Slashdot Mirror


Firefox Marketing Head Expresses Concerns Over Google's Apparent 'Only Be On Chrome' Push (medium.com)

Eric Petitt, head up Firefox marketing, writing in a blog: I use Chrome every day. Works fine. Easy to use. There are multiple things that bug me about the Chrome product, for sure, but I'm OK with Chrome. I just don't like only being on Chrome. And that's what Chrome wants. It wants you to only use Chrome. Chrome is not evil, it's just too big for its britches. Its influence on the internet economy and individuals is out of balance. Chrome, with 4 times the market share of its nearest competitor (Firefox), is an eight-lane highway to the largest advertising company in the world. Google built it to maximize revenue from your searches and deliver display ads on millions of websites. To monetize every... single... click. And today, there exists no meaningful safety valve on its market dominance. Beyond Google, the web looks more and more like a feudal system, where the geography of the web has been partitioned off by the Frightful Five. Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Apple and Amazon are our lord and protectors, exacting a royal sum for our online behaviors. We're the serfs and tenants, providing homage inside their walled fortresses. Noble upstarts are erased or subsumed under their existing order. (Footnote: Petitt has made it clear that the aforementioned views are his own, and not those of Mozilla.)

189 comments

  1. ONly Only Only by sycodon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Only be on DOS
    Only be on Windows 3.1
    Only be on Netscape
    Only be on AOL
    Only be on IE
    Only be on Mac
    Only be on iPhone
    Only be on Windows phone
    Only be on Android
    Only
    Only
    Only

    Manufacturers have been trying to lock people into their platform since people began selling stuff. Computers, software, tools, vehicle, you name it.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    1. Re:ONly Only Only by jhoegl · · Score: 1

      The ebb and sway of the browser wars has been forever a thing.

    2. Re:ONly Only Only by swillden · · Score: 2

      Manufacturers have been trying to lock people into their platform since people began selling stuff.

      Do you see something Google is doing to lock people into Chrome? Serious question. I don't but maybe I'm missing something.

      For the record, I'm totally in favor of a diverse browser ecosystem. I'd like to see every browser below 30% market share. Though, honestly, the present situation isn't too bad... Chrome has the majority of the market, but it's a thin majority so web sites still need to test on several browsers and Chrome can't dictate browser standards. Still, it would be better if Firefox market share rose. And Opera. Aggressive competition based on open standards is where we want to be.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    3. Re:ONly Only Only by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Wait, let me get this straight. This guy heads Firefox Marketing, but uses chrome all day... and writes an article about using chrome all day. And he doesn't see the obvious?

      My Gawd, the people at Firefox are stone-cold fucking stupid. I sill use it.. .but with Jackwagons like this Jackwagon, I guess it is doomed. Wow.

      I also guess this is why the people at Firefox keep adding and taking away stuff people really do care about. They don't actually use the product they make. Wow, again. ~

    4. Re:ONly Only Only by alexo · · Score: 0

      Do a google search on mobile Chrome and on mobile Firefox and you'll see that there is some useful functionality that is only available on Chrome. Specifically if you check the images search.

      Regardless, Mozilla is at fault for its dwindling marketshare. FF used to be great before they decided to ignore what the users want and make it a Chrome lookalike.

    5. Re:ONly Only Only by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Microsoft wasn't locking people into IE when it faced an antitrust case from the US government. It was using the market dominance of Windows to gain or keep market share for IE. People could choose to go and download install another browser, but the fact is that I.E. was installed by default, the icon was right there on the desktop out of the box, and you mom and dad probably considered the IE icon to be basically synonymous with "the internet". Very hard for other browsers to get a look in under those circumstances.

      Likewise Chrome is default browser on every Android phone, and it's pushed on the desktop via other Google services, for example every time you use Google Translate, it's like "don't you want to use a browser with built-in translation?". And it's bundleware with just so much software. Sure, Google isn't quite in a comparable position to where Microsoft was, but it's arguably not that far away either.

    6. Re:ONly Only Only by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Do a google search on mobile Chrome and on mobile Firefox and you'll see that there is some useful functionality that is only available on Chrome. Specifically if you check the images search.

      Yes, I don't get this. Google reverse image search just doesn't work on Android Firefox, unless you tell it to request the desktop page. Then it works fine. Seems like it's just flat-out gratuitous incompatibility.

      In any case, Yandex's image search seems to work better than Google's, at least for reverse search. Possibly because it hasn't been kneecapped by shotgun DMCA notices. Of course, you have to be comfortable uploading images to Russia.

    7. Re:ONly Only Only by sd4f · · Score: 0

      Considering that the people within mozilla put up such a concerted campaign to get rid of Brendan Eich over an unrelated political matter, kind of goes to show that yes, the people at mozilla are, in fact, stone-cold stupid.

      It just looks to me that the staff within mozilla wish they were working for google, and rather than leaving their own mark on the world, they just imitate, and have turned firefox into an orange themed chrome.

    8. Re: ONly Only Only by gerf · · Score: 1

      From 1997 to 2003 it wasn't.

    9. Re:ONly Only Only by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know why that was modded down. Firefox did exactly what you posted. It is now a bloated mess with nothing new to offer. Luckily Netscape lives on, hardly bigger than Firefox and with the truly useful features that have stood up well over time.

      For mobile, fuck it, just use what comes with the stock android, even though it sucks balls and you'll end up installing chrome anyway. Firefox mobile? Please!

    10. Re:ONly Only Only by webnut77 · · Score: 1

      Chrome can't dictate browser standards.

      Not completely true. See the autocomplete="new-password" solution to prevent Chrome from auto-filling passwords. If have a create user form that Chrome keeps filling with my current credentials (username & password)

    11. Re:ONly Only Only by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      I find Firefox to be far more functional prime example https://adnauseam.io/ , clicking all those ads so that you do not have to, flooding data mining perves and freaks with bullshit data. Which is exactly why Google is definitely not to be trusted.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    12. Re:ONly Only Only by jovetoo · · Score: 1

      And they all got rich from it, even if it was only temporary.

    13. Re: ONly Only Only by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From 1997 to 2003 it was especially. Maybe you didn't notice because you were living in a cave at the time.

    14. Re:ONly Only Only by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fucked that up, let me come again

      Something ate my link:

      https://www.seamonkey-project....

    15. Re:ONly Only Only by swillden · · Score: 1

      Do a google search on mobile Chrome and on mobile Firefox and you'll see that there is some useful functionality that is only available on Chrome. Specifically if you check the images search.

      I don't think that's anything to do with Google. Android and Search are both very careful not to provide any favored Chrome-only APIs or services. I can't tell you why it doesn't work on mobile FF, but it's not because of anything Google has done.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    16. Re: ONly Only Only by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      False. Android is the most prominent OS on smartphones which are the most prominent computing devices on the planet. Having a Chrome based browser be the default browser is thus no different than Microsoft making IE the default Windows browser.

    17. Re:ONly Only Only by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? Chrome is the default browser on every Android phone? Not my Samsung Note 4 (admittedly older so maybe I'm not up to date). Hell the Samsung default browser is literally labeled 'Internet' and when it crashes it says 'The Internet has stopped working', which of course always gives me a chuckle "Yeah, the WHOLE damn Internet just stopped working...IDIOTS!"

    18. Re:ONly Only Only by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course, you have to be comfortable uploading images to Russia.

      Vs installing spyware from Google. Sometimes the choice between two evils really is difficult.

    19. Re: ONly Only Only by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You may be telling the truth - but we just do NOT trust Google.

    20. Re:ONly Only Only by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      There was an other major element going on. Microsoft was trying to use their dominance to take over the web standards.
      Microsoft never liked HTML. So at first with Windows 95. IE was such a basic browser it's only job was to download Netscape. But the point was to get people to use MSN a dial up service like AOL instead. That is where they put the effort. However it never kicked off so Microsoft did a big push to improve IE and embrace, extended and extinguished the web. New versions of IE which were lightweight and shiny but also had ActiveX. Dumb microsfty developers flocked to it. Creating a world of security vulnerabilities and spyware because it proposed speed and flexibility was because ActiveX was basically just a place to run your App in a browser window.
      People started to get sick of the security problems so they used the shiny new light and fast Firefox. Then they kept adding features until chrome came out as the small and light browser.
      In general people want a small and light browser vs one bogged down by too many features.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    21. Re:ONly Only Only by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 1
      Am I the only one who read that as "Firefox's Head of Marketing bitches about how much he really, really, really likes Chrome"?

      Too funny for words

      --

      Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

    22. Re: ONly Only Only by swillden · · Score: 1

      You may be telling the truth - but we just do NOT trust Google.

      Fair enough. But it should be relatively easy (with the appropriate skills) to decompile Chrome mobile, or trace the pattern of messages made by Chrome desktop, to see exactly what's going on. For that matter, as far as I can tell Google Image search works perfectly fine with Chromium, so you can just look at the source code, no need for decompilation!. Finally, if Google were exploiting the popularity of its search engine to make Chrome work and FF not work, wouldn't Mozilla be pointing it out? Perhaps even in court?

      You don't need to trust Google, you just need to notice that it wouldn't be particularly hard for someone to find evidence of the skullduggery you're alleging, and that publishing it would bring rewards. The fact that that hasn't happened is pretty strong evidence that Google is playing it straight.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    23. Re: ONly Only Only by TheCastro1689 · · Score: 1

      This guy never Navigates the Netscape I guess.

    24. Re:ONly Only Only by Desler · · Score: 1

      If I'm using the Chrome password manager why would I not want it to autofill? The most annoying thin is websites that disallow autofill or copy-and-paste for passwords.

  2. i'm going back to gopher and NCSA Mosaic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Screw you guys, I'm going back to gopher and using NCSA Mosaic.
    To hell with the "web" (whatever that even means anymore)

    1. Re:i'm going back to gopher and NCSA Mosaic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mosaic was a "web browswer"...

    2. Re: i'm going back to gopher and NCSA Mosaic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lynx is still available.

  3. Need a competent DOJ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's time for the DOJ to crack down on Google for anticompetitive behavior. They're quite possibly even worse than Microsoft was in the 1990s. Unfortunately, I have no confidence that a DOJ in the Trump administration will enforce the nation's laws. Get rid of Trump and Sessions, and perhaps there will be hope of enforcing existing antitrust laws.

    1. Re:Need a competent DOJ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What anticompetitive behavior have they done?
      Note: I don't mean "behavior you don't like", I mean explicitly "anticompetitive"

    2. Re:Need a competent DOJ by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      Anticompetitive behavior? In what way?

      Is Chrome pre-installed by default on Linux? No.
      Is Chrome pre-installed by default on Windows? No.
      Is Chrome pre-installed by default on Macs? No.
      Is Chrome pre-installed by default on iPhones and iPads? No.
      Is Chrome pre-installed by default on Android? I'm guessing yes, but as far as I know Android's marketshare is much lower than all others combined.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    3. Re:Need a competent DOJ by Stormwatch · · Score: 2

      but as far as I know Android's marketshare is much lower than all others combined.

      Android has recently surpassed Windows as the world's most used OS, and it has 80% of the mobile market.

    4. Re:Need a competent DOJ by Rob+Y. · · Score: 1

      And even on Android, you can set the default browser to be something other than Chrome. Unlike this Windows 10s thingy where Edge is the default browser, Bing is the default search engine - end of story. Yes you can use others, but can't set defaults.

      I have my Android set to default Opera - not because Chrome is bad, but because some mobile websites are unusable without an ad blocker.

      --
      Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
    5. Re:Need a competent DOJ by sconeu · · Score: 1

      because some^H^H^H^H almost all mobile websites are unusable without an ad blocker.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    6. Re:Need a competent DOJ by alexo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Do a google search on mobile Chrome and on mobile Firefox and you'll see that there is some useful functionality that is only available on Chrome. Specifically if you check the images search.

      Tailoring their web pages to limit functionality on competing browsers is anticompetitive.

    7. Re:Need a competent DOJ by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

      I'm running Windows 10. Edge is installed, of course, but I don't use it, nore is it my default, IE 11 is.

      I also have Chrome.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    8. Re: Need a competent DOJ by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      A lot of installers, even the driver installer for my graphics card, beseeches me to install Chrome.

    9. Re:Need a competent DOJ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is a seriouisly flawed view when you realize Google pours money into the democrats pockets. There is zero reason for the Dems or Repubs to take action against Google. People love to love google and its products. The governing body that steps in to break that up will suffer a similar fate to a politician found using anything besides and iPod when running on a treadmill.

    10. Re:Need a competent DOJ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get rid of Trump and Sessions, and perhaps there will be hope of enforcing existing antitrust laws.

      Trump was elected. What makes you think anything better will make headway knowing what it takes to win? The two most repulsive candidates and political parties completely dominate. The idea of majority rule is crumbling before our eyes. Like Churchill said, *The best argument against democracy is a five minute discussion with the average voter*

    11. Re:Need a competent DOJ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are a fucking moron.

      Yes, Chrome is pre-installed on Windows ever since Microsoft was forced to give users a choice of browsers.

      Yes, Chrome is pre-installed on Android, the MOST USED operating system by far in the world. Android has a bigger marketshare than all other operating systems combined.

    12. Re:Need a competent DOJ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      because some^H^H^H^H almost all mobile websites are unusable without an ad blocker.

      Websites are unusable without an ad blocker.

    13. Re:Need a competent DOJ by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      because almost all mobile websites are unusable.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    14. Re: Need a competent DOJ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WTF are you talking about? Android is the most popular OS on the planet, more so than Windows:

      https://www.cnet.com/news/android-most-popular-os-beats-windows-statcounter/

    15. Re: Need a competent DOJ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Watch less Fake News on Fox News. Hannity isn't a journalist. Even he admits it. Time to learn critical thinking skills Trump-Bitch-Flake.

    16. Re: Need a competent DOJ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anything, even Mike Pence, would be much better and more equipped to serve as President than our current Loser-In-Cheif. You Trump Bitch-Flakes crack me up. Most of you ignorant sluts didn't even graduate from college. Losers.

    17. Re: Need a competent DOJ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't read so good, do you?

    18. Re:Need a competent DOJ by epine · · Score: 1

      It's time for the DOJ to crack down on Google for anticompetitive behavior. They're quite possibly even worse than Microsoft was in the 1990s.

      I suspect I recall the 1990s with a great deal more clarity than you do.

    19. Re:Need a competent DOJ by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      I agree, right now Google has changed so that Google Earth no longer is an application but you shall instead use Chrome. That adds to the bloat in Chrome.

      A tool that can do "everything" is rarely very good on anything.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    20. Re:Need a competent DOJ by Xest · · Score: 1

      Maybe, but the only reason the marketing is converging on Chrome is the only reason the market converged on IE, because like Netscape before it, Firefox is simply a shit browser nowadays.

      If Mozilla has a problem with market domination, it'd do well to realise that the market isn't going Chrome for fringe Chrome only features that people have to Google for to find they even exist. No, it's going Chrome because it's simply a better browser.

      When a browser vendor like Mozilla starts attacking Chrome over largely irrelevant things like this, it tells me they're out of ideas. Looks like we need a new upstart to replace Mozilla and do to Chrome what Mozilla did to IE in the early 00s, because Mozilla seems to have given up now that they're trying to play politics to increase market share, rather than, you know, simply producing a good product.

    21. Re:Need a competent DOJ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it's going Chrome because it's simply a better browser.

      No. People don't make rational choices. Consider your irrational claim that "Firefox is simply a shit browser nowadays". That's more than a little kooky.

      People are only using Chrome because it's either been installed for them or because it's been advertised at them or because they believe whatever crazy narrative it pleases them to believe.

      Cue the defensive rationalizations.

    22. Re: Need a competent DOJ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you by chance on an OS where downloading installers from random websites is encouraged?

      Nothing I installed ever even suggested installing Chrome. Neither through the package manager, nor through Steam.

    23. Re:Need a competent DOJ by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      haha, i have windows 10, i have edge, which i cant remove(anti-competitive much?) And Chrome, Set as default browser.. Although over HALF of the programs i can click links in, open edge... even know chrome is default browser. and on windows 7 those same programs(same versions even) opened chrome no problem. So i dont know what wonder world you live in. but i would like you to share how you REALLY got windows to use the "default" browser.. or does it only allow different defaults if its a microsoft product? Either way im pretty sure theyre touching back on their 1997 ways.

    24. Re:Need a competent DOJ by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      Where do I get the Windows OS with chrome pre installed?? I have never seen such a thing. Please do share. That would save me minutes when I reinstall Windows. And I would never even have to open edge.

    25. Re: Need a competent DOJ by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      He's too busy playing identity politics to read and actually add anything to this conversation.

    26. Re:Need a competent DOJ by WheezyJoe · · Score: 1

      Unlike this Windows 10s thingy where Edge is the default browser, Bing is the default search engine - end of story.

      You're talking about Windows 10 S, the special locked-down version of Windows.

      We'll see how much penetration this "walled-garden" variant of Windows really gets. And people can allegedly upgrade out of it. I'm not worried that Windows S is going to force its way onto people's desktops any time soon (unless OEM's start pre-installing S on new PC's in place of Home, charging a premium for Windows Home as an option, and Pro becomes a super-premium).

      On the other hand, if Windows S is directed to schools and other specialized environments that could really benefit from a locked-down system, those same schools and specialized environments might exert some pressure on Microsoft to ease up on one thing or another. If a state-wide school system, for example, is hot for Windows S but absolutely requires a legacy Firefox-only plug-in written by some teacher years ago, Microsoft can probably be persuaded to let Firefox through.

      Same for the default search engine. If Bing is gonna return pr0n or Alt-Hate results, I wouldn't want that in my computer labs for 8th graders. So get Microsoft to bend a bit and set the default search engine to Wikipedia or PBS? That might sell some Windows 10 S.

      If Microsoft's not willing to bend, the only people I see running Windows 10 S are beta-testers for Edge and the Windows Store. There's a locked-down system out there already that's cheaper and more mature, if anyone wants it... it's called a Chromebook.

      --
      Take it easy, Charlie, I've got an Angle...
    27. Re:Need a competent DOJ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree, I WANT to like FF, but Chrome just works better.

      I've started using Opera now too since it lets me use Chromium without actually using Chrome.

    28. Re:Need a competent DOJ by x0ra · · Score: 1

      Who are you to speak about people making irrational choice ? I can tell you that my first reflex on every new install is to install Chrome *WILLINGLY*, not Firefox. Even on Windows, my second choice is the new IE, not Firefox.

      Generally speaking, when you start to fight legal battle, it's because you failed miserably on the technical side. This is a prime example of this.

    29. Re:Need a competent DOJ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who are you to speak about people making irrational choice ?

      Aha, the indignation and defensiveness. That's the lack of rationality right there. You've allowed a corporation's software to define your identity. It's sick.

      install Chrome *WILLINGLY*

      I know. It's a kind of Stockholm syndrome. It's sad. Hang in there, kid.

    30. Re:Need a competent DOJ by Xest · · Score: 1

      I guess you're one of Mozilla's dumb fuck devs that trolls here and regularly shows their technical ineptitude.

      I'll spell it out simply for you - Firefox used to have the largest marketshare because it was better than IE. Then it got shit, because it is, whatever you might tell yourself - memory leaks, slow, removal of much loved features, UI redesigns that no one liked and so forth, and so people conciously chose to move to Chrome.

      There's no conspiracy theory here, Firefox is shit, Chrome is better - the choice wasn't hard for the hundreds of millions that willingly switched to it.

    31. Re:Need a competent DOJ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll spell it out simply for you

      You haven't spelt out anything. All you've done is repeat your pointless rant, you kook.

  4. Oh deary deary me. by Computershack · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Funny how Mozilla/Firefox weren't complaining when they had a large marketshare. It is called competition and if people are going to a competitor's product you need to look at why, what you offer and what you could offer which would persuade people to yours. You have no right to market share, you have no right to anything at all. I also find it quite hypocritical that you mention the advertising given the tie-ins Firefox and Mozilla have had in the past and the fact that on the leading Linux platforms Firefox has done a deal to ensure that it is the default installed OOTB browser. Maybe other browser companies such as Opera should complain about you doing that?

    Perhaps given your job title you should look at your own performance and take a closer look at home as to why Firefox doesn't do as well as it should. If you don't competition get out of the game.

    --
    I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams
    1. Re:Oh deary deary me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So actually I agree with you basically. But as Google does get more marketshare and work (eventually) to being a de-facto monopoly (again only if current trends continue), then they would need to stop advertising Chrome as the best browser every time someone went to google.com for example. Other places where they tie products together would have to change too. But they aren't to that level yet.

    2. Re:Oh deary deary me. by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Perhaps given your job title you should look at your own performance and take a closer look at home as to why Firefox doesn't do as well as it should. If you don't competition get out of the game.

      Read through this bug on adding concurrency to Firefox to get a good feeling why Mozilla lost so much browser market share:
          https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/s...

      "Always with you what cannot be done."

      $350M in funding per year, and they couldn't straighten out threads/processes. A bunch of crazy-ass trendy projects that got killed - those got millions of dollars in funding each. Users cursing at their slow browser - not even a priority.

      If Chrome is winning (has won?), it's because its dev team seems to have an "OK, we'll fix that" attitude.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    3. Re:Oh deary deary me. by slack_justyb · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Whoa, whoa, whoa. Cool the torches there buddy. I get where you are coming from but I think we're a little past that point. You've got a great argument at say 20% delta between first and second place, but we're way, way, way past that point. Chrome is at 54% with second place at 15% and that's Apple's Safari which I'm sure 90% of that 15% is iPhone. That's an almost 40% difference between the two. While no one is screaming monopoly (okay maybe a few but no one cares about them), we're in the territory where we should grow a bit concerned.

      The W3C manages the standards of the web and even then Google has an insanely heavy hand in the process there and even if W3C doesn't agree to something, who cares, Google just does it anyway. So I get it, competition and all, but there's a point where we should pro-actively start looking at what checks are in place to ensure that Google doesn't make W3C, OASIS, et al completely irrelevant.

      You know how people say that "gee I wish people were more proactive before monopolies formed?" Yeah, we're there, this is that point where it is time to ask questions. Not asking questions, not ensuring that Google just doesn't start stomping standards and going the non-evil form of embrace, enhance, and extinguish, ensuring the young whipper snappers that Google hires don't GNOME 3 the hell out of the Internet, that's the entire point. It's not to say, "OMG! Google is just too big, has way too much a lead over other browsers, it's just not fair *wail to heavens*". It is to say, "Hey, uh, do we have enough checks and balances to ensure that Google doesn't use their lead to just fudge bomb how the web works?" The answer is pretty much no and that's been a concern for like forever (I remember conversations about this issue back in late 1990s and W3C was way smaller then), but more so now that I lot more people happen to be on the Internet daily.

      Totally understand your position, but just up and up being cynical and telling them to go f'off, !!CAPITALISM!! Is exactly the crap that just leads to an insanely high level of apathy that ultimately leads to the same folks that said !!CAPITALISM!! saying, "WTF?! Where were you all and why didn't you stop them?!?!" I for one don't want another IE and neither should anyone else. We need an organization that can literally say, "Google Chrome is not compliant with ISO(ideally W3 as opposed to ISO)-96716723(whatever) of HTML rendering standards, they are a non-standard browser." And we should actively shun non-standard browsers.

      Also, just want to add that this nowhere even gets into how slow the W3C has been, how they totally missed the ball on mobile-everything, and how they are totally getting left behind in IoT. So there's an even amount of blame to lay on W3C's feet too. Also mobile OS makers and what not, there's some blame heading to them too... It's a really complex topic, but yeah screaming !!CAPITALISM!! isn't going to fix jack crap and possible just make it worse off.

    4. Re:Oh deary deary me. by G00F · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Read through this bug on adding concurrency to Firefox to get a good feeling why Mozilla lost so much browser market share:
              https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/s...

      After reading, what I get is the devs saying procceses/threads as dictated wont solve the problems being described. And that they will work to solve them a different way.

      --
      The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive
    5. Re:Oh deary deary me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      After I came across a few annoying odd Chrome behaviour marked "won't fix" I gave up on it.

    6. Re:Oh deary deary me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      As the head of Firefox marketing, maybe Eric should take a good hard look at why Firefox has gone from the most popular browser to only 1/4 the market share of Chrome.

      After using Firefox since version 0.7 (when it was called Firebird) and rarely ever using any other browser, I switched to the Palemoon fork of Firefox after the “Australis” debacle that completely ruined what used to be the best browser around. Since then, they've been on an all out campaign to destroy Firefox, and their market share numbers show that they're doing a really great job of it.

      To put it simply, Firefox sucks and nobody at Mozilla can be bothered to give a shit.

      $375 Million a year in free money from Yahoo, after getting a couple Billion in free money from Google over the years, and what have they done? Remove good features, make Firefox more like Chrome, add junk features that nobody wants or cares about, make Firefox more like Chrome. Pointless change after pointless change.

      I call it “New Coke Syndrome”. In the rush to make Firefox more like Chrome, they’ve failed to understand that if people want a browser that looks and works like Chrome, they’ll just use Chrome. Meanwhile, they’ve destroyed almost everything that made Firefox popular in the first place.

    7. Re:Oh deary deary me. by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      Did you say the same when IE 6 had 90% of the market?

    8. Re:Oh deary deary me. by Lehk228 · · Score: 0

      they'd rather focus on diversity and social justice than on technology. the good thing is it's open source so when they finish disintegrating others who care more about load times, rendering accuracy, and stability can pick up the pieces and carry on while the idiots try to figure out why the failure was the fault of straight white males.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    9. Re:Oh deary deary me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously, so clearly you are one of those 'Government will fix everything types'. And worse yet you base your screed on incomplete understanding of stats where you claim '90% of 15% is on iPhone' you TOTALLY miss the idea that this is LIKELY true for 'Chrome on Android' where Android has an 88% market share of ALL Smartphones (https://qz.com/826672/android-goog-just-hit-a-record-88-market-share-of-all-smartphones/). Beyond that a 'competitive market' is not defined by '2 large competitors', in this example say Chrome @ 54% & FF as say 36% & then the rest...it is defined by a 'vibrant market of large & small'...and that's what 54% Chrome vs 46% 'other' tells me exists. If the other browser makers aren't catching up, this isn't something Google is causing, why for instance doesn't APPLE make Safari for Windows or Android? Why doesn't MS make IE/Edge for Android, iOS etc? It's not like either of these companies are 'small'? They have the resources to compete head to head if they wanted to.

      Firefox is failing because simply put they FAILED TO COMPETE. They took their blood money form Google to make it the 'default search tool', presumably used it for trips to Cancun or something because it's clear they didn't spend it on making their browser better and YOU want some 'government organization', 'international standards body' etc. to step in to make YOUR choices for you.

      O, and the gp didn't 'scream CAPITALISM' (especially in all caps), YOU made that up. He made the simple point that FF took their money & didn't do shit with it. Coming back to the world now & claiming 'Google is a monopoly that we must do something about' is simply being a poor sport about it. And you're buying this shit 'hook, line & sinker'.

      If you are so damn adamant that 'something must be done' don't use Chrome, campaign to ask others to stop using Chrome. Build your own 'testing platform' to test against 'W3C standards' & post your results (others already do it but go right ahead). Hell, build you're own freakin' browser to knock Google out. Google doesn't force ANYONE to use their browser, they don't stop anyone from downloading a different browser for Android even & Samsung (the single largest Android Smartphone company) builds in their own (and it IS CRAP!...and when it crashes tells me 'The Internet has stopped working'...YEAH the WHOLE DAMN INTERNET just went down! LMAO!).

      People like you that expect 'government' to fix everything really need to give your head a shake, get out of your parent's basement & start making your own choices for yourself...it's really liberating.

      So, even if we wanted 'government intervention' (which a good part of 'we' do NOT) you're totally barking up the wrong tree.

    10. Re:Oh deary deary me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      A bunch of crazy-ass trendy projects that got killed

      You should read up on Mozilla's Electrolysis and Quantum projects. Seems like Mozilla's got an "OK, we'll fix that" attitude to me.

    11. Re:Oh deary deary me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      After reading, what I get is the devs saying procceses/threads as dictated wont solve the problems being described. And that they will work to solve them a different way.

      The "different way" is sitting around hoping that some experimental non-useful "transactional programming language" called X10 never released outside IBM will have its ideas absorbed into C and Javascript so they can be used to fix the web without using threads. I hope I don't have to tell you how that panned out in the decade that they sat on the bug.

      The "different way" did not include clear statement that "bad javascript on the web should not cause unrelated tabs to hang."

      I agree with GP it is dysfunctional.

    12. Re:Oh deary deary me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's even funnier is with all that money, Mozilla is still of the, "We won't work on it, submit a patch".

    13. Re: Oh deary deary me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stop being an ignorant slut. Google uses their search and mobile phone OS market share to psh their other products. It's as anti-competitive as Microsoft was in the 90's / early 2000's. Only a Trump loving bitch would see otherwise.

    14. Re:Oh deary deary me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, what lost Firefox market share was the decision to copy Chrome rather than being better.

      There are three ways to compete: Price, product and advertising. Chrome is free, so competing on price is not an option.

      Firefox had the most complete set of features and the most flexible add-on system. They decided to remove these things, thus reducing the product to - at best - parity with Chrome. Except for speed and stability, where they will never catch Chrome.

      So the only option Mozilla.org has left is competing with Google on who has got the bigger advertising budget.

    15. Re:Oh deary deary me. by wildstoo · · Score: 1

      If you don't competition get out of the game.

      Wow... I've never seen competition as a verb before.

    16. Re:Oh deary deary me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "we're in the territory where we should grow a bit concerned."
      Especially when the almost-daily "You MUST update your Chrome, sign on to be our prisoner, and lock the door behind you" window is almost impossible to close without doing exactly as it demands.

    17. Re:Oh deary deary me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny how Mozilla/Firefox weren't complaining when they had a large marketshare.

      Anecdote:

      I worked for Mozilla for a few years, after seeing John Lily (CEO at the time) speak. It was right after Chrome started getting popular, and a smug person in the crowd asked him about how he felt about Chrome.

      John's response was awesome. "This is the web that we wanted. We exist not because we want everyone to use Firefox, but because we wanted people to have a choice" Firefox was a response to a world of "best viewed in IE" badges, and it changed the browser landscape.

      Now, we have options. Chrome is great, but so are Safari, Edge, Brave, Opera and Firefox. There's a lot of options out there, and they're all standards compliment. And that's thanks to Mozilla.

      * https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14421237

      Mozilla may not have been complaining when they had higher market share, but how much did they actually care? I think need a high enough number to have some influence, but what benefit do they gain by having 60% versus 20%?

      It's not like they're selling something.

    18. Re:Oh deary deary me. by azcoyote · · Score: 1

      Wow, reading through that bug was very informative... and sad. Thanks for the info.

      --
      Incipiamus, fratres, servire Domino Deo, quia hucusque vix vel parum in nullo profecimus.
  5. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  6. Don't worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are a lot of us that have never used Chrome. And some of us don't use ANY Google products! Their garbage analytics are being unused by me and this web page at this very moment! It's spectacular.

  7. Simple solution by Ostrich25 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Make Firefox not suck. I had a laundry list of issues with FF that culminated in my switching to Chrome, where everything "just works". I used FF for *years*, until I literally couldn't make myself keep fighting with the browser.

    1. Re:Simple solution by Threni · · Score: 1

      I had some bugs explained on the mozilla forum then they wiped everything and said missing stuff had to be entered again. What, no backup? Can't be bothered. I want to use Firefox as i like plugins but I can't be dealing with stuff like the Google Keyboard not working properly on firefox (but is fine on every other app including chrome), specifically the ability to move the cursor by swiping the space bar left/right or holding the delete button and swiping left/right so I'm back to chrome.

    2. Re:Simple solution by Osgeld · · Score: 1

      That's exactly what I came here to say, FF just became a pain in the ass to use, and since it was a pain in the ass to use chrome clone by the time I stopped using it, I just went to chrome... why use a bad clone of something that's right there waiting for you

    3. Re:Simple solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try SeaMonky. It is Mozilla's original web browser, and it does everything Firefox can, but with more features, and somehow less bloat.

    4. Re:Simple solution by TemporalBeing · · Score: 1

      Make Firefox not suck. I had a laundry list of issues with FF that culminated in my switching to Chrome, where everything "just works". I used FF for *years*, until I literally couldn't make myself keep fighting with the browser.

      Agreed. I've been a long time Firefox user - from the 1.x days (even looking at when it was still Phoenix), and really really loved the Pandora/TabGroups functionality that was introduced in FF4. However, they've making changes that are about to toss out nearly all of the add-ons, and make it near impossible for some add-ons (which TabGroups is again) impossible to do going forward. It's made me actually start using Chrome for more than just Netflix.

      Unfortunately, Chome doesn't really have a good solution to the Tab Groups funcitonality in Firefox, but at least their not tearing down the palace to try to save the King.

      --
      Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
    5. Re:Simple solution by tgv · · Score: 1

      It seems all Firefox users are in this thread, and we agree. I still find FF usable (on a mac), but every time they manage to fuck up something that worked well for someone. I was on "Nightly" for some time, and then they stopped supporting the plugins. Which is the only fucking reason I still use Firefox, dammit! They seem intent on following some blueprint from 1998 without listening to their users, a sure way of killing a product.

    6. Re:Simple solution by burbilog · · Score: 2

      Try SeaMonky. It is Mozilla's original web browser, and it does everything Firefox can, but with more features, and somehow less bloat. Alas, it does not support many useful extensions, especially Scrapbook. Without Scrapbook I can't move anywhere, I have a large library of saved data and I have to continue to use it.

    7. Re:Simple solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Chrome for more than just Netflix

      Netflix works in Firefox. I used Firefox to watch video on Netflix just yesterday.

  8. This isn't just Google's fault. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is not just Google's fault - people are writing Chrome-only websites. Not surprisingly, google.com only supports U2F (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_2nd_Factor) on Chrome. Surprisingly and infuriatingly, other tech companies are doing the same, even though Firefox supports U2F with a plugin. Dropbox and Atlassian both require Chrome for U2F, and refuse to try to work with Firefox. (Kudos to Github for doing it right.)

    1. Re:This isn't just Google's fault. by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      This is not just Google's fault - people are writing Chrome-only websites. Not surprisingly, google.com only supports U2F (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_2nd_Factor) on Chrome. Surprisingly and infuriatingly, other tech companies are doing the same, even though Firefox supports U2F with a plugin. Dropbox and Atlassian both require Chrome for U2F, and refuse to try to work with Firefox. (Kudos to Github for doing it right.)

      That is because U2F is not as much a standard or new technology as much as it is a really ugly hack, and no one wants to port that horrible code to other browsers. The other browsers have all looked into it and decided to do something else.

    2. Re:This isn't just Google's fault. by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      Try again with Firefox 58 or later. Due out end of this year.

    3. Re:This isn't just Google's fault. by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      U2F... 2.0 is also know as "Web Authentication: An API for accessing Public Key Credentials" https://www.w3.org/TR/webauthn...
      Appears to be on it's way to a real standard

      FYI, Mozilla and Microsoft are currently working on U2F in Edge and Firefox

    4. Re:This isn't just Google's fault. by TemporalBeing · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Try again with Firefox 58 or later. Due out end of this year.

      And no longer have (a) tab groups and (b) 90+% of the add-ons and extensions for Firefox out there. FF57 is where I believe their putting the guillotine to their own necks.

      --
      Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
    5. Re:This isn't just Google's fault. by tgv · · Score: 1

      When that happens, they can kiss my ass goodbye too. So where do you complain against this? Is there a forum that Mozilla reads at all?

    6. Re:This isn't just Google's fault. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only forums they read are the ones that allows them to mark anything they disagree with as RESOLVED WONTFIX.

    7. Re:This isn't just Google's fault. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      digg

    8. Re:This isn't just Google's fault. by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      U2F... 2.0 is also know as "Web Authentication: An API for accessing Public Key Credentials" https://www.w3.org/TR/webauthn...
      Appears to be on it's way to a real standard

      FYI, Mozilla and Microsoft are currently working on U2F in Edge and Firefox

      Yes, WebAuthentication, but not the standard currently implemented in Chrome, which is what everybody is using until the replacement is done. Until then it is Chrome only.

    9. Re:This isn't just Google's fault. by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      That's how web standards start... HTTP2.0 came from Google's Chrome-only SPDY

    10. Re:This isn't just Google's fault. by TemporalBeing · · Score: 1

      When that happens, they can kiss my ass goodbye too. So where do you complain against this? Is there a forum that Mozilla reads at all?

      Sadly, the AC in parallel to this is right - they're only response is "RESOLVED - WONTFIX" in their bugzilla DB, and mozilla forums. They seem to have entirely lost focus on who their customer is, who their end-user is, and that their purpose as a company is.

      --
      Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
  9. Well if Firefox didn't go downhill after 3.6x by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well if Firefox didn't go downhill after 3.6x (Adding junk, making load and "boot" times slower) Chrome (and it's open source variants) would not have taken off so well.

    I personally do not like the Chrome from the website (too much info gets sent to Google) but Chrome for Work and Iron are great alternatives.

  10. safety valves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And today, there exists no meaningful safety valve on its market dominance

    Well, there's the market segment that doesn't want every click they make monitized and tracked.

    We are not to be trifled with! Why, there are dozens of us.

    1. Re:safety valves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why, there is a dozen of us.almost

      FTFY

  11. The Five by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2

    Beyond Google, the web looks more and more like a feudal system, where the geography of the web has been partitioned off by the Frightful Five. Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Apple and Amazon are our lord and protectors, exacting a royal sum for our online behaviors.

    Segmentation is natural in a oligarchy. I would suggest to you that Microsoft, was one the sole leader in the tech world, and lost its dominance by thinking it was "it". The others will eventually fail. We may be too short sighted to notice it happening.

    The point being, the "next" big thing is going to hit, and these guys are all going to miss it. Probably, because the next big thing won't be anything we expect, it will happen organically. This is why I don't see 3D stuff as being successful. It might be, when there is a "killer app" that requires it to function. Since 3D porn, movies and games haven't really taken off yet, it is either too premature, or not required for functionality.

    I haven't a clue what the next big thing is, because it likely hasn't reached maturity, and hasn't found the "killer" status that will cause it to take off. If I had a suspicion, I would think augmented reality would be the "next big thing", but it is still years away from being "killer".

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    1. Re:The Five by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 2

      "I haven't a clue what the next big thing is, "

      Ransomware.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    2. Re: The Five by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Find me a business that existed 300 years ago that isn't a religion or a monarchy that still exists today. Under properly regulated capitalism market leaders that get complacent are designed to fall by the wayside. That's the nature of properly regulated capatalism. It's the "properly regulated" part that DB's like a Trump can't get their small minds (and hands) around.

    3. Re:The Five by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      and lost its dominance

      Did it? It still owns the productivity of the entire world. It has a very significant market share in Cloud services where it was late to enter. And it's market cap has never been higher than it was now.

      If that is "failing" then I don't want to win.

    4. Re:The Five by jago25_98 · · Score: 1

      "Segmentation is natural in a oligarchy"

      That's great to hear. Can you tell me more?

      No sarcasm intended. I want to know more.

  12. only Firefox concerned? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    MS got so much stick for pushing their browser on their OS, and I'm fed up of Google doing the same sodding thing because I'm using their service, but not their browser...

    Signed into Google and don't use Chrome, constant fecking whining.

    Hypocrites really.

  13. Re:Be Brave by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Will it show the protocol if it's just http?

  14. Wish Google sites would shut up by sremick · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What I'd really like is for all the Google service sites to STFU and remember when I say I don't want Chrome. Every fucking page for every fucking site has some sort of pop-up box, banner, or somesuch that uses Microsoft tacticts to suggest that somehow this web service will work better in Chrome than some other web-compliant browser like the one I'm already using (Firefox). If closing/dismissing/saying "NO" would silence them for good that'd be one thing, but they won't fucking go away. They keep coming back.

    Sorry, Google, but the dozen or so background processes Chrome launches that arrogantly assume that you're doing nothing else with your computer and Chrome therefore has implicit permission to own every all RAM and CPU 100%, crowding out everything else with they sheer quantity of the number of spawned threads has resulted in you being banned from my systems. Go the fuck away and leave me alone and stop trying to take over the world, assholes.

    1. Re:Wish Google sites would shut up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That and the godaweful UI that hides all the useful settings

    2. Re:Wish Google sites would shut up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One little detail that you are ignoring in that rant:
      "Every fucking page for every fucking site has some sort of pop-up box, banner, or somesuch that uses Microsoft tacticts to suggest that somehow this web service will work better in Chrome than some other web-compliant browser like the one I'm already using (Firefox)."
      Factually it DOES work better.
      MUCH better.
      AND, it offers the best security.
      And ultimately that trumps all other factors.

    3. Re:Wish Google sites would shut up by sremick · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, it does not "trump all other factors". I don't care if every install of Chrome got you $10. Chrome is blatant spyware, and "factually" slows down your computer. I know many previous Chrome fans who've ditched it and gone back to Firefox for this very reason (an issue on both MacOS and Windows).

      Gmail, Google, Hangouts, Calendar, Contacts, and so on all work 100% perfectly fine in Firefox. But without giving away your soul by letting Google know every click on every site.

    4. Re:Wish Google sites would shut up by omnichad · · Score: 1

      At this point, even MS Edge is better than Chrome. I only use it because I like the UI and inspector.

    5. Re:Wish Google sites would shut up by Subm · · Score: 1

      > If closing/dismissing/saying "NO" would silence them for good that'd be one thing, but they won't fucking go away. They keep coming back.

      You look like you're trying to complain about a tool popping up unwanted and not going away. I can help with that.

    6. Re: Wish Google sites would shut up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The solution is simple. Stop ducking using the other sites.

    7. Re:Wish Google sites would shut up by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Chrome is blatant spyware

      A key part of being spyware is that something operates completely covertly. Google is very open about what Chrome does. Don't redefine the term, you're helping no-one.

      "factually" slows down your computer

      An extraordinary claim. Care to back them up?

      I know many previous Chrome fans who've ditched it and gone back to Firefox for this very reason

      Anecdotes are fun. I am a previous Firefox fan who ditched it for Chrome for this very reason. Surely we can't all be right.

    8. Re:Wish Google sites would shut up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So something like Bonzi Buddy wasn't spyware? I'm pretty sure its EULA said just what information they were gathering.

    9. Re:Wish Google sites would shut up by coofercat · · Score: 1

      Google Cloud stuff (Compute Engine, etc) only works in Chrome though. If you choose to buy Google Cloud, then you have to take Chrome, or else you can't control your account.

      I can get that its easier to make a UI work in one browser than many, but I'd have much less of a problem with it if the one browser it worked with wasn't made by the same company as the UI. It's Microsoft all over again.

    10. Re:Wish Google sites would shut up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you are worried about Google spying on you, step one is to avoid their browser. Step two is to avoid their search engine, calendar, etc.

  15. why dont make a browser that sucks less? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the latest firefox upgrade crashes the browser like a second after you visit certain sites, its pathetic

    the only reason i run it is because of a couple extensions, but their browser is GARBAGE thru and thru

  16. I don't get it by chispito · · Score: 1

    This reminds me of those Domino's Pizza "Turnaround" ads from from 2010 (wherein the company basically admitted their pizza was terrible but that it was now much better). His premise is, "FireFox was terrible back when you switched to Chrome, but come back because we're almost as good now and Google is too powerful."

    If you want people to use FireFox just because Google is too big, that's not enough. It needs to be clearly better than Chrome in meaningful ways.

    --
    The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
    1. Re:I don't get it by mentil · · Score: 1

      I wasn't aware of the Turnaround ads, mostly because I stopped watching TV by that point. I used to joke about their old slogan: "Don't get the door, it's Domino's." Their stuff was so bad I got a better experience from a Tombstone and some extra oregano.

      --
      Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    2. Re:I don't get it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope FFox just needs to be "good enough". PALE MOON is good enough, so my use of Google-brower is limited to banking.

  17. Chrome is the next IE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Chrome is not the new IE and the only thing holding other browsers back is not Google or Chrome. But rather themselves for not developing a browser users want to use. Firefox clearly lost track of the end user needs and Microsoft went the wrong way with Edge, its been rejected by users. The rest make up a small group of users who cling to native browsers like Safari, or unique ones like Opera or some others.

    1. Re: Chrome is the next IE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Safari is the new IE
      Look up its compatibility with modern standards, it's usually years behind every other webkit flavor

  18. no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not only that! We're about to make it worse. By next year it will BE chrome.

    1. Re:no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and this is why I mostly use chrome now. I have been faithful to firefox for years - even before it was considered stable. Now I use it 1/20th of the time I use chrome. If they're going to get rid of real extensions then there is no reason to stick around.

  19. Stop trying to be Chrome then by TypoNAM · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Mozilla has been pushing hard to make Firefox to be exactly like Google Chrome along with its limitations and lack of customizability. By Firefox v57 there will be no reason to ever use Firefox anymore because of Web Extensions won't allow users to install real extensions that allow them to actually change Firefox's behavior and UI as they want it to instead of Mozilla's ideology of having Firefox be a Chrome copycat. The pathetic Theme options in future Firefox versions is just as awful as Windows 10's themes and limited color choices, meaning no real options at all.

    So I find it hilarious that somebody from Mozilla is concerned with Chrome becoming the only web browser in town when it's Mozilla themselves pushing the remaining Firefox users away towards Google Chrome because of their behavior and border-line user hostility. Because why bother using a gimmick when you can use the real thing?

    --
    This space is not for rent.
    1. Re:Stop trying to be Chrome then by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      Exactly. I used Firefox for years, and avoided Chrome mainly because I didn't like its UI. Even though Chrome did work much better than Firefox.

      Now Firefox's UI seems identical, so why not use the horrible-UI-browser that works better?

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    2. Re:Stop trying to be Chrome then by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      Do you realize that what you've had to say here is pretty much what others have had to say through every cycle of this-and-that web browser, since there's been such a thing as web browsers?

    3. Re:Stop trying to be Chrome then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yep - i've lost the extensions and customizations I really like because of web extensions. It sucks, a lot.

    4. Re:Stop trying to be Chrome then by Solandri · · Score: 1

      That's my reason too. I used to use Chrome in a VM only for Gmail, and Firefox for everything else. Then Firefox started trying to look like Chrome. For a couple years I managed to stave it off by restoring my customized Firefox layout from previous versions. That seemed to undo all the rearranging they did to the UI elements, overriding the restrictions they put on customizing Firefox's UI. But eventually that stopped working. I was forced to learn the Chrome-like UI. After that, it was a choice between using Chrome, or using a browser trying to look and act like Chrome. So I just switched to Chrome.

  20. Or be unknown-nymous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And surf using Tails' browser. The frightful five really only care about your credit card and spending habits. Avoid all five, and head out to http://tails.boum.org, with your 4G USB stick. Then vanish like the Major (Kusanagi)

  21. Re: Be Brave by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    A great option (or at least a GOOD option) IMO is Iridium. It mostly is Chromium recompiled with some privacy defaults (that you could set in Chrome or Chromium in about 5 minutes), but also ALL the google hooks removed.

    Brave sounds ok, but given that they have tried offering stuff like "replace your ads with ours" and are busy studying "how to monetize the web" or whatever with an "attention token", I wouldn't feel comfortable going all-in on them.

    https://brave.com/about_ad_replacement.html

  22. Re:Be Brave by dstyle5 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Will being brave magically remove the headphone jack from my PC and phone?

  23. Wanna-be is never gonna be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds like the Chome-wanna-be followers at Mozilla are whining because they just got told they're never gonna be Chrome no matter how hard they try.

    Boo Fucking Hoo.

  24. Clever by swillden · · Score: 1

    This is a clever bit of marketing. The intro makes it sound like it's a thinkpiece, about to explore some interesting hidden issue that you didn't know about, and which is forcing Chrome's dominance on the world. But then it segues into its real purpose, which is to market Firefox, to convince you that it's actually pretty cool these days and you should give it another try. Clearly, the author hopes the intro will make it go viral, including things, like, oh, making the front page of /. and hackernews (doesn't seem to be there yet).

    I hope it's successful. Come to think of it, I haven't tried Firefox for a while, it's probably time I did again.

    --
    Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  25. Pot, Kettle, Black? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If I'm not mistaken doesn't the Mozilla foundation get greater than $100M for Google for making Google the 'default search engine'? Seriously, seems to be a case of "You lay down with dogs you'll wake up with fleas."

    Look I like FF, I use it primarily but again this is simply a case of someone trying to protect their own backyard. If FF becomes irrelevant than the 'rent' they DIRECTLY get from Google will go down, as opposed to that supposed 'rent' I pay them being a 'serf' with eyeballs.

    My 'Occams razor' usage is "any time someone uses terms like 'lord and protectors' and 'serfs'" they are probably being self-serving rather than looking out for others 'best interests'. In this case, given what I've read about how Mozilla gets paid it's obvious this guy is protecting his job/self-interests. Claiming these are 'his opinions' and "doesn't speak for Mozilla" is bullshit. There is NO way I could get away with posting a blog claiming that it is 'my opinion' that our competitors product is 'bad for the market'. I'd be fired as soon as my company found out & it's quite possible they'd be fined by the SEC or issued a warning etc.

    People who write blogs like this HAVE to stop assuming their readers are IDIOTS, if you have a valid point that is maybe nuanced or even that you may think isn't widely known then present the facts, let the readers decide for themselves if they are being 'harmed'.

    1. Re:Pot, Kettle, Black? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is NO way I could get away with posting a blog claiming that it is 'my opinion' that our competitors product is 'bad for the market'. I'd be fired as soon as my company found out & it's quite possible they'd be fined by the SEC or issued a warning etc.

      Maybe you'd get fired. Don't know your boss, so can't say. But fined by the SEC? Puh-leeze. Businesses declare their competitors bad for the market *all the time*. If the SEC cared about shit like that (they don't), all they'd ever be doing is trying to chase it down because it's about as common as breathing.

      None of which matters in this case, because Mozilla isn't a public company, so who gives a fuck what the SEC thinks about what they're doing?

      People who write blogs like this HAVE to stop assuming their readers are IDIOTS

      Sorry bud, but you just proved that people who write blogs like this and make that assumption are correct.

  26. How is it doing that, exactly? by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

    I just don't like only being on Chrome. And that's what Chrome wants. It wants you to only use Chrome.

    Uh huh... and how is it doing that, exactly? Does it stop websites working in other browsers? Does it fail to tell people that other browsers are available? Because I think the others fail to do that too.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  27. Firefox really has improved a lot... by pogopop77 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It wasn't too long ago that Firefox was viewed as an amazing browser (ob: https://xkcd.com/198/ ), far better than the alternatives, and FOSS to boot. But like it's predecessors, it got slow, bloated, and bogged down in trying to implement features too far outside the core mission of a browser. Chrome came along and snatched the performance crown and mindshare. If you have already conceded that Google is allowed to harvest all your data in exchange for free products/services, then by all means keep using Chrome. However, if you value your privacy, it is time to give Firefox another chance. It really has improved a lot in the last couple of years in terms of stability and performance, to the point where it meets or exceeds Chrome in every aspect. Give Firefox an honest chance, you might switch back.

    1. Re:Firefox really has improved a lot... by hyades1 · · Score: 2

      Why would I go back to Firefox when I now run Pale Moon?

      Basically, it's Firefox before it turned to shytte.

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    2. Re:Firefox really has improved a lot... by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      Does its UI resemble Chrome, or have they reverted back to the Firefox look of old?

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    3. Re:Firefox really has improved a lot... by fbumg · · Score: 1

      Heard of Pale Moon a couple times, never looked into it much. But if FF is going to is going to prevent my favorite extensions, like Tree Style Tabs, from working soon I figure I better start looking soon. So far so good with Pale Moon, been using it all of 10 minutes and other than the default color its just like FF was when I last liked it.

      --
      I know I don't know what I don't know.
    4. Re:Firefox really has improved a lot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Basically, it's Firefox before it turned to shytte.

      It still lacks Keyword.URL (search from the url bar at any search engine, not just the approved ones).

    5. Re:Firefox really has improved a lot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The default still resembles Chrome, to get the "old Firefox" look you have to install something like the Classic Theme Restorer and then spend ten minutes mucking around with the settings.

    6. Re:Firefox really has improved a lot... by hyades1 · · Score: 1

      It's not perfect, but I like it a lot, and now use Pale Moon as my go-to browser. In its efforts to be like Chrome, Firefox has sacrificed everything that made me choose it in the first place.

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    7. Re:Firefox really has improved a lot... by hyades1 · · Score: 1

      Absolutely true. But it's STILL, in my view, better than what Firefox has become. Certainly it's better for my needs and preferences. If Keyword.URL is important to you, by all means continue with Firefox. I have to suspect, though, that sooner or later they'll kill it off, too.

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
  28. What's FireFox's Value Proposition? by mykepredko · · Score: 2

    I agree totally with Mr. Petitt, that there needs to be independence from corporate giants on the web and, as somebody who opens a lot of tabs, running faster and leaner is something I like.

    But that ain't enough of a value proposition for me and my business. Google provides email, storage and on line apps for free to any computer with a Chrome browser. Google offers analytics that allow businesses to track their web presence. Then there's the search thing. To be fair, many of these resources are available from Google on Firefox, but then you get a nagging message saying that others aren't available except on Chrome.

    I'm looking forward to widespread adoption of HTML5 and it's APIs to help level the playing field, but without solid, tangible tools and resources uniquely available to Firefox it's always going to be used as an open-source, non-evil alternative to Chrome.

    1. Re:What's FireFox's Value Proposition? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "But that ain't enough of a value proposition for me and my business. Google provides email, storage and on line apps for free to any computer with a Chrome browser. Google offers analytics that allow businesses to track their web presence. Then there's the search thing. To be fair, many of these resources are available from Google on Firefox, but then you get a nagging message saying that others aren't available except on Chrome."

      Sure, but at a cost of your privacy. Some people will sacrifice convenience for privacy.

  29. Thats Funny... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    None of the 7 people in my house who all own computers use Chrome.

    Its is and has always been Firefox.

    3 laptops 5 desktops 1 tablet 7 phones 1 NAS/Linux/Windows/Gaming Server. and no Chrome.

    We just don't use it.

    I know and have known hundreds of people in dozens of fields ie: IT/Repair/Retail/Dev/ ect... nobody uses Chrome.

    You know who does? probably your mom, no really ask her she probably uses Chrome, why? because advertising...

    Firefox doesn't advertise because everyone in the know already uses it while avoiding Chrome like the plague.

    Go inside a business and peek at the computer, it's Firefox 9/10 times.

    Most Governments use Firefox.

    Even Colleges will require you to connect with Firefox for security reasons.

    Chrome is going to be like windows, it will only hold a large market share because it get shipped with hardware, and because it is so heavily advertised that most won't know any competition exists, while still being the most terrible piece of shit ever constructed.

  30. Great point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm about to finally abandon Firefox when that extension stuff becomes a reality.

  31. You've got mail! by some+old+guy · · Score: 1

    This is why I have always used America Online. I don't trust this Netscape Navigator thing or Chrome. I remember reading on alt.computers.users that AOL is the only safe, secure way to use a computer.

    Plus, I really love those wave files in the chatrooms, like {S alphabetsucks and {S zuckerbergishitler.

    --
    Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.
    1. Re:You've got mail! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The AOL BBS (as in the thing that used FDO) is actually dead now.

  32. Whiny marketer is whiny. by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 2

    I head up Firefox marketing, but I use Chrome every day.

    That speaks volumes to the quality of Firefox.

    But talking to friends, it sounds more and more like living on Chrome has started to feel like their only option. And unfortunately, too many people think Firefox isn’t a modern alternative.
    Except it is. Yes, three years ago, Firefox was reeling. But today, Firefox is SO much better than it was even a year ago.

    So, you're failing at your job and blaming your friends for not using a browser that you won't even use? Hold on, I came prepared.

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
  33. Not that clever by mykepredko · · Score: 1

    Personally, I thought it started as a thinkpiece and then seques into a whine that life isn't fair.

  34. Gave up on Firefox by OYAHHH · · Score: 2, Informative

    When they changed, unnecessarily mind you, the interface to their browser for about the millionth time. Just right when I was completely comfortable with the reload button being in the Nth spot and the Cancel button being in the Nth+1 spot they decided to move it all to the other side or just plain hide it from me.

    Which meant I had to one figure out where things went to. Second, had to try to get used to the new button locations.

    The Thunderbird project has a very bad habit of doing the same thing as well.

    Only use Firefox now for compatibility testing. Otherwise it is just a memory hog that I remember as being run by people who do not have any appreciation for how they really upset people's workflow when they get a wild hair and feel the need to have all of the furniture on the other side of the room.

    --
    Caution: Contents under pressure
    1. Re:Gave up on Firefox by Waccoon · · Score: 1

      More recently, the download progress UI in Firefox was changed so it no longer tells you the size of the file you're downloading, it only gives you a progress indicator. I'm still banging my head trying to figure out why they thought that information was so useless that it HAD to be removed to make it "better."

      I use Pale Moon as my primary browser, and Firefox as a backup if a web page doesn't work. If a web site doesn't work with either browser, I don't bother viewing it and just go somewhere else. To hell with web designers that make sites that require a "supported" browser, or use Javascript frameworks that are hard-coded to scan for popular brand names in the user agent.

    2. Re:Gave up on Firefox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I also noticed there were some (major) UI changes.
      Every new ESR release, I have to move elements back to the old positions, with some help of the Classic Theme Restorer extension.
      But apart from those 15 minutes per year or so, it really hasn't affected me.
      If you feel they shouldn't change the defaults or you shouldn't need (extensions) to fix it yourself, then yes, I can imagine getting tired of it.

    3. Re:Gave up on Firefox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the download progress UI in Firefox was changed so it no longer tells you the size of the file you're downloading

      What are you talking about? I'm using Firefox 54 beta 10 with the Compact Light theme (which is one of the three themes provided by default). The download progress UI tells me the time remaining, the size downloaded out of the total size, and the rate at which it's downloading.

  35. Feudalism, LOL by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

    exacting a royal sum for our online behaviors

    Lately my 'online behaviors' have consisted of "Tor" and "<null>", because I'm tired of snoopers. Let's see them monetize THAT.

    But Rick, Tor exit nodes are all bugged and hacked!

    So's your VPN. Or do you really think they're telling you the truth?

    I've said it before and I'll say it again: I'm prepared to abandon the Internet if it becomes necessary. We survived and thrived just fine before it, and we can all do so once again. When there's no one of value using the Internet anymore, it'll either die off, or there will be reforms.

    1. Re:Feudalism, LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There will always be people on the internet, who have monetary value (or can be used in other ways).
      Corporations continuously find new ways to extract money from the population.
      Looking at human history, it takes a huge crisis for people to wake up. And none of the parties want that (except perhaps the woken up), so they will do their best to prevent that.
      As long as corporations can make money from it, I don't see internet dying.
      And yes, perhaps the economy will someday morph into the shape of a mushroom cloud, that would be a good enough crisis to change things. But when that happens, I guess people have other priorities than (reforming) the fucking internet.

  36. And yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And yet your company is walking right into Chrome with open arms.

  37. I literally never see these. by waspleg · · Score: 2

    Firefox. uBlock Origin, Privacy Badger, HTTPS Everywhere. Pfsense box is the gatekeeper to my network. pfBlockerng + DNSBL lists means I can watch youtube videos on my smart tv with 0 ads.

    Take back YOUR network; YOUR computer.

  38. Re:Be Brave by viperidaenz · · Score: 5, Funny

    No, for that you need Courage.

  39. Privacy and Plugins, Firefox Wins by omfglearntoplay · · Score: 1

    I can block more junk, ads, spying, etc. using Firefox, so I mostly use Firefox. The Tor Browser is really just Firefox.

    I mostly use Chrome when I want to be as non-private as possible for testing. Simple as that.

  40. New Board Please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the Tor Project can get a whole new board for being complete fuckups, why can't Mozilla?? It's been clear they've been circling the drain for years. Please, please, resign and save the Lizard!!

  41. Avoid Chrome, get Brave or Iridium by heilbron · · Score: 2

    What should you do if your favorite web site prefers the Chromium engine, but you yourself hate the spyware Google created around it (named Chrome) ?
    Look for a well supported Chromium-based browser:
    There is not only Brave but also **Iridium Browser** (https://iridiumbrowser.de).
    They claim adherence to European data protection standards, as well as having an reproducible and audible build process.

    1. Re:Avoid Chrome, get Brave or Iridium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They claim adherence to European data protection standards, as well as having an reproducible and audible build process.

      Oooh, what's it sound like?

  42. When Noscript Blocks Too Much by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 2

    My main browser in the desktop is Seamonkey. I use it on Windows, I use it on NetBSD, I would probably use it if I ran a linux desktop. I usually only run Chrome if I really need to access something on a url where noscript just won't allow it to load. Chrome is the throwaway browser I am not afraid to wipe and reinstall if I need to go somewhere that might be toxic.

  43. Re: Be Brave by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why use a reskinned chrome when you can use something like QupZilla

  44. For me (and most internet users) it's the opposite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I used Chrome for years and moved to Firefox because Chrome takes way too much memory, and that matters especially on low/mid-class laptops. Firefox used to be a slow and crash/hang all the time but now with multiprocess being rolled out it's fast and stable and doesn't kill your laptop.

    Most users don't use that much extensions anyway, so for Mozilla performance is a bigger priority. New WebExtensions will come, with time.

  45. No shit... by Chas · · Score: 1

    And here Mozilla is, actively emulating Chrome more and more (when it's not boot-strapping itself to failing initiatives) and actually innovating in their browser...not at all...

    A blind vegetable could have seen this coming!

    C'mon Mozilla! Time to stop bitching about the fecal smell pull your fucking collective heads out!

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
  46. Head Up Marketing by Lost+Race · · Score: 1

    Eric Petitt, head up Firefox marketing, writing in a blog:

    Why does Firefox need a head up marketing?

    Shouldn't they just be programming motherfuckers?

  47. Then make a better browser by just+another+AC · · Score: 1

    Sounds like sore loser syndrome...

    Chrome got such a market share because it made for a better (or less worse) experience. I used to swear by Firefox until, for a period, certain releases would just start consuming the entire system's resources. So I switched... to chrome.

    Has the problem with Firefox gone away? Almost certainly.

    But that is not enough to make me switch back. So long as chrome does not screw me over, and Firefox doesn't offer me anything revolutionary, I will remain. There is inertia with most customers.

    Wan't to stop the big guys... offer a better alternative. If this article had been written in a year or two, Netflix would probably be in the group (in fact I'm surprised it wasn't already).

  48. Well, it's not entirely Google's fault by Casandro · · Score: 1

    Firefox also worked on making web standards more and more complex, after all, they are in the standard committees. If they'd refuse to accept dubious standards, and instead focus on trying to make web standards orthogonal and as simple was possible while still keeping them flexible, there would be a healthy competition.

    Instead Mozilla keeps semi-implementing standards, while making the GUI less and less usable.

  49. Make a better product by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stop complaining about Chrome's marketshare and beat it with a better product. People aren't married to their browser if you make a better product they will switch

  50. 'Frightful Five? by mccalli · · Score: 1

    Facebook - yes. But the rest? I'm not aware of them 'partitioning of the web' - I can usually visit with any recent browser. Apple don't sell customer data either so...

    All round "Huh?" from me. I kind of know what they're getting at, but it's swing-and-a-miss.

  51. Chrome *IS* Evil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In fact, the entire Google ecosystem is downright evil. Because it's so downright creepy, even though I have an Android phone, I don't use GMail or Chrome or Google search.

  52. Still Just Using The Best Browser I Can Find by Greyfox · · Score: 1

    I'd drop Chrome in a heartbeat if anything better came along. If the Firefox guys implemented some features around making the browser harder to identify and give the user some control over the javascript being run and the page being presented to the user, I'd consider switching back. Someone recently posted a great idea to maintain two document trees, the one that's presented to the user and the one that the page javascript thinks is being presented to the user. Maybe add a page blacklist so I can remove those spammy sites that pop up toward the bottom of the first page on Google from the internet I see. And let me use my favorite editor when entering text posts. That would actually be pretty nice.

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  53. I'm only on not Chrome because.. by evolutionary · · Score: 1

    It installs services that are unnecessary on the Windows platform (feels like Windows 10). You try to uninstall the google updater it's a pain. I hate automatic updaters. I can remove it on Firefox.

    There is also the Vivaldi Browser which users the chrome engine and gives you full control. (http://www.vivaldi.com) by the guys who made Opera. I find it very slick and runs on all my platforms (Linux, M$ Window$, MacOS) Always better to have choice.

    --
    "Imagination is more important than knowledge" - Einstein
  54. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  55. Re:Be Brave by gary_johnson_53 · · Score: 1

    I used ghosteryon chrome, and it gave me a nice idea of what brave is blocking, natively. I use multiple email accounts for various purposes. One of which is, when I can easily spot a spoofing email about some financial account,in the account I use for general use. I am using 2 browsers for somewhat the same purpose. Brave and Chrome. The only time I use Firefox these days is to test something for compatability. I appreciate googles support of the Firefox project, alternatives are good, however, I want to firewall general browsing from important stuff, and Firefox does not fit that bill. Neither does chrome. Brave has a shot

  56. Lately, Gmail would not let me logon from FF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I then tried Konqueror because I thought my noscript on FF might be the issue. That failed, so I tried Chrome and it worked.
    I have similar issues trying to logon to the CapitalOne card site.
    It may not be a cospiracy, but the sheer dominance of Chrome is starting to lead to an IE6 style lock-in.

    1. Re:Lately, Gmail would not let me logon from FF by swillden · · Score: 1

      I then tried Konqueror because I thought my noscript on FF might be the issue. That failed, so I tried Chrome and it worked.

      The Gmail team (like all Google web properties, actually) runs automated regression tests on every change, on all major browsers and some minor ones, but I doubt they test with noscript. I'm surprised if Gmail works on *any* browser with Javascript disabled, and I'll bet it doesn't work very well.

      It may not be a cospiracy, but the sheer dominance of Chrome is starting to lead to an IE6 style lock-in.

      It's possible, but it seems hard to believe that 60% market share is enough to allow that sort of complacency on the part of web site developers. I suppose it's possible that some sites have a much higher percentage of users on Chrome, and perhaps most of the rest are using Safari, so they don't test on Firefox.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  57. Develop what you would want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hmm, crazy idea, but maybe if you developed a browser that *you* actually wanted to use, you might get more market share from Chrome. I understand that you can't project your tastes onto everyone, but if you don't even prefer your own product, you might start to wonder if something is wrong with it.

  58. Chrome's UI sucks? by HighPerformanceCoder · · Score: 1
    Is it just me,or do other people find Chrome's UI sucks? For example, click on the window title, which normally raises a window, and - nothng happens. Try to resize the window, aqnd it suddenly jumps to full screen mode - even when trying to reduce the size.

    I use Chrome when I have to (one of my client's software only works in Chrome and Chrome's development tools are pretty cool). Otherwise, I use Seamonkey, as I can find everything I need. I'll use Firefox when a web site refuses to serve Seamonkey (looking at you Slack), but otherwise the lack of menu items to find things like "Open file", or "open new window" makes it a bit annoying for my main browser. Ya, probably this is me not being used to the Firefox way of doing things, but anyway.