I think it's fair to criticize Firefox's user base, but I'm not sure their criticisms amount to very much. ie, if Firefox had a totally pliant user base it seems like Mozilla still would have driven it into the ground.

I can't really defend Mozilla's priorities or business model myself, but I do agree that Firefox users create this massive pessimistic cloud overtop of firefox. From what little I know, the Firefox MPL license isn't restrictive at all, other than forcing you to not re-license existing MPL code. Another corporate sponsor could take on the torch, pay a bunch of ex or current mozilla devs/contributers, and make EarthTurtle or WindBird or something. Not just stripping things out of Firefox, but working on the browser engine/js engine/etc, starting from Firefox today and diverging.

Users tend to talk about mozilla like it's holding firefox hostage or something, but really the main gripe they have is building and maintaining browsers is beyond the scope of an individual. THEY couldn't fork firefox, but it's not impossible for someone with resources and connections to MAKE an entity that does. It just... hasn't happened again. Mozilla is a pretty insane freak-of-nature in the business world, and there's honest frustration about that which grows into "Firefox is doomed".

Straightforwardly, nobody with the resources to build and maintain a browser could ever be trusted to do so, as they get those resources from somewhere, and it's going to be somewhere unacceptable (ads, trackers, Google, taxes, selling the browser or addons/features as a product, hostile nation states).

These things are far too complex and expensive to be produced as they should and as most FOSS is: for free, by a group of individuals who could fit around a breakfast table and don't answer to anyone but each other.

> it's pretty much the only browser holding back the rendering engine monopoly

Maybe that's why they're complaining. Maybe they don't want Firefox spending it's time working itself into oblivion.

Of course the Mozilla Foundation isn't bound in any way to listen to them so it's going to happen anyway, but Firefox's users are upset for good reasons.

Holding people in power accountable is never a bad thing.

If anything, it's the powerusers that disable Firefox's telemetry so that they don't know how the power users use Firefox.

(Guiltily raises hand. Although lately I've noticed a ping option, so I left that enabled.)

I disable everything that is of no direct benefit to me. It's shocking that so many companies don't make the case for the benefits of their systems at the on / off decision point. If you can't outline a positive benefit to the end user what does that say about your product?

On the other hand, maybe it was a mistake for the industry to start leaning so hard on telemetry. While it can provide useful insights in some cases, telemetry is best positioned as secondary or even tertiary in the decision-making process, because it doesn’t tell anywhere close the whole story and requires a great deal of error-prone interpretation to act upon.

To be frank, I find that use of analytics as the primary determiner to be incredibly intellectually lazy. They’re being used as a stand-in for deep, holistic thought in product design, user research, 1:1 interviews with users, etc when they shouldn’t be, and it’s making software as a whole much crappier than it needs to be.

I just wanted to note that Firefox reached out to me as a user and requested a video call to discuss how I used one of their features.

I declined, but later they reintegrated their request with a servey, which I did accept.

These requests were presented through a dialog box attached to an extension (which many Firefox features are, internally, built-in extensions.)

I really want Firefox to succeed. Please enhance our security, privacy, ensure a performant browser AND I also like the project that Mozilla undertakes (rip send) hope to see more in the future.

I never stopped calling “telemetry” spyware. It’s weird to me that others accepted the shift in terminology.

I’m not saying Mozilla ever had a chance vs Google but they clearly chose Google ad money over their user base.

What does that mean exactly?

Google paid Mozilla a pretty penny to make Google the default search engine [1]

[1] https://www.theregister.com/2025/03/12/mozilla_doj_google_se...

I'm aware. How is that a move against the Firefox userbase? It seems fairly neutral. If you don't like the default engine, change it. I set mine to Duckduckgo.

> How is that a move against the Firefox userbase

Were this 10 years ago, I'd say nothing. Today, google is turning into one of the worst at using user data against the users. From pushing ads disguised as search results to mining user data for adverts across platforms.

Making google the default search engine opts non-savvy users into using a bad actor for their searches.

I see. And that makes it a bad browser for you? You're clearly capable of switching the default. What's your complaint? Do you pay for Firefox?

> And that makes it a bad browser for you?

No, I'm just stating why using google as the default engine is user hostile.

> What's your complaint?

Mostly that it's a user hostile move. Is it bad enough to make me personally switch? No. Part of why I use firefox is because I don't like the idea of consolidation for browsers into one renderer.

Organizations can make decisions I don't like and I'll still use their products. I'm allowed to identify those as issues. Mozilla hasn't done something that'd make me boycott their products.

> Do you pay for Firefox?

Yes, I donate to the Mozilla foundation.

Aight you're cool then.

Google as default search engine for every fresh install, perhaps?

How does that harm the user base?

The community today is the result of 10+ years of disappointment. Some are long enough following Firefox to remember what has been lost, and some have grown and cultivated their grudges over a long time. And people know, there will never be a golden age of Mozilla again, from this point on it's just survival. For many, it's probably just a relationship of necessary evil they have to swallow.

The problem is the same exact on that MS was slapped for with IE, except there are 3 major platforms now so none of them are a monopoly.

Okay... are you saying there are no problems with Firefox? And if not, are how do you propose that users get these problems fixed without talking about them?

It's the vitriol, not the criticism.

This feels to me like the scenes from the movie Don't Look Up where anyone actually pointing out what's happening gets told to calm down and be less aggressive.

If people saying what's wrong plainly and clearly is "vitriol" to you, then you have a problem with criticism.

Yeah. I see this in every thread. Business types that aren't used to how normal human beings communicate see the human firefox users writing and they can never address the points. Instead they always get hung up on the tone and debate over the irrelevant tone becomes the primary/top thread in HN FF posts.

Obligatory thread from yesterday:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46318389

Ah yes, blame the users for management's incompetence, what is this, game industry ?

We're just holding it wrong, that's all.

What is this fad on HN right now? All these people are coming out to criticize Firefox (Mozilla really, not Firefox itself) for their bumbling about the past few years, and now there's a backlash to it, like "these entitled users, oh my goodness" as though holding software companies to a standard is somehow a bad thing?

> as though holding software companies to a standard is somehow a bad thing?

I think some feel they are being held to extremely high standards.

As someone who's avoided the drama, and is a power user, Firefox has been great to me, and continues to be so.

> I think some feel they are being held to extremely high standards.

Of course; Mozilla proudly proclaims that they live by higher standards, so their users hold them to higher standards.

HN is deeply contrarian so once a majority opinion gains a foothold it flips to the opposite opinion.

It's incredible the whining about AI when you can simply turn it off.

The speed comparisons make no sense either. Chrome is slightly faster so you should give up your ability to block all ads and let Google abuse you in myriad ways while supporting a virtual monopoly? FFS.

Firefox is simply a better browser, hands down. It's a better design and more user friendly than Chrome. I only regret being on Chrome for so long.

As long as it can be turned off, I will remain a user. I've been a user of this lineage of browser since Netscape. I've got its features baked into muscle memory. But I have no interest in the overhead nor the distractions of AI integration. I guess it remains to be seen how feverently the new CEO wants to alienate the existing userbase.

You can turn ever single one of their complaints off. It's ridiculous whining that doesn't get to the core of the problem: No one is out spreading Firefox like they used to be, it just can't compete with platform owners on that front.