Firefox has surpassed Chrome on Speedometer

treeherder.mozilla.org Treeherder

TechNews @radiation.party

treeherder.mozilla.org /perfherder/graphs

10 2

You're viewing a single thread.

292 comments

As long as they can't manage to make a half-decent mobile browser this hardly matters.
Performance improvements are nice and all, but unless the performance is truely terrible, it's the least relevant factor.
Much more importent are:
consistently good UX over all platforms, together with good sync
good support for all websites
Their Android version is completely useless since the reboot (which is especially sad since the version before was hands down the best UX for a mobile browser on the market). They even dropped their VR version, even though it was literally just their Android version with slightly adjusted UX. They don't even have any form of tablet UI or Android TV UI.
And since their market share is steadily approaching zero, more and more websites drop support for FF and it's noticable.
The support part is what really kills FF, since it's not really in their hands whether web devs test websites with FF.
Lower market share -> less support -> lower market share.
Especially users who "just want the browser to work" are affected by that. They don't care much about the browser, but about the websites. And if their favourite websites tell them to stop using FF, they will. And that kind of user makes up the biggest part of the market share.
And since FF has no platform where they can push their browser (contrary to all other major browsers), they also won't get new users.
As much as we would want it otherwise, FF is dead, they just haven't accepted it yet. And that's true for almost all Mozilla products and Mozilla itself.
The only way I see how this can be reversed is if e.g. the EU decides that Mozilla and/or its products have some special value and starts funding and pushing them.
- What is actually your problem with Android FF? I use it every day on my phone.
  Yes, it's not as snappy as Chrome, but besides that everything works perfectly. In addition to that: Fully fledged ad-blocker like on desktop, one big reason why I no longer use Chrome on my phone.
  
  No tablet UI, no tab bar: This is a big downside for me. I set the minimum width on my phone pretty high, so the screen fits as much on there as a small tablet. The lack of tablet UI/tab bar is a pretty big issue
  The tab drawer is a whole mess in itself. It's really clunky to use, tab reordering (an essential feature if you want to ever e.g. compare products) wasn't available for a very long time. Now it is, but it's super clunky to use. And it's still not available for private tabs.
  There are addons, but since they only allow a very small selection of addons, they boil down to adblockers and dark reader. There is hardly anything else in there, which is a shame, since FF on Android used to support all addons the desktop browser supported. Their "walled garden" approach to addons also hinders anyone from developing addons for FF on Android, because these addons will likely not be added to the curated list.
  Compare that to e.g. Vivaldi:
  It's got a great tablet UI including a tab bar.
  The tab drawer works just as expected, pretty much exactly like in old FF
  It doesn't have addons, but it has adblock (based on and compatible with uBlock Origin) built right into the browser, same with dark mode for websites. All of the addons that both are available on FF for Android and that I care about are built right into Vivaldi.
  The UI in general is much better. For example, opening a new tab is just one click. Same with switching tabs and closing tabs on the task bar.
  Additionally, Vivaldi doesn't get a "This page is not compatible with your browser" as often as FF does, and random bugs on websites are also rarer.
  The only advantage FF on Android has over Vivaldi is that it's easier to access the reader mode on FF for Android.
  
  you can use every extension for firefox desktop on mobile, you just have to add them to a collection
  
  And in basically every instance a FF desktop extension that wasn't made for the new FF on Android will not work on it.
  
  I tried Vivaldi, don't really even see a difference between the tab drawers. Except Vivaldi does have bigger tab previews and buttons which feel easier to press. The lack of tab reordering in private mode definitely seems like an oversight.
  Tabs in tablet mode would definitely be cool too, but I don't know what the experience is like on tablet.
  On Android you can just long press links to open private tab or new tab. Seeing Vivaldi's feature bloat if a bottom bar with infrequently used buttons that blocks viewing space, and a completely unnecessary tab bar on mobile that wastes space, feels like an ancient outdated design from 5+ years ago.
  That's kind of Vivaldi's design though, ridiculous feature bloat and cluttering the screen with useless crap instead of trying to preserve screen space when these single press buttons can easily be moved to gestures or condensed. You know, like modern UX design. Like a third of my screen is just gone because of of redundant buttons and UI. Reminds me of Internet Explorer days with Yahoo toolbar.
  
  Just to make sure, we are talking about Vivaldi on Android, correct?
  Seeing Vivaldi’s feature bloat if a bottom bar with infrequently used buttons that blocks viewing space
  What buttons do you mean? The only two buttons that I see added from Firefox are the history and the adblocker control. Both pretty useful. I also don't see how they block viewing space. What else do you want to view in the bottom bar?
  and a completely unnecessary tab bar on mobile that wastes space
  ... that can be turned off if you don't like it. Also it's an absolute killer feature and one of the main reasons why I chose Vivaldi over FF. If you don't like it, you can turn it off. I much rather have the option to enable/disable a function than to not have the function at all.
  I tried Vivaldi, don’t really even see a difference between the tab drawers.
  Try to drag-and-drop a tab. In Vivaldi, it works exactly as expected.
  On FF it first goes into the multiselection mode and only if you drag it over its stubbornly clingy dead zone can you rip it from its position. ~1/4 of the time the whole screen jumps to a random position, especially if you have many tabs. If you drag too early, the tab doesn't get moved at all, but instead the whole screen moves.
  Other than that, I see that they fixed some of the jankiness that it had a year ago when I last seriously used FF on Android.
  when these single press buttons can easily be moved to gestures or condensed. You know, like modern UX design.
  Gestures are one of the dumbest UX decisions possible, because they lack affordability in most cases. Stuff like swipe to reload/go back/go forward is pretty dumb because you trigger it accidentally a lot.
  Like a third of my screen is just gone because of of redundant buttons and UI. Reminds me of Internet Explorer days with Yahoo toolbar.
  What kind of screen size do you have? On my screen, the bottom bar and the tab row take up maybe 5% of the screen real estate. And again, if you don't like it, disable the tab bar and make the bottom bar auto-hide.
  
  I haven't used a different browser in a good while, so I'm not sure that these issues don't exist elsewhere, but here's a few:
  For a very long time after the rework, reordering tabs was not possible. Only recently was this added again. But there seems to be no acceleration, so moving an old tab to the front takes forever. Even worse, this feature is still not available for private tabs (since you can't select those at all).
  Quite often when I switch to the tab overview, it doesn't automatically scroll to my current tab so I need to do that manually.
  I'm also not a fan of the "jump back in" view that shows up every so often instead of the content of my tab. Why they would assume I'm interested in anything besides what I intentionally opened is beyond me.
  Creating a new tab is more cumbersome than it needs to be. I think you were able to do that by scrolling to the right on the address bar of the rightmost tab. A dedicated button would be even better.
  I think it's a great browser, and pretty much the only one I use, but in my experience everything does not work perfectly.
- I don't use desktop FF, but mobile off is the best there is around by the virtue of letting you use addons, and thus, an adblocker.
- Without explaining the actual problems you have with Firefox on Android, your post is really pointless.
  Also, "steadily approaching zero" is an intelligent an analysis as saying Edge is steadily approaching 100% just because its share is increasing.
- Can you give an example of websites not supporting Firefox?
  From a personal use perspective, I have rarely encountered sites that do not work on Firefox, especially in recent years. Two years ago I may have needed to keep a Chromium browser around but recently I have had no issues.
  And from a professional perspective, dropping support for Firefox would be asinine. Most modern web frameworks handle browser compatibility for you, and you essentially get it for free these days. It is almost no extra effort to be compatible to all modern browsers, so why stop? Firefox is has great browser support in general and is far better than the current state of Safari
  I agree that they don't have a device which they can use to force or promote their browser like other companies can. Which is a shame and is why they should perhaps try to advertise more aggressively. However, it's a free, open source browser, I don't really want them to advertise or be profit driven
  
  I don't keep a log of websites that don't work on FF. The last one I came across is joyn.de, a TV streaming site. They don't tell you that it isn't working on FF, it just crashes when trying to play a video.
  For simple stuff not supporting FF is really asinine, but for deeper stuff, like hardware accellerated video streaming, it's not quite as easy. Especially if you are, for some reason, stuck with old frameworks or in-house developed stuff.
  Actually, the application that I work on (b2b software) frequently has FF-only bugs, because the frontenders in my team refuse to test every commit on FF. It's just me finding the bugs randomly.
  The thing with free and open source is that it's not free to develop. Mozilla still needs to pay the development. Even though the source is open, 99% of the development is done by full-time (and obviously paid) Mozilla employees. Being open source doesn't really help Mozilla bring down the development costs at all.
  And that's the second major point where Mozilla is in trouble: They don't really have any sustainable income.
- I want to use the same (synced) browser across all my OS's, so the main reason I stopped using Firefox is because their Android tablet UX sucks.
  Vivaldi works great though on all my devices and I'm super happy with it.
- As long as they can’t manage to make a half-decent mobile browser this hardly matters.
  Um, what? Last I checked, Firefox was the only mobile browser that supports extensions, including the all-important uBlock Origin, without which the web is basically unusable.
  Their Android version is completely useless since the reboot (which is especially sad since the version before was hands down the best UX for a mobile browser on the market).
  What in the world are you talking about? I'm writing this comment in Android Firefox. It works fine. It's my daily driver. I only use Chrome for testing.
  good support for all websites
  If a website doesn't work in Firefox, there's a problem with that website, not with Firefox.
  I've done my share of web development. I had to deal with IE6 compatibility for years. Firefox is a dream come true compared to what I've been through. I test my work in all three major browsers, and I suffer no excuses from developers too lazy to do the same. Especially now that there are only three of them.
  And since FF has no platform where they can push their browser (contrary to all other major browsers), they also won’t get new users.
  That's the real problem. That's illegal, by the way; Microsoft got sued for bundling IE with Windows. Pity the courts these days don't care about upholding the law.
  
  Um, what? Last I checked, Firefox was the only mobile browser that supports extensions, including the all-important uBlock Origin, without which the web is basically unusable.
  Kiwi Browser gives you all desktop chrome addons. Yandex as well, if you prefer Russian surveillance over US surveillance.
  Even Samsung's browser offers addons.
  And Vivaldi has about everything I need (including an uBlock compatible adblocker and dark mode for websites) integrated directly into the browser.
  If a website doesn’t work in Firefox, there’s a problem with that website, not with Firefox. I’ve done my share of web development. I had to deal with IE6 compatibility for years. Firefox is a dream come true compared to what I’ve been through. I test my work in all three major browsers, and I suffer no excuses from developers too lazy to do the same. Especially now that there are only three of them.
  That's good of you, and as a dev I also test on FF (contrary to many of my colleagues), but that's not what everyone does. And thus, as a user, I frequently stumble over stuff that doesn't work on FF.
  What in the world are you talking about? I’m writing this comment in Android Firefox. It works fine. It’s my daily driver. I only use Chrome for testing.
  If everyone felt like that, don't you think FF on Android would have a market share higher than 0.48% on mobile?
  If a website doesn’t work in Firefox, there’s a problem with that website, not with Firefox.
  That, again, comes down to maket share. If FF on Android was alcohol, it's market share could be legally called "alcohol free" (at least over here).
  No market share -> no financial incentive to fix websites for that browser -> broken websites -> reduced market share
  That’s the real problem. That’s illegal, by the way; Microsoft got sued for bundling IE with Windows. Pity the courts these days don’t care about upholding the law.
  It actually isn't. Microsoft got sued in 2001 (so 22 years ago, and that matters), and they only got sued to open up their OS so that users could replace the browser if they wanted to. They were actually not prohibited from bundling IE with Windows.
  And putting ad-banners on their own website to market their own browser (like Google is/was doing with Chrome on the Google search site and on Youtube) was never part of anything like that.
  Unfortunately, maybe, illegal no.
  
  Kiwi Browser gives you all desktop chrome addons.
  Ad blockers (that actually work) will not be allowed in desktop Chrome starting next year.
  Yandex as well, if you prefer Russian surveillance over US surveillance.
  I don't. Better to be under the surveillance of one country than two.
  Even Samsung’s browser offers addons.
  And Vivaldi has about everything I need
  Those two are not FOSS, so they are immediately suspect.
  That’s good of you, and as a dev I also test on FF (contrary to many of my colleagues), but that’s not what everyone does. And thus, as a user, I frequently stumble over stuff that doesn’t work on FF.
  And that's your cue to leave and look for an alternative to that website.
  If everyone felt like that, don’t you think FF on Android would have a market share higher than 0.48% on mobile?
  No one ever accused the general public of being well informed.
  It actually isn’t. Microsoft got sued in 2001 (so 22 years ago, and that matters), and they only got sued to open up their OS so that users could replace the browser if they wanted to. They were actually not prohibited from bundling IE with Windows.
  False. Microsoft never stopped users from installing other browsers. The issue was that IE was bundled with Windows, and other browsers were not.
  From Wikipedia: “The government alleged that Microsoft had abused monopoly power on Intel-based personal computers in its handling of operating system and web browser integration. The central issue was whether Microsoft was allowed to bundle its IE web browser software with its Windows operating system. Bundling the two products was allegedly a key factor in Microsoft's victory in the browser wars of the late 1990s, as every Windows user had a copy of IE. It was further alleged that this restricted the market for competing web browsers (such as Netscape Navigator or Opera), since it typically took extra time to buy and install the competing browsers.”
  And putting ad-banners on their own website to market their own browser (like Google is/was doing with Chrome on the Google search site and on Youtube) was never part of anything like that.
  That it is not, but it is an anti-competitive practice: using one monopoly (on web search) to create another (on web browsers). I'm not certain whether this particular anti-competitive practice is illegal yet, but it needs to be.
  
  Ok, there is no point in arguing with you. You haven't read up on the backgrounds, you haven't tried to understand, and you are arguing from fundamentalist viewpoints.
  No point in talking with fundamentalists. It just goes in circles.
- The Firefox version on f droid is pretty good - using that right now
- You just kinda listed bad website compatibility like 5 times. That's not even true lol, it's very rare there's a compatibility issue, and it's also very rare that websites refuse to support it. Can't think of any right now actually.
  Most of the issues is because Chrome actually incorrectly adds something, or has a bug. Then for compatibility sake, Firefox has to actually match that broken buggy implementation so the end result is the same. This is another big reason why a chromium monopoly is bad.
  Also the Android UX being bad is just funny to me. I find it by far the best, and you should absolutely not be speaking for other people. Would like to know what actual browser you think has better UX? Considering it's been so long since they changed the UI, I think you must've forgotten how truly bad it was before. Also that they added support back for some missing stuff people wanted, like grid list for tabs.
  
  You just kinda listed bad website compatibility like 5 times. That’s not even true lol, it’s very rare there’s a compatibility issue, and it’s also very rare that websites refuse to support it. Can’t think of any right now actually.
  Happens often enough. Just the other day I tried to watch something on joyn.de (a TV streaming service) and the videos just wouldn't play on Firefox. Had to actually switch over to Chromium to get it working.
  Most of the issues is because Chrome actually incorrectly adds something, or has a bug. Then for compatibility sake, Firefox has to actually match that broken buggy implementation so the end result is the same. This is another big reason why a chromium monopoly is bad.
  That's a frequently stated topic that's suspiciously always lacking any sources. Also, if you have >50% market share and if your engine has >75% market share, is there something like "incorrectly adding" something? Incorrectly as stated by whom? By the makers of a browser with <3% market share?
  This is another big reason why a chromium monopoly is bad.
  Well, if everyone is using Chromium, there is no such thing as an engine that has to implement someone else's stuff.
  Tbh, I really don't miss the early 2010's when web development meant you had to test on 10 different engines
  Also the Android UX being bad is just funny to me. I find it by far the best, and you should absolutely not be speaking for other people. Would like to know what actual browser you think has better UX? Considering it’s been so long since they changed the UI, I think you must’ve forgotten how truly bad it was before. Also that they added support back for some missing stuff people wanted, like grid list for tabs.
  Just to check, I reinstalled the old version of FF and the UX is amazing compared to the current one. It really is. If you want one that is closely comparable, checkout Vivaldi. FF feels like a student's hobby project compared to it.
  
  Never heard of that site nor can I test it, I'll just take your word since I can't find any examples myself. Clearly a bit toxic against Firefox here lol.
  Web market share doesn't mean anything. Web follows standards decided by w3c that every web renderer follows. None of them get it exactly right because web browsers are extremely complicated and there's all sorts of edge cases. When Chrome or Firefox have mismatching behavior, the one following w3c is correct, the other one is objectively bugged. This is not opinion, this is following documented and mutually-agreed standards. Which Google and Mozilla are both on the w3c commitiee. I'll let you look into if you care. This also doesn't mean that Chrome will fix all their bugs either.
  Just going to disagree with you with the UX because it's clearly subjective, but modern UX design heavily disagrees with you. Having a single visible button for every possible action is not good. It's a waste of space and clutter if it can be condensed or moved to a more intuitive action/gesture. More screen space the better.
- I guess we found a chrome fanboy that think being edgy at trolling.
  
  I don't even use chrome... But apparenty I found the Firefox fanboy who gets butthurt whenever someone says anything about the difficulties of the thing they fanboy...
  Sadly, this kind of attitude makes it really hard to (a) actually leverage constructive criticism and (b) drives people away from using the product the fanboy is defending.
  But yeah, if it makes you feel better to hurt Firefox and it's community, it's your call.

292 comments