r/firefox 23h ago

⚕️ Internet Health Mozilla should have abandoned their pact with the devil long long ago and now it is biting them in the ass.

[deleted]

206 Upvotes

104 comments sorted by

52

u/y-c-c 21h ago

Brave and Vivaldi are non players. They don’t command anywhere close in terms of market share and they just repackage the Chromium browser with their own stuff and ship it. Firefox requires significantly more R&D.

65

u/NomadFH 22h ago

It's honestly an impossible solution. People don't want to pay for firefox, they don't want ads, they don't want to pay for mozilla's services, but they want feature parity with Google Chrome and they want a bugless browser not based on chromium. Something has got to give. They don't even want mozilla to have these as OPTIONS that can be turned off in the browser. I'm not entirely sure how they could make money to keep this company running that won't somehow drive away current users.

22

u/WetBootyCrumbs 21h ago

I actually leave telemetry and "suggest" on for this reason. If it means getting a better browser, so be it. 

Not that this makes it okay, but the way I see it is - there are worse companies after my data.

13

u/NomadFH 21h ago

I intentionally keep mozilla's sponsored stories on the home page on just to support them. I would love to use Mozilla's VPN instead of Proton VPN but they do not have an officially supported Fedora Linux version, only Ubuntu.

4

u/Mistermind05 | 13h ago

Lack of official alternative packaging is definitely going to be an important disadvantage on pulling Linux customers to Mozilla VPN.

I have heard that some people are downloading (experimental?) rpm packages from the official repo to install it, but let's be fair... Most of the people who would know about Github repos, already knows about Mullvad and most likely bought their service directly, instead of paying Mozilla to be the middleman.

If Mozilla wants to get to the casual customers, having official packages for, at least, Debian, Fedora and Arch is a must.

-4

u/Fresco2022 15h ago

Aren't you being naive? That leaving telemetry on really makes a difference? I don't think so. Mozilla is basically nothing more or less than any other company: it wants to make money. Period. Yes, Firefox is not a big company, but still it is just another company. Don't get me wrong, I like Firefox too, but if Mozilla can't compete, at some point it may all be over. Would that be a bad thing? Perhaps. But there's nothing you and I can do about it. At least not with leaving telemetry on.

15

u/Leliana403 15h ago

"a single action won't solve all of the problems so let's not even bother trying"

"Why are Mozilla relying on Google money?!?!"

4

u/Fresco2022 14h ago

But that's the downside also. Relying on most of your money from one source is risky. If the DOJ gets what he wants, Mozilla is badly screwed. And importantly, apparently Mozilla didn't see that one coming, or closed their eyes for it, although lawsuits and regulations against big tech monopolies are piling in recent years.

4

u/Carighan | on 9h ago

You mean the past 15 years of trying ~everything under the sun to make money instead of continuously having to rely on google didn't actually happen? Damn.

1

u/WetBootyCrumbs 5h ago

Like I said - there are worse companies after my data. 

I'm not going to say anything different that others haven't already touched on in this post.

I do not believe Mozilla to be malicious. Their privacy policy is pretty solid, they've been actively fighting for online privacy for years, they're trying to find a way to advertise privately - IDK what else they need to do.

Maybe one person leaving "suggest" and telemetry stuff on won't save the company. But it's definitely not contributing to it's downfall.

81

u/ConditionsCloudy 23h ago

Very interesting stuff. I use Firefox because it has the features I want and because I specifically don't want to use Chrome or any one of the many Chromium-based browsers. My default search engine is Bing purely because for my specific needs it tends to offer better/more accurate search results.

The implications of this whole situation are quite broad. For what little it is worth, I would pay for Firefox if that's what it comes down to.

3

u/crasyredditaccount 5h ago

Bing gives more accurate searches?

0

u/RalphBlood 5h ago

For porn. Dude is a goon.

1

u/xusflas 5h ago

just use Duck instead

-9

u/world_dark_place 9h ago

If you have to pay for Firefox so it wouldn't be open source anymore. And what would be the point in that case...

41

u/JoshfromNazareth2 9h ago

You can still pay for open source stuff.

8

u/jaam01 8h ago

Exactly. Proton is open source and is paid. Just because something can be forked doesn't mean it's going to maintained.

-2

u/world_dark_place 7h ago

No, you can't fork proton.

1

u/rokejulianlockhart 4h ago

Citation?

u/world_dark_place 29m ago

Fork it so, I will be waiting for the sue...

5

u/ImUrFrand 6h ago

no, there is a lot of software that is both open source and paid.

41

u/nefarious_bumpps 21h ago

Brave and Vilvadi aren't independent browsers. They are based on Chromium, which is also the base for Chrome and is an open source project managed by Google. Chromium -- and Chrome's -- development has been demonstrably tainted by Google's desire to protect and increase it's advertising revenue by implementing changes to Chromium that prevent ad blocking and privacy extensions. Google has more of a monopoly in the browser market than in search, but as open source, who would want to take over Chromium and why?

There are dozens of search engines; maybe hundreds. Google search isn't a monopoly, it just commands a clearly dominant position in the market. It does this by paying to make Google the default search engine, which is not an unusual business practice, and because provides results most people prefer, whether they get what they're looking for or not. In spite of the sponsored placement, advertisements and often inaccurate AI, Google search still provides more useful information more often for more people than the competition. The problem goes back to Google wanting to protect the advertising revenue it's search generates, and how it's leveraged it's near monopoly in web browsers to do so.

It doesn't matter if Google stops paying Apple and Mozilla to make Google Search the default search engine, and force Android and Chrome users to pick a default search engine at first launch. The majority of users will switch to Google Search quickly after experiencing the competition.

I would pay for Firefox if it worked as well as Chrome. In fact, in the past, I donated annually to Mozilla in the hope it would provide even a minuscule improvement in Firefox. The problem isn't that Firefox is bad, it's that Google makes changes to its services, particularly YouTube, that makes Firefox seem bad. And doing so drives more and more people away from Firefox, which makes other website developers less concerned about making sure their sites work properly with Firefox.

18

u/Here0s0Johnny 20h ago

There are dozens of search engines; maybe hundreds.

Similarly to there being really only 3 browsers (Chrome, Safari, Firefox), aren't there only a few independent search engines? Duckduckgo just aggregates results, for example.

8

u/nefarious_bumpps 19h ago

Now that you mention it, that is probably true today. I've been around long enough that this wasn't always the case. Upvote for being informative.

3

u/Dashieshy3597 19h ago

What do you mean by 'aggregates' in this case?

18

u/Here0s0Johnny 19h ago

DuckDuckGo does not maintain its own search index or web crawler for generating search results. Instead, it aggregates results from a variety of sources, primarily relying on Bing's search index, along with other providers like Wolfram Alpha and its own web scraping efforts for specific queries.

3

u/Dashieshy3597 19h ago

Is that considered good or bad?

13

u/Here0s0Johnny 19h ago

I'm not saying it's bad, I like duckduckgo and prefer it to Bing.

But it's important in the context of the search monopoly discussion. Just like there aren't dozens of web browsers but only three engines, there aren't hundreds of search engines, but only around five big indexers.

4

u/Dashieshy3597 19h ago

Okay I see what you mean.

12

u/IDKIMightCare 17h ago

Brave and Vivaldi may only be "independent" because they don't have to fund the maintenance of a browser engine.

If they did they'll be needing Google's money too.

1

u/istarian 4h ago

Maintaining a browser engine is cheaper than creating a new one with feature parity.

57

u/fdbryant3 22h ago

Mozilla really didn't have much in the way choices.  The simple fact of the matterr is Mozilla couldn't match Google's marketing to make Chrome the number one browser in the world.  That means revenue dried up and just like Apple taking money from Microsoft they take money from Google.  They did try getting away from Google by making a deal with Microsoft (or was it Yahoo, either way it was Bing) but people were not happy with that and they went back to Google.  

Unlike Apple they haven't been able to find a revenue source that allows them ditch Google and stay with their principles. Not enough people are going to pay for a browser considered second best (at best) when the "best" is free.  Taking Advertisement money is limited without violating privacy and frowned upon b6 users. Pretty much every side project they've tried that generates revenue goes no where and objected to by users.  Sure they get donations but considering the small pool of Firefox users can't imagine it is much in the scheme of things.  So with a user base hostile to almost every revenue sourcre available, where is this money to let them ditch Google supposed to come from?

The good news is they have time to develop revenue sources (even if it pisses users off) like the private ads they are working on. It is going to be 5 to 10 years for Google to exhaust all their appeals and have to comply with whatever remendy the court orders.  That is assuming that Trump's DOJ doesn't just accepts Google's recommendations so they can wash their hands of it and move on to whatever fish Trump wants to fry.

1

u/Reerrzhaz 6h ago

Hey, I'd like to hear more about mozilla's "attempted revenue sources" that got objected to. I'm sure you're correct but I just don't know what they've actually tried. I don't come here much either.

11

u/DoubleOwl7777 16h ago

both brave and vivaldi are based on chromium...thats not a different browser in my book.

7

u/JustSylend 16h ago

There are others, like Brave or Vivaldi.

Which are both Chromium based, so this DOJ could definitely affect them. Firefox's Gecko is the only realistic alternative right now. I trust that were Mozilla to charge us a few extra bucks for extra services, they'd use them to better push FF towards Android and not devices.

Really interesting read and definitely, Mozilla has to come up with something else.

7

u/royal_dansk 15h ago

That's easy to say but hard to do especially if they don't have other viable sources of income.

4

u/MarkDaNerd 9h ago

It’s not even just that they don’t have other sources of income. The Firefox community seems hellbent on being against ANY income alternative. They’re against ads, supporting Mozillas other services, and any type of subscription. Donations are not a reliable source of income and I doubt Mozilla would be able to survive on just that.

1

u/istarian 4h ago

Donations can work, but you need at least a handful of reliable donors who give a lot or for tens of thousands to chip in regularly.

1

u/MarkDaNerd 4h ago

Yeah that is not reliable. If donations worked well we would see companies adopt that model in a heartbeat.

25

u/Julian679 22h ago

i'd pay to use firefox, in fact i did donate to mozilla but i know its not money for firefox directly. Product is very good and wish more people used it

-23

u/[deleted] 14h ago

[deleted]

-1

u/ErlendHM 8h ago

Yeah, if anyone has it too good, it's queer people in developing nations…

23

u/NurEineSockenpuppe 19h ago

Pretty bad take.

You claim that brave and vivaldi are independent browsers. They are not. They are as dependent on google as firefox is if not more.

I do agree with your premise that mozilla should have tried everything to cut ties with google long before but this being your core argument kinda makes your entire post seem like an uninformed rant.

13

u/Mistermind05 | 13h ago

Even then, Mozilla made a lot of products since then, so they can get alternative revenue sources. Most of them either came out way too early or late to their respective markets.

They even tried to make a whole mobile OS, just so they could be an ecosystem, like Android is right now. After all, the biggest problem for browser adoption in mobile is the fact that users don't change the default browser most of the time, like Chrome, Safari, Samsung Browser etc.

To me, people can do lots of complaining on Mozilla's strategies, (these rants are getting tiring at this point) but they can't say Mozilla has not tried.

6

u/planedrop 16h ago

I agree, but I'm not sure that Mozilla would have survived otherwise honestly.

7

u/ramysami4 12h ago

Vivaldi and Brave are dependent on Google's contributing to Chromium. If Google stops contributing these will be dead on the spot.  Also they are not in need for so much money as Mozzila since they have most of the hard work done already. 

66

u/privinci 22h ago

But increasing CEO salaries is more important tho

25

u/kindredfan 22h ago

Maybe annoying but this is hardly Mozilla's main problem.

33

u/redoubt515 19h ago

Or even a consequential problem. If the CEO was literally paid zero dollars, it wouldn't change anything, they'd be in the same position.

I don't know whether the CEO makes too much, too little, or the right amount, neither does anyone else on reddit, but what I do know is it's a negligible amount of Mozilla's overall budget.

-3

u/riptide2265 15h ago

Yup, throwing away millions on one useless mouthbreather is not a problem.

7

u/clgoh 9h ago

It might be a problem, but it's insignificant.

2

u/Adventurous_Face_343 7h ago

Why is he paid millions if he's useless?

-2

u/vim_deezel 9h ago

it is their main problem. they can't do anything without money. I think 2025 will see the dropping of all these google/social media activism actions by the government because Trump has gone from a hawk to a softie on social media and the internet as long as they promise to promote him and MAGA. See all the recent meetings with social media founders. He will be imprisoning political opponents and journalists instead of corporations because corporations can pay him to not attack them. More or less mozilla status quo is okay. I personally think they should have been pushing firefox more via advertising and using those google bucks for that rather than all the side quests they've been doing.

10

u/Alusion 17h ago

As long as the CEO taking home millions of dollars each year I'm either not concerned or really concerned. Because that means either the company is doing well and just doing lobby work by wining. Or it is almost bankrupt and the CEO wants to siphon the last dollar out of the company.

6

u/beefjerk22 16h ago

The Mozilla CEO’s salary is unpublished. She has been in the role for less than a year.

19

u/lo________________ol Privacy is fundamental, not optional. 22h ago

We don't know how much the CEO is taking home in 2024, but in 2023 there was a large decrease from $6.9 million to $6.2 million. (Mozilla is at liberty to demonstrate their improved financials at any time AFAIK, so they could prove me wrong here.)

Even if they just sat on their current assets, they can make money through interest alone. They're not desperate yet. They can spend money on developers for years without changing anything.

14

u/[deleted] 16h ago

You think CEO salaries went down? This is how corporate gets away with so much.... Yet we can guess monopolies and share of market.

u/lo________________ol Privacy is fundamental, not optional. 3h ago

I know objectively that Mitchell Baker's total yearly payout went down in 2023. Is it still exorbitant? Yes. Her base salary is $600k and the rest of it (bringing us up to $6.2m) is technically bonus. I haven't calculated the salaries of the other top brass but they're probably similarly ludicrous.

-7

u/ClassicPart 13h ago

Are you offering to do the job for peanuts? What a humanitarian.

2

u/privinci 7h ago

"hey! Left millionaires alone!"

-2

u/vim_deezel 9h ago

I would do it for $1 million and I guarantee I could improve on the current status quo. The past couple of CEOs have been clueless what firefox needs to grow.

3

u/Prudent_Move_3420 8h ago

Honestly, Firefox is the only true independent Browser, well they are not really because of the money but software-wise they are. Brave and Vivaldi are neat but they are chromium-based so 100% dependent on what Google decided what is good or bad and if Google fucks up they have a bunch of work to do in order to undo it

5

u/buchalloid 17h ago

instead of searching for new sponsors - with well known self interests - , public, science, humanity related organisations should finance Firefox

Subsidiaries of United Nations Organisation, European Union, public universities, ...........

2

u/darps 9h ago edited 7h ago

Mozilla should be rather applauding the DOJ case in standing up for the open web

Kind of a wild claim if the result may well be that all we get is different flavors of Chromium down the line.

Shall we compare the barrier of entry to select a different search engine versus coding your own browser?

2

u/thrwway377 8h ago

Mozilla should've done this and that

Maybe you should bankroll Mozilla now, mr. Moneybags. See how long the browser and the company are going to last without that financial support.

3

u/seductivec0w 13h ago

Why do you assume Firefox can be what it is now without all the Google funding? You were willing to foot the bill?

3

u/bogdan2011 17h ago

I've been using firefox since the early 2000s, I remember how cool and focused it once was. Can someone explain what the hell happened? How could a team of developers make good software like Firefox and Thunderbird, but now when Mozilla is bigger than ever they can't?

3

u/jiji_bar 13h ago

I think the answer is just one: very bad money management. Over the years, they have mismanaged their funds, wasting them on things that are not "useful" and not thinking about the future. And unfortunately, this is not the developers' fault, but rather the fault of the managers making the decisions.

2

u/vim_deezel 9h ago

It's funny how the side effects of Trump's DOJ dropping all these types of corporate punishments started by Biden's DOJ/FCC/SEC might actually save Mozilla. You can bet google is promising lots of bucks to Trump and the GQP right now to end these law suits.

2

u/Carighan | on 13h ago

Now, this is really bad. With these words of 'concern', Mozilla is pretty much acknowledging that they are critically dependent on being a tentacle of Google's monopoly through their default search deal money for operation.

I mean, how would not taking that money years ago have changed any of that though? Other than either:

a) Having already folded years ago, or

b) Being dependent on any other big sponsor like Microsoft or Apple or so?

It's still years and years of taking money from the search provider everybody and their mother would be using anyways, so at essentially no change to the browser.

In Mozilla blog post, the words read like a desperate pleading "pls we really need that money, we are activists and we are the only alternative browser engine", when in fact, Mozilla should be rather applauding the DOJ case in standing up for the open web.

They are, hence their take that it "inadvertedly" could hurt small browsers. They are agreeing that curbing Google is good, but not if it drains the money line where Google is actually doing something beneficial with its money, i.e., funding Firefox.

This makes intuitive sense to me: Force Google to cut their shitty spending, not their decent spending. Don't let them decide it by first emptying the lines of spending that the managers at Google don't give a piss about anyways.

Mozilla claims that their "users" had a strong preference for Google and that is why they resumed the search deal with Google, but the reality is that such only cemented Google's monopoly and Mozilla allowed themselves to be used as a tentacle of Google's octopus, since users can change their default search engine to Google in 2 clicks anyway, as Mozilla themselves stated

This is not actually disagreeing with what Mozilla says. If people use Google anyways, why not take the - essentially free - money from Google then?

I'll be honest though, as much as I think the DOJ has to start somewhere, the fact that they're specifically looking at Google instead of enacting laws that broad-sweep hit all major asshole companies doing shit like this (Apple, Microsoft, Oracle, etc) is concerning. It just means Apple paid enough bribe money to send the hounds after Google.

1

u/Maguillage 5h ago

Mozilla has been playing the "Mozilla Foundation is Firefox" card for way too long, imo.

They have these sorts of financial struggles despite the Google deal because the vast majority of their finances are not spent on Firefox development.

1

u/shgysk8zer0 4h ago

I'm not reading all that...

I do know some history. Anyone else remember when Firefox briefly shipped with Yahoo as the default search engine? Or realize the significance of Firefox getting into advertising recently? Or acquiring Pocket?

-1

u/whiskeybandit 15h ago

Yep, they fucked up. I'm an avid Firefox user but have a fair amount of resentment towards the management for screwing up consistently year after year.

From a business standpoint, my gripes:

  • They acquired pocket. A service I actively used until after their acquisition. After which, the app basically went nowhere and I'd say became actively disliked by the community. I don't use pocket anymore.
  • Thunderbird: Another app that I used and loved. Didn't release a mobile app until fairly recently, fucked up for years in the 2010s when they were quite unclear what to do with Thunderbird and it showed in the quality of the app. I hear that things are back on track in recent years, but there's tremendous switching now. I won't be using Thunderbird.
  • VPN: Another service that I find use for, but their service from what I read is just Mullvad VPN. I don't use their VPN.
  • If you combine VPN and Thunderbird, there are so many revenue generating companies in this domain (and somewhat related domains say like password managers). Proton, Superhuman come to mind. Both of which are quite well regarded and generate revenue.

Time and again, they have squandered opportunities, squandered the good will of the community. Speaking as an external observer, it really feels like they are an activist company with a tech department instead of a tech company with an corporate initiatives department.

The only reason Mozilla is alive is because of Google. In any other situation, they'd be done.

0

u/jiji_bar 13h ago

Guys, as much as I love Firefox, this is nothing more than the result of poor financial management over the years. Resources have been literally wasted on nonsense instead of being invested and maximized with a view to the future. The folks at the Mozilla Foundation have rested on their laurels, thinking that Google’s money would keep flowing forever, and now, rightly so, they’ve had a rude awakening.

Either they completely change course by hiring a SERIOUS executive to restructure the organization, maximize their revenue, and invest where it’s needed, or they keep choosing their managers based on how much they embrace the "woke" mindset, and we’re doomed. I don’t see the future of our beloved browser as gray, but black...

1

u/jsavga 11h ago

Firefox is Open Source. If you don't like what Mozilla is doing, then fork a version yourself.

https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central

https://github.com/mozilla/gecko-dev

1

u/jmxd 11h ago

Mozilla has been unsuccessfully trying to create an actual viable revenue stream for years, so, i'm sure they would rather not have this deal either but they are kind of screwed

0

u/ImUrFrand 6h ago edited 6h ago

the thing that i see missing from this conversation is that google, even if forced to change the way they do business, doesn't necessarily mean death to partners.. it just means change in how they file the paper work.

further none of these proposals are permanent, things can change and quickly.

their lawyers know what their doing, im sure they specifically made the first drafts look as painful as possible to get the court to bend more towards their will.

these proceedings are all about money and revenue control.

hurting partners is just leverage....

1

u/Sweet_kata 8h ago

It looks like you count others people money. 🤔 Mozilla should or should not deal with Google as they themselfes like.

1

u/Loose_Moose_Crew 7h ago

No shit Apple isn't dependent on Google's money. Are you being serious?

-1

u/Zery12 14h ago

only "independent" browser is safari, and soon, ladybird.

1

u/StormGaza 11h ago

And hopefully Servo as well.

-6

u/liamdun on 11 18h ago

They've been paid more than 1.5 billion in total by Google, if they didn't waste it on exec compensation it could be keeping the money alive for another decade at the very least

-6

u/mdedetrich 14h ago

Just putting it out there that Brave is not reliant on Google, in fact Enrich’s main goal of Brave was to provide a sustainable funding model for Brave so it’s not beholden to Google like Firefox (and in his view Firefox was so beholden to Google that it couldn’t properly fulfill its privacy mission due to biting the hand that feeds them)

13

u/esquilax 14h ago

It's reliant on Chromium. Which is produced by Google, and is also a factor in the antitrust suit.

-6

u/mdedetrich 13h ago

It’s based on Chromium, not Chrome which is open source. Furthermore Brave has forked Chromium and maintains it on their own, for example they will continue supporting Web Manifest 2 even though main Google Chrome is removing it.

Given this they are not really reliant on it, Chromium could disappear and while it would affect Brave it would be more of an inconvenience.

In any case I was talking about financial reliance, in which case Firefox is definitely reliant where as Brave has zero reliance. Braves default search engine isn’t even Google anymore (its Braves inbuilt search engine)

13

u/esquilax 13h ago

They may have forked chromium, but I doubt they aren't reliant on it anymore. Keeping up with new standards and patching security holes in a browser engine is a big task very few companies have the resources to take on. Microsoft doesn't even do it anymore.

-6

u/mdedetrich 13h ago

Again, Chromium is open source. In the worst case scenario (i.e. license change) it would get forked and the open source community would continue maintaining it, as has happened with every single major OS project that has changed license.

9

u/esquilax 12h ago

the open source community would continue maintaining it

You underestimate how much work that is. I don't think that's likely anymore.

0

u/mdedetrich 12h ago

Every single massive open source project that companies have big stakes in have been maintained by the open source community if the license changes, there haven’t been any exceptions to this

8

u/esquilax 11h ago

At best, I can see companies building a foundation that they collaboratively contribute to. Chromium isn't going to suddenly be maintained by random devs from the Internet like a random JS lib.

2

u/ChaiTRex Linux + macOS 8h ago

Given this they are not really reliant on it, Chromium could disappear and while it would affect Brave it would be more of an inconvenience.

Someone being able to switch jobs doesn't mean that they're not reliant on their current job.

-34

u/feelspeaceman Addon Developer 22h ago

Just fire all those useless office workers and focus on Firefox, there's no need Google money at all if they spend it the right way

7

u/Carighan | on 12h ago

Just fire all those useless office workers and focus on Firefox

Which of the two do you want now, since they're diametrically opposed?

19

u/cacus1 19h ago

Developing a whole browser and a web engine by yourself needs a lot of money and developers.

It can be compared to developing a whole operating system.

They need a lot of money to develop Firefox only. I hope the money they get from donations, subscriptions to Relay, VPN etc will be enough.

We don't know if they will be enough though, I hope they are and Firefox never will have to do what Opera/Vivaldi had to do.

0

u/read_it_too_ 13h ago

May I ask what Opera/Vivaldi had to do?

10

u/gamblizardy 12h ago

Both use Google's web engine (same as Chromium) unlike Mozilla.

1

u/read_it_too_ 12h ago

That I'm aware of. But the comment said "had to do", that sounded like some big decision that was taken reluctantly...

7

u/clgoh 9h ago

Opera had it's own engine. They ditched it because they couldn't afford the development.

1

u/cacus1 7h ago edited 7h ago

Kill their own web engine (Presto) because they couldn't afford anymore to develop it.

And switch to Chromium and Blink, a "ready to use" web engine being in development by someone else (Google).

0

u/amroamroamro 12h ago

hot take: wikipedia should be sponsoring firefox with all that WP donation money

0

u/huh_why_is 8h ago

my zen browser which is a fork of firefox seems to be slowing down a lot. Is this why it is ?

0

u/anynamesleft 6h ago

I'd gladly pay to have a mobile Firefox that doesn't rape two thirds of my phone screen with that stupid "download complete" popup. Until then I wouldn't give em a nickel to buy a dollar's worth of salaries.

-9

u/ssyesin 20h ago

FF can integrate voluntary ad viewing like a browser Brave. and the income will go as a donation to the company.

-4

u/buchalloid 17h ago

Google search represents 0-2% of my queries, mostly commercial information.

DuckduckGo and with a single-click like technology (extension Swift Selection Search) the Rest of the World, 200 buttons

-21

u/Amasa7 20h ago

I think it's time to use a Chromium-based browser.