Lets just take Firefox and make it the open source standard. If we all get behind it like we did for Blender, we might succeed.
I doubt it tbh.
For blender it's fine, but for browser engines it's different because of their sheer size, complexity, need to adhere and collaborate with others to form web standards, need for security experts, day one vulnerability patches, etc.
If Mozilla dies, random volunteers or existing projects like LibreWolf can't just pick up the slack.
Volunteers can't run a modern web engine, it takes hundreds of millions per year to upkeep.
There's a reason why we're down to just Google, Apple, and Mozilla. Nobody wants to foot the massive bill unless they have a damn good reason for doing so.
It's probably more expensive to maintain a browser engine than a full operating system at this point. It's truly insane how large and costly they are.
I'm sure Linus was told the same at some point.
The Linux kernel is actually a perfect example of this.
It's worked on by hundreds of companies, and the bulk of the work is done by a small number of megacorps.
If it was worked on by a group of volunteers doing bits whenever they had spare time, it'd be in a much less useful state right now.
You're seriously underestimating how large and complex web engines are. There's a reason we're down to 3 engines and the community hasn't been able to create one.
It's hard to do. It requires hundreds of millions a year to keep going.
If it were genuinely so trivial to maintain a browser engine, more would be doing it. Even easier, Firefox forks could take over maintaining the engine, as opposed to just tweaking the browser (not even having to work from scratch with a new engine). But they don't, for the reasons I've already mentioned.
KHTML was the basis of WebKit and then Blink/Chromium, so the community did make something. It was just overtaken by the corporate projects, for those same reasons you mention.
those days the web was way simpler than it is now. complexity has doomed every web engine not maintained by a mega corp (and some that were, Microsoft killed their own).
Why? Well, it was Chrome. Yes, I know many of you spit at the very name. Get over it.
OK, boomer (yes, "surprise! surprise!", this harticle – for "hate driven article" – was written by a boomer, and one that writes for several online publications, too).
This article is not only a (staggering) failure from the aforementioned boomer to grasp what really is at play here, but it also shows a significant, shocking lack of quality assurance in the way "theregister" determines what gets published. This piece isn't an opinion as much as a flaming bag of shit, meant to stink everyone's shoes, and motivated only by the author's ineptitude-fuelled frustration in what seems a textbook example of the Dunning–Kruger effect.
Lemme first address my primary point, in relation to what I quoted at the top, I'll get to illustrating the various failures of the author after that.
No, Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols, we will not "get over it".
The first inaccuracy is in depicting Mozilla Firefox as "a browser". It isn't merely just another browser. Firefox is the last widespread multiplatform browser that isn't using the Blink engine (yes I know GNOME Web and Konqueror use WebKit, which is Blink's ancestor, BTW[^1] , but they are hardly widespread. And safari isn't multiplatform).
Why does that matter? Because the engine is essentially all that a browser is, once you strip away the cosmetics. So the actual contest here isn't between a dozen of browsers, but between two engines, and Firefox's (Gecko) is, indeed, in a dire position. But if we let it go further, it will, as Steven puts it, fall into irrelevance (the inaccuracy here is that the harticle depicts Firefox as already irrelevant).
And if we ever come to the point where only one engine prevails, where services necessary for administrations, citizenship, and life in general, can drop support for anything else than Blink, it is the end of the open web, and of open source web browsers in general[^2].
You will then have to input intimate personal information into a proprietary software, by law.
If you don't see this as a problem, you are part of the problem.
And this is why we can't "get over it".
The internet is much more than just the web. But 100% (rounded from 99.999+%) of users are unaware of that.
The web is much more than browsing. But 100% (rounded) of users are unaware of that.
Now, as to the other blunders I mentioned above, here are a bunch:
"Mozilla's revenue dropped from $527,585,000 to $510,389,000".
This is a 3% drop. Significant? Yes. But hardly a game ender.
"So, where is all that money coming from? Google".
I know it, you know it, we all have known that for a decade by now, and yes, it is a problem, yes, we need public FOSS funding, but that is neither news, nor relevant. Firefox, as the last major browser not directly controlled by Google, can find funding elsewhere. If I'm correct, and the stakes are so high, when Google pulls out, the public will step in (🤞), in the form of institutions, such as the EU.
"[...] she wants to draw attention to our increasingly malicious online world [...] I don't know what that has to do with the Mozilla Foundation".
That's on you, buddy. Understanding the matter at hand should be a prerequisite for publishing on theregister. But I digress. The maliciousness has a lot more to do with software than with users. And the root of said software aren't in "the algorithms", but really in actual, user facing software, that runs in our physical machines, where our microphones, cameras, GPS, and various other sensors are plugged...
"Somehow, all this will be meant to help Mozilla in "restoring public trust in institutions, governments, and the fabric of the internet." That sounds good, but what does that have to do with Firefox?".
Again, it's on you. Seriously, WTF. I get that you, the author, are American, and that decades of misinformation about "socialism", and "public ownership" will do that to a motherfucker, but Firefox does need funding aside from verdammt Google. You even highlighted that point yourself... How do you suppose they would get public funding if the government, or the public, doesn't trust Mozilla? Because replacing Google by another corporation only moves the problem, it hardly solves anything. While I'm at it, quick history lesson here: the "fabric of the internet" has been publicly funded. All of it. The internet was designed by DARPA funded researchers. Public money. Developed by universities. Public money. The web was invented at the CERN, by a researcher. Paid with public money. As a tech writer, how do you not know that?
[^1]: WebKit is only partially different from Blink, since Blink is a fork of WebKit. So, as far as "interoperability through competing implementations" goes, WebKit is of rather limited relevance, unfortunately.
[^2]: Only chromium and brave are available as open source software, chromium is maintained by Google as a courtesy, they can pull the plug any time, it will probably only affect their revenue positively. Brave is 3 times less popular than Firefox.
Thanks for the breakdown. YOU could write for the register.
Thank you 🙏
But I hardly doubt I would be given a voice. I'm just a random millennial struggling to make rent... (no avocado toast involved tho)
Nice rebuttal, I felt chastised and I didn't even write the thing
Today, only a relative handful of Firefox users are left. According to the US federal government's Digital Analytics Program (DAP), which gives us the running count of the last 90 days of US government website visits, only 2.2 percent of visitors use Firefox.
Look, I know far fewer people use Firefox than Chrome, but basing it on who uses U.S. government websites in the last 90 days doesn't even make sense if Firefox users were only in the U.S.
I'm in the U.S. and use Firefox and I haven't been to a U.S. government website in the last 90 days as far as I know.
And, I don't know if the author knows this or not, but there's around 200 other countries out there.
Some of those government websites only work on chromium too, which is irritating
Back in the day it was the case with IE as well.
The cause?
At least in IE's case, deliberate siloing of non-standard features needed for table input.
Microsoft didn't have to write it that way, but they did, knowing it would capture a fucktonne of government and regulatory sites.
I had to support IE all the way to 2018 at one site because the only way they could pull permits was from an ancient government site that only supported IE.
Opinion piece by a person who has little to say outside of ad-hominem.
Indeed. Article reads like a spoiled brat. "Get over it". The second something like that appears, it's crystal clear the writer thinks they're above the reader.
Yeah, and she didn't quit, she stepped down to get previous position on the board.
A lot of people in this thread seem to downplay the article with "yeah, that might be your opinion..." but two facts that are facts and not opinions are:
This means that if Google decides to stop bank rolling Mozilla it's game over. Firstly because other revenue streams are currently near insignificant when you look at the total expenses.
Secondly because since Firefox hold no significant market share, no one else would be interested in investing in Mozilla and the future of Firefox. After all, whatever Mozilla will throw up on the wall as the "grand masterplan for world dominance" would just end up in the question "Why didn't you do this before?".
I've been using Firefox for almost 20 years. I started using it because I saw what happens when one company controls the browser market. That web browser did so much damage and we only really got rid of it some year ago.
Chrome is a perfect example that the history repeats itself and that people are fucking stupid. People are actually acting surprised and complain about Google putting effort into making adblocking impossible in Chrome.
So all in all, if Mozilla doesn't find other revenue streams, Firefox is dead... It just doesn't know it yet.
Now, everyone yapping about that Linux was an insignificant player and still made it to the top just sound like enthusiasts who really doesn't know history and the harsh reality of doing business.
Linux was just a little more than hobby project (business wise) that essentially only Red Hat and Suse made real money from in the 90's.
Arguably you could say that the turning point was when the CEO of IBM, Lou Gerstner, shocked the world by saying that IBM was going to pump in 1 billion dollars in Linux during 2001. Now, that doesn't look like much today when just Red Hat has a yearly revenue of 3-4 billion, but that's how insignificant Linux was at that time.
After that milestone Linux went for the jugular on Windows Server. For ordinary people it would still take almost 10 years before they would hold something Linux in their hands.
The rocket engine that accelerated Linux and pieces that it was ready for end users was Google and Android in 2007. Linux's growth the last 20 years wasn't mainly driven by enthusiasts, it was business pumping in money in future opportunities.
What future opportunities can Mozilla sell to investors with the market share Firefox has today?
Yup. Mozilla really needs to diversify and find new revenue sources.
They've been trying, but it's proving difficult to do while still refraining from hoovering up and selling everybody's data. Nobody wants to pay.
To make matters worse, anytime Mozilla tries to make any money, people accuse them of selling out or say they should just focus on Firefox. Some of these people even say that Firefox needs to get rid of Google funding immediately to get rid of Google's influence.
But that means the death of Firefox. I don't really get what these people want.
These people want to be rid of Google's influence, which is why they chose Firefox over Chrome to begin with. But they don't understand the position Mozilla is in..
Arguably Google needs Firefox and co to not lose chrome in Europe due to anti monopoly rulings. Think that is sadly the best thing Firefox has to offer investors.
The rocket engine that accelerated Linux and pieces that it was ready for end users was Google and Android in 2007.
N-no. Correct about IBM though.
It seems that what made Linux and FreeBSD relevant was the late 90s' and early 00s' Web. And FreeBSD then lost to Linux, not to Windows Server or Solaris.
Linux’s growth the last 20 years wasn’t mainly driven by enthusiasts, it was business pumping in money in future opportunities.
Only there are different kinds of businesses, and the balance between them is becoming worse.
Great write up, thank you very much!
I expect Google to keep Mozilla/Firefox on the lifeline indefinitely to avoid antitrust issues in the states and EU, so Mozilla/Firefox won't go anywhere.
Still, this doesn't mean anything, because I often need Chrome or Safari to access some websites.
In the end it is quite funny: Moving a lot of stuff to the web made Linux a more realistic desktop option, at the same time to access a lot of stuff on the web one needs to run a Blink browser.
IMHO the most annoying thing is, that we could have at least some laws, which mandate that every government service must be available to Open Source users and every government paid software must run on at least Linux. Thanks to lobbying and power this will never happen.
Edit: To state it more clearly: Firefox is IMHO in bad shape and in a bad situation. Firefox won't die, but at the same time right now I already need Chrome/Safari browsers, because Firefox support is broken on many sites. I see no way Firefox can gain significant market share, especially seeing what regular consumers tolerate from Microsoft/Edge and Google/Chrome.
This sure is an opinion.
My only question is, why do so few people use Firefox?
Most internet usage is mobile and people use whatever's preinstalled on their phone because it just works is my guess.
Nice try Manifest v3 pushers
Firefox will live on regardless of Mozilla's support. Since it's FOSS the community will keep it alive
Will it though? Seems like the kind of task that requires a huge amount of effort, way beyond the kind of capacity you get from casual contributions in peoples' spare time...might be difficult to maintain feature parity and implement new standards without a full time team on it.
couldnt you say the same about linux?
Linux is currently mostly made by big corpo, but they are held by community and Linus'es checks.
Unfortunetly for browsers most of the giants focused on Chromium, which Google has final say over. Also Linux is OS, where browser should be simple and websites should work even if some one API is not supported. In Chromium's world web"apps" are won't be compatible with anything non-Chromium. Any browser would be required to support 99+% of Chromium features or not work.
Linux is cheating by having every major tech company help develop the kernel
Sounds like we just gotta add Firefox to the kernel while Linus is on vacation.
True, but web designers already treat Firefox and its offshoots as an afterthought. Do you think without Mozilla it would get even worse?
the corporate world seems desperate to kill it. its chrome/edge or GTFO
In swear this mainly has to do with it's about:config being so much more robust and vast than chromium's //flags settings. The fact so many privacy related forks (Librewolf, Mullvad, Mull, Tor) are based off of firefox and not chromium (Ungoogled Chromium) should point to why these corporations are seething at it.
Google was/is keeping Firefox afloat via funding as the article points out. This is mainly due to the fact that Google didn't have a real competitor in the browser space for some time until Microsoft got Edge off the ground and finally killed Internet Explorer.
Personally I see Firefox as being the superior browser for privacy and customization. I also don't think it's going anywhere, but it's funding relying so heavily on one entity is an issue. If Google decides to pull it's funding of Firefox and no other major corporation steps in to provide the needed cash flow... well who knows, guess it'll be a chromium world after all.
The feds should mandate that all websites must be accessible by Firefox. Plus, they should completely switch to Firefox internally.
Kinda disappointed in The Register of all things adopting this faux personal life story reporting style on such a matter.
I found the stats re Firefox usage a little surprising/hard to believe so I double-checked them. Indeed, most rankings show Firefox use hovering at around 2.5%. The open web is sort of already dead, I think. It's honestly not that uncommon now that I come across websites that don't work in Firefox and there are zero hints or info that you need to use Chrome. It's like the world has already forgotten that the web isn't just an app you access through Chrome.
Google's been working on this more or less since they launched Chrome, so it's not surprising, but wow, that fucking sucks.
I blocked this website on my news feed because of this article. It's opinion piece written by an asshat.
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
