Dependant on Google’s money, the majority of Google comes from ads but not all of them. The deal is not directly with ads, is the default search engine on Firefox.
This is recently, sucks a lot but we did not see yet how they’ll use that with the browser.
More importantly the biggest difference is Brave want to be like Google, is the goal of the company. Mozilla is funding the project in the shittiest way possible but is not the end goal.
You are right, I should have been more specific. He’s openly homophobic. I’m also pretty sure that’s not the case for Mozilla as he was Mozilla’s CEO and was pushed out over this specific thing.
I don’t know why you are shifting from CEO to employees.
My personal reason, I looked at their code and it was amateur town. Hacked together trash. There’s a proper way to modify Chromium and they didn’t follow any of it. In contrast, Vivaldi’s coders knew what they were doing. I don’t actively use or support Chrome, but if you’re going to do something, do it right.
I’m just learning about what all the fuss around Brave is. But I’d be interested to hear how Google seems to be the ethical choice for a daily driver browser currently. It’s obviously fine to not want to use Brave, but how is it the inferior choice when compared to Chrome (or even considered a sidegrade)? Even with all the issues mentioned I’d still recommend it as the lesser of the 2 evils compared to Chrome.
The commenter I’m replaying to implies they’re using Chrome primarily, and then reacted negatively to the mention of Brave. I’m asking how Chrome use is the acceptable choice and Brave is seemingly so bad in comparison.
I don’t think the commenter you are replying to is arguing that chrome is a better choice. He or she knows it’s bad but didn’t make the change out of lazyness (no offence). Change has a cost, especially if it implies changing habits. So people will just delay or avoid them.
obviously, but when you have the option of just, not using chrome at all, why would you use anything chromium based to begin with, google is literally the problem here lmao
Brave is a great browser and the only chromium one I would ever use but mentioning it on Reddit OR Lemmy will cause you to get mass downvoted unfortunately
The browser lets you customize the dashboard so you can make the browser look as clean or minimal as you want with almost no distractions
Biggest issue I have with Firefox is that some websites can be broken but 99.9% of the time this is not Firefox’s fault and the only one to blame is lazy developer’s
Firefox out of the box doesn’t come with specific features that the websites that I use need which is why I haven’t made the switch yet, biggest one is that Firefox doesn’t work with Keychron’s in browser software that is used to customize their keyboards. Again this is not Firefox’s fault because Firefox didn’t adopt the feature because of security concerns which is completely valid and even commendable.
I could see this as part of a metrics thing - if Google sees a big drop in users right after the rollout, it’s harder to brush it under the rug as having no correlation.
If you’re talking about Google owned sites, there’s circumstantial evidence that Google sets their sites up to do that intentionally in order to gimp competitors.
That’s weird, something is definitely wrong. Are they set up in a similar way? The first thing that comes to my mind is: Are you using the same DNS server on both? Differences in DNS response time should be more noticeable than rendering time on most hardware. And I think Firefox doesn’t use the system DNS by default but I might be wrong. Do you mind checking? I’m curious now.
I mean unless Mozilla starts getting sued by Ad companies to force them to ban ad blockers, I don’t think that will happen because being able to have ad blockers is a major selling point.
But even if it does happen, Firefox is open source and has been forked, so the next alternative is LibreWolf.
I don’t think google wants to get hit with another antitrust lawsuit for web browsing, so I am sure they will figure out some other deal to funnel money to Firefox
Good point. Could be like MS and Apple in the late 90’s. When Apple was on death’s door, Gates invested in Apple so MS would have faux competition for regulators.
Honestly at least they’d be forced to revamp their business model and focus on their users. I’d willingly donate to them monthly if it went to firefox directly and they acted in our interest accordingly
In order to get away from that, they need to find alternative ways of making money, like showing ads, which loops us back around to the guy above saying they’re making bad decisions.
Your point is fair, but their real problem is they bloated up to absorb their insane budget and they are going to have to strip down to a reasonable size for a browser company before trying to establish a non-google revenue stream.
How the hell would you know this? There’s a reason no grassroots project is able to compete with Chrome, Firefox or Safari, and it’s not for a lack of trying.
And if you’re going to tell me they should stop doing Pocket etc., then please refer to my comment above.
If on a computer need more security uBlock + uMatrix + NoScript.
uBlock and uMatrix can block scripts, but I find NoScript’s fine grain control to be user friendly. Makes it a pain to browse the web though, until you setup each of your normal sites.
I use firefox, I mostly like it, but it still doesn’t support chromium style tab groups (no, that one extension is not similar), and its webgpu implementation also doesn’t work on most websites more than a year after Google made their version available by default
I’ve been using Vivalid, they have ‘Workspaces’ (as its Tab Group analog) which is different but in a way that was a pleasant surprise and kind of reminds me of older systems. Imagine working with one tab group at a time and the rest disappear when you’re not on that workspace.
It’s chromium based, but it’s pretty custom at this point. Chrome extensions are still compatible, but the interface/etc will throw you a bit if you’re looking for something that’s a direct swap.
Not sure if this is “that one extension”, but I use Simple Tab Groups for Workspaces-like functionality, similar to Edge and Vivaldi. I know, it isn’t tab groups, but I use it similarly.
I’m guessing, they’re referring to multi-account container tabs. It’s what the Chrome feature took heavy inspiration from, but of course without the privacy protection aspect.
Click fraud is a big thing, with lots of counter measures, I don’t see how they could go past them as they are saying themselves that they have a very naive approach. To me it’s useless at best, but more probably counterproductive.
I think you’re right about click fraud. Actually, I use AdNauseam primarily to disrupt non-consensual targeted advertising. Even if the impact is small, I’m obfuscating my profile as a form of protest against tracking.
How is this better as a protection against tracking? You are still making requests to trackers, this is so easy to counter, make multiple tracking requests, filter out want changes, keep what’s the same and you have some tracking data.
Have you not heard the news? Mozilla essentially have become an advertising company by acquiring adtech start-up called Anonym. I think the only way to escape this bullshit is by installing privacy-enabled Firefox fork (such as LibreWolf) or to wait for an alternative web browser to rise up (like Ladybird or Servo) which has user freedom and privacy in its first priority, which is something that Mozilla doesn’t seem to care lately.
no I don’t, I have not keeping up with browser news lately after switched to Floorp, not sure if I still live long enough to see Ladybird or Servo officially released
I guess Anonym, PPA, Cliqz, pocket, the default telemetry that is non-trivial to disable, and whatever this latest nonsense is are all just hallucinations.
How convenient that this happens just a few days after Firefox implements the features that have been blocking me from switching for the last few years.
Still, I’m curious about other browsers. We know Chrome is killing V2, but what about other Chromium-based browsers? I saw below a comment espousing Brave, but I’d rather use Chrome than Brave because of the gross crypto bs. What about Vivaldi, Opera, and Chredge? Will they keep supporting Manifest V2?
Multi-window support on iPad is the main one. Less important, though it would have bugged me if they didn’t have it, is sustained Incognito tabs—which apparently they had until a couple of months ago, then removed without explanation, then added back in just 1 day ago, also without explanation. Found a thread on their forums with a whole bunch of people perplexed and asking what happened.
Your first point at least is an iPad thing. Nothing is fully featured on the iPad. Not even safari. It’s thanks to that exact fact that chrome is at least mostly fully featured on the iPad. If safari had comparable function, you could bank on them blocking those features from the chrome app too. There’s a deal made somewhere. I wouldn’t be surprised if cash flow from Google is why safari is still the same piece of crap it always has been. “Hey your R&D + return for safari only nets you 1% YOY. We’ll give you 2% YOY if you just don’t even bother.”
They only know raising prices and knee-jerk reactions to competitive moves in their market space. Additional functionality for the user is only granted when it’s being used as a cudgle against their competition. Never for users benefit.
If you’re seeing new functionality on the iPad Firefox app, it’s likely because Firefox figured out a way to implement it without paying apple because they want the user to have that function. Totally different ethos.
If you’re seeing new functionality on the iPad Firefox app, it’s likely because Firefox figured out a way to implement it without paying apple because they want the user to have that function
Nothing at all remotely like that. They just don’t have enough developers to have implemented it sooner. It’s an API that Apple introduced in 2019, that Google implemented within months, Microsoft implemented within a couple of years, and Mozilla finally implemented this July.
There are actually no alternative browser on iOS. Before the European Digital Market Act all iOS browser have to use webkit, so while you could install Firefox, Chrome and others, they were actually using Safari’s rendering engine. I believe that’s where a lot of the limitations come from. Now with the DMA Firefox could use it’s own rendering engine but this hasn’t landed yet. I don’t know if any other browser has switched from webkit yet.
Sort of. As you say, it’s more accurate to say that they’re forced to use Safari’s rendering, but everything else is up to them, the same as how any other app would be developed. That’s how they get their own features like bookmark syncing etc.
Being able to have multiple windows of the same app is a feature Apple introduced in 2019, and obviously Safari supported it immediately. Google Chrome added support for multiple windows after a few months. I switched to Microsoft Edge once they added support for it about a year, maybe 18 months later, and have just been waiting for Firefox to finally support it so I can switch to that.
Incidentally, 2019 is also the year Firefox finally added support on their desktop browser for a CSS property (column-span) that a site I used to frequent required to work. Though by that time I no longer used that particular site.
Well I for one hope they figure out an alternative income, like a premium subscription? Or perhaps look to get acquired by proton and get some integration going with those services? I’m no expert here, I just think that they have a lot of happy users, and there must be some way to figure this out financially.
I’m not aware of any non-profit with staffing the size of Mozilla. The problem is that you need to be able to make money and to set it aside for bad times, so you don’t have to fire employees the moment the donations falter.
On the plus side, the only shareholder of the Mozilla Corporation is the Mozilla Foundation, which therefore essentially cannot accept any of the profit the MoCo might make.
That’s a ridiulously low amount of money given the amount of users. I’d happily pay 10-20 bucks a year to keep mozilla alive. Not that I like it much, but more so than the big alternatives
Yeah, Apple seems to be able to fetch a little more than a billion per percent of the browser market (18% at 20B), but Mozilla is only able to score 0.5B for 2-3% of the market. Mozilla is getting a quarter of Apple’s rate.
That said, Apple has a lot more leverage than Google, and they can strong arm a better deal. I also wouldn’t be surprised if Safari users are just a more valuable marketing cohort. Firefox’s user base is going to have a lot more people who opt out of and or block targeted marketing.
The Google antitrust decision will result in Mozilla losing 90% of their revenue since Google won’t be allowed to pay them to use their search engine anymore.
The antitrust case is about Google and Apple, not Mozilla. It doesn’t mean the antitrust case will have any impact on Mozilla, because it’s not a major player, unlike Apple.
inb4 “lol @ using twitter in 2024” I just steal memes from it, and mastodon/bluesky simply aren’t up to speed yet.
Weighing options though I’ll go with Firefox and shitty twitter experience rather then Chrome and the ads everywhere experience. Not really a contest there. Just idle complaints.
I really hope there’s a significant rise in Firefox -and derivatives- usage share. It will be good for everyone, even those stuck on Chromium browsers.
lemmy.fosshost.com
Active