> We can’t even get developers to use FF
That's a side effect of not listening to developers.
---
Dramatization:
Web Developer: I need non-standard feature that works in IE and Chrome
Firefox: But that's non-standard, you'll be able to use standard alternative in the future
Web Developer: When?
Firefox: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ it's still in draft
Web Developer: But I need to finish my project this quarter
Firefox: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Web Developer: -webkit-something: 1
* 3 years later *
Firefox: The web is full of -webkit-something and everyone thinks Firefox is broken because we support the standard something but not -webkit-something
Firefox: Please remove the -webkit- prefix
Web Developer: I don't support that project anymore
Firefox: But you only need to remove the -webkit- prefix
Web Developer: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
* 1 year later *
Firefox: We will support -wekit-something because nobody fixes their websites for Firefox even when they only need to remove the -webkit- prefix
Web Developer: So you're telling me that we can get away with not supporting Firefox and you'll eventually follow suit?
Firefox: That's not what I meant
Web Developer: -webkit-something-something: 1
---
To be honest I think that Firefox has already crossed the point of no return, in the past Firefox used to have a share of about 30% of the market and supporting Firefox was justified even if that meant writing twice the lines of code, but nowadays the share is less than 3%. Firefox doesn't have enough resources to compete against Chrome with features, and people doesn't care enough about security to justify a broken web for the sake of security.
I don't know whether it's a good idea or not, but rather than pitching Firefox for the mainstream web, I would push Firefox to become the de-facto browser for security sensitive scenarios (ex. online shopping, online banking, taxes, etc.). Supporting a subset of the web makes more sense in a resource-constrained scenario especially because the Servo experiment and the Rust project exist to tackle the security issue.