Live data from Hacker News

Firefox lost 50M users since 2019

data.firefox.com

581–590 of 618 posts

Re: Firefox lost 50M users since 2019

#581
post #477

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They probably mean a bar at the bottom that shows what's going on. All browsers used to have it. Then it dropped to just showing which URL was currently loading. I don't think they even show that now. Most of what it had is accessible in greater detail with developer tools, but it was nice to have a little summary down there.

Status bar nowadays usually refers to the information usually showing the URL you are hovering. Do you have any references to the old-school status bars and what they used to contain?

> Status bar nowadays usually refers to the information usually showing the URL you are hovering.

Oh yeah? Which particular Gods Of Modern Language decreed this, and who elected them to that position?

Re: Firefox lost 50M users since 2019

#582
post #40
post #30

The recent changes to the address bar and the terrible new "Photon" UI are really annoying. Don't annoy your loyal users.

Its funny that you mention the not really annoying shit and forget about the push for pocket, the constant push for some of their free services like firefox sync, send, vpn, etc that, the reappearing ebay bookmark i deleted like 12 times by now, the removal of live bookmarks, etc... and those are just the things they can control.

> firefox sync, [...] the reappearing ebay bookmark i deleted like 12 times by now

Maybe you need to delete it, just the once, from whatever device it keeps getting synced from?

Re: Firefox lost 50M users since 2019

#583

Firefox threads are ways the same: self proclaimed power users complain about minor changes to colours and shadows. That's been going on since v4, which was what, a decade ago? So, my takeaway is that Firefox has become a punching bag for people to vent on. Sad state of affairs. Especially because it would be really hard, if not impossible, for Mozilla to shed this image

Personally, I don't mind the UI changes. I hate how Firefox _forces_ me to restart my browser when it arbitrarily decides to update. Makes webdev a headache.

> I hate how Firefox _forces_ me to restart my browser when it arbitrarily decides to update.

Then why are you letting it decide when to update?

Re: Firefox lost 50M users since 2019

#584

Many major video conference applications don't even try to support Firefox, so I'm not surprised that during this time frame a lot of users where forced/coerced to switch. Offenders include: - Teams - Slack - Zoom Sure there are codec license issues, but all(most) of them do use different codecs depending on the context, so they could totally support Firefox as long as no one in the conference is on a of Android devi…

Each of those has a native app. Why would anyone be forced to switch browsers? Just install the app.

Most people don't want to install apps on their computer for a single or a small number of meetings.

Furthermore at least the Teams app in Linux it's really bad.

Re: Firefox lost 50M users since 2019

#585
post #532

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Potentially not secure and definitely not private, for most of them.

Potentially not secure is not the same as definitely not secure. OSS is also potentially not secure. I don't understand these comments. They seem like they were written by semi-literate adolescents.

I agree that being open source is not a guarantee of security or privacy. But there's a social contract which comes with it and the transparency that together make the projects more likely to at least be motivated towards those goals.

> They seem like they were written by semi-literate adolescents.

That's unnecessary.

Re: Firefox lost 50M users since 2019

#586

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To my understanding there is no data sent from my Brave client to any Brave servers. So my data are not stored or used by Brave servers, so I don’t care too much about their source. Of course, there’s nothing magical about open source that makes it more privacy respecting. It’s just that open source let’s me know what my browser is doing. For example, Chrome is reporting everything I do to Google. It’s possible to kn…

> To my understanding there is no data sent from my Brave client to any Brave servers. That would be wrong. By Brave's own confession, there are 70 requests it sends "home" on startup [1]. Regardless of request payload, each of them contains your PII (IP address at the very least). There is plenty of opportunity for your data to be stored and used (not saying that it is). If and how is that data actually used, we do…

> By Brave's own confession, there are 70 requests it sends "home" on startup…

"Confession" is a curious choice of words. You're correct that Brave issues requests on startup; this is necessary for a secure application. If your browser isn't updating its internal list of suspected-malicious domains and more, it isn't doing "security" properly.

> There is plenty of opportunity for your data to be stored and used (not saying that it is).

To what "data" are you referring? You cited my review of our (Brave) network activity, and that of many other browsers; which data/requests do you find to be worrisome?

A similar review was conducted in 2020 by Trinity College Dublin, which also found Brave to be the "most private" browser tested (even with these startup requests): https://www.scss.tcd.ie/Doug.Leith/pubs/browser_privacy.pdf.

> …each of them [network requests] contains your PII (IP address at the very least).

An IP address is rather unavoidable. But whether or not an IP address constitutes PII is debatable—many users can (and do) share common IP addresses.

That said, we drop the IP address when and where possible. For example, usage requests are routed through a CDN which replaces the user's IP address with their inferred country.

Brave has no interest in trying to remotely monitor anybody's browsing habits; if we did, you (and/or those who actively monitor our project, looking for faults) would see clear signals in our network activity.

Instead, everything we do is designed from the outset to preclude this type of abuse. That's the case with our Privacy-Preserving Product Analytics (https://brave.com/p3a), our Private CDN (https://brave.com/brave-private-cdn/), and more. Brave isn't interested in your personal information; we have built a business model that doesn't rely on the harvesting of user data.

> The only way to actually trust a browser from a privacy standpoint is to check if it is indeed not transmitting any data.

This is a great point. Please review our network requests, and let me know which items give you concern. We're genuinely interested in your feedback.

> Disclaimer: I am in the business of creating a privacy respecting, zero-telemetry, browser. This topic is near and dear to my heart.

I'm curious how your product handles security; do you not maintain a client-side list of suspected-malicious domains (so that you can warn a user who might be stumbling into something harmful), or check for updates to patch zero-day vulnerabilities in the wild, etc.? Both of these (and more) require routine network requests if they are to offer any effective defense for the user.

Re: Firefox lost 50M users since 2019

#587

Fun fact: Under current conditions (200M users) it looks like Google is paying $2-2.25 per active user annually to be the default search engine in Firefox. "Mozilla renewed its search deal with Google in 2020 for three years. The organization will receive an estimate of $400 to $450 million per year from the deal alone. " https://www.ghacks.net/2020/12/10/mozillas-revenue-jumped-to...

Come 2023, pray that Google doesn't alter the deal further, with the remaining FF user base in the low single-digit figures. It's a matter of when, not if, Mozilla goes down given this trajectory. Or, Mozilla get's actually paid for working with Google on "web standards" and producing a browser as a fig leaf for the monopoly the WWW has become and counter measure against antitrust (with US antitrust a lame duck anywa…

If Firefox goes down, Google has a problem because of browser engine monopoly an Windows.

Re: Firefox lost 50M users since 2019

#588

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>now all browsers render HTML the same way. Is this sarcasm? Writing web apps that work the same across browsers is still the most painful part of web development. The underspecified natural language specs lead to subtly different behaviors in different browsers. Full specs of a complex systems are very complex.

> Is this sarcasm? It's not. How HTML is rendered was literally not defined between browsers until mid-00s. Hence the difference in the boxing model, for example. Bt yes, besides HTML there are hundreds of other specs, and those may or may not be implemented across browsers. > The underspecified natural language specs lead to subtly different behaviors in different browsers. You keep saying this, and I don't think yo…

No, not to reverse engineer behavior, to _define_ behavior in a well commented codebase with a well commented test suite.

The technical blueprints are as important than the natural language notes in the blueprints. In software, code is blueprint.

Re: Firefox lost 50M users since 2019

#589
post #395
post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So Chrome, Safari and Baidu?

Baidu used to have their own browser, but almost nobody used it, so they discontinued it eventually. The third most popular browser globally is Edge: https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share

Chrome and Edge (and Opera and Brave) use the same engine. I should have said the top three engines.

Re: Firefox lost 50M users since 2019

#590

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My child's school uses Google Classroom. The Google experience is unusable in Firefox. Meet doesn't work (e.g. he sees nothing when the teacher screenshares). This seems really quite anti-competitive. My child cares about privacy and switches browsers. Chrome for Meet, Firefox for most non-Google things.

Meet absolutely works in Firefox, there's nothing anti-competitive going on. As do Google products generally (though there are occasionally performance issues where Firefox simply doesn't provide an API that Chrome does and the polyfill is slower, but then Firefox catches up). But try disabling browser extensions and see if that fixes it -- a majority of the time that's the culprit. With videoconferencing specificall…

Here is one long standing issue with many related compat links attached: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=975444

and two other webcompat examples: https://webcompat.com/issues/56933 https://webcompat.com/issues/68844

Just to give an idea. That said, Meet works fine for me, besides some features, like background, which they have only implemented for Chromium based browsers (maybe Safari!?) - that is a bit annoying, as I doubt that it would break the devs leg to implement something for Firefox as well.

Post reply on HN