[simianparrot]

Every time I try Firefox it’s slower than Chrome or Safari. Every time. And since that never seems to improve, I suspect that’s why its market share keeps dropping because all the fluff doesn’t matter if the core feature is just worse.

[mattthebaker]

Personally, I don't really see the value proposition in being able to load and serve you ads faster, compared to a browser with a proper ad blocker.

[simianparrot]

I don't know what you mean; uBlock Origin Lite blocks every ad on any page I visit in Safari and Chrome, even YouTube ads. Safari also blocks tracker cookies by default, and is significantly faster than Firefox in my use.

[mbonnet]

The average user does not care about ads being present. Speed is paramount.

[thfuran]

Shouldn't getting rid of all the ads make things notably faster?

[1718627440]

It does. Fundamentally.

[moooo99]

I disagree. I have installed adblockers on different relatives machines. Without fail, they mentioned how much better surfing now is.

They did not not mind the ads, they just didn‘t know there is an easy way to get rid of them

[munificent]

You are radically underestimating how much slow web performance is caused by the massive volume of ads and user tracking data attached to each site.

[thesuitonym]

I hear this complaint all the time, but I just don't see it as having any basis in reality. I use Firefox, Chrome, and Edge side by side all the time, and I never experience any difference in page load times except on YouTube, where we all know that Google purposefully delivers a slower experience for Firefox users.

[mikestorrent]

The performance is fine and has always been fine for me, across multiple OS, since it was called Phoenix onward. No issue. Never had a very top-of-the-line machine, either.

Slower than Chrome? That's like looking over at the sports car next to you when you're driving and being jealous, IMO