Google did give us a lot of warning that they would greatly restrict ad-blocking and tracker-blocking, so most of that angst has already been and gone.
HN used to gush over how great Chrome was. Some of us were saying, um guys, you know google is in the business of selling advertising right? Nobody seemed to care. Now mozilla's lawyers have them change some legalese and they are instantly the bad guys.
But FF was supposed to remain the shiny counterexample (despite acting also shady since years).
Personally, even though my trust in Firefox (and especially Mozilla) has been eroding rapidly in recent years, it's still so much greater than what I have for Google and Chrome that it's not even a choice.
Therefore, I agree with GP that this rhetoric is exhausting.
Bringing up the issues with FF and Mozilla is important and deserves attention. This kind of misleading FUD is not and does not.
To be fair, OP asked if "Chrome-ish" is the only option, i.e. Chromium-based browsers - not Chrome itself.
Even so, I don't think the implication is that Chromium is better than Firefox, but that without Firefox only Chromium-based browsers remain. "If I don't want to use Firefox, is it really only Chrome-clones available?"
Hm, my lived experience is the inverse, and both seem sort of important to talk about.
We've been hearing about Chrome implementing the same privacy protections as Safari as a transgression for years, years, and years, as it was delayed again and again.
It was ex-Mozilla people who brought to my attention that they were deeply alarmed by the privacy-concious-Do-Not-Track people making this pivot and that it was a really bad sign.
Generally, I try to avoid loaded questions phrased like "why is X considered as A while Y is considered as B?" because it suffers from high failure rates
(likelihood you're the first person to realize the truth; likelihood these things ended up sorted neatly into opposing binaries; undecidability of 'how come everyone believes the wrong thing?'; uncomfortable conversation when someone starts from 'how come everyone believes the wrong thing?' and you have to sort of lead them gently to 'is it possible you are missing something, not everyone else?' without making it obvious)
You better start believing in ghost stories. You're in one.
Well Apple didn’t turn around and try to push the Topics API..
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Topics_API
(Just to be clear. Mozilla is opposed to it too. They are just documenting it and don’t plan to implement the API)
However, I must admit I am intrigued by seeing Topics posited as a stain.
I strongly believe we would have been obviously better off as consumers with topics, than the status quo, a wild west of tracking, but AFAIK, weakly, it could have entrenched incumbents further.*
Selfishly, for my individual interests, I wish Apple had proposed it.
I have a feeling it would have been more dogged in working through it, rather than Google's laissez-faire "oh well! guess we get to keep tracking" when the bottom feeders complained.**
That's probably why it seems unachievable to me to rank on Goodness, opinions abound and they're all reasonable.
* i.e. even if the topics are retrievable via JS by any page, I'd assume there's some clever way for Google to do something strictly superior from an advertiser perspective leveraging some E2E integration, ex. perhaps most pages have to wait till load to get topics, but Google can do a special preflight request given a special HEAD tag, idk
** My weak understanding is this essentially was put on pause/shit-canned after UK competition authorities relayed general concern, and I don't remember Google giving up so easily on anything ever
Despite the outcry of manifest v3, if I understand it correctly it’s a standardize version of how Apple implements content blocking on the web, similar functionality works well in Safari.
Now, they will probably lose the Google tit that have been funding them for all these years. So naturally they panic and will sell user data when their users are the most fierce regarding this. Just this inability to understand their users is proof that no one at Mozilla no longer understands their fundamental selling points.
Get woke, go broke. It still is true and it's sad that it happened to Firefox. In a better timeline Brendan Eich would still be CEO of that organisation.
Mozilla revenue in 2015, having “gone woke” and fired him: $421.3M
Go woke go earn 28% more, i guess?
On the bright side, he and his cronies didn't steal absolutely everything, and some scraps made it to the rest of the population.
Mozilla's leadership is a cancer that will kill it, and will take the work of many good, talented technical people down the drain. IRL parallels abound.
But "go woke go broke" is dumb sloganeering and plainly false. It's not a description of how the world works - it's a call to arms to boycott things labeled "woke". Sometimes things labeled "woke" do well because of their "wokeness", other times the anti-"woke" backlash kills them. Plenty of things "go woke" without ever being labeled "woke". Plenty of non-"woke" things go broke.
Either way, my only real point in citing revenue numbers is to point out that ten years after the whole Eich debacle, mozilla's still not broke. Seems like maybe their problems are unrelated to "wokeness".
Nearly all increase is from Google and their deal with them, a deal that was done before Brendan became CEO. So the revenue would increase no matter who became CEO.
The issue with "wokeness" is that the people who adhere to these ideologies tries to shoehorn it into every single aspect of their lives and to every single thing they possibly can. Everything must be political, everything is about what they think matter and so on.
That's why you see companies fail so massively when ruled by people like this. They can't help themselves and alienate people, completely unnecessary, and usually turn supporters into haters.
Because anyone who cared knew this was coming in the near future after they published manifest v3 several years ago. Back then there was a huge kerfuffle, but since then anyone who cared has moved on.
10 posts daily about it on HN.
It's not the resources. It's their holier than thou attitude.
Having worked there, it's concerning, since if you saw the discussions that go on with regard to user data, you'd know they are trying to make sure they word things correctly, not... insert weasel words to grab your data.
At this writing, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43322922 has 962 points and 485 comments, and is the latest in a long line of posts. What are you on about?
> What causes this phenomenon where the project with significantly less resources is held to a higher standard than the other players?
There is the thing where Mozilla explicitly claimed to uphold a higher standard.
I will never understand why people attack Firefox so eagerly at every given opportunity.
[0]: https://circuitbulletin.com/what-is-global-privacy-control-t... [1]: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/global-privacy-control
What causes this phenomenon where the project with significantly less resources is held to a higher standard than the other players?