Mozilla Wants You To Love Firefox Again (fastcompany.com) 142
Mozilla's interim CEO Laura Chambers "says the company is reinvesting in Firefox after letting it languish in recent years," reports Fast Company, "hoping to reestablish the browser as independent alternative to the likes of Google's Chrome and Apple's Safari.
"But some of those investments, which also include forays into generative AI, may further upset the community that's been sticking with Firefox all these years..." Chambers acknowledges that Mozilla lost sight of Firefox in recent years as it chased opportunities outside the browser, such as VPN service and email masking. When she replaced Mitchell Baker as CEO in February, the company scaled back those other efforts and made Firefox a priority again. "Yes, Mozilla is refocusing on Firefox," she says. "Obviously, it's our core product, so it's an important piece of the business for us, but we think it's also really an important part of the internet."
Some of that focus involves adding features that have become table-stakes in other browsers. In June, Mozilla added vertical tab support in Firefox's experimental branch, echoing a feature that Microsoft's Edge browser helped popularize three years ago. It's also working on tab grouping features and an easier way to switch between user profiles. Mozilla is even revisiting the concept of web apps, in which users can install websites as freestanding desktop applications. Mozilla abandoned work on Progressive Web Apps in Firefox a few years ago to the dismay of many power users, but now it's talking with community members about a potential path forward.
"We haven't always prioritized those features as highly as we should have," Chambers says. "That's been a real shift that's been very felt in the community, that the things they're asking for . . . are really being prioritized and brought to life."
Firefox was criticized for testing a more private alternative to tracking cookies which could make summaries of aggregated data available to advertisers. (Though it was only tested on a few sites, "Privacy-Preserving Attribution" was enabled by default.) But EFF staff technologist Lena Cohen tells Fast Company that approach was "much more privacy-preserving" than Google's proposal for a "Privacy Sandbox." And according to the article, "Mozilla's system only measures the success rate of ads — it doesn't help companies target those ads in the first place — and it's less susceptible to abuse due to limits on how much data is stored and which parties are allowed to access it." In June, Mozilla also announced its acquisition of Anonym, a startup led by former Meta executives that has its own privacy-focused ad measurement system. While Mozilla has no plans to integrate Anonym's tech in Firefox, the move led to even more anxiety about the kind of company Mozilla was becoming. The tension around Firefox stems in part from Mozilla's precarious financial position, which is heavily dependent on royalty payments from Google. In 2022, nearly 86% of Mozilla's revenue came from Google, which paid $510 million to be Firefox's default search engine. Its attempts to diversify, through VPN service and other subscriptions, haven't gained much traction.
Chambers says that becoming less dependent on Google is "absolutely a priority," and acknowledges that building an ad-tech business is one way of doing that. Mozilla is hoping that emerging privacy regulations and wider adoption of anti-tracking tools in web browsers will increase demand for services like Anonym and for systems like Firefox's privacy-preserving ad measurements. Other revenue-generating ideas are forthcoming. Chambers says Mozilla plans to launch new products outside of Firefox under a "design sprint" model, aimed at quickly figuring out what works and what doesn't. It's also making forays into generative AI in Firefox, starting with a chatbot sidebar in the browser's experimental branch.
Chambers "says to expect a bigger marketing push for Firefox in the United States soon, echoing a 'Challenge the default' ad campaign that was successful in Germany last summer. Mozilla's nonprofit ownership structure, and the idea that it's not beholden to corporate interests, figures heavily into those plans."
"But some of those investments, which also include forays into generative AI, may further upset the community that's been sticking with Firefox all these years..." Chambers acknowledges that Mozilla lost sight of Firefox in recent years as it chased opportunities outside the browser, such as VPN service and email masking. When she replaced Mitchell Baker as CEO in February, the company scaled back those other efforts and made Firefox a priority again. "Yes, Mozilla is refocusing on Firefox," she says. "Obviously, it's our core product, so it's an important piece of the business for us, but we think it's also really an important part of the internet."
Some of that focus involves adding features that have become table-stakes in other browsers. In June, Mozilla added vertical tab support in Firefox's experimental branch, echoing a feature that Microsoft's Edge browser helped popularize three years ago. It's also working on tab grouping features and an easier way to switch between user profiles. Mozilla is even revisiting the concept of web apps, in which users can install websites as freestanding desktop applications. Mozilla abandoned work on Progressive Web Apps in Firefox a few years ago to the dismay of many power users, but now it's talking with community members about a potential path forward.
"We haven't always prioritized those features as highly as we should have," Chambers says. "That's been a real shift that's been very felt in the community, that the things they're asking for . . . are really being prioritized and brought to life."
Firefox was criticized for testing a more private alternative to tracking cookies which could make summaries of aggregated data available to advertisers. (Though it was only tested on a few sites, "Privacy-Preserving Attribution" was enabled by default.) But EFF staff technologist Lena Cohen tells Fast Company that approach was "much more privacy-preserving" than Google's proposal for a "Privacy Sandbox." And according to the article, "Mozilla's system only measures the success rate of ads — it doesn't help companies target those ads in the first place — and it's less susceptible to abuse due to limits on how much data is stored and which parties are allowed to access it." In June, Mozilla also announced its acquisition of Anonym, a startup led by former Meta executives that has its own privacy-focused ad measurement system. While Mozilla has no plans to integrate Anonym's tech in Firefox, the move led to even more anxiety about the kind of company Mozilla was becoming. The tension around Firefox stems in part from Mozilla's precarious financial position, which is heavily dependent on royalty payments from Google. In 2022, nearly 86% of Mozilla's revenue came from Google, which paid $510 million to be Firefox's default search engine. Its attempts to diversify, through VPN service and other subscriptions, haven't gained much traction.
Chambers says that becoming less dependent on Google is "absolutely a priority," and acknowledges that building an ad-tech business is one way of doing that. Mozilla is hoping that emerging privacy regulations and wider adoption of anti-tracking tools in web browsers will increase demand for services like Anonym and for systems like Firefox's privacy-preserving ad measurements. Other revenue-generating ideas are forthcoming. Chambers says Mozilla plans to launch new products outside of Firefox under a "design sprint" model, aimed at quickly figuring out what works and what doesn't. It's also making forays into generative AI in Firefox, starting with a chatbot sidebar in the browser's experimental branch.
Chambers "says to expect a bigger marketing push for Firefox in the United States soon, echoing a 'Challenge the default' ad campaign that was successful in Germany last summer. Mozilla's nonprofit ownership structure, and the idea that it's not beholden to corporate interests, figures heavily into those plans."
What the hell have they been doing? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not like Mozilla has other products that are so popular that they demand more attention.
Re: What the hell have they been doing? (Score:4, Informative)
They have been neglecting their core product and competency, that's what they've done.
Take it to W3C and ECMA (Score:2)
We are 30 years (in 2025) into this mess. They need to get W3C and ECMA to create new specifications outside of HTML, HTTP, JavaScript, OAuth2, connection-less protocols for replacing the web stack.
Each of these standards bodies has been repeatedly ripping the bandage off, pulling off the scab of a wound, putting a new bandage on it for over 20 years.
Each of the major technologies: HTML, HTTP, CSS, JavaScript, connectionless RPC (Soap,WCF, WebAPI), Oauth2, etc. has major design flaws.
What is the right ques
Re: (Score:3)
The standards bodies don't make the standards, the browser makers do. The standards bodies are just their way of coordinating.
The reason we don't have new versions of the foundational web technologies is because the people who would actually use them (the people building browsers) aren't interested.
Re:What the hell have they been doing? (Score:5, Insightful)
They are being paid by Google to neglect Firefox and focus on "futuristic looking" UnderPants. There is a big conflict of interest there.
Re: (Score:2)
There is truth to that, but Mozilla Foundation has not entirely neglected Firefox. For example, the Rust component rewrites continue, with clearly beneficial results. They also have been working on Thunderbird, which has been damn good for many years but still lots of room for improvement. On the whole, I'm happy to hear these renewed "marriage vows", I only hope they don't sully it with loads of marginally useful bloat shovelware in the style of many other half baked AI efforts.
Re: What the hell have they been doing? (Score:2)
Working on Thunderbird eh? Does that mean weâ(TM)ll finally have maildir support in less than 10 years? Or weâ(TM)re going to get simple things like typing an asterisk and space and have it automatically converted to a bullet point? I couldnâ(TM)t give a shit about reinventing the wheel (and probably introducing new bugs) in Rust while the UI and UX remain terrible. With zero integration with macOS such as with my keychain, Iâ(TM)ll not be going back to FF.
Re: What the hell have they been doing? (Score:2)
Not exactly reassuring:
https://support.mozilla.org/en... [mozilla.org]
Not even updated since 2019. The bug list doesnâ(TM)t look good either.
Re:What the hell have they been doing? (Score:5, Interesting)
They are being paid by Google to neglect Firefox and focus on "futuristic looking" UnderPants.
Google is paying Mozilla hundreds of millions of dollars a year, for one reason and one reason only. Anti-trust insurance. If Mozilla goes out of business and Google is left as the only web browser, they've got a whole new anti-trust problem coming at them. So they throw a few shekels at Mozilla to keep them in business, so that Google can claim that they have some "competition".
Sadly, Mozilla has squandered all that free money Google threw at them. And when Google is forced to shut off the free money faucet, Mozilla is in big trouble.
Re: (Score:3)
The sad thing is that they created an entire programming language (Rust) for one specific purpose: Write a web rendering engine that is multithreaded.
The language is a success and indeed prevent anyone from doing accidental multithreading bugs. It works so well, it's already accepted in the Linux Kernel since a few month.
Where is my multithreaded rendering engine now?
Re: (Score:2)
Wasn't' that Servo?
https://servo.org/ [servo.org]
I don't think they did it for just Firefox, wasn't it meant to be usable in al sorts of applications?
Some parts are adopted already
Re: (Score:3)
I didn't know about SERVO, thanks for the link.
Unfortunately Mozilla laid off the entire team in 2020 to make room for their other crap. It is *not* the rendering engine of Firefox and the project restarted last year and is aiming at CSS2 compliance. We're not out of the water yet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Servo_(software) [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
https://github.com/versotile-o... [github.com]
Might be of interest, it isn't Firefox though
Re: (Score:2)
Two things there:
1. This is under development and not at all something anyone can use as of now. I just built and tried it.
2. The fact that this is all going on outside of Mozilla makes it clear they have lost their way probably beyond repair. Makes me think of Boeing a little. It should be Mozilla that builds the next gen browser. They've already invested so much in it. Granted the road ahead is sill quite long, but hey, do you want to disrupt your domain or not?
Well, apparently they don't.
Re: (Score:2)
And that argument seems to be out of the window now.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really, all Mozilla have to do is accept money and make sure Firefox sucks. If Firefox succeeded then Google has no reason to pay, there's no antitrust to avoid then.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the conflict of interest I was referring to. Does not make any sense to me that Google will pay hundreds of millions every year so that Firefox can use that money to undermine the dominance of Chrome. There definitely would have been some tacit understanding to make sure Firefox lives on but sucks.
Re:What the hell have they been doing? (Score:4, Interesting)
Assuming your question was not rhetorical, mostly they have been adding extremely minor features that I do not want and would not pay or donate to implement or support. But that is apparently the financial model that they have. I cannot remember when they last added a feature I like. (Probably it was the password sync?) I can easily point at an important feature that is missing and which sometimes drives me to competing browsers.
I am clinging to Firefox for most of my browsing. But only because the alternatives belong to nasty corporate cancers that are more eager to abuse my personal information.
Solution approaches? Naw. Waste of time to suggest such on Slashdot.
Re:What the hell have they been doing? (Score:5, Insightful)
I cannot remember when they last added a feature I like.
That's because there are no more "features" that need to be added. The web browser is a mature product. Firefox is almost 20 years old now. Firefox doesn't need more "features". It needs to just work.
Fix bugs. Improve security. Make everything runs as fast and as smoothly as possible. That's it. That's all you need. But that's boring. It's more fun and exciting to work on "new features".
Mozilla has been getting paid hundreds of millions of dollars a year, by Google, for a very long time. But the corrupt, incompetent management of Mozilla has wasted most of that money on big salaries for executives, fancy offices in San Francisco, one of the most expensive cities in the U.S., and lots of pet projects that cost a lot of money but accomplish nothing.
The good news is, Firefox is open source. You can kill Mozilla (or they can commit suicide) but you can't kill Firefox. I've used Firefox since version 1.0 and have no plans to change that. Unfortunately, Chrome is quickly becoming the new Internet Explorer. Just like IE in the late 90s - early 2000s I'm running into websites that only work properly with Chrome. Fortunately, those websites also work with a Chrome-ish browser like Brave, so I can still tell Google to fuck off.
Also, fuck Google.
Re:What the hell have they been doing? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is correct, from a user standpoint. However, this is no way for a CEO to obtain more buzzwords for her CV. Hence why 'mature product is followed by 'enshittification' in the normal life-cycle of many software project.
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that there are many browsers which differ quite a bit is proof to the contrary. There are features to be developed, just not ones related to simply rendering a web page. Features without anything to do with the web such as plugin support, password management, account sync, page translation, etc are a damn godsend.
Just because you prefer something minimalist doesn't mean someone else doesn't set their sights higher.
Re: (Score:3)
I have serious doubts about Firefox's ability to survive without Mozilla.
There is a lot of work that needs doing to keep it current and standards complaint, and that's before you get to performance.
Re: (Score:2)
Firefox needs new features. Tab groups, especially on mobile, come to mind. Massive usability improvement.
Re: (Score:3)
They have been doing a significant amount of work under the hood to solidify Firefox, mostly by rewriting components in Rust. I appreciate that a lot, and you really feel the improvement if you pay attention to that sort of thing. Fewer crashes and longer cycles between restarts to clear out memory leaks. In fact, Firefox almost never crashes now, except for oom, which it still does if you run it long enough. Not every three days like it used to, but now every few weeks if you have a lot of tabs open.
Speaki
Re: (Score:2)
It's funny you would mention the tab UI. It's the biggest issue I have with Firefox on Android. It's just terrible compared to Chrome's tab groups.
On desktop I find them both about the same.
Re: (Score:2)
Tree Style tabs (a plugin) is one of the things that I love the most about Firefox. I mostly have to use Chrome for work, and every single day I'm mystified how such a garbage-ass browser is the most popular on the market. Both Firefox and Safari are better browsers to use, but Chrome is the most compatible, so I'm forced into using it. Maddening.
(For anyone that might ask, Chrome's tab management is so god awful that I've actually given up. I close the browser every once in a while to declare tab bankruptc
Re: (Score:2)
every single day I'm mystified how such a garbage-ass browser is the most popular on the market
Simple. Google learned from Microsoft how to force its browser onto the market. Illegal exercise of market control? You betcha. Will google get away with it, unlike Microsoft? Stay tuned.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for the informative reply, though the moderators only found it almost interesting.
I acknowledge that Firefox doesn't seem to crash as much as it did, except on my Chromebook--but everything crashes over there more or less of the time. I do tend to see these things in terms of "Would I pay for that?" and "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." As noted, my answer to the question is no (and I don't even know of any charitable projects that really consider the answer).
The second part for your context would b
Re: (Score:2)
No, fsck the AC for wasting my time, but with some blame to the moderators for modding it into visibility.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not like Mozilla has other products that are so popular that they demand more attention.
Can't speak for others, but Thunderbird is popular with me; I've been using it, like, forever.
Have never (okay, rarely) accessed my mail via a browser or phone.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but it's not like Thunderbird is large enough to be diverting attention of the limited Mozilla staff.
Mozilla Thunderbird? (Score:2)
Google monopoly trial results (Score:5, Insightful)
This is likely the beginning of the fallout of google's trial results that said that google can't pay most of mozilla's budget to be its default search engine.
Free gravy train runs out, bureaucrats and apparatchiks who thought they had a nice paid activist job start to think they may actually have to do something that people want for a change.
Re:Google monopoly trial results (Score:4, Insightful)
They're going to have to fund this, which means caving into the panopticon of advertisers. It will the the undoing of Firefox-- because its prime value to many are plugins that say fuck-you to ad scripts and telemetry tracking.
This will not end well.
Re: (Score:2)
I hope you're wrong about that.
Re:Google monopoly trial results (Score:4, Insightful)
its prime value to many are plugins that say fuck-you to ad scripts and telemetry tracking.
This will not end well.
Yep. Those are the two reasons I use Firefox.
To the developers: I don't want new features like "pockets" (whatever the hell they are - I never even checked what they actually do) I just want a browser that works, is efficient, and that's under control of users instead of corporations.
I'd probably make a yearly donation if that was on your mandate instead of features I never asked for.
eg. How much time/money was wasted adding a PDF viewer to Firefox? I already have a PDF viewer. I also need a PDF viewer that can sign documents, which Firefox doesn't do.
Huge, do-everything apps are not the way to go. Firefox is a web browser, stick to that.
Re: (Score:3)
I love the Firefox PDF viewer. I even installed it in chrome as a plugin.
It's just so useful to be able to read PDFs in the browser, without downloading them. I don't want to save every PDF I come across.
It's seriously one of the best things they ever did. You can even fill in forms with it now.
Re: Google monopoly trial results (Score:2)
It's just so useful to be able to read PDFs in the browser, without downloading them. I don't want to save every PDF I come across.
Not sure exactly what you mean by "downloading" and "saving" but one way or another the file is downloaded and saved somewhere. What are the advantages of the method you describe compared to, say, the browser downloading the pdf to a temporary file and opening it with a (better) PDF viewer/editor? Is it about not opening a separate window?
Re: (Score:2)
There's a big difference in user experience between reading a PDF in the browser (that's been saved behind-the-scenes to a temp folder) ... vs. saving it in a "downloads" folder (cluttering that folder up) and opening it in a separate application (which has to be managed separately from the browser).
Fundamentally the user is downloading and viewing a PDF either way, but they're clearly not the same experience.
Re: Google monopoly trial results (Score:2)
Well the PDF doesn't have to be saved in a "Downloads" directory, it could also be saved in a temporary file directory, which is managed by the browser (that might even already be the case when the PDF is opened directly in the browser). I'm pretty sure that I have already experienced that behaviour in the past, and at any rate it's not exactly an engineering challenge. So it would be nice if Firefox offered it.
As far as I can tell, you can set an "external" PDF viewer as default, but then it always downloa
Re: (Score:2)
It's about showing part of a website in the same tab as the link you clicked on. The normal way that websites work in browsers. It would be weird if Firefox downloaded JPEG files and opened them in your default image viewer.
Re: Google monopoly trial results (Score:2)
I see what you mean. I think it is a matter of preference, unless you are advocating to render everything in the browser in a way that the browser basically becomes an OS, which I don't think you are. So having the choice is nice, and Firefox currently offers that. As mentioned in another comment, it would be even nicer if it gave us the option to open PDFs in an external app without saving them to the "Downloads" directory.
Re: (Score:2)
Pocket was introduced 12 years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
And it was the last "innovation" Mozilla made with Firefox.
Even before then, it had been years since they introduced anything worthwhile to it.
Re: (Score:2)
its prime value to many are plugins that say fuck-you to ad scripts and telemetry tracking.
This will not end well.
Yep. Those are the two reasons I use Firefox.
To the developers: I don't want new features like "pockets" (whatever the hell they are - I never even checked what they actually do) I just want a browser that works, is efficient, and that's under control of users instead of corporations.
I'd probably make a yearly donation if that was on your mandate instead of features I never asked for.
eg. How much time/money was wasted adding a PDF viewer to Firefox? I already have a PDF viewer. I also need a PDF viewer that can sign documents, which Firefox doesn't do.
Huge, do-everything apps are not the way to go. Firefox is a web browser, stick to that.
The PDF feature is actually useful, especially if you've a locked down work computer (or server) where you cant install a PDF reader or worse, Adobe is your only option. You can usually get Firefox installed.
Apart from that I agree, make the browser useful and let the community add extra features via add ons.
Re: (Score:2)
What's great is that the competition opened up by getting Google out of the way will create solid, real opportunities for people. Including the ones Mozilla thought they were helping.
Maybe we'll even get a better browser out of it.
Re: (Score:2)
I would not be surprised at all if Google's antitrust settlement ends up including mandatory payments to Mozilla Foundation, with no strings attached.
Re: (Score:3)
I think that would be a good thing, as a temporary measure, considering alternatives to Chrome are needed. Establish a transitional period roughly the length of the contracts they were signing (I think they were a couple years?) with the payments steadily decreasing to allow them time to transition to alternate sources of funding.
Mozilla won't be the only ones whose contracts with Google need special attention either. Google being in everyone's business and monopolizing various markets made sure of that. Yo
Re: (Score:2)
How do you expect them to make money without Google?
Their proposal for a semi-private advertising view tracking system was shot down here on Slashdot. What other ways can they fund development without upsetting anyone?
Re: (Score:2)
This is likely the beginning of the fallout of google's trial results that said that google can't pay most of mozilla's budget...
I wonder how much Mozilla's budget would change if their top leadership took pay packages closer to Main Street than Wall Street.
Re: (Score:2)
If Mozilla was about making a browser and an engine, it could live on way less than 15% of half a billion. How do I know? They did live off of far less than that and made firefox and maintained it for a long period of time.
But today mozilla is about political activism + DEI "job" factory. Appetite for money from organisations like that is endless, because supply of talentless, "I know I'm right and I stand in my truth" types that need a salary is endless.
Browser (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's what I want from a browser, in descending importance:
1. Security and stability (they are the same thing)
2. Clean interface with stuff I use often easily accessible
3. Customizable and extensible to within reason - I like to be able to change the toolbar
4. Speed
A good password manager and bookmarking system are a plus, but can be fixed with extensions. I don't care about pocket. I don't care about cryptocurrency in my browser. I don't care about microtransactions. I want my browser to do it's main job really, really well.
Re: (Score:3)
Probably implied, but maybe:
-1. Usable, in that it renders all the websites I want to visit. Because without that 1-4 are lost when I have to move to a browser that works on the web site I want to browse. Staying up to date with the latest and greatest JavaScript CSS may not be needed, but if my favorite web sites decide to employ them I want my browser to be able to use them. Arguably my favorite web sites fault if they try to get to fancy with the latest browser tech.
0. Cross-platform and open source. I
Re: (Score:3)
>"Usable, in that it renders all the websites I want to visit. Because without that 1-4 are lost when I have to move to a browser that works on the web site I want to browse."
1) That is a huge exaggeration. I go to literally hundreds of different sites all the time. It is very rare I run across any site that doesn't render well under Firefox. And....
2) Ask yourself how much of those few sites not working correctly would be Mozilla's fault, or would it be the fault of the site's web developer coding th
Re: (Score:2)
I agree, Firefox checks all the boxes for me, and I hope it continues to do so! My objective was simply to make sure all the boxes are laid out that kindly JBMcB started. Plus I am still curious about a defense for the assertion "Security and stability (they are the same thing)".
Re: Browser (Score:3)
I love Firefox. I even worked at Netscape back in the day.
That said I unfortunately encounter many web sites that don't work properly or at all in Firefox anymore. Sites for which it's not easy to take my business elsewhere like my monopoly utility electric utility company, healthcare providers for video calls, etc.
Invariably when contacted, these entities tell me to use Chrome instead.
Sometimes, these web sites will start working again in FF at a later date. It's not clear whether it's the site owner makin
Re: (Score:2)
>"Invariably when contacted, these entities tell me to use Chrome instead."
I have encountered that before. And my reaction to it is pretty fierce. That "just use Chrome" response is never acceptable or satisfactory- it is often some automatic, meaningless drivel, and why we "can't have nice things.". A majority of the time when I have to contact some site about something not working, it has nothing to do with the browser, they are just "down" or had some defective code update, yet they will spew such
Re: (Score:3)
What I want is the ability to manage an organize a huge number of bookmarks. I don't want to search for the site every time.
Firefox had done that pretty well with their Bookmarks side panel. Thunderbird used to to similar for messages I'd received, but the last update trimmed my saved messages without warning, and deleted all nested folders. I hope evolution will be better.
Re: (Score:2)
Try Joplin or a similar note taking app.
Joplin can clip web pages in directly, so even if they get changed or deleted you can read them without relying on The Internet Archive. You can also organize them with it, supporting collections and tags. You can make notes with collections of links too.
I only use bookmarks for stuff I use regularly now.
Re: (Score:2)
The sites I'm interested are frequently updated. Slashdot is, for example, one of my bookmarks. If it's a computer language, I may want to see if anything has changed in the last couple of months. Bookmarks are the best approach. I've got over 50 sites I visit once in awhile, and probably 15 or so I visit (nearly) every day.
Clipping stuff is a good way to save current information unchanged, but to me that's not the main purpose of a web page.
Re: (Score:2)
That's lovely, but the problem is there is no revenue model. If/when Google cuts them off, how are they going to keep paying people to work on it.
Don't say just make it open source. If that was viable then one of the open source browsers would be really good. The only half way usable ones are based on Firefox or Chrome.
focus involves adding features (Score:2, Insightful)
FF should leave "features" to 3rd parties so that users can pick and choose which ones they want. Thus speed, site compatibility and support for 3rd parties is what they should focus on.
Re:focus involves adding features (Score:4, Insightful)
FF should leave "features" to 3rd parties so that users can pick and choose which ones they want. Thus speed, site compatibility and support for 3rd parties is what they should focus on.
Plus I want my status bar back - one that doesn't pop in and out of existence, but stays in place. I also want something like Tab Mix Plus used to be able to provide - not pale-black text fading into pale-grey at the not-visible-enough pale-grey-fading-into-nothing so-called border between tabs. And an ability to banish tool-tip-on-hover like the oh-so-helpful "Search" tip that shows up when I hover over the query entry field on the Google search page, or the "Please fill out this field" one that appears on DDG's page. And lots of other stuff that other users will have ideas about, because they're the kind of thing that Firefox used to allow via extensions and 'about:config' mods.
You know, the kind of stuff that made Firefox a force to be reckoned with in the early days, when they were willing to listen to users' feedback and didn't respond in a patronizing tone that "you don't really want that". Mozilla has been told all this and more a zillion times in their user forums, yet couldn't be assed to take their lips off Google's teat long enough to do a reality check and save some of their user base.
And so far, dear Laura shows no sign of even being interested in having a clue, much less having an idea of how to get one. I think that being totally out of touch with and/or not caring about what users and customers want must be a prerequisite for becoming a CEO.
The list (Score:5, Insightful)
>"Mozilla Wants You To Love Firefox Again"
I never stopped loving it (or at least liking it). Especially if you consider the alternatives, which typically do not respect open standards/platforms and privacy anywhere near as much. This is even more important when you realize Firefox (and its few offshoots) is the only major, multiplatform browser left that is not based on Google's code and some amount of direct or underlying control.
If you want my to-do list for Mozilla:
1) Focus your efforts on Firefox. Nothing else will matter at Mozilla if Firefox fails.
2) Listen to your users. All the other browsers are typically MUCH worse at customization and user control. But Firefox used to be better on this than it is now. Give users as much control over settings and customization as possible.
3) Function over eye-candy. Always.
4) Keep Firefox compatible and usable on as many different platforms and environments as possible. (That means X11, too).
5) Be as open as possible with any and all changes. You are generally good with this, but that doesn't mean it can't slip. What are you adding and why and how it works.
6) Open your plugins/addons to as much functionality as reasonably possible. I understand the support and security concerns, but there is more than can be done.
7) Continue to do the great job you have been doing with performance and security.
8) Be more responsive to bug reports. With any project of this size, there will be TONS of them (and tons of noise, as well). But nothing will turn people off more than expending lots of resources to report and test things, have it validated by others, and then sit for years, unaddressed or unfixed.
9) Don't let Google (or Microsoft, or Apple) control you. It will be tempting. Unfortunately for you, you are the last standing/remaining defense in truly open multiplatform browsing. Without you, an extremely dangerous monoculture will have complete control over the web and what "standards" are (or are not). It is already becoming a disaster for security, freedom, and privacy..... most people just don't know it yet.
Re: (Score:2)
Focus your efforts on Firefox. Nothing else will matter at Mozilla if Firefox fails
Absolutely true, but Thunderbird and other projects need attention all the same. In terms of focus, it is possible to go deep and broad at the same time, like a tree having both a tap root and branching roots.
Re: (Score:2)
You are, of course, correct. I didn't mean to snub things like Thunderbird. I probably should have stated to focus efforts on their existing core projects and not go drifting off creating new stuff that most people don't know or care about.
But they do have limited resources. Far, far, far, far, far, far less than something like Google, Microsoft, and Apple. So at some point, tough decisions might have to be made.
Re: (Score:2)
Decisions are always tough. At least for me. That said, open source projects have a well established history of accomplishing far more with a fraction of the resources of enterprise projects. Been involved in the latter enough to know exactly why that is.
Re: (Score:2)
3) Function over eye-candy. Always.
Agreed, with the caveat that Mozilla developers - along with GTK developers specifically, and latter-day UI developers in general - need to learn how to differentiate between frivolous crap and stuff that resembles eye-candy but which legitimately makes the UI easier to use. They also need to learn that what looks so cool to thirty-year-old-eyes may be an actual usability problem for sixty-year-old users.
Re: (Score:2)
What extension APIs do you want that don't exist?
Re: (Score:3)
>"What extension APIs do you want that don't exist?"
The one most people complain about would be interaction with the UI. Firefox greatly limited this years ago when Quantum was first implemented. They had good reasons, mostly security and support, but said they would expand it back slowly and haven't done much on that. I, personally have not had any issues- all the extensions I use could do what they need. But, for example, after the change, extensions could no longer move tabs to be on bottom. (Tha
Re: (Score:2)
If they did that then I'd want a way to turn it off. In fact it should be opt-in.
Extensions modifying the UI is a huge security issue. It's also a portability issue, as the UI on Android (and presumably iOS soon, thanks to the EU) is very different and a lot of extensions already have issues with it.
Go for the furry market (Score:2)
If you want some love*. Then perhaps rework the mascot to be like the one from AROS [aros.org] or Xenia [glitch.me]
* I am not sure which definition of love is intended in the original post.
Re: (Score:2)
I am not sure which definition of love is intended in the original post
I suggest tough love.
Love Firefox, cause there is no other (Score:3)
The company is trying hard to ruin it though. The list of things that you need to turn off after a fresh install is getting kinda long.
don't build another walled garden (Score:2)
"It's also making forays into generative AI in Firefox, starting with a chatbot sidebar...
If the 'sidebar' is just funnelling people to yet another sottware-as-a-service, that no bueno.
No thank you! (Score:2)
Firefox became Netscape Navigator. Fat, slow and useless. It now sits there on my desktop to test websites.
Ungoogled Chrome + uBlock origin is fast (starts under a second) with no ads. If I want a featured browser I use Brave.
One request only (Score:2)
Dear Mozilla, I want this too. (Score:3)
Sorry. We just need to do one small thing to keep going.
Now that we agree, see how we didn't agree there and I just moved on? Is there something you are not willing to do that I should know about?
Because I...feel like when I express my needs to you that my words are met with what I...feel is like you ignoring me. Are you willing, Mozilla to...let go...of Firefox if that will result in more love?
Just checking, because, for the life of me, I just have a hard time believing your "foundation" wordy-glib-utterance. It...seems, like you are not interested in courting my love because you...seem to do and say things that make me want to NOT love your browser.
With this in mind, your past performance, I think both we both agree that there is going to need to be some improvement we can enumerate. This thread will be filled with useful advice from people who use and recommend your product. You can...show...us all that you've turned over a new leaf as it were, by acknowledging and putting into practice some of these suggestions. I have hope we can work it out.
Changing the add-on API again? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, currently Firefox will support Manifest V2. The question is for how long because Google is basically forcing Manifest V3. Which means most browsers based on WebKit or Blink will be supporting Manifest V3 if they wanted to or not.
And if Firefox supports V2, it won't be long before V3 support will be mandated simply because developers won't want to keep V2 projects around for use by a niche browser anymore.
That is the power wielded by Google, and one they are fo
Mozilla bloated Firefox up too much (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Make a Firefox light or Firefox mini with just the bare essentials to make browsing the internet comfy and safe then I will love Firefox again
That is supposedly what Firefox is. It was the entire purpose it was created for. You will not get what you want even if you do temporarily get what you want.
Firefox mostly works (Score:2)
In a clone because I'll be damned to share my being with Google and yes I run Linux so MS should also take a hike.
Yet, the company runs Teams and Outlook whose web versions prefer to run on the mentioned Chrome clone.
Also, DRM is pervasive and if I want to watch TV it is possible in Firefox but after around 15 minutes it starts to hang, only in Chrome it will continue to run smoothly.
I know of o
Give Me Extended Support (Score:2)
Kill auto-play videos, and block ads (Score:2)
If they can do these two things, I'm in.
Brave does a pretty good job of blocking ads, but it doesn't kill auto-play videos. Still, the ad-blocking is good enough to keep me using it. If Firefox can knock off that other thorn in our sides, they'll definitely have a lot users who love their browser.
Re: (Score:2)
I do use uBlock Origin. It's very good, but it doesn't stop auto-play videos. I rarely use YouTube, but that's not really relevant for auto-play videos either, if they are hosted by other sites.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a Disable HTML5 Autoplay addon that I use with uBlock Origin, Privacy Badger, etc.: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-... [mozilla.org]
Re: (Score:2)
That's nice. But who is Afnan Khan (the author) and do I want to trust him or his company with access to my browser? There are a lot of sketchy add-ons by no-name authors. Maybe they have pure motives, maybe not. But a lot of these things start out with the best of intentions, but then some marketer comes along with a big fat check to buy the component from the original author, and the new owner's intentions are anything but good.
How about getting back to the basics? (Score:4, Insightful)
Remember why Firefox succeeded in the first place? While Mozilla suite and all its incarnations were dying a slow death?
Because it was mean and lean and barebones.
And had an extension system to add extra functionality for those who wanted to add stuff.
Nowdays? It's slow and bloated. It includes a dictionary. It includes Web developer tools, Responsive design mode, Remote debugging. It includes a bloody inline PDF reader for $DEITY sake! Really, you think absolutely EVERYBODY wants all of that?? And Firefox now is on its way to include AI bloat in its monolithic codebase (also; there is no way such highly polarized subject could backfire if installed by default without opt-out possibility, right?)
It's trying it's best to be monolithic everything AND a kitchen sink again. It's trying to become Mozilla suite again. At this point, I'm amazed they aren't trying to merge it with Thunderbird into one monolithic product again. Perhaps even add an office suite and graphic editor and package it all in one monolithic package! Really?! The fact that I must warn that it was distopian sarcasm there unless someone at Mozilla approves such idea is telling a lot.
Please turn direction 180 degrees back to its origins. Put only absolute minimal stuff needed for opening a web page into core Firefox. Put EVERYTHING else in Addons/Extensions. Offer to install them on first run if you think they are soooo great, fine. I'd even live (but hate) if you silently preinstalled them if you really must, but absolutely let me easily uninstall EVERYTHING you installed but barebones webpage renderer, URL bar, and (maybe) a back button.
Let me quote some Antoine de Saint-Exupéry for you: "Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away."
Words to live by.
Let's hope they get it right on iOS (Score:2)
No, I am not trolling. What is the one platform that is worth billions that is not Google/Microsoft and has minimal stake in the ad-business? Apple. Firefox needs to work fantastically well on iOS, iPadOS and MacOS. It is their chance.
At the moment, it is the worst on Apple Silicon in general when it comes to battery life and performance. The Internet is riddled with battery life issues with Firefox. on Apple devices, even when its just.a Webkit wrapper on mobile devices.
It's the browser I want to use , bu
Re: (Score:2)
This is more on Apple's head that Mozilla's; literally the only HTML engine allowed on iOS is Safari's WebView. Literally every "browser" on iOS is just a skin over Safari. Some add extra bits, but they're not complete browser apps by any means.
decades (Score:2)
My sales pitch (Score:2)
that's a hard job (Score:2)
A significant amount of people used to love Firefox, use it, push its usage around the web and advocate for it but so many of them became estranged by technical decision from the project and its refusal to listen to users.. I will give as example the chrome-ification of the UI and disabling a lot of often used extensions. Winning back this lost love is going to be very, very, very hard, because the trust vanished.
compatibility (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not a joke in the house? (Score:2)
Seems like a ripe topic, but... Maybe something about tough love would have worked?
Bring back the old UI (Score:2)
Then we'll talk.
A disconnect between Mozilla and FireFox-users. (Score:2)
I've made posts about it here [slashdot.org], here [slashdot.org], here [slashdot.org] and maybe a few other places too.
My main message to the FireFox devs is this: Be aware that your user-base is power-users who want to customise the heck out of their browsers. Your attempt at simplifying the UI by copying Ch*me is quite frankly misguided. It's because of this that there's a big disconnect with what the Mozilla managers imagine FireFox users want, and what FireFox users actually want. To fix this, all they need to do is to bring back the customizatio
Re: (Score:2)
Just like at Boeing.