Firefox dropped below the 10% share value on Netmarketshare

[Snake4]

https://www.ghacks.net/2018/06/04/firef ... rketshare/


Does MarketShare Really Matter when it comes to Browsers?

[tanstaafl]

Sure it does, if you're not talking about browsing random web sites. Do you think NetFlix for example would continue to support Firefox as one of its three supported browsers if its market share dropped so low it wasn't one of the top ten browsers for a long time? Financial institutions are also fussy about what they support.

But realisticly I wouldn't worry about it.

[Kevin McFarlane]

The problem is that all the browsers besides Chrome are at that level or lower. I suppose one day the banks could just support Chrome and nothing else but they probably won't.

From the comments (and elsewhere) it's surprising how many posters dismiss Firefox Quantum as a Chrome clone. They do the same with Opera and Vivaldi. Yet both of the latter, which are Chromium-based where Firefox isn't, are more feature-rich and usable than Chrome itself is. To me Chrome now seems like Internet Explorer when it was dominant, i.e., somewhat dull and lacking in innovation.

[therube]

(Where is the exciting, the innovation in Quantum ? Or I guess I should say, where did it go?)

[Kevin McFarlane]

I was thinking more about how Opera and Vivaldi are Chromium-based and dismissed as Chrome "clones" yet both have better features than Chrome.

Firefox has not added much just with Quantum and has obviously regressed for now in the add-ons area but it's still more usable (for me) than Chrome is.

[therube]

> Quantum and has obviously regressed
True.

> it's still more usable (for me) than Chrome is
Also True.

But look at the full picture.
You are now using a browser that does less for you then its' predecessor.
And one is to be glad about that .
I am glad that it is better then Chrome.
I am not be glad that it is not better then it's predecessor.

[dfoulkes]

Kind of off-topic here but I thought I'd say my 2cents worth of 'feelings'.

When I first started using Firefox (version 3.0) I was amazed at all the extensions a user could add to their profile. In doing so, my profile ended up being a tool tailored to my needs. We users use a browser in many different ways/needs and it seemed that the Ext-developer family 'out there' recognized those ways and needs. Be it Tab controlling type of stuff (TMP) and/or just the simple inclusion of an add-on of larger/colorful buttons (Toolbar buttons). Even an extension where I can alter the colors or symbols within a folder-icon on the Bookmarks toolbar (without using special code) is great! Eyes get old and tired when the body gets old and tired...know what I mean? Those things and many other alteration-capabilities of a profile structure is what pointed me to Firefox.

Organizations must change their products in order to either maintain or increase market %. But, the problem I see here is that Mozilla forgot that the tons of working extensions that a user could install had a very large part in the success of the Firefox product. In the 'new' Firefox... they put the cart before the horse and it seems that they figured that users would just stay with Firefox even though (they the users) no longer had those old extension available to them.... just saying.

[Benjamin Markson]

It's not so much that Firefox has become a Chrome clone. I think it goes far deeper than that. Mozilla has become a Silicon Valley clone. Silicon Valley's ethos seems to be to increase the reach of their products for the least amount of depth. They aspire to make fast food, not gourmet meals.

It's sad that the user centric innovation that grew during the 90's has become so diminished. There was a time when customisation was king and user's were encouraged to understand and manipulate their experience. Mozilla were at the forefront of that movement. Somewhere along the way either the appetite for that knowledge has declined or, I suspect, the size of that gene pool has simply become a marginal part of the whole. Mozilla have not so much thrown in the towel as responded to the dilution of the user base.

As technology becomes more ubiquitous the desire to understand the technology is declining. A kind of rise of the idiocracy. The average user is not interested in understanding their experience. They want it all for no effort, and no thought.

I think it will only get worse, more insidious, and completely beyond the reach of the user. Then again, perhaps I'm wrong and the pendulum will swing with a new generation pushing back against the hegemony of the valley. Who knows.

Ben.

[Kevin McFarlane]

But look at the full picture.
You are now using a browser that does less for you then its' predecessor.
And one is to be glad about that .
I am glad that it is better then Chrome.
I am not be glad that it is not better then it's predecessor.

I didn't say I was glad. Just making some observations.

[Kevin McFarlane]

It's not so much that Firefox has become a Chrome clone. I think it goes far deeper than that. Mozilla has become a Silicon Valley clone. Silicon Valley's ethos seems to be to increase the reach of their products for the least amount of depth. They aspire to make fast food, not gourmet meals.

That's a better way of putting it. I don't actually mind that, provided it's not universal. Just as I eat fast food and gourmet but certainly wouldn't want to eat just the former!

It's sad that the user centric innovation that grew during the 90's has become so diminished. There was a time when customisation was king and user's were encouraged to understand and manipulate their experience. Mozilla were at the forefront of that movement. Somewhere along the way either the appetite for that knowledge has declined or, I suspect, the size of that gene pool has simply become a marginal part of the whole. Mozilla have not so much thrown in the towel as responded to the dilution of the user base.

Most people don't care much about customisation. I find that even techies using something like Microsoft Visual Studio don't care much about customisation either! I know when Chrome first appeared many were attracted by its threadbareness. But for me that's why I wasn't attracted!

As technology becomes more ubiquitous the desire to understand the technology is declining. A kind of rise of the idiocracy. The average user is not interested in understanding their experience. They want it all for no effort, and no thought.

I don't think you need to understand it but it's a shame many don't want to explore what's possible - even if just to decide they're not interested in such and such a feature. But at least investigate first. I find even programmers are often very conservative.

[therube]

Mozilla have not so much thrown in the towel as responded to the dilution of the user base.

I'd say not throwing in the towel, but instead dropping the towel & chasing the almighty $$ instead.

The average user is not interested in understanding their experience.

Well, that has always been the case.

But Mozilla, in chasing $$, forgoes the minority, those that made it (what it was) & instead shoots for that mediocrity that sustains their (cash) flow, leaving all worse off (except for their pockets).

[Grumpus]

Almost all of the alternative browsers these days have issues.
Some won't let you dump things like search engine or content handlers.
In some cases there's no simple tweaking for basic security.

Firefox still has most of this, more so than the supposed market leaders who appear to make headway by being bullies . . .
. . . or dogs in a manger than actual concern for users.

[lovemyfoxy]

error

[Tomatoshadow2]

I always make sure to keep using Firefox, to keep healthy competition in the browser engine market. I see a lot of websites, say this 'site works better on Chrome' or this browser is out of date what a joke.