The company doesn’t need to grow. It needs to roll back its original sin and become a user advocacy organization.
Unfortunately that doesn’t pay the bills. The development is costly
I guess that’s what happens when the last competitor in a space is being funded by the monopolistic option and you threaten to cut that off.
Two things I think are interesting here:
This is in line with every other minority browser out there. It’s not working for them, either.
There is a remarkable lack of projects to create alternatives getting traction. Nobody is even repackaging Gecko into a different browser. I don’t have the knowledge to tell if making and maintaining a browser is just that expenive and hard, but it sure seems like a reasonable explanation.
There is this one, it has a lot of momentum and it’s been pleasant to use so far. Firefox + fancy features
Firefox + fancy features
Means that it completely relies on Mozilla’s development work for the actual engine.
Yup,
The non chromium / non Firefox browser that comes to mind is https://ladybird.org/
But that’s still a few years away
Any idea what the story is behind that name? I feel like it will be outputting to some people.
Why would ladybird be off putting?
I am not agreeing with it, but just trying to get people to use anything other than the status quo when it comes to software/apps… If it has an odd name, they are less likely to use it.
Firefox was similar back in the mid 2000s.
Hank Hill’s dog’s name from
they hate LBJ?
Yeah, I had given it a try a while back, I forget why I stopped. It seems like they fixed some of the annoyances I remembere maybe I’ll give it another go.
Lots of traction is a stretch.
The discord (unfortunately) is active and they push out features often
Relatively speaking, it’s pretty active. Just not in the grand scheme of things. I’ve been putting off trying it out, but you just might have given me the push I need.
Rather sad about discord yeah.
Just not in the grand scheme of things
Yea that’s fair, I haven’t kept up with Arc (the chromium equivalent of Zen) but I imagine they’re still ahead
I actually have some custom made Firefox user style that makes it look like arc :)
Oof, bad news for you. Arc is on life support. The company is pivoting to development of a different browser.
Story about it from the verge.
I might consider that a good thing if it means that the Firefox version can pull ahead 😄
“How? It will continue to invest in privacy-respecting advertising; fund, develop and push open-source AI features”
🤮
Privacy-respecting advertising seems like some devil’s deal to make money, not a fan.
Open source AI is cool though. Not sure how they’ll make money from that.
I’m not sure what AI would be good for in Firefox, beyond local translation which is already in place. Web browsers and email clients are there to display content made by humans, not generate content for humans to consume.
Translation, photo description, accessibility features overall, summarization, explanation, general help system and same kind of stuff that people use AI in general for. But having it open source and preferably local would be a huge plus. AI is a tool, you can use it for a shitload of things.
Web browsers and email clients are there to display content made by humans
Ha! If only that were the case still.
If other people want something else than a web browser that’s fine by me, but then I will at least not be interested any more.
Thankfully Gnome Web is quickly maturing.
Firefox already has Pocket, offline translation, password manager in it (and other stuff too I bet). Someone could say those are just tools assisting in web browsing but that’s what AI is/can be too.
Sure, there are possibilities, I’m just very sceptical of the browser itself being the producer of the content I consume. Sometimes translation is necessary of course, so it’s not a rule set in stone.
I agree with you accessibility could be one field where it could be very useful. If this is the priority, I think Mozilla should say they prioritize accessibility, not that they prioritize AI. Machine learning can be a useful tool towards certain ends, but it con never be an end in its own right.
Note that this “privacy respecting advertising” is not the same as Google’s or Facebook’s “privacy respecting advertising” technology, but a novel form of adtech which claims to preserve* privacy**.
privacy-respecting advertising
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 sure, sure
I mean… Yeah. I’d much rather Mozilla serve me ads that help them fund Firefox and be less reliant on Google while also being less evil than Google. If I have to choose I’ll take ads that don’t use as much data from me even if a little bit, as long as it’s not Google or meta levels
At this point if you still belive the Internet can survive without ads, you’re just being naïve.
Survive
Meaning what?
I look at the Open-Source/Foss ecosystem and see amazing projects being built, tested, and utilized. All the while lacking the advertisements that some people seem to think are pivotal.
That may also potentially be survivorship bias. IMO the only open source projects that would live to tell the tale are:
- Foundational projects that are critical components in major tech stacks, having a backing in the form of funded developers or donations from companies involved in those tech stacks
- Enterprise-scale projects born out of a consortium of companies
- Hobby projects that the creators aren’t relying on as their sole source of income
At least two of those categories are reliant on funding from companies, which in turn relies on either their well-entrenched presence in their respective market, or their ability to market themselves effectively (ex, via advertising).
live to tell the tale
This is again vague wordage. What does this mean exactly?
That’s understandable, primarily I would define it as being in active development that ensures it remains at least functional (for example, compatible with modern versions of their target platforms), since the main way I see projects failing is by lack of development for upkeep. One-and-done projects are possible, but change is the only constant, and factors beyond the project’s control can make it non-functional
deleted by creator
In my opinion, the internet seeing, for example, corporate-run parts of itself go to walled gardens (something I’ve heard mentioned before in this discussion), would be fine.
Take YouTube, it is extremely entrenched to the point that when I tell some people I don’t ever actually go to YouTube[.]com, they act as if it is a life requirement I have magically shirked.
It is not. There are other platforms. There are other media.
If YouTube simply shut down tomorrow, the internet would live on. If it required a monthly subscription via and required an account, the internet would live on. Some would give in and use it, some wouldn’t, and they would put more pressure on projects such as PeerTube to succeed.
In all of this, the “internet” (A bunch of interconnected servers using the HTTP(S) protocol), is still alive. It just changed.
Let’s not convince ourself that the floor will fall out from under us because you will have content that ceases to exist, or, more likely, you just have to pay.
If it were the 80s, you could probably see similar ideas. How could tech ever be anywhere close to usable if you just used free software? Well here we are. You can. And at least for me, its damn good.
The modern web is bloated. We need to cut it down so that there can be more viable alternatives. This space is too important to only allow monopolies control of it bcz they can throw money at it building a browser.
Finally real diversity. Diversity of opinion and direction.
