The future looks quite grim for Mozilla and its Firefox web browser. The average monthly user count continues to drop while the browser of its ex-CEO is reporting new heights regularly. Then there is the looming death of Google and its impact on Mozilla’s finances to consider.
Mozilla’s reaction came as a surprise. It started to add features that users requested for years. Firefox supports vertical tabs now, tab groups, and a lot more.
It also took a look at its assets to figure out what to keep and what to terminate. This resulted in the termination of recent acquisitions, such as Fakespot, and long-standing staples, such as Pocket.
While these help free up resources and reduce expenses, it is likely that they won’t prevent the Mozilla-ship from capsizing, if things take a turn for the worse.
What to do? Here is an idea!
Why is Brave gaining users and Firefox losing them? You could say that it is all because of the different underlying platforms that the browsers use. Brave, after all, uses the same core as Google Chrome. Firefox uses Mozilla’s own engine. It has advantages, as it gives Mozilla full control over the engine. However, all development weight is on Mozilla whereas Brave and others reap what (mostly) Google developers and others work on.
It would be shortsighted to focus solely on this. Brave includes a content blocker by default. It also includes lots of privacy enhancements. While some criticize the browser for its integration of crypto-stuff, the combination of Chromium with its integrated content blocker works really well most of the time.
Firefox users can install uBlock Origin or another content blocker, but they have to do so manually.
Why is not Mozilla integrating its own content blocker or establishing a partnership with Raymond Hill, the creator of uBlock Origin? Mozilla never revealed the answer, but the most likely answer is because of its search deal with Google.
An ad blocker would prevent Google ads from showing up. Google would rightfully so want to pay less to Mozilla, as it would not make enough revenue anymore to justify the price that it pays Mozilla each year.
But what about running a test? Create a special version of Firefox. Install an ad-blocker and enable it by default. Distribute it, maybe ask for donations in the same way that the Thunderbird team is asking for them.
See how it goes. Just make sure that privacy is excellent for users, that they won’t see any sponsored content or other paid content in Firefox, and that their privacy is always valued more than anything else.
It might work. Users might pick Firefox as it would keep them safe and private while using the browser. It might not work, but Mozilla would at least tried something.
Now You: do you use Firefox or another browser? Let me know in the comments below.
Not enough users understand the value in using Firefox. Yes, I vaguely find it annoying when FF doesn’t render a page that is easily rendered in Edge or Chrome. There are other nuisances to deal with–e.g. many sites don’t honor the “Remember/Trust this device” when logging on with FF.
Not sure how to term the inherent value in using FF–a sense of freedom from capitalistic monopolies? I know few users of other browsers who take the time to check privacy and security settings. They gladly, willingly offer their personal data.
Don’t know. I would leave FF as is; the following link offers some other browsers based on the FF engine.
Why doesn’t FF work more with Mullvad? Librewolf?
https://www.makeuseof.com/best-firefox-based-browsers/
PCMag, in a recent listing of freeware, mentions FF as the number one browser.
I use more then one browser. My main surfer is Mullvad Browser with modifcations to make it less ugly and get rid of the idiotic letterboxing.
There are literally millions of people using the same screen resolution as you are, no matter who you are or what resolution your screen is using. Why anyone thinks knowing what that resolution is is a privacy concern is beyond me.
I use Mullvad with uBlock Origin preinstalled as secondary browser. Brave is of cause my browser of choice. I would prefer less Brave bloat, but most of the bloat is opt-in, and the rest can be opt-out.
I really do not know how Mozilla Foundation can survive without Google or another benefactor. If you looked into its finances, you may come to the same conclusion as me. Management is extremely overpaid and bloated. Most money that could be saved for rainy day go to political causes (keep Bluesky afloat and similar stuff). That means that they do not run as a business but as a top-heavy charity. Wikipedia Foundation does the same thing, but their website expenses are 1/10 of revenues, and they did provide great service up for a long while up to 2016 (plus/minus couple of years). They also have a big Investment Fund and, like Reddit, 99% of its workers are volunteers. My hope that Mullvad + few other companies could buy out or fork Firefox engine and do something about it, but as far as Mozilla is concerned, it will implode next year after Google money are gone.
@Martin
Off Topic: I just got an invite for “Hands Free AI Assistant” testing from the windows insider program. Irony at it’s best, sending an invite to me of all people LOL
Anyways, I thought the “Hey CoPilot” testing might be of interest to you as a subject to write about.
I share Martin’s analysis of Firefox’s situation and as well his suggestions.
In life, you sometimes have to try to improve things softly, but other times a radical move is required : “You’re in the army now, get up and fight” like in the song.
As for myself, if I am, have been and remain a Firefox user, it has never been for whatever ideological reason : a browser is a browser, not the support of proselytism of any sort, or if it is I’ve never perceived that with Firefox. I personally couldn’t care less of a company’s internal affairs as long as they don’t interfere in their products; the CEO, the staff could be demons or angels as long as I appreciate their product is all that matters to me.
The product here is Firefox. I started using it by curiosity and kept it mainly because of the availability of its numerous prefs together with its easily “tweakable” environment, followed by the fact that I started to understand its deployment, inner mysteries so to say : with time habits lead to disinterest or, at the opposite, to at least a feeling of love, should it be that of a lazy comfort.
So here we are, myself as still many others, with for some of us maybe the feeling we’re on some sort of Titanic, bound to encounter a fatal issue. Yeah, I think of it, we’d need to be blind and deaf to not imagine an iceberg in the horizon. But analogies have their limits, and we’ve seen more dramatic perspectives avoided thanks to a smart u-turn. Will Mozilla be able of that, no idea.
Otherwise, a new browser chapter, maybe titled Brave. Time will tell. Meanwhile I’ll be among the last to quit the ship should it sink. “I’m not in love, it’s just a silly thing I”m going through” as the song puts it, except that I’m really not in love 🙂 I’m used to, no less & no more.
I think we seem to forget that the Mozilla Foundation not-for-profit owns the Mozilla Corporation for-profit subsidiary which seems to be doing very well for itself judging by the whopping great pay rises it’s awarding their CEO. The new boss, Mitchell Baker could fund the shortfall caused by Trump’s decision to withdraw funding all on her own with the money she’s raking in.
And then they have the temerity to beg their users to donate to the cause while still paying large sums to attract ex-Facebook/Microsoft techies like Steve Teixeira. What do these people do exactly if they’re losing money hand over fist while enjoying the fruits of advertising revenue.
Yes, Firefox is a good alternative browser to the Chrome crowd, but it’s obviously not in dire straits as has been purported to be the case.