Firefox 47 Arrives With Synced Tabs Sidebar, Better YouTube Playback (venturebeat.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from VentureBeat: Mozilla today launched Firefox 47 for Windows, Mac, Linux, and Android. The browser has gained a sidebar for synced tabs from other devices, improvements to YouTube playback and HTML5 support, and is seeing the end of support for Android Gingerbread. [If you're logged in with your Firefox Account, the sidebar will show all your open tabs from your smartphone and other computers. The sidebar even lets you search for specific tabs. Next, Firefox 47 supports the open source VP9 video codec on machines with powerful multiprocessors. VP9 is the successor to VP8, both of which fall under Google's WebM project of freeing web codecs from royalty constraints.] Firefox 47 is available for download on Firefox.com, and will be slowly released on Google Play. You can view the full Firefox 47 changelog here. If you're a developer, Firefox 47 for developers offers more details for you.

Comments

Glad for YouTube fix

[meadow]

Without knowing the exact details, am really glad for the YouTube fix. Was having a *lot* of issues and sometimes multiple-daily crashes when playing YouTube videos in FF recently to the extent that I dedicated Chrome browser to being the YouTube viewer. There definitely was something going on, although I wish they had mentioned more about the details in their blog post today.

Is amazing what Firefox has evolved into - what web browsers themselves have evolved into - and Firefox is really at the forefront of this in good ways although I wish it was more stable.

What about Firefox's declining market share?

[Anonymous Coward]

I looked at the latest browser market share stats after hearing about this new version of Firefox.

Firefox now has only about 6% to 7% of the market. That's across all versions, on desktop and mobile.

To put that into perspective, Firefox is well behind desktop Chrome, which is over 25%, and Chrome for Android, which is at 18%. Even UC Browser for Android is well above Firefox now, at almost 10% of the market.

Firefox is about as popular now as Safari for iOS 9.3 and IE 11. That's right, individual versions of non-Chrome browsers that support pretty much just one platform now have roughly the same number of users as Firefox does across all platforms and devices!

Even Opera Mini nearly has more users than Firefox does!

This decline in Firefox's market share should be sending shockwaves through Mozilla. Firefox is the only product of theirs that sees any significant use. They basically gave up on Thunderbird, the only other product of theirs that saw much use. Seamonkey never had many users to begin with. Persona and Firefox OS were total failures. Bugzilla is a legacy product. Rust and Servo are going nowhere.

Why, despite becoming more and more irrelevant each day, do we see such a complete lack of action on the part of Mozilla? Don't they realize that their existence depends on people using Firefox? Why would any company throw money at Mozilla if there aren't any Firefox users to perform searches or otherwise advertise to?

In any other organization there would be massive changes going on right now. Something is seriously wrong when a product goes from having 30% or more of the market down to 6% within only a few years.

Yet the best we've seen out of Mozilla has been the rather pointless Rust and Servo. Rust doesn't really improve on C++14, while having a lot of drawbacks (like only one implementation, lots of bugs in that implementation, a limited standard library, a steep learning curve, and lots of dead library projects, among others) that C++14 doesn't have. Servo is decades behind today's browsers, with no obvious hope of catching up any time soon.

It's so surreal when I look at this situation. The loss of market share and the response to it are unbelievable. But it's no wonder why it's happening. All of the unwanted changes made to Firefox starting with Firefox 4 explain perfectly why Firefox's market share has dropped. Imagine that, if users are treated like shit then they'll move to a competing product!

Re:What about Firefox's declining market share?

[NotInHere]

Firefox now has only about 6% to 7% of the market.

Considering that this includes mobile, where google thanks to being OS vendor has a head start, and where firefox came far too late to the game, and with a far too bad product, this number is quite high. It means millions of users world wide entrust firefox with their data.

Something is seriously wrong when a product goes from having 30% or more of the market down to 6% within only a few years.

The market has seen a giant growth (mostly caused by android) in the recent years. Before that, the market share was higher. If you look at absolute numbers, firefox didn't lose that much.

Rust and Servo are going nowhere.

I couldn't disagree more. Rust is being adopted by more and more people, although other languages like swift are more popular. And Servo is being improved right this moment, even though its still beta software.

Rust doesn't really improve on C++14

There is one huge improvement C++ never will dare to make: backwards compatibility. Rust is *not* backwards compatible with C, or earlier (and broken) versions of C++. If you don't use modern C++14 consistently, there might be benefits, but the actual potential is unleashed if you use 100% of the modern language. In a language which is backwards compatible to older versions of C++ or C, legacy programs won't likely migrate, or you will accidentially miss some pieces here and there.

a steep learning curve

That's where Rust is much better than C++14 at. C++ is a giant mess of trillions of different programming styles and legacy stuff down to pure C. Rust lacks these things.

only one implementation

I rather have something where there is one but working implementation of, than five different but non working ones. Also, there is much slower progress if multiple implementors have to find the best way to make a feature. Also consider that Rust is a very young language, and stable for since about one year.

Last but not least there is no real reason for somebody to start a second implementation. gcc was started because of proprietary compilers. clang was started because apple hated the GPL. If e.g. apple wants to integrate rustc into xcode, nobody stops them, rustc is MIT licensed.

lots of dead library projects

C++ has even more! Its the living projects that matter, not the dead ones.

Why would any company throw money at Mozilla if there aren't any Firefox users to perform searches or otherwise advertise to?

For now, it has worked out for Mozilla. But I agree, they should really do something about this situation.

Re:What about Firefox's declining market share?

[Anonymous Coward]

Keep in mind that one of the *reasons* to use firefox is because of plugins. Specifically adblock or ublock and noscript. So the 'numbers' may be wildly wrong.

I have personally been using both chrome and firefox consistently for the past 6 months (I switch every other day). There really is little difference from an end user POV. Chrome from my POV seems a bit janky but that could just be the version I am currently on. It just randomly will not render a page. Close it out come back in and it is fine. My only real complaint about it. Several people I know there biggest complaint seems to be the one Firefox had a few years ago. Memory usage seems to be off the charts. I personally have not noticed it. Dev wise each have their own strengths.

As for the language thing. I have been around in this industry long enough to see languages come and go (my resume is littered with them). C/C++ seem to be the only ones sticking. The others not so much. Google and Mozilla suffers from a 'fad' problem which seems to be even worse than MS. Every couple of years they dump whatever was 'the cool thing' in favor for a new 'cool thing'. With little regard for the thousands of devs they are leaving in the lurch.

I also disagree with you on the 'one working implementation'. I get you want something to 'just work'. However, clang has basically got GCC, MS, and INTEL off the dime to actually fix their crap. Rust could easily end up in the same situation. Python.org for example will be forever stuck with 2.7.x and 3.x. They wont just cut it off. There is just too much legacy. If they do someone will probably fork it anyway.

If I were a betting man I would bet an non insignificant amount of money that Mozilla is screwing up using Rust.

Re:What about Firefox's declining market share?

[serviscope_minor]

To put that into perspective, Firefox is well behind desktop Chrome, which is over 25%, and Chrome for Android, which is at 18%. Even UC Browser for Android is well above Firefox now, at almost 10% of the market.

This has nothing, nothing I tell you to competing with a browser backed by the world's largest advertiser who also happens to own the world's largest mobile platform and isn't above abusing that to suppress competition.

For example: on my phone now the google search bar ALWAYS opens links in chrome, even with firefox installed and set to default. I managed to reset it once, but then it magically reset back.

And what on earth do you mean "even UC"? Just because it doesn't target Americans and Europeans doesn't make it small fry. There are a HELL of a lot of people in China, India, Indonesia, Pakistan, etc where it's popular.

Rust and Servo are going nowhere.

They're going places, alright. It's silly to expect a young project to overtake a mature one with large resources quickly. Servo is still pre-alpha, but it's certainly moving forwards.

Rust doesn't really improve on C++14

I'm a fan of C++14. But it doesn't have provable memory safety or provable safety from any kinds of race. There's whole classes of bugs which are impossible in safe Rust code. And that's kind of the point and allows Servo to be aggressively threaded in a way which is not feasible in C++.

Servo is decades behind today's browsers, with no obvious hope of catching up any time soon.

It's not a browser it's a layout engine. It's not like they're even trying to make a whole browser yet. The browser will of course use a modern and completely up to date javascript engine, for example.

All of the unwanted changes

Unwanted by whom? I remember the griping when the menu bar went away. I don't miss it.

Re:What about Firefox's declining market share?

[ctrlshift]

The fact that the growth has been non-Firefox is quite telling too. It means that people don't care too much what browser they use. It means that Firefox has a devoted fan base. It means that Firefox has a poor marketing strategy (go ahead and ask people if Firefox exists on Android and see if anyone knows).

I'm pretty sure this is god's honest truth. People who are aware of the technical differences between browsers do not swing the great "market share" % points up or down; they're the extreme minority. Most of the clients I encounter who use Chrome originally received it because it was automatically installed with CCleaner or Avast or whatever and they just didn't bother to uncheck the "gimme da bundleware!" box. That box is usually right next to the "Make this my default browser" box and the "Set Google as my homepage" box. Or they were harassed by GMail or Google.com to "try Chrome; you need it to use all the cool features of our site," and they didn't have a compelling reason not to (especially since they were probably coming from Explorer at the time). And so the habit is built.

Never once have I seen Firefox bundled with anything or asserting itself where it wasn't invited. Someone has to really TRY to install it, and that probably means they know why they might be doing so. It's definitely a "poor marketing strategy" compared with Google's, but which one do we want to reward?

How does the Synced Tabs sidebar work?

[AbRASiON]

Does it include other Windows Firefox versions? (example my desktop, laptop and work machine? not just tablets / phones) so I can see what's open on what PC?

Can I "switch to" my work tab listing - without losing my home tab listing? Then switch back to home?

This finally sounds like an Ok feature, (for a change!)
I've recently found some plugins to FINALLY make Chrome a little more usable. (Refined tab control, closing order, opening position etc) - those Chrome features work on Sync too.

I've always been super hesitant about using Sync, just feels very much like a tracking and privacy concern - but the functionality of it in Chrome, means that every time I use chrome (and sign in) it's actually a "usable" browser to me now AND all the idiot stuff I need to do, to make Chrome usable, follows me.

Should I be considering this for Firefox too?

Re:How does the Synced Tabs sidebar work?

[NotInHere]

Firefox encrypts the synced data on the client side, the plaintext content never reaches the mothership. Chrome, coming from google, obviously does not.

Denial of Firefox's problems is destroying it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Your comment is a perfect example of why Firefox is in such dire straights.

The GP listed numerous serious and very real problems that have been affecting Firefox for a long time now.

Yet instead of acknowledging the existence of these problems and the very negative effects that they have on Firefox's few remaining users, you (and others like you in the Mozilla community) totally ignore these problems.

Instead of doing something that would help fix these problems, you blabber on about "rights" and "principles" and nonsense like that.

It's no wonder users are fleeing Firefox and using Chrome instead: they're tired of being treated like shit by the Firefox community!

Instead of attacking and insulting those few Firefox users who are left, what if you and your kind started listening to these users?

When the users say they don't like Australis and the other unwanted UI changes, the correct response is to revert those changes, and not to insult those users.

When the users say they don't want Pocket, Hello, and other unwanted functionality forced on them, the correct response is to remove that functionality, and not to attack those users.

When the users say they want to see the performance improved and the memory usage decreased, the correct response is to improve the performance and decrease the memory usage, and not to belittle those users.

Firefox is on its death bed right now. The only hope it has for survival is if people like you start showing some respect to those Firefox users who still remain. That means offering them the browser that they want and are even begging for, rather than throwing disrespect and animosity at them!

Improved Youtube Playback

[mentil]

I did a comparison. A 1080p 60fps youtube video (HTML5) used 28-44% of my quad-core in Firefox 46 (usually around 33%). Upgraded to Firefox 47, and it only used 4-6%. I turned off Firefox's hardware acceleration and it still only used 22-25%. I know my friend with a core 2 duo was having trouble with HD youtube videos on Firefox.

Mandatory Addon Signing

[nmb3000]

For the curious, sanity continues to prevail: mandatory addon signing has been pushed back again and xpinstall.signatures.required continues to function. Originally planned for version 46 it's now sitting at a possible version 48 release. With any luck the entire idea will be scrapped, but I encourage anyone who disagrees with this horrible signing policy to voice their opinion.

Re:Mandatory Addon Signing

[Anonymous Coward]

In my experience, 99% of the time, it's because it makes some unmaintained addons not work. Or they simply think issues with it aren't being addressed, despite Mozilla delaying in part to address any issues that are raised.

Once in a while you get someone who thinks that it's creating a "walled garden", but they're people who clearly have no idea what a walled garden is, or don't know how easy it is to bypass the restriction if they really wish to, or how easy it is to get non-questionable addons signed. Those people don't have much of an argument that doesn't boil down to "I don't trust Mozilla enough to let them do this, though I paradoxically trust them enough to run their browser in the first place."

Re:Mandatory Addon Signing

[nmb3000]

In my experience, 99% of the time, it's because it makes some unmaintained addons not work. Or they simply think issues with it aren't being addressed, despite Mozilla delaying in part to address any issues that are raised.

Once in a while you get someone who thinks that it's creating a "walled garden", but they're people who clearly have no idea what a walled garden is, or don't know how easy it is to bypass the restriction if they really wish to, or how easy it is to get non-questionable addons signed. Those people don't have much of an argument that doesn't boil down to "I don't trust Mozilla enough to let them do this, though I paradoxically trust them enough to run their browser in the first place."

The fundamental problem with mandatory addon signing is that it goes directly against what free and open software is all about. Freedom to use, modify, extend, and share. When Mozilla tells me that I cannot extend Firefox via an addon unless it gets the Mozilla Blessing, the browser is no longer free software. It doesn't matter if there's a special "Exempt Edition" for developers, or if they will currently automatically sign all addons. Their intent is clear and the road to hell has been paved.

To add insult to injury, the reasoning behind this misfeature is asinine. They claim "security" to protect users from malicious addons installed without the user's consent. Just two reasons why this is absurd on the face of it:

* A user with a compromised computer is already compromised. They have much bigger problems than a rogue browser addon.
* Addons are automatically signed by uploading them to AMO.

And to address your points:

* It does make unmaintained addons cease to function. Mozilla worked around this by automatically signing all extensions currently on AMO.

* The feature has been delayed not because of "issues being addressed" but because Mozilla knows it will be a shitstorm which will push even more people away from the browser.

* It is a walled garden -- however the walls are short and don't have razor-wire strung along the top.

Mandatory addon signing goes against every principle Firefox was build under.

Multiple impls to fight trojaned compiler binaries

[tepples]

Last but not least there is no real reason for somebody to start a second implementation.

Yes there is. A language with only one implementation cannot so easily become a formal International Standard the way C and C++ are. Nor can a language with only one implementation support David A. Wheeler's diverse double-compiling, the most practical countermeasure to the "Trusting Trust" attack described by Ken Thompson.

Re:Who cares?

[epyT-R]

What gives him the right? Free speech. Just because something's free doesn't mean it's except from criticism.

Better Youtube playback?

[hcs_$reboot]

And hopefully better video playback, in general. (I was told that) watching porn on Chrome gives a better experience than on FF.

Re:Zoom doesnt work

[CanadianMacFan]

Maybe nobody was working on that code in a while so they removed the feature?

Re:Netflix @ 1080p?

[exomondo]

Does this mean Netflix in Firefox will finally run at 1080p? I almost switched to Chrome for this, but I'm too ingrained into Fx with the UI and my favorite plugins.

Why not just use both? Can't you just use Chrome for Netflix and Firefox for the rest? These are browers, not religions.

Re:Netflix @ 1080p?

[invictusvoyd]

Silverlight is also used by Amazon Video and Netflix for their instant video streaming services, but Netflix said in its Tech Blog in 2013 that, since Microsoft had announced the end of life, they would be moving to HTML5 video.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

The above argument is as irrelevant as Microsoft is.

Re:Anyone get that "undisclosed 0-day" figured yet

[donaldm]

"If you're logged in with your Firefox Account, the sidebar will show all your open tabs from your smartphone and other computers"

That seems useful. Get hacked on all your devices at once. If it will speed the luddite uprising, I'm for it.

I hate to burst your bubble but Chrome does this as well and please don't get me started on the Edge Browser. Looks like we are all doomed.