[FirmwareBurner]

>anti-Mozilla arguments are typically much more vague and directionless.

No they aren't. People just want a good product that's free from bloat and doesn't change the UI every week, interrupting you when you open it to advertise some sponsored affiliate websites on the home page (Otto and Adidas in my case) or new features I never asked for and will never use like Pocket or the VPN.

The org and leadership should also focus their funds on the technical development of the product itself, instead on social and political activism and virtue signaling since I don't want lectures form my products.

Basically, Mozilla just needs to "PUT THE FRIES IN THE BAG" and everyone would be happy, and even throw in a few bucks every now and then as a gesture of appreciation and good will.

But Mozilla lost users by doing the exact opposite of that, being drunk on the Google funded gravy train and knowledge that they're untouchable, being only thing preventing Chrome being considered a monopoly by regulators.

So good riddance from me, you reap what you sow, RIP BOZO, I can't support a bad product run by incompetent people just on idealism alone, it actually needs to be technically superior first and foremost.

[lurk2]

> interrupting you when you open it to advertise some affiliate websites on the home page or new features I never asked for and will never use.

I may be in the minority here but I’d be fine with them trying to push SaaS add-ons like a VPN if they would stop moving UI elements around.

[hooverd]

I also see people complain that Firefox doesn't the feature you don't like, or they're focusing on the wrong different features. They can't win.

[FirmwareBurner]

Then how come Chrome does everything I need? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

What's this business strategy called?

I call it "not shooting yourself in the foot". Mozilla management should try it.

Like I said, Mozilla can win by "putting the fries in the bag". Nobody switched from Chrome to Firefox because they had Pocket or some VPN or they had affiliate websites on the home page. On the contrary.

[glenstein]

>Then how come Chrome does everything I need? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

They let you block ads and respect your privacy? Or are you insisting on behalf of Mozilla's user base that those are not things being requested?

I would go so far as to say that respecting privacy has been one of the biggest requests from critics of Mozilla, one of the biggest senses of violation, and that replicating Chrome's abandonment of privacy is, therefore, one of the bigger examples of a contradictory request.

Google also doesn't make money from Chrome directly, yet that's what is asked of Mozilla. So how do they do what Chrome does while simultaneously fulfill the user request to leverage their browser to make money?

>Nobody switched from Chrome to Firefox because they had Pocket or some VPN or they had affiliate websites on the home page

Look up the history of Firefox market share and tell me if you can find a cause and effect relationship between market share change and any particular side bet. Because I can't find any, with one exception I'll get to in a second. Most of the side bets people complain about came in after Chrome already rose to dominance and had nothing to do with the change in market share. If words mean things, that should matter when people make this argument, but I feel like people forgot they're supposed to actually make real arguments to back these claims up.

The only exception I can find is Firefox OS, which, again, highlights the contradiction between wanting Mozilla to diversify its offerings but criticizing them when they do. It was actually one of their better big picture vision ideas in my estimation and was given favorable gloss in the article we're all talking about. But you can argue it siphoned away resources, and many people do.

So I think the criticisms are pretty all over the map, and the article linked here is actually one the best pieces I've seen that strikes the right balance.

[OneDeuxTriSeiGo]

Chrome does everything you need because Chrome is your baseline that you are used to and because of that your requirement is "it does what Chrome does".

Firefox has features that people "need" but they only know they want it because they already use it and they won't switch away from Firefox unless whatever they'd switch to has the same feature.

Ex: I will never switch away to another browser unless it has extensions that allow you to group tabs and "store them in the background" like you can with Firefox's Simple Tab Groups. Likewise I know people who won't switch to a manifest v3 browser because they don't want their adblock crippled.

TLDR: Your requirements are "whatever I currently use but better". You will never win users by trying to beat a better funded and better staffed project at that. Instead you have to try to do new things and discover what can make your project stand out.

[FirmwareBurner]

I used Opera before FF due to its unique and innovative features, then FF when Opera became Chinese, then Chrome when FF went to shit by changing its UI for the worst every week.

None of the new features FF introduced did I ever need, and judging by its market share I am not alone. FF just focuses on useless features that nobody asked for. If you asked for those feature, congrats, you're part of the 0,001% userbase, too bad that's irrelevant. Bad leadership. You can defend FF all you want but the market share speaks for itself.

They had unlimited money from Google and they squandered it. That's like playing a game with cheat codes and coming in last every time. Mozilla leadership should resign and go flip burghers at McDs instead as they're shit at their tech jobs.

Mozilla had to just not fuck with the UI, features and put ads, and it would have been as easy win.