Skip Navigation

The fall of Firefox: Mozilla's once-popular web browser slides into irrelevance

Article seems pretty flawed. Relevance is a vague metric, and the author relies pretty heavily on data related to government site visitation, which seems subject to bias toward certain types of users.

Market share is likely still incredibly low, but Firefox's relevance should be spiking right now due to Google's shenanigans with Chromium. The fact that like 90% of revenue for its for-profit wing is from Google is still troubling.

Any alternative views out there?

180 comments
  • Market share doesn't equal irrelevance as others have said. I use Librewolf and without Firefox it wouldn't exist. It likely wouldn't exist at the quality it is without Mozilla taking Google Cash either. But it's super important to have an alternative even if most people don't use it. It DOES provide a limited check and balance against google doing whatever they want with the web because if the right people make the right noise then people will move over to something that's easy, convenient, and free of whatever pain in the butt google puts in chrome that sends people over the edge. See Linux desktop and Valve for an example of how a software with very few users comparatively can force a larger company to play ball. Remember in Windows 8 when MS basically banned 3rd party software stores on the OS.. or tried? And Valve made the "Steam Machine" and SteamOS? Everyone says the steam machines failed but they 100% did everything Valve wanted them to do. It was enough to have MS go back on their walled garden and allow Steam to keep operating as it had been. And now we have the steam deck on top of it.

    So, it's ok if Firefox has a small market share as long as it remains a worthy competitor.

  • For an article that tries to push a groupthink narrative to work, the people using the "discouraged" product need to believe the "encouraged" one has feature parity with zero downsides.

    I guarantee that no one is accidentally using Firefox because they're unaware of the alternatives.

  • the problem with firefox is that chrome's marketing is just too prevalent among the general population; it's built into their gmail, their phone, everything that they use.

    as a flutter dev it's especially frustrating since debugging on the web requires chrome (please help boost this issue in the issue queue: https://github.com/flutter/flutter/issues/55324)

    on the other hand they also reached their goal of over $3m grassroots donations in 2023, which goes a long way to scaling back on the reliance of google donations.

    you also have to remember that web statistics are largely done by third party sources - like google analytics - or through telemetry. in the first case, many firefox users or those with adblockers will disable that. in the second case, this is exactly why i implore people to not disable telemetry in firefox since it's necessary for bug testing and usability studies but also for determining reach of software.

    personally i prefer firefox but still use a mix of google products, including maps, youtube premium/music, and drive (which i pay for). i also have a monthly donation to mozilla and thunderbird. it's not much but every little bit helps - even $5

  • gives us a running count of the last 90 days of US government website visits. That doesn't tell us much about global web browser use, but it's the best information we have about American web browser users today.

    Lmao article itself saying it's a steaming pile of chrome

  • users can modify their useragent string, and sometimes they have to because some webdevs are morons.

    some browsers actually default to using chrome instead of its own.

    using a browser-reported useragent string to count marketshare itself is flawed from the start, using a very narrow and limited scope of web sites to measure it--even more so.

    if i counted my own clients: home, soho and small business end users... it's about even between chrome and firefox on windows (chrome users doing so on their own, as we highly recommend firefox, and vivaldi over chrome for a chromium-based solution) with edge trailing far behind; and about 3 to 1 android (chrome) over safari on mobile with (so far, but soon to change) very few mobile firefox users.

    • Government websites are really bad about needing to fake the user agent string because of low bidder contracted work that often starts and ends with Internet Explorer/Edge and is rarely updated due to how government budgeting works.

      • I worked at a small MSP 2020-2021. Some of our customers needed access to government sites for reporting. The fact that some of these pages still had the "Best Viewed in Internet Explorer" badge or language was sad and frightening. Luckily there's browser compatibility mode in Edge (which as you mentioned is probably just changing the user agent string), but still. My dad works in govt IT and even he's encountered internal sites that require ActiveX. He has to sometimes figure out workarounds.

        I did have one medical client that used some web charting/reporting platform. And it required a specific, long outdated version of Firefox. We had to intentionally turn off updates in Firefox so they could access it. Anything newer than that version and the site wouldn't load. It was very strange.

    • Using a Chrome user agent in FF can result in broken video / audio playback on various sites.

      • i had to fudge the useragent to chrome yesterday to get 1080p out of azn.

    • users can modify their useragent string, and sometimes they have to because some webdevs are morons.

      The minority of users do this or even know about UA strings.

      some browsers actually default to using chrome instead of its own.

      Sure, but Firefox isn't one of them

  • I really want to see Firefox remain relevant. But Mozilla doesn't seem to allow it. Project managers seem to be running the show anymore, with ideas trying to cater to everyday audiences that personally don't stick. They're only real "idea" as of recent has been to create limited time themes, and a couple of AI features that could have been expansion points for add-ons to do the same. Sure, Firefox for Android got add-ons recently. But those were already there for a while in a limited form. They're just expanding onto it now.

    Anymore, Mozilla seems to be more concerned with trying to tackle problems that are not within their domain, and building things revolving around AI. In fact, that seems to be their primary plans for 2024. Presumably because that's what's hot and trending. I'm almost willing to believe that Google not only pays them for the default browser, in addition, they pay them to secretly sit and muck around on other things.

    I can't even really say that Firefox has a community outside of FOSS advocates who constantly circlejerk on how much you should use it because omg monopoly!!!1!!1! Despite the fact that chromium itself is open source too. It just suddenly becomes distrusted because It comes from a large corporation

    Google isn't paying anyone to not develop a browser, and they would still be moving at breakneck speeds even if they weren't developing chromium in the open (which would leave the web absolutely even more worse than it already is). And while difficult, if it proves truly a problem (since it technically hasn't happened yet), there can always be a fork keeping MV2 in. And based on the amount of attention the deprecation of MV2 has, it might even have a chance to keep a little bit of traction (Mozilla still plans to deprecate MV2 by the way. They're just doing it differently with compatibility in mind).

    As an open source project, they're only now moving to git, their code base is long and complex. And has apparently been difficult to modify in the way that people often want it.

    I'm hoping that possibly something like Floorp might one day be able to pick up the torch since Mozilla doesn't really seem interested in carrying it that much anymore, but only time would tell for that.

180 comments