zlacker

Firefox once was the only alternative to internet explorer. Then Google came along to become the new and improved alternative to the alternative and it became quite successful. MS eventually threw in the towel and their browser market share is lower than it has ever been. And most of that is now Google Chrome.

And now history repeats itself and we have Firefox being the alternative to the mighty Google Chrome and Google emulating more and more of what people hated about Microsoft's stewardship of Internet Explorer and dictating to users what they must have their eyeballs exposed to. In Microsoft's case that was obnoxious popups and popunders, shitty toolbars, and endless crap they came up with to somehow lock users into all that. Now Google is whining that nobody wants to see their shitty ads (correct) and somehow feels entitled enough that they can dictate browsers to respect their authority regarding what users can and cannot block. It's the same behavior. And the fix is the same: abandon the Chrome ecosystem. The more users do that, the more the web will basically remain outside of the control of Google.

>>jilles+(OP)
> somehow feels entitled enough that they can dictate browsers to respect their authority regarding what users can and cannot block. It's the same behavior. And the fix is the same: abandon the Chrome ecosystem. The more users do that, the more the web will basically remain outside of the control of Google.

This is fundamentally the problem isn't it. They feel entitled _because_ they can dictate terms to the rest of the web, or at least they think so. There's no fixing this by changing Google's mind, only by forcing their hand by making this decision hurt their wallet. And as you point out, that only happens if people stay outside of the Google garden.

>>jilles+(OP)
I guess it’s a good thing I never switched from Firefox!

>>genoci+D
Microsoft thought they can do that too. Where is IE now?

>>gmerc+a3
IE lived on a very long time after the antitrust thing. Also still in relatively widespread use in parts of Asia.

>>dmvdou+83
I can still remember trying out Phoenix when it first came out because I wasn't interested in a lot of the features of the Mozilla Suite.

And also when Firefox 1.0 came out, sneaking around the school library computers and installing it as the default browser. The librarian eventually found out and asked me to just install it on all the computers so that the other kids wouldn't be confused why the browser was different on some machines.

>>genoci+T3
As soon as Firefox started grabbing market share, Google backed them and at the same time (probably) started the process of creating Chrome. IE is one of those zombie things that's still around that does not matter. Arguably it's a nuisance even to MS at this point.

>>jilles+86
> Arguably it's a nuisance even to MS at this point.

Which is likely a big part of why MSFT tried to get rid of it.

>>jilles+(OP)
Most younger people in USA only access internet via iPhones+Safari so this all debate is pretty academic at this point of time anyway - soon neither Chrome nor Firefox will be relevant anymore. There's no other choice than Safari there and Safari has DRM builtin as well.

>>genoci+T3
That was a rhetorical question- IE is irrelevant sans south korea due to their weird banking laws.

>>jilles+(OP)
"Firefox once was the only alternative to internet explorer"

There was Opera as well.

>>PeterS+19
Netscape

>>PeterS+19
Opera was the best!

>>gmerc+h8
But IE didn't just become irrelevant overnight. It took antitrust enforcement and multiple massive companies pooling their resources to dislodge it from it's position. There was a significant, concerted effort to knock out IE, and I just don't see the same going on vis-a-vis Chrome now.

>>gmerc+a3
I think circumstances are different now because alternatives to IE provided superior user experience, so there was a motivation for "normies" to switch. At present it seems to me that "normies" are quite content with Chrome and enticing them to switch is going to be quite challenging.

Not sure what is the solution here. Several years ago it seemed to me that Mozilla may be on track to get their shit together, then they decided to lay off Rust/Servo people, left their Firefox for Android team barely staffed so they couldn't even handle more that handful of supported extensions and instead spent all the money on their CEO bonuses. Guess this is going to be quite a painful decade for the open Web...

>>jilles+(OP)
This time around the difference is that Firefox is almost entirely bankrolled by Google.

>>jilles+(OP)
>MS eventually threw in the towel and their browser market share is lower than it has ever been.

MS hasn't thrown in the tower on Edge and is even still working on Internet Explorer.

>>jilles+(OP)
It needs to be stressed that Firefox was getting direct support by Google at the time via patches, one reason that Google created Chrome was that Firefox took too long / was arbitrary about patches sent upstream.

Frankly I'm unsure if Firefoxs fate was to be EEL (embrace, extend, lock down) would we be worse off or better off than what we are right now with Chrome?

>>genoci+P9
To start an avalanche, start with pushing a few stones

>>gmerc+a3
IE's monopoly was broken by Google spending billions of dollars on chrome and advertising it. Where is such spender who would do it for the open web? It doesn't exist. The only hope is regulatory/legislative action, but taking away freedom and relative anonymity online is now pretty well aligned with the interests of the western ruling elites(not to mention some degree of regulatory capture), so the incentive structure just isn't there. Open web will continue to exist for some time, but eventually will be limited to several websites with an activist position. (Unless there is a subsequent legislative mandate to enforce this attestation for everything, for safety and security of course)

>>izacus+v7
There are people outside of the USA. Quite a few.