this post was submitted on 07 Aug 2024
835 points (96.8% liked)
Technology
60152 readers
3507 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Semi-TLDR: Improvements under Mozilla? None.
They do not even want to develop a better (than Chrome) browser... they wanna "build a better Internet".
Mozilla Foundation is making US$ 300-400 millions for many, many years (US$ 593 in 2021-22). If they could not develop a better Firefox all these years, it's not happening __ with or without Google money __ ever.
When Mozilla /Firefox developers don't even care/do not listen to feedback for simple things like ability to differentiate between active and inactive tab colors (why everyone that uses Firefox must play around with css to make Firefox usable?), expect them to develop something better or comparable to Chromium based browser is out of question.
Longer, rant version:
According to the Mozilla Foundation’s 2021–2022 financial statement, which is the most recent one published, $510 million out of its $593 million in revenue came courtesy of Google’s search payments.
Source: https://fortune.com/2024/08/05/mozilla-firefox-biggest-potential-loser-google-antitrust-search-ruling/
The fundamental issues as I see are:
Complete lack of vision. Utterly worthless CEOs. Spending money on everything else but development of Firefox.
Especially when Firefox made them US$ 510 million in 2021-22.
Instead of spending millions on worthless CEOs, why not spend millions on developers so people would use Firefox on their own, instead IT guys like me forcing friends & family to use it.
I try to find annual cost of developing & maintaining Linux kernel but could only find articles and PDFs from 2008/2017 mentioning total worth etc but not actual annual cost.
Just as a thought experiment, imagine every Firefox (desktop, mobile etc) stops working all of a sudden... IMO, the world and internet will not come to a full stop.
Now imagine what would happen if every computer, server, router, switch, phone, tablet, stops working completely at once, that runs on Linux kernel.
So if Linux kernel can be developed for $510 million (assuming its below this mark), why can't Firefox be?
I'm trying to figure out why US$ 510 million is not able to develop something better or comparable to Chromium based browsers.
Then there are issues related to lack of vision and no importance/urgency towards finishing a product.
Why only few extensions were allowed on Firefox mobile for many years without any explanations. Even developers of major extensions were not able to figure out the criteria to make their addon available on Firefox mobile.
What was the rationale behind it... Driving people away who were using Firefox mobile? If the product was not ready, do not fucking release it.
You need highly talented and additional developers to release product sooner... hire more, pay more. You got $510 mil just from Firefox.
I do not see any future for Firefox under Mozilla.
Only if some real big names (like Linux foundation etc) from FOSS world hard fork the Firefox, it might have a future.
I think, with real big name sponsors (pro-open source companies), search revenue will not be an issue.
IMO, the new organization (of course with big sponsors) of new fork must have one, single mission/goal... develop a great browser. New org must not have a mission statement written by MBAs:
"We’re building a better Internet"
Source: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/mission/
Something people will use it on their own for its merit.
I'm going to go eat now, so I'll just respond to the short version:
Yes, the CEO is overpaid, but I do not get you at all.
The colors are perfectly distinguishable? Whatever's active has a giant white background and border and shadow.
It's already better than Chromium. For example, not only is it a bit less resource-heavy, it also has features that allow uBlock Origin to function much better even before all the Mv3 stuff.
Regarding tab colors, I'll post screenshot from my Debian machine later tomorrow.
If something is better (or at least perceived as better) people will use it on their own. Default or not.
Examples: VLC player. Microsoft Office
Even if LibreOffice is free, why people are paying for Microsoft Office?
I have to spend 10 times more time on LibreOffice on Debian/Ubuntu than on Microsoft Office on Windows. Same with simple touch ups in GIMP vs Microsoft Paint.
Firefox market share in 2024: 3.36%
Source: https://backlinko.com/browser-market-share
Wait until you learn about how monopolies work.
Most people are lazy. They don't switch until some major thing happens. VLC doesn't even have as much market share as you think it has; most people just use whatever comes with their system.
On how many computers (not your own and not as a part of your job) you have installed Firefox yourself?
On how many phones you have installed Firefox personally?
How many calls you have attended to solve Firefox related issues?
How many childhood friends you have fought (verbally) insisting to use Firefox? Not just one time but for years.
You didn't comment on usability points I've mentioned of GIMP or LibreOffice... Ohh that's right, you could not.
As per your logic, how apple was able to sell even a single iphone when Windows Mobile was there already?
With a better product or some unexplainable magic?
That's exactly what Chrome did initially. They built a better product, when apparently Mozilla/Firefox executives were in deep cryogenic sleep.
Why Chrome was able to beat internet explorer. Android was not a thing back then, hence no monopoly/no default installations.
Why people are paying many times more on apple/samsung phones when far cheaper options are available in hundreds?
Can you name a single country on earth, where only apple/samsung phones are allowed to sell... so they can be called duopoly/monopoly.
In August of 1997 Bill Gates invested US$ 150 million to save apple, at a time when sony had market cap of US$ 34.86 and apple had just US$ 1.68 billion.
So, why apple was able to beat sony (which was dominant player in portable music) in music player business with ipods and hence started its meteoric rise?
Sources:
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/29/steve-jobs-and-bill-gates-what-happened-when-microsoft-saved-apple.html
https://companiesmarketcap.com/sony/marketcap/
https://companiesmarketcap.com/apple/marketcap/
What monopoly is at play with VLC player?
You didn't mention any VLC installation numbers. Well it can be installed from many places on Android but here's just one source, play store.
It's over 100 million.
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.videolan.vlc&hl=en_US
As per your view, why people even use VLC?
What monopoly was at play when Firefox had 32.21 percent market share?
Source: https://www.enterpriseappstoday.com/stats/firefox-statistics.html
https://blog.mozilla.org/metrics/2008/12/01/firefox-surpassing-50-market-share-in-more-regions/
What monopoly was at play when Google launched in 1998? Yahoo was there already. Why people chose Gmail, when Hotmail, Yahoo and many others were there already.
Why small, medium or large device makers use Linux kernel? I've never read Linus Torvalds paying billions to corporations.
I can go on but I have to catch a flight.
I'm not gonna argue with you anymore as I find your worldview incredibly narrow/selective.
I think this is why Mozilla is at 3.36 % marker share as Mozilla might be surrounded by people/publications that keep repeating, "Everything is fine, no need to change anything at all".
I do not like walls of text, so I'll answer half before I go to sleep.
If you exclude my own, then 0. I am not in tech support.
Re: GIMP & LibreOffice: I often use these and have trouble recognizing why people hate them. The latter defaults to a worse interface for some reason while tabbed view is hidden behind a simple and great toggle. I feel like the hate on GIMP is because people try to impose proprietary paradigms and do not realize that a "find action" mennu exist.
Windows Mobile was never there. Additionally, iPhone had charisma and massive marketing. Charisma is the thing that propels many things good and bad. There's even an entire book about this called "The Charisma Machine".
Microsoft was also facing federal prosecution around this time for monopolizing. The result of the case was forcing Microsoft to advertise other browsers, including Firefox and Chrome and Maxthon and two others, all of which gained significant market share. This reset the market, and eventually Firefox emerged as the victor by a bit, and then Chrome beat that bit. If that court case didn't happen, we'd still all be using some kind of Internet Explorer.
Because they are paying for the far cheaper options. While Apple and Samsung attract with big bucks on marketing and charisma, the 3rd largest phone seller worldwide is Xiaomi, the budget option.
I'm noticing a pattern here of you bringing up examples of leaps and bounds/cross-generational products. If someone builds a browser comparable to the iPod, I doubt we'd even call it a browser anymore. Unless you have a next-gen product, people will remain on the default option.
These are rookie numbers compared to the number of android phones sold worldwide. Subtract that by 100 million, and that's mostly all people who use the default option.