Desktop is a better market to compare anyway, if including Edge. Is Microsoft even trying anymore on mobile?
Safari has 34.6% share in the US: https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share/all/united-s...
I didn't realise Macs were a quarter of the desktop market.
I think MacOS feels a bit old at this point, but the hardware is pretty nice for what's on offer in the mobile space. I may well go framework for my next laptop in a few years though.
It's also just blazingly fast compared to the similarly priced ~3yo Dell that it replaced.
You're just not going to be a strong contender for market share.
Getting themselves into a deeper hole is unlikely to help, imo.
But IMO everyone is chasing Chrome or just using their engine now. Their engineering team is apparently 10x that of Mozilla.
And, back when Chrome was rolling out they used their dominant position online very aggressively. Google sites worked best in Chrome, period. Chrome was pushed on google. Google tech demos, similar to Microsoft ones, worked best in or only in Chrome. Android was a big Chrome advantage too. Chrome was heavily advertised, pushed as an install bundle in things like Adobe.. I'm not disagreeing Mozilla made some poor decisions but I don't think they had much of a chance regardless.
People thought Google was gonna maintain that position forever. It turned out that the "cool nerds doing open source and making money meanwhile" stance was just a sham, and Google abruptly became another faceless corporation.
A lot of people fell for it. Even the Mozilla developers. When Firefox started having compatibility issues with Gmail, they considered it as bugs in the Gmail software, and Google developers were all like "oh haha sorry I'll fix that in no time", but over time the compatibility issues piled up and the competitive stance slowly unveiled by itself.
After being abandoned by Mozilla, FirefoxOS was resurrected as KaiOS. For a while, it was the second most popular mobile operating system in India, mostly because Reliance decided to use it for some of their low-end Jio phones[1]. Where would FirefoxOS be today if Mozilla had stuck with it? If hundreds of millions of people had their first taste of the Internet via FirefoxOS and not Android?
I've been a Firefox user since 2004, but I don't think Mozilla understands how to conduct business. They're an ideological organization first and foremost. It's not a bad thing -- we need somebody to stand up to Big Tech -- but it means that they probably won't be taking a big share of any market except by complete accident.
I think that FirefoxOS could have been great if they'd kept up the development a few more years. Much like XULRunner was a bit ahead of it's time... The hardware got better enough over a few generations, that if it ran on current phones or even last gen it could be pretty good.
I'm running a Pixel 4a, and current Android runs like hot garbage at times, I've got an older Pixel 2XL that needs a new battery... I'd like to take both and put something more open on them to at least play with.
Unfortunately, Mozilla doesn't understand how Firefox even got to be where it was at its' height. They seem to think it's just about marketing buzz. They got to #1 on organic growth alone. By creating something better than the alternatives at a technical level. They need to do that again, but also need some creative types to steer the ship as well. I'm still mad about how they let Thunderbird die on the vine, and if any related tech could have been their ongoing revenue stream it could have been in that space.
>The browser wars are basically over
and why is that? Oh because Mozilla hasn't put any energy into getting better or pulling back market share from the moment it started to bleed out to Chrome.
Let's not just sit back and go "Oh well, they lost nothing they could do" shrug. They built their tech in such an obtuse and opinionated way it's impossible to integrate anywhere else, milked their millions selling off customer data to Google via the default search interface, burned the money on private jets and shockingly overpaid low-talent low-vision executives. Burned engineering talent on a VPN service no one asked for just because it's a good money making scam if you advertize it on the right podcasts, made huge parts of their deep engineering teams redundant.
To be perfectly honest the only good long term vision for Mozilla is an empty office or a landfill. Their existence under the current management doomed the internet back to the IE6 era of browser variety. Firefox the browser would be way better off if Mozilla the company didn't exist.
Baffles me they have any good will left at all from people who care about the internet. This company will literally do anything else than work hard on their browser.
>and why is that? Oh because Mozilla hasn't put any energy into getting better or pulling back market share from the moment it started to bleed out to Chrome.
Could and should Mozilla have done better? Yes. "Any energy?" is uncalled for, however.
There was the entire Quantum rewrite for significant performance boosts (around the time Chrome started getting called out for bad perf). There's containers, anti-tracker tech, and a big privacy push.
There is much more they could have done, and my outsider opinion is that Mozilla the organization lost its way and focused too much money and effort on things that don't matter, but it's not like they pulled an IE6 and abandoned Firefox.
I just wished they could rebalance their allocation and focus on simple daily usability things. Just a bit more.
Meanwhile they have had consistently growing revenues and consistently declining number of developers.
Citation needed? And no, the 2020 layoffs don't count: It's 2023.
What's important is the number of developers they put on the project.
They fired Brendan Eich, who invented JS, led Netscape past IE, and then headed Mozilla. Who, when fired, started Brave and turned it into a bigger system than FF (including the only relatively new free search engine with its own index), from scratch, in a world already dominated by Chrome, and Safari.
I know, I know, Eich donated personal money to some cause that some people on the internet didn't like. But from a business perspective, it was the stupidest thing they could have done, and is the point at which FF went from growth to (fast) loss.
(And the cause itself was not justified, especially considering it was a private donation, it was a legal org (not like KK or whatever), and he apologized afterwards. Even if it was a mistake, that should not have been justification for firing him.)
On what metric is Brave bigger than Firefox?
Mozilla's mistake was not in firing Brendan Eich (and Brendan Eich was not fired).
Mozilla's mistake was in promoting Brendan Eich to CEO.
Mozilla employees said ~"we were not totally comfortable with Brendan as a leader in the Technology role, but we recognized his long history with the Org and his Technical excellence, so we kept mostly quiet. But we strongly object to his promotion to CEO and primary representative of Mozilla to the world, because we do not feel that he represents the Org's values and do not believe he will be an effective leader of us."
Brendan probably could have returned to his CTO role with little fuss. But he may have had larger aspirations, he may have been sick of working under Mitchell Baker, and he may have been personally disappointed by the Org's vote of no confidence in him. All are 100% reasonable! So he resigned. He was not fired. Yes the board probably recommended that he resign, but he would have been crazy to try to stay in the CEO role after that drama.
> and he apologized afterwards
Has he? Not any time contemporaneous with the events at Mozilla, if ever. I don't think he should feel the need to apologize for personally-held beliefs. But I don't think he can simultaneously hold that particular kind of belief, and be a leader of people at Mozilla.
...
We do agree that Brendan's resignation was a net loss for Mozilla. But he might have not been able to succeed in the Mozilla Org anyway. Even as CEO, he'd have the board to contend with. As CTO, he had the CEO and the board to contend with. If there are effective people in that group, they are not making themselves known.
Not from scratch. Brave is modified Chromium.
It's not about the overall company its about browser team. I'd love to see a comparison of the actual sizes of the teams creating browsers, isn't Safari only a handful of (admittedly extremely talented) people?
Mozilla org has completely lost sight of their base. A good 70-80% of their budget should be on their core product development and adjacent products only. The fact that only recently have they discovered, hey, we had this pretty good email client that we let all but die off.
They should separate their core rendering and script engine teams to focus on better embed-ability and security structures. Another team(s) focused on the integration for Firefox as a browser. Another for Thunderbird. The fact that they killed off their Rust efforts, XULRunner and so many other things that could be really useful today is just painful.
Yeah, XUL didn't run great on 1998 hardware, but what are so many apps targeting today, Electron. And now there's a resurgence towards lighter options (Tauri and others) because it kind of makes sense to (re)use a browser rendering engine for general UI development. It's extremely flexible, has a flushed out (if somewhat complex) styling and theming system, multiple language support, complete font rendering, svg rendering, and accessibility support and runs on/under everything under the sun.
Maybe hire on some of the types that have tried and failed to remake email and browsers that have some creative vision on how users actually use these applications, and let them work with the engineering teams to make quality software again. Spend less time on branding, and more time on the core tech. They still have enough brand reach and clout that people will try the new stuff and if it's good, then organic growth can and would work (again).
Hell, if they want to branch out... make a REALLY great email and communications platform that is open-source with a hosted model. How big of a pain is it to self-host many of these things today? If they want to acquire someone, bring in Caddy, Fastmail and/or Zimbra for adjacent tech development.
I only harp on the email and Thunderbird side because two decades ago, they were in a better spot than anyone to offer a competing product to Outlook+Exchange and they just didn't even try. And now even Outlook kind of sucks because the cloud integration is what it is at scale. Leaving a gaping hole where that entire market used to live. A great open-source core product, with a good extensibility model and some commercially licensed integration points could have been insanely popular.
... You think Mozilla don't focus enough on Firefox, so you think they should spend more money on Thunderbird, which is an app in an almost-nonexistent market (desktop email)?
Some folks are just never happy with Mozilla.
Firefox has massively improved in recent years. WebExtensions being async prevented horrific freezes that used to happen. Rewriting components in Rust, and using web assembly for native libs, are both good for security. And WebRender was revolutionary.
Two decades ago, Thunderbird was in the single best position to provide an alternative to Outlook. Now, not so much. If they'd had the foresight to do that two+ decades ago, they could be in a similar position to Google Docs or O365 today in terms of revenue generation.
They're a bit behind at this point on what people even like in a browser. They should focus on the core technology. I think dropping Servo and the Rust efforts was probably a misstep and burning cash on marketing and buying out unrelated companies altogether doesn't help.
edit: Also, Thunderbird doesn't HAVE to be just a desktop email client. If blackberry had developed email clients for iOS and Android early on, they would still be relevant today.
Firefox was "the" customizable browser with great ad-block.
Not that it matters, because FF performance has become so terrible for me that it was no longer really usable anyway.
Is any of this actually evidenced somewhere? I'm not aware of Mozilla ever using private jets, and the last time I checked their executive compensation it was on the lower side of average for corporations with their footprint and financials.
Maybe there are facts or sources that you aren't presenting, but this as-is just comes off as a screed.
Spend money on everything except browser development (>$5 billions!).
Market share down the drain.
Use the market share as an argument for a lost cause and spend money on everything except Browser development.
Ladybird - a browser spearheaded by one person - will expose Mozilla of what it is.
Do you think any other company / organization would be able to take over it / fork it and develop it adequately? If so, where would they get the money? Many high-profile open-source projects (e.g. Python, Blender, well, Linux itself) managed to secure corporate sponsorships or donations in a much less toxic way than the Mozilla-Google deal.
It's an entirely different rendering engine, and an entirely different JS engine.
You must be mixing it up with MS Edge.
Either outright commits by at-google email addresses, or things like summer of code. All to play catch up with the features they shove on chrome.
Damn, didn't know that one can develop skills to evaluate the quality of a code-base by just "feeling" it and not looking at it at all - quite impressive!
What’s the deal with serenityOS? Can it be run on bare metal yet, last I checked they only have a way to run it in a vm.
Google has and had major distribution advantages for Chrome; same with Apple/MS and their browsers.
I've gone back and forth between FF and Chrome a few times and since the big FF perf improvements several years ago, I don't understand why Chrome is still seen as a wildly better product except for residual Google goodwill among the tech crowd. FF has had much much much more reliable session management / sync for me for years now.
Since forever I have a test that firefox always fails at: on first load, or if you haven't right clicked in a while, the context menu takes a perceptible amount of time to show up fully, and within this very short amount of time, you can visually see the menu options cascade out as the CSS engine finishes laying out and rendering the context menu.
This kind of jank still happens on latest firefox. It's little things like this that make it feel unpolished.
I never observe this behaviour on Chrome.
This demonstrates that you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.
OK, I'm not a fan of Firefox anymore but this isn't the case. They undeniably worked very, very hard and poured a lot of money into the revamp of Firefox.
Google Chrome 66%
Safari 12%
Edge 11%
Firefox 6%
https://radar.cloudflare.com/adoption-and-usage shows distribution of requests to Cloudflare by user agent:
Chrome 29.1%
Chrome Mobile 27.1%
Mobile Safari 11.4%
Chrome Mobile Webview 6.5%
Firefox 5.7%
Edge 4.4%
Facebook 3.5%
Safari 3.3%
That's silly. More than once, browsers have had more marketshare than chrome. IE's highest marketshare makes chrome look silly in comparison.
Now, is not the same as "what will happen".
The browser wars are basically over, and Mozilla as an organization would benefit from a longer term vision to improve veracity on the internet.
With the ability to generate content at the cost of basically 0, figuring out what's real and not real is going to be an increasingly hard challenge.
Browser stats (as of Feb): 79.7% - Chrome 8.6% - Edge 4.8% - Firefox/Mozilla 3.9% - Safari