[dropmann]

For example because Chrome treats Google cookies differently [1]? This is a red flag for people. With Firefox you at least know what you get.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18064537

[davidsergey]

I didn't know about it, thanks.

But I'm software engineer, and I didn't know about it. I don't think most (as in 95%+, even in tech) people would know difference to care. My point is visibly – firefox seem to be just as ad-hungry as competition.

They could be better behind the scenes, but customer wouldn't know it.

[mszcz]

You know what I miss? Software I can pay for. I'd happily shell out couple of bucks a year for a browser. Or a social network. I'd be more than happy to pay regularly for something that requires regular, constant, maintenance, upkeep, servers, salaries. But no, somehow humanity landed on free+ads. Ugh.

Yeah, I'm sorry. I'm just grumpy.

[gear54rus]

If they were sure enough people would pay for something they'd just make it paid AND shove ads in it.

[mszcz]

True, and it's already been happening with TVs from what I recall.

You know what I wonder? Where's the hatred threshold for ordinary people? When you see an ad in a middle of something and you're so pissed that you'll go out of your way to specifically avoid the product that's shoved in your throat. I know mine's been reached, but, hey, I'm just an grumpy asshole ;)

[jefftk]

> Chrome treats Google cookies differently

This was released in Chrome 69 and rolled back in Chrome 70: https://www.blog.google/products/chrome/product-updates-base...

(Disclosure: I work for Google, speaking only for myself)

[absove]

Wasn't there some google cookie in firefox that couldn't be deleted at some point, related to safe browsing? Then when people kept complaining they just hid it from the UI? I honestly don't know what the situation is now though.

[commoner]

Yes, Google sends a cookie in the responses from its Safe Browsing service. As of Firefox 27 (released in February 2014), Firefox has sandboxed the Google Safe Browsing cookie in a separate cookie jar, isolated from normal web browsing.

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=368255#c61

[account42]

Giving Google the power to decide what users are and are not allowed to download is another thing that Mozilla should not be doing.

Guess what Mozilla's response is when Google lists something they shouldn't? "Take it up with Google". And you think Google supports those who they defame better than their usual customers? No. This is not a hypothetical scenario.