Mozilla’s Uncertain Future

Besides, without having read all responses to your post, FF is different, or do you think Alphabet would condone a browser that has container tabs and disables a lot of advertisement/tracking out of the box.

Also offering what I had 10years ago, means not being able to to implement new features as quickly, it stagnates development;and on top of that, it will mean less innovation, so you could turn around, crying foul, and say that not enough has been done to be innovative. In my opinion, it is a void argument, a friend to all is a friend to none so to speak.

And let's not forget, Google/Alphabet had Chrome support an old protocol that was deprecated to make youtube work best only on their browser. A move in itself qualifying as sabotage of a competing product. It is only possible because Alphabet controls a lot of the infrastructure, people use(more on that a few paragraphs down).

Mozilla needs money so they make a deal with Google keeping it as the default search-engine, which means giving revenue to their competitors since Alphabet also produces the Chrome-Browers.

IMHO, Mozilla is not at fault here. The everything is free mentality and the economic playing field is. Alphabet, Facebook, Microsoft and Apple are the Robber Barons of the 21st century. Just like Rockefeller et all were a hundred some years ago.

We now see first hand what happens if they are not reeled in and not split up. There is an eerie similarity to what happened with the old barons. Thankfully that process gained some tracking in some countries and I do hope it will continue.

Yes I am aware there is Chromium, Iron, Brave, Opera, but I am cautious and wouldn't want to touch them with a 10 foot pole, because the rendering-engine is provided by Alphabet which thrives on information gathered against the users will. All nice products, but my argument here is the same as the one against foreign chips in domestic security products. There is always this hint of doubt. One only has to look at the development-frameworks e.g. Facebook offered for free turning every app based on them into a data gathering tool.

So I can only agree with posters below: FF is superior and more innovative and secure than Chrome and most people wanna be hip, not have to think and that is where the bigger advertisement-budget comes in.

If one screams loud enough, people apparently do believe it is healthy to eat a certain brown excrement while being part of that a huge surveillance botnet that is Google.

//Edit: Here is the source of my claim regarding Youtube https://www.zdnet.com/article/former-mozilla-exec-google-has...

//Edit2: And regarding security and innovation in that area. Google was very innovative. It dropped Certificate Pinning for their Chrome-Browser. The only thing that alerts one do MITM-Attacks if an attacker gains access to a key for signing a certificate. IMHO one more reason to stick with FF or move over. These days people think what Chrome provides is everything there is. I for myself vote with my wallet. Adblocker(because Alphabet also runs an ad-provider, also for other sides), I do not use Google as search-engine and if I must hooktube instead of youtube :)

Yet it has WebVM instead of JS. WebVM is a virtual machine similar to JavaVM but with DOM, CSSOM and layout APIs exposed in it as a runtime.

So if some site needs flexbox in its CSS then it can be included as:

This would allow a) keep browser small and maintainable and b) open room for innovations in Web technology beyond browser vendors and comities.

As an example: TypeScript can be compiled to WebVM bytecodes instead of JS.

Interesting. What was the reason for the turnover? Who evaluates their performance?