Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Thank you, Chris

blog.mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 229 posts

Re: Thank you, Chris

#211

Post by littlestymaar »

izacus wrote: post #207
littlestymaar wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Samsung sells a lot of phones but far from the majority of them, they have around 25% of the android market, which means 75% has Chrome installed by default.

Um, I think you misread something - they have ~25% of global smartphone market. They're closer to 50% of Android market.

What? Do you really believe iOS has 50% market share?

Android has more than 80% of the smartphone market and Samsung has around 20% of the whole market, which makes 25% of the android market.

Re: Thank you, Chris

#212

Post by Wowfunhappy »

godelski wrote: post #109
coldpie wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd be happy to support Mozilla financially, but I'm too lazy to go figure out how to do it. Link me to a Patreon, or shove some subscription model more prominently in my face, Mozilla.

I use smile.Amazon.com and set my charity to Mozilla. It's an easy way to donate (especially if you're on the lower income end)

I mean, something is better than nothing, but the amount Amazon donates is an absolute pittance.

Re: Thank you, Chris

#213

Post by dang »

throwaway2048 wrote: post #199
dang wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, naive is a pejorative. But the insinuation of "deliberate attempt to mislead" is worse. The site guidelines ask everyone simply to assume good faith, so there's no need to highlight the possibility of bad faith. Doing that doesn't add any information and just distracts from the rest of your comment.

Smarmy replies like "just send in the patches" are at least as toxic and assuming bad faith as what op said, yet are completely unchecked.

If you're talking about https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20830097, that's not what jsty said. Please don't use quotation marks to make it look like you're quoting someone when you're not.

It may have been a bit of a stock comment, but I see no evidence that it wasn't in good faith.

Re: Thank you, Chris

#214

Post by feanaro »

jrochkind1 wrote: post #73
angrygoat wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When Firefox decimated Internet Explorer in the 2000s, it was just... better. And I think Chrome had some fairly obvious gains over Firefox and IE which led it to gain market share. I was an early adopter of Chrome, but that was in the days before Google seemed so sinister... I use Firefox now because I care about privacy, and I'd rather use a browser developed by a non-profit that cares about that as well. But I sus…

Chrome also has a persistent advantage in being able to advertise Chrome on google search results. Which they do, if you access them using a non-Chrome browser, or at least used to... I confess I'm not sure because I still use Chrome. I agree with you about the advantage of "if you're already using it, something has to be a LOT better to get you to switch".

Chrome also had a very posh reputation in those days, for some reason. I remember many of my very non-technical friends who never cared or even understood the notion of a browser suddenly get very enthusiastic about Chrome. Whatever the marketing trick for that was, it was very successful.

Re: Thank you, Chris

#215

Post by feanaro »

Vinnl wrote: post #50
angrygoat wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When Firefox decimated Internet Explorer in the 2000s, it was just... better. And I think Chrome had some fairly obvious gains over Firefox and IE which led it to gain market share. I was an early adopter of Chrome, but that was in the days before Google seemed so sinister... I use Firefox now because I care about privacy, and I'd rather use a browser developed by a non-profit that cares about that as well. But I sus…

Firefox was a lot better than IE, but decimated is not the right word. I think it had about 25% market share at its peak? Chrome might be better than Firefox for some use cases, but the difference is definitely not as big as it used to be between Firefox and IE. Yet its market share is way higher. Which leads me to think it's not (just) about being better. I'd guess lock-in/cross-product marketing is another major fa…

Let's not forget Firefox is also better than Chrome in many use cases. For instance: fingerprinting resistance and containers.

Re: Thank you, Chris

#216

Post by littlestymaar »

jonathankoren wrote: post #106
littlestymaar wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Chrome also has a persistent advantage in being able to advertise Chrome on google search results. And also on gmail, googlemaps and YouTube… They even paid for ads in the subway here in Paris! They also bundled it with software like Adobe Flash, which made it available on virtually every computer circa 2010… And they ship it as their default browser on Android…

AMP pages that suggest opening an app (eg Reddit) show an “open in browser” that’s Chrome. GSuite pages constant suggest downloading Chrome. 2019 Google has a lot of ads for Google.

Oh, I never realized that the new reddit for mobile was an AMP app. It's the second slowest website I browse regularilyony my phone: so much for the «accelerated» part of AMP …

Re: Thank you, Chris

#217

Post by feanaro »

hutzlibu wrote: post #34
spiderfarmer wrote: post #4

Chris was great from what I have seen, but I think Mozilla needs a CEO that knows how to increase market share.

Well, how to increase market share for a browser? Simple, offer a better browser. Now the technical core of firefox seems now very solid(if they keep the extensions api stable), with long term decisions like rust and quantum paying off.. But the problem seems to be, that many websites are developed and tested in chrome only, sometimes with chrome-only features.. so it does not help only implementing nonstandard featu…

> They need to get the developers back and that can only work with a massive investment in the firefox dev tools as they are far, far behind chrome devtools.

This isn't a universal truth -- I consider them much better in many respects. It's much better to point out concrete deficiencies as these can be acted upon.

Re: Thank you, Chris

#218

Post by dandellion »

jsty wrote: post #26
dandellion wrote: post #13

I hope whoever replaces him will inspire the Firefox team to stop dropping support for features I use. Probably not, but one can dream.

Firefox is an open source project. I'm sure if you pitched in with time and / or money to maintain said features, they'd be much less likely to disappear.

I already contribute to other software projects that are more important to me than Firefox. And it would be impossible for me to contribute every feature I want to every open source project I use anyway, so what you propose is not very practical and doesn't really help, does it?

On the other hand, it only takes me a few seconds to complain on the official channels when they add a feature I don't need or remove one that I use so I think I'll keep doing that. Maybe enough users will agree and Mozilla might react to the complaints. Probably not though, they've been pretty deaf to the community lately. A change of CEO might be a chance for that to improve, so that's why I made my comment.

Re: Thank you, Chris

#219

Post by modzu »

sciurus wrote: post #90
modzu wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

its so obvious that native ad blocking could be that feature. when a non-tech user opens up a browser with ad blocking it blows their mind. they go to youtube and put on a song, and wait! they don't have to reach for the mute first to silence some loud ad? they don't have to wait to click "skip" on the ad? it just works?? the user just wants the content and we can give it to them. imo this would be the step from chro…

Firefox has tracking protection enabled by default. Given the current state of the ad ecosystem, this has the side effect of blocking most ads. https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2019/06/04/firefox-now-availab...

tracking protection != ad blocking. the side effect is more like it blocks some 'targeted' ads, but it seems disingenuous to say it blocks 'most ads'.

Re: Thank you, Chris

#220

Post by BrendanEich »

tapoxi wrote: post #14
_red wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, Brave started from nothing and seems to be growing. I use it now on all my devices and really like it as a daily driver. Had Brendan been able to try these ideas with the firefox userbase it could've advanced the privacy conversation much further...

I can't help but feel that a lot of Brave's userbase are pushing it because they have a financial investment in BAT from the ICO. Brave certainly doesn't help with the monoculture threat either, its just Chrome.

In the initial sale, https://etherscan.io/token/0x0d8775f648430679a709e98d2b0cb62..., but we have ~7M users. Check your math.
Post reply on HN