't like devices on sale with Chrome, Chrome OS or Android, you can download the source code and make it run on your own devices. Google really doesn't mind at all if you do that.

The point is: Google doesn't profit from "selling" Chrome, or profit from "selling" Android. It profits whenever Chrome is used, or it profits whenever Android is used (most of the time at least for both). Similarily, it profits whenever Firefox is used and whenever iOS is used (most of the time for both). Therefore, although Google likes that you use Chrome or Android to access their services, what it wants is just that you use their services regardless what platform you use.

It has no reason for it to desire a complete lock-in because their products are just means to an end, not ends in themselves.

I was referring more to the fact that what Google says ("embrace the open web", "open source wins", etc) don't really mean shit.

Chrome isn't open source, chromium is. What are the extra bits in chrome?

My issue is not that google does what it does, my issue is the religious cult like status so many tech related people give google, in spite of their numerous and repeated attempts to control so many facts of the digital landscape

> my issue is the religious cult like status so many tech related people give google, in spite of their numerous and repeated attempts to control so many facts of the digital landscape

"People are defending Google" => "They are giving Google a religious cult status" really? Come on, keep that attitude away from adult discussion.

When the people are constantly defending an organisation that is becoming increasingly harmful to their own well being, what else is it but a cult?

More than almost any corporation on the planet, Google has made my life better. I suspect the same is true for a lot of people.

When people like you constantly attack an organization that is increasingly useful to everyone else's well being, what else is that but paranoia?

So your logic is, that because you feel like they've made your life better, all the publicly available information about where they have done and are doing increasingly "evil" things, is all somehow the dreams of madmen?

Also please remember this quote from the author of Catch-22:

> Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you

> Chrome isn't open source, chromium is. What are the extra bits in chrome?

https://code.google.com/p/chromium/wiki/ChromiumBrowserVsGoo...

Plus, if you're on Windows or Mac, the auto-updater for Chrome.

The most significant differences are probably that Chrome has oit-of-the-box support for AAC, H.264, MP3, and Flash that Chromium does not have (by default).

When the whole issue being discussed is about Google's control/power, and the potential for mis-use, and general mis-trust of Google, it seems a little odd to reference a google supplied document about the differences between the open source and commercial versions.

If they are doing nefarious things (e.g. if they shipped something that benefited their own web properties and hurt others) they wouldn't exactly publicise that, now would they?

> Android and Chrome are open source

Chrome is not open source. Chromium is.

This is not a pedantic point - a lot of things that work in Chrome are not available in Chromium, and that gap has been widening.

AOSP is open source, but less and less of what people think of as Android is part of AOSP - a lot of core functionality has been moved into proprietary Play apps and Google services.

> a lot of things that work in Chrome are not available in Chromium, and that gap has been widening

Hpw so? The gap narrowed considerably recently when Google and Foxit open-sourced the PDF plugin. In terms of capabilities, the most visible differences are that Chrome supports a few additional media tags and Flash that Chromium does not, by default.

Chromium vs Chrome (on Linux): https://code.google.com/p/chromium/wiki/ChromiumBrowserVsGoo...

PDFium: https://code.google.com/p/pdfium/

HN discussion of PDFium: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7781878

Remember the early 2000 days? When Internet Explorer had a 95%+ market share? Well look at where we are now... we have a somewhat diverse market with IE, Chrome, Firefox, Opera and Safari. Not counting some other new and upcoming browsers such as Midori. The browser market has a healthy competition and can fix itself if one player is abusing their power. If you belive that Chrome is a threat to your privacy, feel free to use Firefox or something else.

> The browser market has a healthy competition and can fix itself if one player is abusing their power. If you belive that Chrome is a threat to your privacy, feel free to use Firefox or something else.

Are you trying to disagree with the OP? Because he's saying "the browser market should fix itself via you choosing Firefox because Chrome is a threat to your privacy."

He's saying "we should do X because Y", and you're saying "no, everything is fine because we can do X if Y".

That's some sensationalism there.

A web browser is probably the least sticky software application you could conceive of. Switching from one browser to the next can typically be done in minutes, so reading something like

> So if you want an Internet --- which means, in many ways, a world --- that isn't controlled by Google, you must stop using Chrome now

makes me think the author of the article has a huge chip on his shoulder.

This not the right tone for this kind of discussion.

> A web browser is probably the least sticky software application you could conceive of

For an individual, maybe. But if 99% of users are on Chrome, sites will target Chrome-specific features and the web "won't work" on other browsers. That's when you get lock-in.

I think this is going to anger a lot of people and gets downvoted into oblivion. But I will say this anyway.

Open Web, Javascript Only world, and Patents free video codec etc, doesn't matter to 98% of the users online. It is a very noble thing to do, but most users dont care.

Do i care? I do, but none of these are going to pull users away from Chrome. As a matter of fact, if Firefox didn't have a bunch of loyal fans, Chrome would have taken over 60% of Desktop Browsers market shares. With the majority of the rest going to IE, then Safari and Firefox.

Users care about speed. Having deployed over 100s installation of Firefox, and forcing them to use it, everytime they get to touched Chrome their instant response was, why is this so much faster. Can I use this?

They dont care about e10s, tab per process, Different set of Superfast JavaScript Compiler that only works with 10% of the site. Or What ever newest GC that was added it. They wouldn't know, and dont want to know either. All that matter is the result, the experience of using the product.

I am a Firefox Fans, but I hated it, all because i love it so much.

> Open Web, Javascript Only world, and Patents free video codec etc, doesn't matter to 98% of the users online. It is a very noble thing to do, but most users dont care.

"Fighting pollution is a noble thing to do, but most users don't care. They just want fast cars."

Users don't understand enough to care. That doesn't excuse us who do understand from caring.

The web that users love today is possible because of ideals like interoperability which they don't understand.

I expect 2 things from Firefox before I consider seriously switching:

1) Bring security sandboxing already.

2) Fix the terrible rendering on Android. Seriously, Firefox has literally the worst rendering out of all mobile browsers. And by worst, I mean slowest. I don't know whether it's some kind of on purpose delayed rendering, or if it's just that slow, but they need to change that. It's especially more obvious on lower-end phones (where Firefox OS is supposedly making a big push).

Also, after all this time, Opera Classic (not the new one) is still my preferred browser on Android. It acts the way it should when double tapping (makes the page big and usable). Chrome/new Opera don't really do anything when double tapped. And it has the fastest rendering.

It also still has a great mobile browser UI. I don't know what Opera did with the new one, but they totally killed that UI in it. Anyway, my point is, Firefox could learn a thing or two from Opera Classic for mobile.

Fix the terrible rendering on Android. Seriously, Firefox has literally the worst rendering out of all mobile browsers. And by worst, I mean slowest.

Firefox feels fast on the Nexus 5. I use it over Chrome, because I want to disable third-party cookies. Chrome on Android doesn't give me that option...

> Firefox feels fast on the Nexus 5.

Same here on a Galaxy Note II. Pretty high-end phone though, that might have something to do with it. Still, been using Firefox ever since I got the phone (my first Android after years of Symbian) and I'm very happy with it. It even has about:config included!

The vast majority of users are not developers and wouldn't even spend the time paying any attention to any of this. The only way Firefox is going to survive is by being 1. Easy to use 2. Fast 3. Secure and the priority is in that order. Right now Firefox fails, on all three, when compared to Chrome.

Want Firefox to succeed? Then they will need to change priorities.

For me Firefox is just superior to Chrome with the Tree Tab Style extension and the absence of multi-process.

The multi process in Chrome is implemented in a very bad way that multiply without a reason the RAM usage, it is better implemented in Safari but still heavy, I eventually have crash in Firefox once a month, but the session manager addon can remedy. As for addons they use way less memory in Firefox, you can see it with the about:addons-memory addon (yes another one), "add block edge" uses around 25MB, whereas in Chrome it is 10x more. I still use Chrome for webdev, but the firefox dev tools are progressing.

Tree Tab Style is a better way to navigate the web, you can see more tabs because screens are wide and the web is vertical, so it makes a better use of the screen. Also the tree structure is better for the way to browse the web with hyper-links, it is like a multi stack trace of page you saw.

could you please explain in layman terms what exactly is bad about the way multi-process is implemented?

It is explained here : https://trac.webkit.org/wiki/WebKit2 and here : http://webkit.sed.hu/blog/20110120/webkit2-memory-consumptio...

Chrome duplicate tons of data structures, Webkit2 shares more, but Firefox without multi process is more efficient.

Does Firefox have separate processes per tab/window yet? Literally the only reason I switched to Chrome back when

It does have it in nightly versions but not enabled by default. https://wiki.mozilla.org/Electrolysis

Ah, going by many software burns in the past I'll wait until it's a stable feature before making the journey back

IIRC it's going to be released in stable branch around february 2014.

The separate URL and search bars are the one reason I don't switch. Such a silly UI feature that feels years behind other browsers.

I know you can get rid of it, but then I have to fiddle around with about:config to get it working as I want it to out of the box. All very strange.

It's not strange. You might not care about or agree with the reasons behind this decision, but personally I find a concern for user privacy - don't send keystrokes to Google until and unless the user indicates that they're searching - very refreshing in this day and age.

Also Google is now testing GUI where Chrome's URL bar replaces the Google's search bar!

I love the separate boxes.

I really like that when I type the name of a local server, my browser doesn't search for it.

I also like that I can search my history and bookmarks without my keypresses being sent to google/bing.

I'm with you on the superiority of a unified search/URL bar, but why would you resist a one-time tweak that takes 15 seconds and fixes the problem forever? Or just install the Omnibar extension, for that matter.

If that's literally the one reason you don't switch, and that one reason can be handled with no more effort than swapping the shortcuts on your desktop, I just don't get it.

I want them separate.

If I want get things from my history then that's one box, if I want to search then it's a different one. Two completely different sets of suggestions, for different purposes.

Works perfectly.

I've followed Mozilla efforts to slim down and perf up Firefox, and they did miraculous things considering the resources they have (in comparison to Chrome, IE, etc). Like many I still wish for process isolation (wip). But beside that, as a recovering nerd, I'd like to be able to hook into it like conkeror. 50% of my links are sent to printfriendly.com, many time I don't wanna use the basic ergonomics of the web and write js/jq snippets to change things. Sure one can always write a firefox extension but it feels like a burden to me. Emacs might have spoiled me for good.

It's all about the extensions!

I use Firefox on the desktop mainly because of Tree Style Tabs and Snap Links. I can't browse the web without these two anymore.

I use Firefox on mobile because it allows me to use extensions. Especially, with Ad Block Edge, I can browse mobile web without the annoying ads. And with Phony (user agent switcher), I can easily switch to the desktop version of a site.

Speaking of Ad Block Edge, anyone complaining of Firefox being slow and hogging memory, it's probably because of Ad Block 'Plus'. Replace it with Ad Block 'Edge' and enjoy smooth browsing!

I do use Firefox, through inertia, but honestly it's not a good browser. It consumes 50%+ CPU constantly. It uses huge amounts of RAM. It crashes from time to time. Every few months I end up losing all my open tabs permanently. There's no isolation (process per tab). And they keep making gratuitous changes to the UI that don't improve the real UI problems but do require searching through about:config to revert them.

I would love there to be a minimal but usable browser.

I agree for the no isolation part but in term of CPU and RAM I find that chrome tends to be worse than firefox actually.

The reason I switched back to Firefox from Chrome is the Self Destructing Cookie Extension which is just great.

That's something I miss from running Linux: there were far more minimal browser options.

- Midori http://midori-browser.org/

- GNOME Web https://wiki.gnome.org/Apps/Web

- rekonq http://rekonq.kde.org/

For I use Linux, i find these browsers cool but you wont uninstall chrome and firefox. Only chrome and firefox work for ALL sites properly...

Yup, my post was a bit incomplete: I loved to play with those browsers, but they always left me feeling frustrated. I was hoping that times had changed, but your response seems to say that hasn't happened yet.

And I wouldn't have as much a problem with a browser eating into my CPU/RAM is if it actually performed, but alas...

That CPU and RAM consumption is likely due to extensions (AdBlock Plus being the most common hog). Unless you're running a really old version, Firefox is usually smaller than Chrome these days.

Actually almost forgot about this, but I tried watching a video on FF recently, and Chrome used about 5 percent of my CPU (with about 10 other tabs open), and a lot of extensions, too, while on Firefox I had just a few add-ons (some of the same as on Chrome), and only that video running. It used 15 percent of my CPU.

Yup ABP is killer. I'm also unwilling to upgrade to Australis at the moment, as I can't find a Mac-compatible theme that isn't painful to use with it. (Hate, hate, hate monochrome themes -- color coding the buttons may not be trendy but it improves usability, and has for the 20 years I've been using web browsers.) And Firebug has some major performance improvements with FF31 and newer.

I know it's horribly outdated and probably not for you, but if you have a really, really low-end system, K-Meleon is the best option that I could find, at least for Windows. It's not great but works fairly reasonable for how lightweight it is. This is what enabled me to surf the web on a Pentium 2 machine in 2010 where any other browser had issues even getting started.

I do see what you mean with a minimal browser though. It is what Chrome was initially: the basics that you needed and no clutter. I would like to see such a project based on Firefox, especially given how customizable Firefox already is it might be a pretty awesome project.

One thing I want to point out immediately when I saw this post: Chrome makes virus-like auto-update, It just freak me out. Google keeps their product auto-update and gave a reason: better services, but ALL I CAN FEEL is FINFISHER is coming closer and closer.

Second, Firefox give me more freedom so far. I can install whatever plugin I want, regardless whether violate Google's terms of service. Instant example, you can't download a Youtube video with chrome store app.

Chrome doesn't auto-update on Linux, nor presumably in other platforms with working package managers. Windows software is expected to update itself or ask the user to do it, so Google took the approach that was easiest for non-technical users, which IMO is much better for their security.

When users are running an old, unpatched version of a browser, you don't need very advanced tactics to pwn their machines...

And for what is worth, there must be a way to disable Chrome automatic updates, because the PortableApps version of it doesn't (or didn't, a while ago) auto-update.

A practical reason not to use Chrome is the chrome app store.

It's littered with garbage-ware. Outdated extensions, broken extensions and extensions with fucking ads. It seems like anything can get in and you don't know if it's broken until you test it yourself.

It's a mess. At least with Firefox addons you can expect a certain level of quality, especially with the vetted addons, and you know before you install it whether it;s likely to be compatible.

I would love to switch to Firefox as my primary browser, however, I cannot get my tabs to properly line up with the top of the screen in Linux Mint Cinnamon. There is the ever present title bar that just doesn't go away, not matter what hackery I have tried. (Without breaking something else, that is). I use Chromium, because the tabs are where they should be. Any suggestions on how to fix this would certainly be tried.

It so much sounds like an apocalyptic cry. It has substance but the degree to which it is shown to harm is us not to be taken seriously, I believe. To be honest, Chrome is a good browser, both on desktop and mobile(at least Android). And Google does not have a hegemony on the entire Web.

EDIT - This thread is an example of 'That escalated quickly!'

When working with many a bunch of tabs in Firefox or SeaMonkey, I use the new about:memory page to garbage collect, minimize the heap, et. al. I encourage other users with triple-digit tab counts or those having issues with performance to take a look. I also have disabled all plugins, having only flash and java activated on click.

I don't like google taking control of everything. I tried to force myself to use DuckDuckGo for searching. But soon, I had to switch back to google, because google is so integrated. Not only I need to search, I also need gmail, map, news. All these are not provided by DuckDuckGo. Similar things happen with firefox.

I was an ardent Chrome supporter and always wanted to make the switch to Chrome. Thanks to your post, the switch has been made. I feel a lot of difference, particularly with respect to how easy my Google searches were, since I was signed in. But then, that's the whole reason why I am switching to Firefox.

This guy writes against Google world domination using Blogger. A good example of how to shoot down your credibility. But hey, he is a hacker. Looks like its out of a hackers reach to host your blog. But choose Mozilla.

By the way isnt Mozilla like 90 percent financed by Google?

Even funnier, over 80% of Mozillas income is from Google:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Corporation#Google

I would love to see you explain the funny part about it. :)

That is funny indeed... BTW Google fund Mozilla with 300M$ every year!

...and they are competing on: Chrome<->Firefox Android<->Firefox OS

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/01/22/so-why-is...

Firefox would probably not exist anymore without Google...

Google pays Mozilla to be the default search provider.

They actually get a bunch of Google search users from that deal and they don't pay a lot for the marketshare they got for it. If anything, Google wins with that deal.

Yes this is true which is even more risky for the fate of a standardized web. Right now and in the past it was very important for Google to do this for 2 reasons: 1. They get to be the default search for a huge amount of people, and 2: They support someone who was making a competing product against another company doing lock-in for their own benefit (Microsoft).

However, what if one day Google Chrome has 70%+ market share? Then the Chrome only creep will continue. You can already tell that they are doing a lot of Chrome only things on their web properties as with the nightly chrome builds you get occasional Google property only weird bugs. If Chrome had a massive market share they can then not have to bother supporting Mozilla or web standards. They can then leverage Chrome to have an advantage in performance and even monetization of Google products over others.

You can say right now Google has not done this, but they are doing small things here and there that are going down that route. Altruism is not a trait companies are known to keep for long, especially when there is no competition.

> However, what if one day Google Chrome has 70%+ market share?

Oh, I agree with the tonality of the article, alright, but i don't subscribe in the "White Knight Firefox" story. Firefox is in bed with Google already, I don't like one bit what they did with the recent update and UI changes, and the performance of the browser in general is so bad it's not wonder people are switching to Chrome.

We need a much better competitor than Firefox if we want to fight against Chrome's domination.

Isn't that a good reason as any to not put all our eggs in the Google basket? One of the two major browsers and two major blogging platforms are already run by Google; the world's biggest search engine; the dominant mobile platform; the most used free email/map service, to name a few. I love Google, so I don't want it to get to a point where corporate execs can turn it into something that its founders didn't intend it to be.

Please remind me why Google is the default search engine in Firefox.

It may be the default, but the search engine is fully configurable, with no degredation in functionality.

Right, yet the Google, the evil tyrant, still thinks the default setting is worth paying $160m a year, accounting for over 80% of Mozilla's income.

So is using Mozilla in the interest of Google, or is it not?

Because Mozilla gets money from it and it is something familiar for users.

As a user who knows about "defaults" you're way ahead of everyone else and can probably figure out how to change them. For people who don't care Google is perfect.

They pay Mozilla a lot of money for the privilege?

It actually is most of the funding for Mozilla, at least in 2011:

http://techcrunch.com/2012/11/15/mozilla-releases-annual-rep...

I think the users would be disappointed if it was Bing or duckduckgo. Wouldnt they?

Because they figured they'd get more money from sharing ad dollars through Google search than they could do through Bing I would guess. Does anyone know if their Google partnership is worldwide or do they work with Baidu/Yandex in other parts of the world?

I will use Firefox when a single tab can't cause the entire browser to pause. Until then, for better or worse, Chrome wins.

EDIT: Would much prefer Opera if it supported all my Chrome extensions.

I've tried. I just cannot keep closing Firefox every time it hits 600MB of RAM usage. It's getting insane, I've even purged it and it comes back the next day!

Why should we choose a product that is qualitatively worse (in my opinion, this is up to debate, but just compare the JavaScript engine, V8 owns) just to keep having a choice? A free market works exactly because people choose what they like the most and let the things that can't compete die. Through this darwinian selection, products gradually converge towards a better quality. What you are proposing is completely irrational. If Chrome were to suddenly drop in quality for any reason, there would be a million people creating a better solution. But there aren't because Chrome works very well right now.

Fast website loading and JavaScript engine speed are not the only qualities people care about. Adherence to open standards and transparent procedure, lack of vendor lock-in, or diversity in the market are qualities themselves too. Just remember the dark years of web, when IE was dominating and web was stagnating.

About Firefox vs Chrome. Yes I said it's up to debate, I'm not going into this.

"Just remember the dark years of web, when IE was dominating and web was stagnating."

I do. And we are well into the process of getting out of it and wonderful, good, new browsers have emerged. That is in favour of what I was saying. The products converge towards a better quality because that's what people gravitate towards.

Not really. People chose windows because there was simply no other choice (they still do).

Simple Darwinian selection is rarely that simple. Free markets are rarely really free.

I choose Windows for my home and business because it's got the most logical and stable desktop experience. It's simple, utilitarian and it works extremely well as evidenced by it's world-wide usage in homes and businesses of all sizes.

I choose Windows Server for my business because it's by far the easiest network server system to setup and maintain while still offering me the absolute best experience for maintenance and control of my enterprise.

Clicky-clicky-click in the free UI-admin-tool that is included and I've got a new IIS web site up. Click...I've got a new SQL Server database built. Click...I've got a a new Virtual Machine, etc. Click...I've got a .NET app and developer workflow already built and scaffolded without having to memorize one single command.

Unix operating systems including Apple's don't offer anything even close to the experience that you get with Windows. That's why people choose Windows over Unix when they actually think about it. After that, they choose Windows simply because everybody else is using it, making it the default choice. (This is all in my highly experienced opinion of course.)

If Google really wanted to show that they are for openness and privacy, they would have moved Chrome to a not-for-profit foundation instead of owning it themselves.

that would defeat the purpose of them creating Chrome in the first place - to have access to product (by which I mean people using the browser) activities.

What other advertising company has ever had as many fingers in as many pies?

It’s entirely possible for people in parts of the USA be getting a large percentage of their web content (search, news, video, social etc) from a Google web property, using a device controlled by Google, using an internet connection controlled by Google.

Just to remind you - Google is an Ad company.

People talk about the Apple “reality distorion field” because people willingly buy in to the Apple ecosystem, but Apple have nothing on the religion like status Google has reached with some people.

They are a Tech company, they make most of their money from ad's for now, but I expect in the future, it will be from AI and robotics, since they are investing incredible amounts in those areas.

Nope, that's just to deceive you. They still just want/need your attention and more of it every year on more surfaces. Online Media is way too profitable to "pivot" away from it :)

They don't need to pivot, they just need the rest of the business to grow bigger then the advertising arm. Which it will, since robotics and AI have the potential to be much much bigger. Of course, then people will worry that Google will create the technological singularity.

Can't reply lower.

The idea that Google will somehow abandon it's current advertising/data mining business model is ridiculous.

In 2013 Google's non-advertising revenue was less than 9% of their total revenue.

For average people, the $0 price tag is one of the big appeals about Google's various services - of course those things are really just ways to acquire product (i.e. people) data/eyeballs.

If you look at a lot of their online services outside of straight search, they do not have the best experience, they are simply free and "good enough" to squeeze out or marginalise paid services.

I didn't say they were going to abandon it, I said I believed that the other parts of their business would grow bigger then the advertising part.

Yes, it is only around 9% now, but it used to be 0% and it is growing fast.

But how much of that growth is true growth and how much is about sudden new income streams because of purchases.

e.g. they buy a company like Nest, which has a commercial product. Suddenly they have a lot of extra non-ad based revenue, giving the appearance of growth.

I just want to add how important your browsing choice is. Everytime you visit a site you vote for a browser. Its one of the easiest ways to help keep the web open.

I'm calling bullshit.

Firecrap will support HTML5 DRM. What kind of choice are you talking about? We have _no choice_ (well, except from way smaller projects, which doesn't matter. I can't see the majority of users using netsurf or some other cool project).

Yes, I still use firefox from time to time, but the situation is getting worse. Instead of fixing older bugs, they keep adding new ones. Huge memory leaks and for what? For a browser that supposedly let's you view... web pages.

I begin to think that unix and it's simplicity destroyed my way of thinking. ;)

As opposed to bundling Flash player?

On a side note, I hope flash dies a painful and quick death.

It hasn't already?

I haven't installed Flash for several years and I can't say I feel like I'm missing out on anything because of that..

> Firecrap will support HTML5 DRM. What kind of choice are you talking about? We have _no choice_

Though I agree with your basic argument, it must be noted that you have a choice to fork Firefox. You cannot do that with Chrome.

Yeah everyone will start about Chromium but it's not equivalent. There is no sync, PDF viewer, Flash Player implementation, print system (and print preview), auto-updater, AAC, MP3 and Opus codecs, and maybe other things I'm forgetting.

If you want to fork Chrome, you'll have to build all of that yourself. If you fork Firefox, you get the whole deal and you can really make it the way you want it to be while staying up-to-date with upstream patches.

> Yeah everyone will start about Chromium but it's not equivalent. There is no sync, PDF viewer, Flash Player implementation, print system (and print preview), auto-updater, AAC, MP3 and Opus codecs, and maybe other things I'm forgetting.

You may find the Chromium project's comparison helpful: https://code.google.com/p/chromium/wiki/ChromiumBrowserVsGoo...

As a matter of fact, Chromium does support open media formats such as Opus, and (now that Google and Foxit have open-sourced PDFium) Chromium has the same PDF viewing and print preview system that Chrome has long enjoyed.

PDFium: https://code.google.com/p/pdfium/

HN discussion of PDFium: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7781878

Both Chromium and Chrome allow you to sync your profile (bookmarks, extensions, etc.). The auto-updater is a difference on Windows and Mac, but not on Linux, where Chrome simply uses the same repository and package update systems other applications use.

It is true that Chromium does not, by default, come with Flash bundled or support proprietary media tags (AAC, H.264, and MP3), but the reason why that is the case should be clear.

If you do want Chrome's Flash plugin in Chromium, you only need to copy the file into your Chromium directory. There are even Linux repos that can keep it up-to-date for you.

> Though I agree with your basic argument, it must be noted that you have a choice to fork Firefox. You cannot do that with Chrome.

Except that in reality, no, you don't. Except if you are a team. And have funding. No one can possibly go through all those changes and apply them in a clean manner while having compatibility in mind. And even if that happens (waterfox), I (as a user) cannot trust them because I (and many more) don't have the time to search through all the commits to see what the fork is _actually_ doing (which in reality is just wasting time).

From one hand, I actually love how firefox is open and transparent and I trully believe the main devs and the whole project deserves so much more, but at the same time I consider many of their choices very poor and without thought.

I constantly see google hiring people for the XUL language, which firefox uses. Can anyone give some insight on the usage?

I'm having trouble understanding why this FUD is the top story on the otherwise excellent HN. Having choice is good, but assuming Google's domination would be a bad thing just because it was bad with Microsoft doesn't give Google enough credit. I currently use Firefox because it is the least crappy browser out there, but I'd love to switch, because it still has stability issues, particularly with animated GIFs and video.

This highlights the irrationality of browser wars. Can FireFox be both 'least crappy' and 'stability issues'? Selection is made on emotional grounds, and rationalizations created after the fact.

Perhaps I expressed myself poorly. When I say that Firefox is the least crappy browser, I mean that all of the available browsers are crappy, and Firefox is simply the least crappy. I hesitate to say that it's the best browser, because that might lead to the mistaken belief that it's actually a good browser or that I like it, when in fact I don't. Does that clear things up?

I understand. I mean only that we all (me included) choose what we choose for reasons unrelated to the actual thing. For instance, the major browsers are buggy and annoying in largely non-overlapping ways. This makes it difficult to compare them - any checklist will be apples and oranges because features and bugs are orthogonal between them, to some degree.

So we find ourselves offended by something in one of them, and fasten on another because its not deficient the same way. Without any thorough analysis.

Works the same way with cars, and politics.

I agree. Something about human nature, I expect.

> Google is bent on establishing platform domination unlike anything we've ever seen, even from late-1990s Microsoft.

With `bent` you mean like they're trying to build the best products people would want to use? What should they do instead, not try as hard?

> Google controls Android, which is winning; Chrome, which is winning; and key Web properties in Search, Youtube, Gmail and Docs, which are all winning.

IOTW success of a competitor is bad.

No they should try as hard as they can. Bent meaning look at the amount of resources they put in to have a piece in every aspect of someone's internet/app experience.

The reason why they got involved with everything is that they faced threats to their web business from other companies bent on dominating the whole platform (web/cloud apps) This is a good thing too.

But as developers and techies we know what happens when one company becomes too dominant. This benevolent create competition part could end up with us being in the same situation the web was in 10 years ago. We can all get lazy and say well Chrome is great and so are a lot of these web services Google makes that are slowly but surely moving away from standards. But the tech community possesses the resources to help keep Google honest, and Firefox is a major tool in that.

Exactly. The reason Google succeeded is because they made really good (often the best available to date) products. I think whatever type of "monopoly" they now enjoy is well deserved, and apparently, they still don't abuse it and crank out great products instead.

PRODUCTIVITY of 100 TABS? When it comes for FF performance, what is the market share breakdown of number of tabs open versus those who scream the loudest?

# of open tabs - % MarketShare 1 50%??? 2 3 5 7 10 12 15 20 25 50 100?? 200 tabs open?

And also do it by browser type?

Plus Why not show us how productive you are with hundreds of tabs open in FF? Or for that matter any other browser?

Oh, I stopped using Chrome some time ago.

They're actively making it worse. It's slower and more bloated than ever.

Not to mention it caused a small periodic interruption in MacOS (you were typing and then it would stop the whole system). Shut down Chrome and voila, no more interruptions.

I'm using Chrome exclusively for GMail, and I keep logged out of Google on FF which is used for everything else.

I hope that FF keeps to be different from chrome. Otherwise why not use chrome directly.

I am using firefox because it is multi-threaded (vs. chrome's multi-process) and thus lighter. My version is still 28 since it has less dependencies than current one.

Be different, otherwise FF may die.

Seriously, why isn't DuckDuckGo the default search in Firefox? Or maybe on first launch a list of search engines pops up with DDG at the top?

Because Google pays hefty amount of money to Mozilla for keeping Google as default search engine.

Can a single tab still crash firefox?

Amen

Utterly stupid. The only reason that would make Firefox win is because it's a good piece of software, which it's currently not, especially when you compare it to chrome. You're not going to convince the average joe with a rant like that ;)

Mozilla's persistent over-promotion of the legacy technologies (HTML, JS, CSS) as the only acceptable way of web development is a very strong turn-off for me.

NaCl let's you use e.g. C# in-browser without shitty and low-performance workarounds like transpiling. I hope it will become mainstream.

is this meant to be a joke/sarcasm?

I can see what you are saying, but NACL is a big deal.

It isn't ONLY c/c++ but any language that can compile with LLVM, which is almost every language.

Think about it, new scripting languages, new compiled languages, anything language you care about. You want to write in Haskell? fine... do so, and have it run instead of javascript.

This IS a big big deal. No language is perfect, so the ability to use any of them? It is huge.

I agree.

I don't need to "think about it", I've experienced the idea before, twice.

Do you remember Java Applets? Do you remember ActiveX controls? Do you remember Flash and/or Shockwave?

"Native Client avoids these issues by using sandboxing."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Native_Client

I never mentioned security. Their whole approach with both this and Dart are perfect examples of how they are following the old Microsoft playbook.

"Your browser does not support Flash/Java/ActiveX/Bert and Ernie's latest bullshit, please upgrade to X to continue"

Dart is awesome! I hope they will come up with something that fixes all HTML & CSS warts as well.

Don't tell me technology doesn't thrive on competition. Pigeonholing everyone into same set of legacy languages is simply not OK! (no transpiling suggestions please - it's crap)

This is why HTML CSS and JavaScript standards are constantly evolving, to solve real world problems.

Imperative languages - i.e., markup and scripting languages (HTML and CSS) have a shallower learning curve than programming languages, about which you need to learn about variables, objects, types, control structures, and so on through the entire catalog of logic concepts.

At least there's enough JavaScript out there that you can get usable native code on GitHub, or perhaps even just cut-and-paste. Even without jQuery, if you're sagacious enough. And then of course there are full-on jQuery plug-ins, some of which even run tolerably off-the-shelf.

THAT is why MozFound pushes the paradigm of progressive enhancement: not because it makes life easier for developers (it doesn't, as a rule) but because it makes Web publishing approachable to a far greater user population than developer-kit-based toolboxes.

In conclusion: is reliance on the basic native stack the ONLY way? Of course not!

It is, however, the way that's easiest to learn and (usually) the hardest to f* up.

Yes, even CSS, as long as you care to walk before you run.

> Google is bent on establishing platform domination unlike anything we've ever seen, even from late-1990s Microsoft.

Because they make a good browser? Firefox is still slow, hangs frequently and the developer tools are still not up to par to Chrome's. All IMO of course, but as a developer I don't have the patience to use slower, clunkier tools "just because".

Also, Mozilla gets most of its revenue from their partnership with Google[0]. Is there a difference between using a Google made browser or a Google funded browser?

[0]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Corporation#Google

Reply on news.ycombinator.com