The day Firefox shutters its doors is the day the internet truly dies. Almost every "alternative" browser is chromium under the hood. Google's next big plan is basically constructing a walled garden around the internet (at least the HTTP part) via complex DRM. Eventually, if you want to access an actual web page, it'll have to be via a Chromium browser. Hell, even today a shitload of websites I visit on FF just don't fucking render correctly and I'll have to fire up a chromium instance just to access them. That's only going to get worse with time.
I mean, you can argue that Google actually has a monopoly on web browsers right now. iirc Firefox takes a ton of money from Google, so if the choices are “Google’s proprietary browser” or “a non-Chromium browser backed by Google” (EDIT: unless you’re on Apple hardware and use Safari), then Google comes out on top either way.
Wish we could get another good browser engine that isn’t Chromium, WebKit, or Quantum.
Ehh
There's a clear difference between accepting money from an entity and letting it control things and make decisions. Pushing for a full and clear separation from any potential conflict of interest (while noble) is how projects die.
I'd love for Firefox to be fully funded through small anonymous public donations in an ideal world. As it is, I don't see an issue from taking Google's money to do something that most users would want anyways.
If the default search wasn't google, I'm certain even more users would bail on Firefox. Anyone who does want an alternative search engine is capable of clicking on it during installation.
I'm still sad about the day the real Opera with the presto rendering engine died. And while Vivaldi is getting many of the features and functionality, it's still a chromium rebuild. I guess it just takes too much money to build your own rendering engine anymore.
I’m fighting the good fight by using Safari to browse and Kagi to search. I have effectively eliminated Google from my life and I could not be happier about it.
Signed, a former Google fan who got tired of being the product for their ever shittier services.
Apple and Google deserve about the same amount of trust. I don't know that Safari is any better than Chrome other than keeping a large portion of users in a secondary browser. I guess it all depends on whether uBlock Origin is able to be loaded on it along with other useful extensions. I'm a Firefox fan though.
Apple has their own set of issues for sure, but I don’t think they’re comparable to the spyware advertising conglomerate that is Google.
The day Firefox shutters its doors is the day the internet truly dies.
*the web
The internet has so far been doing a much better job surviving as a proper decentralized system than the web.
Really? What's left of the Internet beyond the web?
How many people use Usenet today, rather than forums or social media on the web?
How many people use IRC, rather than Slack? (Either on the web or in a Chromium-backed desktop app)
How many people use an email client, rather than webmail?
Some non-HTTP(S) Internet stuff:
Email is transferred to its destination (where, sure it might be accessed through a Web UI) via SMTP. Even where things like Slack are used internally, email usage between organisations is still extensive, due to effectively being a federated lowest-common-denominator system that's not completely at the mercy of a single vendor.
VoIP, which increasingly underlies telephony/mobile networks, uses things like SIP, RTP and RTCP - even if, again, it might be accessed via a Web UI, it doesn't have to be, and there are dedicated clients.
SSH is widely used for remote system administration. SFTP, built on top of SSH, is used to transfer sensitive data, e.g. (in the US) medical records covered by HIPAA.
SNMP is used for network device management, sometimes doing so via the Internet.
Don't confuse certain end-user applications with the Internet more generally.
curl -k IP_Address
Open in notepad.
Read.
"Oh, an empty HTML tag and 2Mb of JavaScript!"
Firefox is far from irrelevant. Pure stupid click bait. Market share of courses is a sad thing and may lead to irrelevance when most web sites stop supporting. In the late days of Netscape and the early days of Firefox that was the case... lack of website support. I am just starting to see that again.
Article seems pretty flawed. Relevance is a vague metric, and the author relies pretty heavily on data related to government site visitation, which seems subject to bias toward certain types of users.
You mean like government (and business) employees that are forced to use some flavor of ~~Internet Explorer~~ Chromium?
Is Firefox considered bad? It works well for me and when I use Chrome or edge It feels full of junk features
I don't think so. The article claims Firefox lost some of its lead developers to Google when it started developing Chrome and then took a long time to regain its footing around 2017. That sounds about right to my recollection. I had admittedly switched to Chrome myself for a while (I'm not terribly tech-savvy, maybe a little more than average) but switched back to Firefox last year. I am still pretty deeply embedded in the Google ecosystem though in other ways.
Firefox has been nice to work with on my end. And fast. Even the dev tools are way better than they were a decade ago. Almost all the important extensions work on it.
I don't really understand how its market share is so low now.
People are idiots. I've used Firefox for nearly 20 years and have zero plans to change.
Same here, it's only getting better. Especially lately with mobile firefox finally getting up to scratch. The desktop browser has alwaysbeen great.
Market share doesn't equal irrelevance as others have said. I use Librewolf and without Firefox it wouldn't exist. It likely wouldn't exist at the quality it is without Mozilla taking Google Cash either. But it's super important to have an alternative even if most people don't use it. It DOES provide a limited check and balance against google doing whatever they want with the web because if the right people make the right noise then people will move over to something that's easy, convenient, and free of whatever pain in the butt google puts in chrome that sends people over the edge. See Linux desktop and Valve for an example of how a software with very few users comparatively can force a larger company to play ball. Remember in Windows 8 when MS basically banned 3rd party software stores on the OS.. or tried? And Valve made the "Steam Machine" and SteamOS? Everyone says the steam machines failed but they 100% did everything Valve wanted them to do. It was enough to have MS go back on their walled garden and allow Steam to keep operating as it had been. And now we have the steam deck on top of it.
So, it's ok if Firefox has a small market share as long as it remains a worthy competitor.
For an article that tries to push a groupthink narrative to work, the people using the "discouraged" product need to believe the "encouraged" one has feature parity with zero downsides.
I guarantee that no one is accidentally using Firefox because they're unaware of the alternatives.
From ZDNet. How much did they get paid to post this article?
How much did they get paid by a PR firm who's subsidized entirely by Alphabet, Inc.?
ah zdnet, a waste of CO2 if there ever was
"slides into irrelevance" - zdnet
I will be honest. I didn't read that article because it's too click-baity. Using https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share/ I see that Firefox is about 3% of 5b users. Not insignificant.
That 3% is about 150mil users. IMO, less than it should be. Google has great security, but terrible privacy. I switched middle of last year, from brave to FF for reasons I won't get into here. Suffice it to say, they are numerous.
It truly is troubling that they don't have independent funding. I, for one would pay $10/y for this service. Maybe I could donate?
Anyway, it's a superior product in many ways.
I would say a good half of posts on Lemmy are too click-baity for me to actually look at. Every title clearly has picked a side and it's rare to see something even attempt to be impartial
That's total browser market. On Desktop it's 7.61%, in Germany 17.93%, making it second place (though Edge isn't far behind). Europe is 10.56%, North America pretty much average, Asia and South America are dragging it down.
It truly is troubling that they don’t have independent funding. I, for one would pay $10/y for this service. Maybe I could donate?
Firefox is Mozilla's cash cow, it's how they're earning funds for their charitable work. And google btw isn't the only one paying them, which search engine is the default depends on where you are.
There sure has been a lot of propaganda being posted to Beehaw lately.
the problem with firefox is that chrome's marketing is just too prevalent among the general population; it's built into their gmail, their phone, everything that they use.
as a flutter dev it's especially frustrating since debugging on the web requires chrome (please help boost this issue in the issue queue: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/issues/55324)
on the other hand they also reached their goal of over $3m grassroots donations in 2023, which goes a long way to scaling back on the reliance of google donations.
you also have to remember that web statistics are largely done by third party sources - like google analytics - or through telemetry. in the first case, many firefox users or those with adblockers will disable that. in the second case, this is exactly why i implore people to not disable telemetry in firefox since it's necessary for bug testing and usability studies but also for determining reach of software.
personally i prefer firefox but still use a mix of google products, including maps, youtube premium/music, and drive (which i pay for). i also have a monthly donation to mozilla and thunderbird. it's not much but every little bit helps - even $5
I've recently moved away from Chrome to Firefox and the transition was so seamless that I'm surprised. The main reason for the change is that Firefox for android now allows addons, serious addons not just the mobile ones. Before I was using a chrome / kiwi browser combo. So happy that now I can sync my desktop and phone :)
gives us a running count of the last 90 days of US government website visits. That doesn't tell us much about global web browser use, but it's the best information we have about American web browser users today.
Lmao article itself saying it's a steaming pile of chrome
Users that use Firefox are unlikely to show up in data used for these kinda articles I’d think
Cold plain metrics can easily hide social complexity.
Assume 10 investigative journalists use modded privacy-friendly Firefox for year long investigation. Then their report is read by 10 million average news reader on stock browsers like Chrome. Network logics tell us that Firefox browser has asymmetrical value in the ecosystem than plain usage metrics can ever reveal.
The obsession with numbers (the more the better) is a major blinding effect in societies driven by hierarchical cultures.
users can modify their useragent string, and sometimes they have to because some webdevs are morons.
some browsers actually default to using chrome instead of its own.
using a browser-reported useragent string to count marketshare itself is flawed from the start, using a very narrow and limited scope of web sites to measure it--even more so.
if i counted my own clients: home, soho and small business end users... it's about even between chrome and firefox on windows (chrome users doing so on their own, as we highly recommend firefox, and vivaldi over chrome for a chromium-based solution) with edge trailing far behind; and about 3 to 1 android (chrome) over safari on mobile with (so far, but soon to change) very few mobile firefox users.
I wonder if Firefox users are more likely to spoof their user agent setting? Probably not.
I'll still use it. Compared to every other browser, it is the least disastrous regarding privacy.
I always spoof the ua. Not for privacy (though it helps), but because some sites artificially break for certain browsers or OSs and work perfectly fine when they think you're on a different browser. The artificial restriction should be illegal, but it isn't.
Are you just here to spark a browser war? Claims like "firefox is dead" are guaranteed to get a shit ton of comments stating the exact opposite, backed up with annecdotal evidence.
I feel obliged to do the same though. So let me tell you that I've recently switched back to firefox after years of chrome and I haven't regretted it one single moment.
Me? Not at all. I actually posted this out of concern because, as I've said elsewhere, I'm a Firefox user, and my layman's impression was that its reputation has been improving over the past couple years. I assumed its user base was doing the same as people grew increasingly concerned with Google's intentions.
Apparently ZDnet has some reputational issues itself I was unaware of.
Technology
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.