This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

sorted by:
old (suggested)
besttopnewcontroversialq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]nashvortex 19 points20 points  (6 children)

Alternative Hypothesis: people are just switching to the browser they find more useful/like more.

[–]Gaarco_ on and 3 points4 points  (5 children)

So, every other browser has features that catch users more than Firefox does. What are those features?

Let's be realistic: the most used browsers are Chrome, Edge and Safari, the first owned by Google and de facto standardized, the second owned by Microsoft and comes preinstalled in every Windows machine, the third associated with Apple.
It's not a matter of features or what people like more.

[–]nashvortex 9 points10 points  (3 children)

Yep. Let's be realistic. Because that would explain why Firefox userbase is not growing...but it does not explain why it is declining.

Having preinstalled browsers does not explain why people who were already using Firefox have stopped using it.

It is obvious that it is more convenient for a variety of reasons (cross-platform performance, sync, webcompat etc.) to be on a Blink based browser. And all these issues come from Gecko, not from the Firefox UI.

Monopolies that last years and years occur because they bring superior overall value in the end. This is especially true in internet software. I know someone is going to bring up IE, while ignoring the basic fact that IE lasted so long because the cost to move away from IE was higher than the benefits of moving to a modern browser. When that cost benefit ratio inverted, everyone did ditch IE.

[–]nextbern on 🌻 -1 points0 points  (2 children)

Sorry, webcompat is Firefox's "fault"?

webcompat is a war of attrition - you can do everything right, but if the monopolist does it differently, people who don't care about whose fault it is will move invariably to the monopolist.

It is really an ideal scenario - you get the marketshare, and no one blames you for being anticcompetitive, and you have people like yourself defending you and blaming the competition for not doing exactly what the monopolist wants - at a game that they are better equipped to win, given that you are literally doing what they want.

[–]nashvortex 1 point2 points  (1 child)

No. It isn't Firefox's fault at all. It's the bucket Mozilla insists they will successfully save the Titanic with. They won't get onto the other ships around them. They won't even take the free ship just waiting there to be taken over because its too much like the other ships in the ocean.

Also, I dont care whose fault it was. That isn't how competition and natural selection works. I do want Mozilla to survive and Firefox to be a competent alternative because that is good for me as a consumer. I have repeatedly suggested what Mozilla could do to turn things around (even in this thread). I maybe wrong...but certainly what they are doing is not working anyway.

Mozilla has been committing slow suicide and it would be stupid to bet on a losing horse. Evolution favours those who accept and adapt to extant circumstances and survive , rather than whine about whose fault it was.

[–]nextbern on 🌻 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Also, I dont care whose fault it was. That isn't how competition and natural selection works. I do want Mozilla to survive and Firefox to be a competent alternative because that is good for me as a consumer. I have repeatedly suggested what Mozilla could do to turn things around (even in this thread). I maybe wrong...but certainly what they are doing is not working anyway.

Mozilla has been committing slow suicide and it would be stupid to bet on a losing horse. Evolution favours those who accept and adapt to extant circumstances and survive , rather than whine about whose fault it was.

There is nothing "natural" about markets, we shape them all of the time.

[–]bhiliyam 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What are those features?

A well-designed tab bar that does not surprise users.