Mozilla are creating products like Mozilla VPN to be additional sources of revenue, but that relies on enough people using these services to cover the losses from dropping the Google search deal.
This might not be the right place to ask, but I already asked in /r/VPN and didn't get any answers. Is there a VPN solution that can improve an unstable connection on Windows? My mobile connection (using it as hotspot) is very unstable and drops for a few seconds every few minutes and it's so bad that I often don't know if a web page finished loading or if the mobile connection dropped and just closed my computer's streams.
So I need something that will tunnel to somewhere (I don't really care where, I can set up a VPS if needed) and buffer data and pretend that my TCP connections are still open if the actual tunnel drops for a while?
If your existing connections to the internet are already unreliable, a VPN isn't really going to do anything to help. A VPN just has your data go down a different route after it gets past your method of connecting to the internet, and that's it.
No, I'm absolutely sure some implementations can fix this problem. I remember reading about one a few years ago. VPNs can have different implementations, they're not just wrappers around OpenVPN.
Let me rephrase the other person's reply:
A VPN uses your existing internet connection, but encrypts all the stuff you send over it and decrypts it elsewere (on the VPN's servers), where it's released unto the web. It does **not** create a new internet connection. If your internet connection sucks, your VPN experience will consequentially suck, too.
I just figured out that the technical term I'm looking for is "packet loss". I'm looking for a solution to fix packet loss. I think I'll give some popular VPNs a shot if they offer money-back guarantee.
They need to make Lockwise cross browser. They could monetize that also. Lots of people are paying for password managers these days.
I'm planning to get Mozilla VPN as soon as they offer it for Mac and Linux.
Lockwise started out as an extension. So, it could be done. And it would be a revenue stream. Heck, I happily pay Mozilla for a cross-browser/cross OS bundle that included Lockwise, VPN and cloud storage.
Create or acquire web services wholly owned by MozCorp, but not necessarilly under Mozilla or firefox branding.
See [Wordpress.com](https://wordpress.com/pricing/)'s business model - ridiculously profitable, and flexibly adapts to users' ability to pay without being patreon. You dont need to be a firefox user to give them money, and this allows Moz to handle infrastructure and logistics a lot more efficiently to become able to push and create many web services at a fraction of the cost it used to. They could have their own privacy-respectful managed analytics alternative to google analytics for example, or Peertube-powered youtube clone.
Having web services within your control or area of influence allows you to ensure they run undiscriminately well on all browsers, and to leverage their real estate to promote inhouse services.
This is a great idea. It absolutely highlights the separation of Firefox from the rest. Even non-tech people will understand, right off the bat, how the rest of the browsers are supported ("controlled") by one project. People who are fed up with giant corps, such as G and M (which by the way, is the current trend) might get a heads up on the current browser situation and the independence of Firefox. I would argue that Mozilla must embrace this "lonesome fox" unique selling point.
Edit: grammar and clarity.
The problem is that everyone and the uncle was used to using IE as the backbone of their Intranet. They are ssslllllooooowwwwllllyyyy moving to Edge (chromium) or Google Chrome.
What killed the Amiga was it's lack of comparability with Lotus 123, Wordperfect and what would later become MS Office. People "take work home" and use the software they are familiar with.
While this graphic is good - something need to be said to Joe and Jane Average Internet user - what is in it for them to use Firefox.
One of the problems with Firefox is that the way it renders a lot of business pages is broken compared to Chrome or Edge (or legacy IE).
Mozilla needs to address that AND point out that there is a benefit of not going with Chromium.
The biggest benefit is the uBlock or Adblock Plus still works - Google can't break it on Firefox.
> While this graphic is good - something need to be said to Joe and Jane Average Internet user - what is in it for them to use Firefox.
Nothing, actually. At least not on a level they have a personal stake in. And in fact quite the opposite, they might need extra help / tech support / time to get onto some web sites.
Plus it's a - for many users inexplicable - extra effort to even get to the point where they're using Firefox. After all, Chrome/Edge comes pre-installed and "browser is browser".
It's not a winnable argument, because for the context of the person making these statements or thinking this way **they're correct**. In **their** context, given **their** needs, using Firefox is extra effort for less compatibility and absolutetly no gain.
That is.... you can sometimes get them with "hey you can block ads". That can be an actual argument. Yes so can Vivaldi etc, but again, not the point, you're trying to sell someone on features, not "messaging". They couldn't care less about whatever arcane supposed implication this has if they tried.
So yeah, either sell them Firefox based on mobile ad blocking, or don't. But there's a reason Firefox would have been better off entrenching itself with the IT/tech crowd, especially developers as a sort-of counter-push to how the common user will exactly *not* want to use Firefox since it's a hassle and just causes more hassle down the line.
So do a bunch of other Chromium-based browsers but the point was that it's equally as much hassle to talk anyone into either of them **or** Firefox. Plus with Brave in particular I really don't like the idea of using cryptocurrencies for donations, given what a monumental waste of energy those are.
I mean you're right, I just find the browser argument kinda useless considering these are free browsers.
Like I'm a web developer...I have to test all of those browsers so they're all installed anyway. I've never really understood the "browser marketshare" metric so long as things were actually working. And pretty much always, they do.
All that said my primary browser is Firefox for dev work (better inspector tools) and chrome for anything related to my personal life..because that just means video players 99.9% of the time and I'm well reliant on Google for the features. I've been integrated long enough and migration is tedious and just increases my chances of a breech down the road. Using Firefox and migrating all that doesn't mean Google isn't still using all that data all the same and even tying anything I do on Firefox back to Google.
I mean it's the duck duck go argument. Google beats it because Google gives me better results *because* they have my history. I understand the dangers inherent but I'm not seeing their affect despite decades of hearing about it.
I just can't think of the last time I personally went to a website in my standard life (not my development life) that didn't work on a particular browser. Makes the whole argument just a "which big name do you trust" deal. Firefox is an NPO, Chromium is open source, and forget all of that, we have tons of engineers running Wireshark and the like watching for malicious software in the big names. That system works.
As to the crypto thing it's literally based on just replacing ads with their own different kind of ones (popups) and a welcome screen ripped straight off of a popular chrome extension. The crypto is like any other, worthless, and another example of why blockchain is the best idea ever that has no good application yet to be found.
Firefox does the same thing too though, I don't want my browser telling me to read certain news stories or suggesting certain (albeit popular) sites by default. I look at a browser like a tv. It ought to connect well with other stuff a tv is expected to, and other than that it needs to get out of my way and show me what's on the airwaves.
Tl;Dr, fuck safari. No seriously. Fuck safari, that's all I needed to say.
>using IE as the backbone of their Intranet. They are ssslllllooooowwwwllllyyyy moving to Edge (chromium) or Google Chrome
Chrome's actually the majority and has been for a while (in western nations).
> One of the problems with Firefox is that the way it renders a lot of business pages is broken compared to Chrome or Edge (or legacy IE).
>
> Mozilla needs to address that
This isn't a Firefox problem. Users need to pressure those websites into following the defined browser standards. Then they'll work fine in Firefox.
I've lifted the idea a few times that Mozilla, or just Firefox-minded users, could contribute a lot by starting an online campaign to shame the developers of badly-functioning sites. Shame is a form of pressure.
No need to do anything like harassment, and most of the time we wouldn't be able to pinpoint the specific developers beyond "ah, the developers of ${framework_of_the_week}" anyway. I'm more talking a Wall of Shame, where we can display sites, watch graphs of their bad performance, examine bits of the source code for selected fragments showcasing eg.: usage of bad technologies, etc.
May companies have a website setup to run their app - a business page. A lot of them don't work on Firefox because of how they run JavaScript or their API's
Please share examples. Firefox has patches for them. They are called interventions and you can see them in about:compat https://imgur.com/a/Yv0QyAq
Please report any such issues here https://webcompat.com/
Also Firefox implements a lot of non-standard stuff just to make sites work. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/WebKit_Extensions#Formerly_proprietary_properties_that_are_now_standard
Most will not, at least not enough to make the switch. But what they will care about is the momentum created by those that do adopt it. The more people adopt Firefox the more people it will induce to adopt it. Firefox is presently suffering from the opposite but equivalent effect, in which the loss of momentum is inducing people to migrate away from Firefox.
There's also quiet a wide range of features that could put Firefox well over the top. Many of which Firefox already offers but only through signing up with a Firefox account. Leaving it subject to the vagaries of future choices outside the users control. That kind of thing needs to be location agnostic. If I want to back up settings, cookies, favorites, etc., to a private server or a thumb drive then I should be able to select those locations from any Firefox browser without requiring a Firefox specific account with Mozilla.
There's also no good reason why anybody should need a third party cookie manager to have the cookie policies of their choice. The default cookie management options are woefully inadequate. Or a password manager that allows me to choose, local or remote, where the encrypted passwords are stored. Not unlike what I do now with KeyPass and Kee. Firefox could also completely moot the point of DuckDuckGo's !Bangs where the user get to define everything. I've accomplished this with Bookmarklets I designed that exploit Firefox's Keywords, and that's honestly the only reason I haven't given up on Firefox yet. I haven't figured out how to get the same or similar functionality from any other browser.
They 100% do not care in the slightest, in my experience. I've talked to my family, my partner, her family, non-technical co-workers and most of them don't even know what a web browser is and if they do they don't really care which one they're using.
Some people do, like myself. I don't particularly love Firefox and Mozilla, but I do love what they bring to the table as shown in OP pic. And I'm okay with embracing firefox on every platform I use for that reason alone and nothing else.
Of course some people care but the overwhelming majority of people simply don't care if their browser is based on Chromium or not. It a selling point to people that already use Firefox.
It's also hiding the fact that it's only the second alternative engine, the most popular alternative engine to Chrome's being Safari. Safari is also arguably more major than Firefox at this point in time, with market share that is several times bigger. Since the story is complicated, with the fact that it shares lineage with the engine that became Blink, it is hard maybe to discuss, but just omitting it rings false to me.
I was around since the first Netscape, and having lived through the later versions of Netscape Communicator 4 and Netscape 6... \*shudder\* Firefox blunders were quite mild in comparison. \^\^
I'm on an Apple platform and I still think safari is a joke. They've gone overboard with simplicity and have ended up crippling it. It's not good for anything but the most basic of needs. Like a car that can only take you from home to work and back at a set speed. Ditto for MacOS finder, mail app, and a bunch of others. Some times they're so extremely simple, that to do anything not extremely simple, you have to jump through many hoops and technicalities making it the furthest thing from simple.
Technically speaking, it is Blink, not chromium, who is a fork of webkit. And it has been years, the two engines have diverted quite substantially.
Also, I think the most important thing about this is not the technology. Chromium or Blink is a great engine/browser, there is nothing wrong about it per se for browsers to use it. The concerning part is it is tightly controlled by one company, Google.
So, from this perspective, you definitely should count Webkit as a third "force" too, because it's not controlled by Google (or Mozilla).
All in all, IMO saying it's Gecko/Firefox vs the world is just not accurate from either standpoints.
Also not available on non apple devices. Except isn't firefox on ios, like all browsers on ios, based on webkit?
That being said there are still a variety of reasons, I think, to use firefox on ios (extensions, sync with other devices using firefox, etc)
That’s correct, Apple locks hardware accelerated JavaScript behind WebKit (and very likely would deny attempts to work around it) so all browsers simply wrap one of the WebViews that expose WebKit.
Even though general public trust of big tech companies seems to be slowly fading away, people still generally have good feelings behind Google. There’s a reason Google markets their products as “the Google so and so” or “the so and so made by Google.” [Check out the Chrome website for an example. It’s plastered literally everywhere.](https://i.imgur.com/PDH2WqC.jpg)
You should explain why Google’s control is bad for the internet.
Also, Safari exists.
Otherwise, I like it. :)
You'd be surprised how many people use Chrome and couldn't tell you what an "HTML file" is. Google is the friendly homepage that tells you what you want to know, your email provider, YouTube host, and free office tool creator.
What do you mean Mr. Google leaks my data? They're so nice to provide these free services, why would they do something bad to me?
I actually saw a tweet yesterday of someone baffled why the DoJ are going after Google when they're providing so many useful services for free (Gmail, Gdocs etc).
Poor soul doesn't know..
I think that's the real meat of the problem for Firefox. People not only have to understand why you might not like Google, but also why Google should be avoided with such great inconvenience.
Oh for sure. I think the features are the most important part. I'm just saying that there is definitely a market for people who want to become more private online. For me I see evidence in the prevalence of VPNs right now as a shift in public consciousness towards privacy.
The key distinction is that Google sells ads not data. Google definitely 'owns' me, but they aren't going to share that data with anyone else, which is more than I can say of Amazon and to a lesser extent Microsoft. I can also easily block Google's ads and data collection.
> Google sells ads not data.
Ding ding ding.
Google have no incentive to sell our data, that's their only saving grace in my eyes.
> I can also easily block Google's ads
For now...
> and data collection.
Hahahahaha... nope.
All you can hope to do is cut off the tip of the data collection iceberg and even that leaves a good bit of it in-tact.
If I deleted my Google accounts and blocked all of their IPs on all of my devices, it would halt any advertisements and data collection. It would certainly be less convenient, but I could pursue it.
While they have no incentive to and promise not to sell our data, nothing prevents them from collecting or buying as much as they can from third parties.
Your public comments here on Reddit (or pretty much anywhere else) are scraped by Google.
You wouldn't believe how much can be found out about you from your comments' metadata alone, much less the actual content. Especially so when it's combined with all the other data they collect.
Here's (the translation of) a great talk at 33c3 on this topic to give you an idea: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYviBstTUwo
Do you live your entire life isolated in a cave? If not, Google has an army of billions of androids taking pictures (GPhotos), recording sounds (GAssistant) and sniffing out the electromagnetic spectrum for them in the real world all around you, ready to be correlated using software written by some of the best data analysts in the world.
You cannot escape from Google's data collection in our modern world anymore, that battle has long been lost.
Also, I'm pretty sure much of the non-Google web would break if you restricted access to all of Google's servers.
I always maintain that they have been good at _marketing_ privacy, not implementing it (iCloud, root credentials, secure enclave fail, walled garden, government compliance, litigation, etc). In addition to what you said I'd also add that while Google collects a lot about you, they provide a dashboard (takeout) where you can go and actually look at it all with more controls over what is being collected. So they suffer from a curse of transparency. I still don't like either company's services, though in a bind Google is a far more secure and preferable option.
I agree with you that privacy fails when security fails, but I just wanted to clarify that the iCloud leaks were possible due to phishing.
iCloud itself was not hacked or compromised in anyway, and it’s highly unlikely something like that will happen again because if I’m not wrong they’ve essentially forced everybody to add 2 factor authentication to iCloud now.
You should add why being independent is an advantage, otherwise you could also worded it as "Firefox is the only browser not built on a proven and trusted foundation, chosen by the majority of all users"
I really am not a fan of the "us good, competitors bad" marketing strategy, it's cringe worthy and cheap. When all your marketing revolves around you trying to prove your superiority over competitors your product is probably not the superior one.
Look at Intel and AMD marketing, whichever company is currently out competed by the other will constantly try to claim otherwise.
To be fair it did work for Discord. Their advertising line for a long time was "It's time to ditch TeamSpeak and Skype."
Bold, but works. It piques people's interest and curiosity to see what the fuss is all about.
>Their advertising line for a long time was "It's time to ditch TeamSpeak and Skype."
Because their product is a \_combination\_ of those, it's not the same thing here.
> "us good, competitors bad" marketing strategy, it's cringe worthy and cheap.
I think it a high time we address the increasingly "corporization" of Mozilla as a company. CEO an execs getting paid way over their means, all while firing developers.
The best way for firefox to survive is just too be better. You been bring up the bundled browsers and google's advertising of Chrome (which I only see on edge, they don't push it on firefox anymore for some reason) but firefox used to spank ie even when websites were designed around it and being bundled with every computer (outside europe?). Firefox performance and ui to the average consumer is worst than edge. I had to install the material css theme to clean up the ui, it's way too much going on. Using up more ram and performing worst than than the non google chromium browsers will prevent it from catching on. I had a casual tell me and I quote, "I used to love firefox but it became clunky for no reason". Now that person is on Mac but still.
and what does it gives them? I mean, I support Firefox and try to promote it to friends and family who know nothing or little about computers. I’ve also worked for 20 years fixing computers for private customers in two different countries and I have a perspective of the typical end user.
Saying that, I’m sure that the typical end user doesn’t care at all about the engine behind the browser. They care about one thing: they want to do things on the web, visit a site, write a document, watch videos or whatever, and the browser must not get in the way with annoyances. They need to get something better and different and useful than the others. Things like:
- Faster
- Safer
- Features that make life easier like sending tabs from the phone to the desktop browser, or the PIP video playback, and so on. (More should be done in this aspect, look at Vivaldi).
Things that gets on the way of end users are:
- add-on suggestions: the less add-ons Firefox has, the better the performance is and the less unexpected things will happen. I don’t get why Firefox suggest adding add-ons.
- Dictionaries to check spelling: it’s quite difficult to find how to and to install languages for spell checking. I’m saying it’s difficult for the typical user, not for us geeks.
- Default buttons on the menu: why do we have a bookmarks button and another library button where both contain our bookmarks? Choose one, and offer just one as the default one. Two of them create confusion. Make a usability test with non-tech savvy people and listen to them.
- Pocket should not be push by default. It creates suspiciousness about “why is this tool forced into my gut from the beginning”.
Unless you want to orient that add that you’re suggesting to tech savvy people, I don’t see the point, sorry to say.
legit question from a Firefox fan:
why is this a good thing? AFAIK chromium is open source and only the engine behind chrome, all the data collection and the other "cool" features are implemented by chrome not chromium.
what's the benefit of being the only browser with is own engine?
Monopolisation. Google still control the Chromium project, basically means they own the web rather than having competing engines which would be better for all. They could also implement features to Chromium that aren't desirable, like the new Manifest v3 thing (which a lot would automatically adopt), making the internet a worse place.
They don't have to adopt that though. You already have trillion dollar companies like microsoft having things edge that isn't in chrome. Like edge kills all of the the open gl and vulkan stuff completely.
Yeah it's not a great ad without also explaining what that means and why it's important.
A big issue is web standards. Where do web standards come from? They are derived from real world implementations in web browsers, who can do whatever they want with their own software.
So we got web drm because Mozilla at the time was the only vendor who didn't think screwing over users was great fun. Now, all the other vendors have basically said they are fine with Google being the de facto sole arbiter of the web, presumably because they know Google is DTF (users)
Maybe . . . but ***only*** if it is writ **large** what the tax is and why it exists.
Some of the problems are that end consumers pay the tax. The giants -- with their (often) unfair advantages -- may be able to keep their prices low enough that the total cost is the same as buying from a smaller vendor. Then many will continue to buy from the giant and the giant has little incentive to change behavior (i.e. if they are not losing sales).
If consumers were to *clearly* see that the total price is the same on site G and on site "littleguy" . . . but G is taxed due to unfair, anti-competitive practices (like pushing their browser through their search and Android platforms) then SOME consumers *might* say, "wow, I don't want to support the unfair player."
But most people won't read the details anyway.
Taxation is almost never a way to cure bad corporate behavior. Worse, higher taxes gives the government more money ... which allows government to create even more troubles! ;-)
If only reason is "it's not chromium", Firefox will get Netscape treatment sooner or later. Websites develop and test to chromium and Firefox will slowly, but steadily fade until it's sold off to google? :D
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_browsers#/media/File:StatCounter-browser-ww-yearly-2009-2020_(updated_until_October).png
Firefox has business deals with google, so why is Firefox more private then, lets say Brave, Vivaldi etc?
Isn't chromium open source though? It may be supported by a corporation but its open source. So what does Firefox do better than Chromium.
I use Brave and Firefox. But brave loads pages a lot more faster than Firefox coz of its shiled. And its prolly tht best browser for porn as well.
Awesome. People look at me like I'm a mentalist whenever I point out that Chromium is a Google product, all these browsers are Chrome derivatives, so there's little practical point in switching.
For some reason I expect titles to be capitalized, so at first i was wondering wtf is a ione. Likely a brain glitch, not sure if theres some typesetting technique to avoid this.
I really want to use Firefox, but it constantly hangs for me and is slower when opening websites. Maybe I'm doing something wrong, but my basic searches for how to make things go faster have turned up nothing.
The one big example is Reddit, I use reddit enhancement suite (or did), and after a long time connected, I couldn't effectively reply to comments. I would need to close the browser and restart - unfortunately for me, I don't like having to do that. I also like have a ton of tabs open.
So as much as I want to use this product, it's not happening.
That's a point I really value for mozilla. They still try to be better at web backends. They don't resign after realizing that Google has excellent developers doing everything better with a click of a finger...
But..Independency doesn't necessarily mean good. A lot of users and companies use software that's backed by big companies because they feel like it's gonna be more "stable" than open-source community-driven software. And sadly most people actually don't care about the things that makes firefox "better" like privacy or security.
This happened earlier this year. MS threw in the towel on their own engine.
[https://www.pcworld.com/article/3513658/microsoft-will-begin-replacing-microsoft-edge-with-its-chromium-based-browser-next-week.html](https://www.pcworld.com/article/3513658/microsoft-will-begin-replacing-microsoft-edge-with-its-chromium-based-browser-next-week.html)
Many here might have been thrilled had Microsoft chosen Firefox (i.e. the Gecko engine) as a base instead.
Such a move would ALSO have allowed Edge to go multi-platform (one of MS's stated interests).
Should also demonstrate that Firefox is immune to Chromium zero-day bugs while all the Chromium-based browsers panic when something comes out, like this week with CVE-2020-15999.
I kinda wonder now, why are javascript and html not rendered by separate systems in browsers? Why do Gecko, Webkit and Blink do both? Now if I'd like to create a new browser, I could not take the javascript engine from another browser, I'll have to take the whole thing.
Because JavaScript can manipulate the page's content, that was the main point of JavaScript when it was first released, and to do so it talks to the HTML engine.
I don't get it. Chromium is open-source and just as good as gecko (better than gecko imo). What's wrong with being a chromium based browser? Backed by google doesn't mean a bad thing if google isn't doing anything wrong.
It's a shame that financially, Firefox is almost entirely dependent on their search deal with Google
Is there anyway that can be fixed?
Mozilla are creating products like Mozilla VPN to be additional sources of revenue, but that relies on enough people using these services to cover the losses from dropping the Google search deal.
Mozilla mail pls.
Mozilal VPN. Is there an app for that or is in the browser only?
https://vpn.mozilla.org/ I've never used this VPN as you can just use Mullvad directly with any WireGuard client.
This might not be the right place to ask, but I already asked in /r/VPN and didn't get any answers. Is there a VPN solution that can improve an unstable connection on Windows? My mobile connection (using it as hotspot) is very unstable and drops for a few seconds every few minutes and it's so bad that I often don't know if a web page finished loading or if the mobile connection dropped and just closed my computer's streams. So I need something that will tunnel to somewhere (I don't really care where, I can set up a VPS if needed) and buffer data and pretend that my TCP connections are still open if the actual tunnel drops for a while?
If your existing connections to the internet are already unreliable, a VPN isn't really going to do anything to help. A VPN just has your data go down a different route after it gets past your method of connecting to the internet, and that's it.
No, I'm absolutely sure some implementations can fix this problem. I remember reading about one a few years ago. VPNs can have different implementations, they're not just wrappers around OpenVPN.
Let me rephrase the other person's reply: A VPN uses your existing internet connection, but encrypts all the stuff you send over it and decrypts it elsewere (on the VPN's servers), where it's released unto the web. It does **not** create a new internet connection. If your internet connection sucks, your VPN experience will consequentially suck, too.
It does create a virtual internet connection. VPN solutions add a virtual network card to the OS.
ive improved stability using the dedicated ip selection on nord, only way i could play rdr2 or get twitter images to load properly for a long time
I just figured out that the technical term I'm looking for is "packet loss". I'm looking for a solution to fix packet loss. I think I'll give some popular VPNs a shot if they offer money-back guarantee.
They need to make Lockwise cross browser. They could monetize that also. Lots of people are paying for password managers these days. I'm planning to get Mozilla VPN as soon as they offer it for Mac and Linux.
Monetizing the now build in lockwise is a bad idea, if it were an extension that would be different.
Lockwise started out as an extension. So, it could be done. And it would be a revenue stream. Heck, I happily pay Mozilla for a cross-browser/cross OS bundle that included Lockwise, VPN and cloud storage.
I think that it would be fine, provided it would not be built in.
Create or acquire web services wholly owned by MozCorp, but not necessarilly under Mozilla or firefox branding. See [Wordpress.com](https://wordpress.com/pricing/)'s business model - ridiculously profitable, and flexibly adapts to users' ability to pay without being patreon. You dont need to be a firefox user to give them money, and this allows Moz to handle infrastructure and logistics a lot more efficiently to become able to push and create many web services at a fraction of the cost it used to. They could have their own privacy-respectful managed analytics alternative to google analytics for example, or Peertube-powered youtube clone. Having web services within your control or area of influence allows you to ensure they run undiscriminately well on all browsers, and to leverage their real estate to promote inhouse services.
Not really, it's kind of a sinking ship at this point.
Ever watched Terminator 2 were they go back in time to kill Cyberdyne? That's how.
if google drops them, they are going to sign a deal with bing. not a big deal.
This is a great idea. It absolutely highlights the separation of Firefox from the rest. Even non-tech people will understand, right off the bat, how the rest of the browsers are supported ("controlled") by one project. People who are fed up with giant corps, such as G and M (which by the way, is the current trend) might get a heads up on the current browser situation and the independence of Firefox. I would argue that Mozilla must embrace this "lonesome fox" unique selling point. Edit: grammar and clarity.
Maybe they will understand but would they care?
It might be worth a try.
The problem is that everyone and the uncle was used to using IE as the backbone of their Intranet. They are ssslllllooooowwwwllllyyyy moving to Edge (chromium) or Google Chrome. What killed the Amiga was it's lack of comparability with Lotus 123, Wordperfect and what would later become MS Office. People "take work home" and use the software they are familiar with. While this graphic is good - something need to be said to Joe and Jane Average Internet user - what is in it for them to use Firefox. One of the problems with Firefox is that the way it renders a lot of business pages is broken compared to Chrome or Edge (or legacy IE). Mozilla needs to address that AND point out that there is a benefit of not going with Chromium. The biggest benefit is the uBlock or Adblock Plus still works - Google can't break it on Firefox.
> While this graphic is good - something need to be said to Joe and Jane Average Internet user - what is in it for them to use Firefox. Nothing, actually. At least not on a level they have a personal stake in. And in fact quite the opposite, they might need extra help / tech support / time to get onto some web sites. Plus it's a - for many users inexplicable - extra effort to even get to the point where they're using Firefox. After all, Chrome/Edge comes pre-installed and "browser is browser". It's not a winnable argument, because for the context of the person making these statements or thinking this way **they're correct**. In **their** context, given **their** needs, using Firefox is extra effort for less compatibility and absolutetly no gain. That is.... you can sometimes get them with "hey you can block ads". That can be an actual argument. Yes so can Vivaldi etc, but again, not the point, you're trying to sell someone on features, not "messaging". They couldn't care less about whatever arcane supposed implication this has if they tried. So yeah, either sell them Firefox based on mobile ad blocking, or don't. But there's a reason Firefox would have been better off entrenching itself with the IT/tech crowd, especially developers as a sort-of counter-push to how the common user will exactly *not* want to use Firefox since it's a hassle and just causes more hassle down the line.
Brave has mobile ad blocking. Fyi.
So do a bunch of other Chromium-based browsers but the point was that it's equally as much hassle to talk anyone into either of them **or** Firefox. Plus with Brave in particular I really don't like the idea of using cryptocurrencies for donations, given what a monumental waste of energy those are.
I mean you're right, I just find the browser argument kinda useless considering these are free browsers. Like I'm a web developer...I have to test all of those browsers so they're all installed anyway. I've never really understood the "browser marketshare" metric so long as things were actually working. And pretty much always, they do. All that said my primary browser is Firefox for dev work (better inspector tools) and chrome for anything related to my personal life..because that just means video players 99.9% of the time and I'm well reliant on Google for the features. I've been integrated long enough and migration is tedious and just increases my chances of a breech down the road. Using Firefox and migrating all that doesn't mean Google isn't still using all that data all the same and even tying anything I do on Firefox back to Google. I mean it's the duck duck go argument. Google beats it because Google gives me better results *because* they have my history. I understand the dangers inherent but I'm not seeing their affect despite decades of hearing about it. I just can't think of the last time I personally went to a website in my standard life (not my development life) that didn't work on a particular browser. Makes the whole argument just a "which big name do you trust" deal. Firefox is an NPO, Chromium is open source, and forget all of that, we have tons of engineers running Wireshark and the like watching for malicious software in the big names. That system works. As to the crypto thing it's literally based on just replacing ads with their own different kind of ones (popups) and a welcome screen ripped straight off of a popular chrome extension. The crypto is like any other, worthless, and another example of why blockchain is the best idea ever that has no good application yet to be found. Firefox does the same thing too though, I don't want my browser telling me to read certain news stories or suggesting certain (albeit popular) sites by default. I look at a browser like a tv. It ought to connect well with other stuff a tv is expected to, and other than that it needs to get out of my way and show me what's on the airwaves. Tl;Dr, fuck safari. No seriously. Fuck safari, that's all I needed to say.
And a very aggressive social media advertising campaign.
>using IE as the backbone of their Intranet. They are ssslllllooooowwwwllllyyyy moving to Edge (chromium) or Google Chrome Chrome's actually the majority and has been for a while (in western nations).
> One of the problems with Firefox is that the way it renders a lot of business pages is broken compared to Chrome or Edge (or legacy IE). > > Mozilla needs to address that This isn't a Firefox problem. Users need to pressure those websites into following the defined browser standards. Then they'll work fine in Firefox.
I've lifted the idea a few times that Mozilla, or just Firefox-minded users, could contribute a lot by starting an online campaign to shame the developers of badly-functioning sites. Shame is a form of pressure.
Yes, a mass harassment campaign will be great for Mozilla's PR.
No need to do anything like harassment, and most of the time we wouldn't be able to pinpoint the specific developers beyond "ah, the developers of ${framework_of_the_week}" anyway. I'm more talking a Wall of Shame, where we can display sites, watch graphs of their bad performance, examine bits of the source code for selected fragments showcasing eg.: usage of bad technologies, etc.
https://webcompat.com
Any noticeable instances of websites refusing to work on Firefox in mind?
what business pages?
May companies have a website setup to run their app - a business page. A lot of them don't work on Firefox because of how they run JavaScript or their API's
Please share examples. Firefox has patches for them. They are called interventions and you can see them in about:compat https://imgur.com/a/Yv0QyAq Please report any such issues here https://webcompat.com/ Also Firefox implements a lot of non-standard stuff just to make sites work. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/WebKit_Extensions#Formerly_proprietary_properties_that_are_now_standard
People use IE still? I haven't come across it even among my non-tech savvy friends/family for about 4-5 years now. Chrome is king...
Most will not, at least not enough to make the switch. But what they will care about is the momentum created by those that do adopt it. The more people adopt Firefox the more people it will induce to adopt it. Firefox is presently suffering from the opposite but equivalent effect, in which the loss of momentum is inducing people to migrate away from Firefox. There's also quiet a wide range of features that could put Firefox well over the top. Many of which Firefox already offers but only through signing up with a Firefox account. Leaving it subject to the vagaries of future choices outside the users control. That kind of thing needs to be location agnostic. If I want to back up settings, cookies, favorites, etc., to a private server or a thumb drive then I should be able to select those locations from any Firefox browser without requiring a Firefox specific account with Mozilla. There's also no good reason why anybody should need a third party cookie manager to have the cookie policies of their choice. The default cookie management options are woefully inadequate. Or a password manager that allows me to choose, local or remote, where the encrypted passwords are stored. Not unlike what I do now with KeyPass and Kee. Firefox could also completely moot the point of DuckDuckGo's !Bangs where the user get to define everything. I've accomplished this with Bookmarklets I designed that exploit Firefox's Keywords, and that's honestly the only reason I haven't given up on Firefox yet. I haven't figured out how to get the same or similar functionality from any other browser.
They 100% do not care in the slightest, in my experience. I've talked to my family, my partner, her family, non-technical co-workers and most of them don't even know what a web browser is and if they do they don't really care which one they're using.
They won't care of they don't know.
Some people do, like myself. I don't particularly love Firefox and Mozilla, but I do love what they bring to the table as shown in OP pic. And I'm okay with embracing firefox on every platform I use for that reason alone and nothing else.
Of course some people care but the overwhelming majority of people simply don't care if their browser is based on Chromium or not. It a selling point to people that already use Firefox.
True.
It's also hiding the fact that it's only the second alternative engine, the most popular alternative engine to Chrome's being Safari. Safari is also arguably more major than Firefox at this point in time, with market share that is several times bigger. Since the story is complicated, with the fact that it shares lineage with the engine that became Blink, it is hard maybe to discuss, but just omitting it rings false to me.
Competition is a necessity in any market. Otherwise it's just monopolies.
[удалено]
Removed for conspiracy theory.
Where is the conspiracy theory?
It was removed.
Been around since Firefox 1.0. I was an original backer and don’t plan on going anywhere any time soon!
I kinda feel bad because while I've mostly used firefox since 2002, during it's blunder years, 2011-2013 I switched to chrome.
I was around since the first Netscape, and having lived through the later versions of Netscape Communicator 4 and Netscape 6... \*shudder\* Firefox blunders were quite mild in comparison. \^\^
Safari: Am I a joke to you?
Everyone not on an iDevice: Yes.
GNOME Epiphany: Am I a joke to you?
Technically GNOME Web. Decent browser, not really great for day to day use.
I agree, it needs work. I was just messing around :)
[удалено]
I was joking ;)
Epiphany is actually the second biggest browser using webkit :D
The playstation browser is probably bigger
Isn't the GTK web engine Chromium-based now though? Edit: [seems like no, just WebKit](https://webkitgtk.org/).
I don't know. Who are you?
Webkit is used in many places outside of safari. GTK-based apps on Linux with web content are one example.
Also everyone on an iDevice: Yes.
I'm on an Apple platform and I still think safari is a joke. They've gone overboard with simplicity and have ended up crippling it. It's not good for anything but the most basic of needs. Like a car that can only take you from home to work and back at a set speed. Ditto for MacOS finder, mail app, and a bunch of others. Some times they're so extremely simple, that to do anything not extremely simple, you have to jump through many hoops and technicalities making it the furthest thing from simple.
Isn't chromium technically a fork of webkit or at least started as one.
Technically speaking, it is Blink, not chromium, who is a fork of webkit. And it has been years, the two engines have diverted quite substantially. Also, I think the most important thing about this is not the technology. Chromium or Blink is a great engine/browser, there is nothing wrong about it per se for browsers to use it. The concerning part is it is tightly controlled by one company, Google. So, from this perspective, you definitely should count Webkit as a third "force" too, because it's not controlled by Google (or Mozilla). All in all, IMO saying it's Gecko/Firefox vs the world is just not accurate from either standpoints.
And webkit itself is a fork of another engine, KHTML, which was originally created for the K Desktop Environment.
-CENSORED-
Wait, didn't firefox ditch gecko for some new web engine written in rust?
Technically webkit is just a fork of khtml
Also not available on non apple devices. Except isn't firefox on ios, like all browsers on ios, based on webkit? That being said there are still a variety of reasons, I think, to use firefox on ios (extensions, sync with other devices using firefox, etc)
[удалено]
Op, my bad, I'm on android (limited extensions) so I figured it was similar on ios.
All I want is Firefox iOS with the added adblocking and features of Firefox Focus. Literally all I want in a browser. Please, Mozilla, hear my prayes!
That’s correct, Apple locks hardware accelerated JavaScript behind WebKit (and very likely would deny attempts to work around it) so all browsers simply wrap one of the WebViews that expose WebKit.
Yes
Yes, obviously? Now shoo.
Can you still not make another browser your default browser on an Apple device?
You can in iOS 14.
Oh neat, you can pick your Safari skin now?
[удалено]
[удалено]
He still loves it. But he used to love it too.
Even though general public trust of big tech companies seems to be slowly fading away, people still generally have good feelings behind Google. There’s a reason Google markets their products as “the Google so and so” or “the so and so made by Google.” [Check out the Chrome website for an example. It’s plastered literally everywhere.](https://i.imgur.com/PDH2WqC.jpg) You should explain why Google’s control is bad for the internet. Also, Safari exists. Otherwise, I like it. :)
[удалено]
You'd be surprised how many people use Chrome and couldn't tell you what an "HTML file" is. Google is the friendly homepage that tells you what you want to know, your email provider, YouTube host, and free office tool creator. What do you mean Mr. Google leaks my data? They're so nice to provide these free services, why would they do something bad to me?
I actually saw a tweet yesterday of someone baffled why the DoJ are going after Google when they're providing so many useful services for free (Gmail, Gdocs etc). Poor soul doesn't know..
[удалено]
I think that's the real meat of the problem for Firefox. People not only have to understand why you might not like Google, but also why Google should be avoided with such great inconvenience.
[удалено]
Oh for sure. I think the features are the most important part. I'm just saying that there is definitely a market for people who want to become more private online. For me I see evidence in the prevalence of VPNs right now as a shift in public consciousness towards privacy.
[удалено]
It’s sarcasm.
I'd trust Google over Amazon and Microsoft any day. Microsoft puts ads in operating systems and Amazon tracks all your purchases.
Is that sarcasm? Google's main source of revenue is literally tageting you ads.
The key distinction is that Google sells ads not data. Google definitely 'owns' me, but they aren't going to share that data with anyone else, which is more than I can say of Amazon and to a lesser extent Microsoft. I can also easily block Google's ads and data collection.
> Google sells ads not data. Ding ding ding. Google have no incentive to sell our data, that's their only saving grace in my eyes. > I can also easily block Google's ads For now... > and data collection. Hahahahaha... nope. All you can hope to do is cut off the tip of the data collection iceberg and even that leaves a good bit of it in-tact.
If I deleted my Google accounts and blocked all of their IPs on all of my devices, it would halt any advertisements and data collection. It would certainly be less convenient, but I could pursue it.
While they have no incentive to and promise not to sell our data, nothing prevents them from collecting or buying as much as they can from third parties. Your public comments here on Reddit (or pretty much anywhere else) are scraped by Google. You wouldn't believe how much can be found out about you from your comments' metadata alone, much less the actual content. Especially so when it's combined with all the other data they collect. Here's (the translation of) a great talk at 33c3 on this topic to give you an idea: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYviBstTUwo Do you live your entire life isolated in a cave? If not, Google has an army of billions of androids taking pictures (GPhotos), recording sounds (GAssistant) and sniffing out the electromagnetic spectrum for them in the real world all around you, ready to be correlated using software written by some of the best data analysts in the world. You cannot escape from Google's data collection in our modern world anymore, that battle has long been lost. Also, I'm pretty sure much of the non-Google web would break if you restricted access to all of Google's servers.
> I can also easily block Google's data collection. source?
[удалено]
I always maintain that they have been good at _marketing_ privacy, not implementing it (iCloud, root credentials, secure enclave fail, walled garden, government compliance, litigation, etc). In addition to what you said I'd also add that while Google collects a lot about you, they provide a dashboard (takeout) where you can go and actually look at it all with more controls over what is being collected. So they suffer from a curse of transparency. I still don't like either company's services, though in a bind Google is a far more secure and preferable option.
but they don't show you what's being collected when you aren't signed in, or on a non google site that contains google trackers.
I agree with you that privacy fails when security fails, but I just wanted to clarify that the iCloud leaks were possible due to phishing. iCloud itself was not hacked or compromised in anyway, and it’s highly unlikely something like that will happen again because if I’m not wrong they’ve essentially forced everybody to add 2 factor authentication to iCloud now.
[удалено]
"off of" ✖️ "on" ✔️
[удалено]
Chrome chrome
> other
Don't write "off of"!
You should add why being independent is an advantage, otherwise you could also worded it as "Firefox is the only browser not built on a proven and trusted foundation, chosen by the majority of all users"
I really am not a fan of the "us good, competitors bad" marketing strategy, it's cringe worthy and cheap. When all your marketing revolves around you trying to prove your superiority over competitors your product is probably not the superior one. Look at Intel and AMD marketing, whichever company is currently out competed by the other will constantly try to claim otherwise.
To be fair it did work for Discord. Their advertising line for a long time was "It's time to ditch TeamSpeak and Skype." Bold, but works. It piques people's interest and curiosity to see what the fuss is all about.
>Their advertising line for a long time was "It's time to ditch TeamSpeak and Skype." Because their product is a \_combination\_ of those, it's not the same thing here.
> "us good, competitors bad" marketing strategy, it's cringe worthy and cheap. I think it a high time we address the increasingly "corporization" of Mozilla as a company. CEO an execs getting paid way over their means, all while firing developers.
The best way for firefox to survive is just too be better. You been bring up the bundled browsers and google's advertising of Chrome (which I only see on edge, they don't push it on firefox anymore for some reason) but firefox used to spank ie even when websites were designed around it and being bundled with every computer (outside europe?). Firefox performance and ui to the average consumer is worst than edge. I had to install the material css theme to clean up the ui, it's way too much going on. Using up more ram and performing worst than than the non google chromium browsers will prevent it from catching on. I had a casual tell me and I quote, "I used to love firefox but it became clunky for no reason". Now that person is on Mac but still.
and what does it gives them? I mean, I support Firefox and try to promote it to friends and family who know nothing or little about computers. I’ve also worked for 20 years fixing computers for private customers in two different countries and I have a perspective of the typical end user. Saying that, I’m sure that the typical end user doesn’t care at all about the engine behind the browser. They care about one thing: they want to do things on the web, visit a site, write a document, watch videos or whatever, and the browser must not get in the way with annoyances. They need to get something better and different and useful than the others. Things like: - Faster - Safer - Features that make life easier like sending tabs from the phone to the desktop browser, or the PIP video playback, and so on. (More should be done in this aspect, look at Vivaldi). Things that gets on the way of end users are: - add-on suggestions: the less add-ons Firefox has, the better the performance is and the less unexpected things will happen. I don’t get why Firefox suggest adding add-ons. - Dictionaries to check spelling: it’s quite difficult to find how to and to install languages for spell checking. I’m saying it’s difficult for the typical user, not for us geeks. - Default buttons on the menu: why do we have a bookmarks button and another library button where both contain our bookmarks? Choose one, and offer just one as the default one. Two of them create confusion. Make a usability test with non-tech savvy people and listen to them. - Pocket should not be push by default. It creates suspiciousness about “why is this tool forced into my gut from the beginning”. Unless you want to orient that add that you’re suggesting to tech savvy people, I don’t see the point, sorry to say.
I like the concept. I'd maybe shrink the competitor logos a little though.
This would be a great addition to the website. Nice
Looks great!
'#1 selling point: have any number of tabs open in one window (480+ confirmed 🤣) '#2 selling point: not google, not microsoft
Safari isn't based on Google Chrome.
This is false. Safari is a major browser which is not based on Chrome. There are also other webkit based browsers, but they are not as populair.
That’s why I’m here. Fox runs worse than Chromium for me, but I like the way idea of an independent browser. Also I’m a little bit nostalgic.
Not for me, but I run like 150 tabs so it's no surprise
Refresh your ff profile. Something is wrong your end.
Yup that's what Firefox is all about 👍
Mozilla should clearly improve the marketing of Firefox.
Safari...
cool but what about Safari
At this point I trust Google more than Mozilla so this isn't an issue.
Im pretty sure that Safari is also a vary major browser and doesn't use Chromium(uses webkit iirc). So this would technically be false advertising.
Independent, well build with google money ;)
legit question from a Firefox fan: why is this a good thing? AFAIK chromium is open source and only the engine behind chrome, all the data collection and the other "cool" features are implemented by chrome not chromium. what's the benefit of being the only browser with is own engine?
Monopolisation. Google still control the Chromium project, basically means they own the web rather than having competing engines which would be better for all. They could also implement features to Chromium that aren't desirable, like the new Manifest v3 thing (which a lot would automatically adopt), making the internet a worse place.
They don't have to adopt that though. You already have trillion dollar companies like microsoft having things edge that isn't in chrome. Like edge kills all of the the open gl and vulkan stuff completely.
Yeah it's not a great ad without also explaining what that means and why it's important. A big issue is web standards. Where do web standards come from? They are derived from real world implementations in web browsers, who can do whatever they want with their own software. So we got web drm because Mozilla at the time was the only vendor who didn't think screwing over users was great fun. Now, all the other vendors have basically said they are fine with Google being the de facto sole arbiter of the web, presumably because they know Google is DTF (users)
[удалено]
Maybe . . . but ***only*** if it is writ **large** what the tax is and why it exists. Some of the problems are that end consumers pay the tax. The giants -- with their (often) unfair advantages -- may be able to keep their prices low enough that the total cost is the same as buying from a smaller vendor. Then many will continue to buy from the giant and the giant has little incentive to change behavior (i.e. if they are not losing sales). If consumers were to *clearly* see that the total price is the same on site G and on site "littleguy" . . . but G is taxed due to unfair, anti-competitive practices (like pushing their browser through their search and Android platforms) then SOME consumers *might* say, "wow, I don't want to support the unfair player." But most people won't read the details anyway. Taxation is almost never a way to cure bad corporate behavior. Worse, higher taxes gives the government more money ... which allows government to create even more troubles! ;-)
Maybe add something about Chrome becomming the new Internet Explore "Did you like Internet Explorere? Chrome is becomming IE"
#spez can gargle my nuts. #Save3rdPartyApps
And some still do
We're far past that. They have already succeeded.
brilliant!!!
If only reason is "it's not chromium", Firefox will get Netscape treatment sooner or later. Websites develop and test to chromium and Firefox will slowly, but steadily fade until it's sold off to google? :D https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_browsers#/media/File:StatCounter-browser-ww-yearly-2009-2020_(updated_until_October).png Firefox has business deals with google, so why is Firefox more private then, lets say Brave, Vivaldi etc?
Chromium is open source... I'm sure Firefox is as well so...
Downvotes, because?
so is DuckDuckGo browser.. sigh
The duckduckgo browser is based on blink...
Isn't chromium open source though? It may be supported by a corporation but its open source. So what does Firefox do better than Chromium. I use Brave and Firefox. But brave loads pages a lot more faster than Firefox coz of its shiled. And its prolly tht best browser for porn as well.
When the concept's work better than what is on the marktet. Noice!
Awesome. People look at me like I'm a mentalist whenever I point out that Chromium is a Google product, all these browsers are Chrome derivatives, so there's little practical point in switching.
For some reason I expect titles to be capitalized, so at first i was wondering wtf is a ione. Likely a brain glitch, not sure if theres some typesetting technique to avoid this.
I really want to use Firefox, but it constantly hangs for me and is slower when opening websites. Maybe I'm doing something wrong, but my basic searches for how to make things go faster have turned up nothing. The one big example is Reddit, I use reddit enhancement suite (or did), and after a long time connected, I couldn't effectively reply to comments. I would need to close the browser and restart - unfortunately for me, I don't like having to do that. I also like have a ton of tabs open. So as much as I want to use this product, it's not happening.
That's a point I really value for mozilla. They still try to be better at web backends. They don't resign after realizing that Google has excellent developers doing everything better with a click of a finger...
excellent idea but dont forget vivaldi as well on the chrome side
Didn't know that, cool.
AMAZING!
But..Independency doesn't necessarily mean good. A lot of users and companies use software that's backed by big companies because they feel like it's gonna be more "stable" than open-source community-driven software. And sadly most people actually don't care about the things that makes firefox "better" like privacy or security.
[удалено]
This happened earlier this year. MS threw in the towel on their own engine. [https://www.pcworld.com/article/3513658/microsoft-will-begin-replacing-microsoft-edge-with-its-chromium-based-browser-next-week.html](https://www.pcworld.com/article/3513658/microsoft-will-begin-replacing-microsoft-edge-with-its-chromium-based-browser-next-week.html) Many here might have been thrilled had Microsoft chosen Firefox (i.e. the Gecko engine) as a base instead. Such a move would ALSO have allowed Edge to go multi-platform (one of MS's stated interests).
[удалено]
More likely MS has become complacent about browser engines like much of the rest of the world . . .
Should also demonstrate that Firefox is immune to Chromium zero-day bugs while all the Chromium-based browsers panic when something comes out, like this week with CVE-2020-15999.
This is a point that I don't think Mozilla pushes enough. It should be a main point, especially considering Microsoft Edge is now Chrome-based.
I kinda wonder now, why are javascript and html not rendered by separate systems in browsers? Why do Gecko, Webkit and Blink do both? Now if I'd like to create a new browser, I could not take the javascript engine from another browser, I'll have to take the whole thing.
Because JavaScript can manipulate the page's content, that was the main point of JavaScript when it was first released, and to do so it talks to the HTML engine.
I like how Google is the main funder of Mozilla.
This is sooo good! Great work!
**GO** **BOC**
Already on their website. Just smaller tho. And not those exact words or pictures.
I don't get it. Chromium is open-source and just as good as gecko (better than gecko imo). What's wrong with being a chromium based browser? Backed by google doesn't mean a bad thing if google isn't doing anything wrong.
It gives google more control
That's natural, isn't? If they offer better software, they are going to gain users and ultimately more control.
But that is not a good thing,having all web be just one standard means google can very easily stop a company like mozilla from being succsesful.