If you want me to use a competitor, build one that doesn't fuck me over. Begging me to use something because "the other guy is too big!" is just not going to fly when I have to actually use it for practical purposes.
I exclusively use Firefox because of ublock on mobile. Other browsers cant compete. I have no issues using FF, and major annoyances when I use chrome on someone else's computer (wrong shortcut to open a new private tab, can't press backspace to navigate back 1 page in history, etc)
I was done. I rage quit Firefox on all devices within an hour and I have not regretted the decision. I'm done making excuses for them.
Now I use kiwi browser on mobile (chromium fork with extensions support) and qutebrowser on desktop (uses chromium's engine, keyboard focused and fun to use) and ungoogled chromium for dev related stuff when I need to.
I don't like web browsers and I don't like the web. But I don't find myself constantly making excuses for a piece of software I have to use anymore.
Errh.. the web gives you the ability to switch browsers (to kiwi or qutebrowser).
I strongly believe in the open-web (although I agree it was a pita with android firefox and their limited set of addons).
I shudder at the prospect of using a gazillion apps to consume content, like I see others doing.
If you're using web apps, you are already using a gazillion apps, you're just using tabs as a taskbar and one full screen window at a time. The browser becomes the OS. You're just changing where the abstraction happens, and creating a more hostile UX.
Consuming content is not the only focus of the web. In my opinion, it would be better to have an application to read documents, a different application to stream media, and if there's any complex interaction it warrants its own application, so things like chat, git GUIs like github, social interactions all warrant an application. It used to be like this, you had IM, IRC, a web browser that just delivered HTML documents, things were less user hostile and easier to implement. If we had continued along with this paradigm instead of cramming everything into http and web browsers I think we would have a better web today. For one, it wouldn't be impossible to implement a do it all browser from scratch, and you'd have a more open web than we have today.
That's probably correct.
For me, I think (for me) it's about control of content.
I detest using an app for newssite-A and another for newsite-B (I don't do this), especially if they bombard me with ads, popups and dark patterns to generate their objectives.
e.g. Twitter constantly messing with their stream, instagram going more towards videos.
It's a cesspool and I don't know how the average (not techie) finds it acceptable. Cable TV went this way and for me unwatchable.
With a browser, I can remove obnoxious ads, disable popups and fix css to my liking.
Not sure if we need to have protocol per content-type. The browser kinda does this already and gives me the control.
FTA: "Meta, the owner of Facebook and Instagram, has been rewriting websites its users visit, letting the company follow them across the web after they click links in its apps, according to new research from an ex-Google engineer.
The two apps have been taking advantage of the fact that users who click on links are taken to webpages in an “in-app browser”, controlled by Facebook or Instagram, rather than sent to the user’s web browser of choice, such as Safari or Firefox."
Sigh
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/aug/11/meta-inje...
I think a lot of Firefox users also tend to be power users who have unusual settings and blockers, like you. To companies who own websites, that's even less incentive to support them.
Ideological contrarian? Seriously? Grow up.
I don't think that makes me an "ideological contrarian". That would mean opposing something just to oppose, and that's not why I'm doing it.
If Safari (especially iPhone) doesn't support something, that's a big deal. If Firefox doesn't support something, people shrug and move on.