"Firefox Market share revisited" by former Mozilla CTO

[Tomatoshadow2]

Did you guys read the blog post by former Mozilla CTO Andreas Gal? Here's the link to the story https://andreasgal.com/2017/07/19/firef ... revisited/ let me know what you think about it.

[Grumpus]

One thing which appears to be missing is the move from Windows/MS based systems and servers to other systems.
Those other systems Linux, Unix, Apple are very likely not partnered in the formula used to determine the drop in market share.
It would seem, making a statement of a better browser does not build marketshare, is empty as Mozilla's arrogant attitude and lack of honor to those who supported it appears to be more the problem.
Watching this all go on since 2005 it seems to me Mozilla made things the way they are and no excuses are going to change the facts.

[mightyglydd]

Those other systems Linux, Unix, Apple are very likely not partnered in the formula used to determine the drop in market share.

So outside of Mozilla Devs with their top of the line $$$$$ Macs that would be 3 users?

Mozilla's arrogant attitude and lack of honor to those who supported it appears to be more the problem.

Bingo!

[marty60]

The writer is spot on, Mozilla doesn't have the resources to compete against a large, monopolistic company like Google, no matter how much they improve firefox. But throwing loyal users under the bus by turning the browser into chrome will not help them as they will soon find out. That means the writer may also be correct that firefox's days on the desktop are numbered.

[Brummelchen]

firefox never has been like chrome. have a look to IE or Edge in comparison how much IE changed and how far away is Edge from chrome design?

[marty60]

firefox never has been like chrome.

Exactly, that's why millions of us are using it. If they follow through after v57 with their plans then firefox will be a chrome clone that Mozilla will never compete against. It's a pipe dream, or more likely desperation on their part.

[Grumpus]

I doubt there is such a thing as an accurate market share for any operating system, browser or software packages because no marketing or PR snot would allow accurate information due to the possible negative aspects.
Lying by omission is still lying regardless of what some unethical ethics professor teaches.

[Mo_D]

I think most of the facts the author states are true, but the conclusions the author makes are off. You can’t blame Google/marketing for everything. Neglecting to mention user satisfaction and loyalty invalidates the article, IMO. Much of the user loss is due to an unstable product and a management that is deaf to user opinion.

The author almost seems surprised that the problem can’t be solved with technology alone. That reflects Mozilla’s attitude.

“And it’s also important to note that while Firefox Desktop is probably headed for extinction over the next couple years…”

I’m sure the add-on authors who are going through all the trouble of recreating their add-ons to suit Mozilla’s taste will be happy to hear that.

[Tomatoshadow2]

@Mo_D Yeah I thought his analysis of the whole thing was interesting for sure. But, his points he makes can definitely be disputed.

[Kevin McFarlane]

firefox never has been like chrome.

Exactly, that's why millions of us are using it. If they follow through after v57 with their plans then firefox will be a chrome clone that Mozilla will never compete against. It's a pipe dream, or more likely desperation on their part.

The main reason I use Firefox is because it has better overall features for me than other browsers. Apart from IE and Edge I also have Chrome, Opera and Vivaldi installed. Although the latter two are Chromium-based, i.e., supposedly Chrome clones, they in fact have functionality that, for me, is superior to Chrome's. So, currently, Opera is my second browser. I use Vivaldi rarely but intend to use it more. It is the most customisable of the other browsers as far as I can tell, excluding Firefox derivatives that I've not tried.

So, Firefox's moving to WebExtensions does not necessarily imply that it can't still be superior to Chrome. But, objectively, its superior extensions model has been its major selling-point so I don't hold out much hope for a revival.

On the other hand, if its share could stabilise at, say, no lower than 10% that would be fine. Historically, there is a minimum share at which developers start to pay attention (or below which they lose interest) and it's around that figure (Safari being an exception for clear reasons). Statcounter shows 14% desktop share for Firefox, with a gentle decline over the past year.

[marty60]

@Kevin McFarlane, the point is, at least according to the writer is that even if firefox is superior to chrome in every way they can't compete against Google. A marketshare of 14% is a pretty good niche when you're up against two large monopolies. My prediction is when they go WebExtensions there will be a steep decline in that share that will not recover.

Reading some of the comments of the developers I think they just find this move making life easier for them since they won't have to cater to addons anymore interfering with changes. It's kind of a selfish move if it's something they don't have to do but want to. The browser is plenty fast and secure as is so that excuse isn't going to fly with many.

[Kevin McFarlane]

@Kevin McFarlane, the point is, at least according to the writer is that even if firefox is superior to chrome in every way they can't compete against Google. A marketshare of 14% is a pretty good niche when you're up against two large monopolies. My prediction is when they go WebExtensions there will be a steep decline in that share that will not recover.

I don't mind whether they can compete or not provided that 1. Firefox is still (sufficiently) better and 2. it remains financially viable.

But, like most here, I will still mourn the loss of add-ons.

If it turns out that Firefox is no longer compelling then chances are I will turn to Opera or Vivaldi as primary browsers, rather than Chrome. I don't have any particular hostility towards Google but Chrome has a lot of usability deficiencies for me.

I guess there's the likes of Pale Moon but I don't know what the long-term situation is there (economically).

[marty60]

Been hearing a lot of favorable comments about Vivaldi, I'm going to download that and see if I like it. Definitely moving on after 52esr since firefox will no longer be of any use so Vivaldi might do or even Pale Moon.

[Kevin McFarlane]

@marty60, I must use Vivaldi more but I keep forgetting! It has a few nifty features which, in certain browsing contexts, I would find useful.

I installed it soon after the first stable release and it was a bit rough around the edges then but of course it's moved on a lot since. But then I went months and months without using it at all and even now hardly touch it!

I think what I need to do is try using it exclusively for a while so I can "learn" it and see which bits are compelling and which not.

IIRC, one feature that's missing at the moment is browser sync if that's a must-have for you. But it is coming I believe.

There's always Pale Moon if I really miss some Firefox extension functionality.

[Tomatoshadow2]

I'm honestly really excited and have been enjoying a lot of the new Quantum improvements coming to Nightly.