6 ms·

Meredith Whittaker at Signal made < $800K [1]. I can't fathom how $6.9M is even remotely acceptable. [1] https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizatio

• echelon 1y ago
  A plant from Google. Firefox is an antitrust litigation sponge, but you have to keep it rudderless and ineffective.
  • eecc 1y ago
    How on point. In my limited career I have been in several projects whose plight didn't make any sense -- with all the smart people and the effort poured over them, how could the disaster continue to unfold! -- until I realized failure rather than success was the goal.
  • shmeeed 1y ago
    IMO that's basically all there is to say about FF, sadly. Any other speculation and commentary seem moot to me. I'll still keep using it for as long as I can, though.
  • novaRom 1y ago
    Who else? I wonder what other companies play such role?
  • motorest 1y ago
    > Firefox is an antitrust litigation sponge, but you have to keep it rudderless and ineffective. I don't know what makes you believe Firefox is ineffective. It's by far the best browser around. What do you think is missing?
    • sickofparadox 1y ago
      The people using it.
      • motorest 1y ago
        > The people using it. I'm not sure if you are serious. I mean, look at Chrome and Edge and Safari. They are managed by corporations that control their own platform. I get Chrome, Edge, and Safari because it is actively pushed onto me. What does Firefox have? The ugly truth is that browsers like Chrome and Edge and Safari are just as good as Firefox, and a user who is not a software militant doesn't really care or know what browser they are using. They open the "internet" app and browse away. What leads you to believe this is a Firefox issue?
        • dartharva 1y ago
          Edge and Safari yes, but Chrome doesn't come pre-installed in both Windows and MacOS. You and every Chrome user actively goes out of their way to download and install it. > What does Firefox have? Every single nontrivial Linux distribution out there comes packaged with Firefox as the default browser. > a user who is not a software militant doesn't really care or know what browser they are using. They open the "internet" app and browse away. Clearly then all Chrome users on laptops/desktops are software militants.. > What leads you to believe this is a Firefox issue? Firefox had at least half a decade of a headstart against Chrome and did jack shit with it.
          • andrewaylett 1y ago
            Google have at times used quite forceful messaging to push users of their search product to download Chrome.
    • tomaskafka 1y ago
      I'm trying to use it right on mac right now. It's still slow with many tabs (even with autosleep enabled), visibly slower than both Safari or any Chromium based browser. Also they killed visual tab expose, and any extensions that could replace it, so all I have for managing the tabs is a vertical list.
    • amiga386 1y ago
      1. A marketing department that can get it more than 2% market share 2. A legal and advocacy department that can work with governments to stop monopolists like Google and Apple privileging their own browsers on platforms they control 3. To use its seat on standards boards to stop abhorrent practises like the W3C endorsing DRM, or Google dropping effective web-blocking APIs from extensions.
      • throwawayqqq11 1y ago
        I wish mozilla would focus on developing decentralized/p2p features, from messaging to maybe tor-browsing. I think this independence is much needed in the future to come.
        • Tadpole9181 1y ago
          Firefox should focus on not hemorrhaging users, they're about to reach the cutoff (1%) where the US government will no longer even support their browser. No normal person will switch to Firefox for tor, despite us nerds thinking it's cool. And if they can't get actual users to switch, the browser has no future.
          • bombcar 1y ago
            And if you want a browser that can do Tor, Brave has you covered. All Firefox needs to do is make adblocking an integral part of the browser, but that would cut the Google money off.
    • albedoa 1y ago
      In addition to what everyone else said, comments like yours confirm that it would be a waste for me to check out Firefox for the hundredth time. You are among a sea of comments enumerating the specific reasons why it sucks, and you're here insisting with zero substantiation that it is "effective" and "by far the best browser around". A better approach would be to acknowledge the issues that users have had with it and explain how it has improved. On the other hand, if your definition of "effective" and "best" describes Firefox the last time I checked it out, then our definitions do not match, and I don't need to check it out again.
  • tomaskafka 1y ago
    This here is a single comment that explains everything. Firefox is kept clueless. Sorry to all the devs grinding inside the machine - you are doing great work, and while it is not your fault the ship is going in the wrong direction, you are providing the fuel for it to keep going there by keeping your heads down and not revolting. VGR's "Gervais principle" is a great series about recognizing the psychopaths at the helm and their power games. https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-or-the-office-according-to-the-office/ https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-...
  • boomboomsubban 1y ago
    I can't understand how this keeps coming up when Google just lost an antitrust case largely because they pay Firefox and Safari for their default search. Chrome only exists to funnel people into Google, they wouldn't risk their search monopoly so there's browser competition.
    • thisislife2 1y ago
      Different anti-trust cases - you are talking about search engine monopoly, the others are talking about browser monopoly.
      • boomboomsubban 1y ago
        I'm talking about how the search engine monopoly is far more important than the browser one.