C1xLb wrote:
Nothing dramatically new in this post but it's an interesting view of Mozilla's strategy for Firefox starting in 2007, pre the iphone! As you can see, it's been one wrong turn after another and the article barely gets into the management problems at Mozilla that have probably compounded the problem...
Chrome for Android not having any form of ad-block and Firefox for Android having Ad-Block Plus should in theory be a major selling point. That's why I switched from Chrome to Firefox to mobile, and there are a ton of articles about the Ad-Block Plus Browser, a fork of Firefox which is currently in beta. I think the main issue is that people don't *know* that there are Android browsers with ad-block available. Where Firefox is failing on that front is that they aren't using their boatloads of money to sort of openly advertise that they have an Android browser that you can install ad-block on and run as the default browser on any Android phone. That is basically the main thing Mozilla has going for them in general right now. Eventually, Google might counter by allowng ad-block for Chrome on Android the way they did on Windows, but Firefox could build some quick marketshare before then if they acted a bit more savvy.
The article acts like you really can't use an alternate browser on Android. Not true. I never use Chrome for Android anymore- and I installed Firefox for Android straight out of the Google Play Store. People just don't know it's out there and that it has ad-block.
The same may not be true of Apple and the iPhone, but the majority of the world uses Android.
Now, there are three big issues Mozilla faces, one of which the article mentions, and the other two that it doesn't. The first is that apps are taking over for the browser in all sorts of situations across platforms. I'm increasingly switching from apps for news and sports sites that have too many adds or limited functionality to just a clickable pseudopod app that opens my web browser on my phone. If the app is a game or has some sort of special functionality or works great, that's my go-to, but as soon as it annoys me with something the web page wouldn't do, I replace it with an icon that leads to the webpage. It even saves me precious hard drive space (Phones need more hard drive space). Maybe most people won't do that, but some people do or would. I am not sure folks realize you *can* do that.
So the app/walled garden thing is a problem, but not an insurmountable problem.
The other thing, and this is really Mozilla's big problem, is that it's trying to copy Chrome in every single way imaginable with the last few years of Firefox "innovations". You can't compete with something by trying to be a pale copy on delay, unless it's a situation like Red Hat/CentOS where the one is an open source Linux distro that charges per install and the other is a no-cost Linux distro that compiles what is basically Red Hat on delay without the copywritten bits, where money is involved. When both things are free and available easily, like Firefox and Chrome web browser, Firefox copying Chrome on delay is just going to get even the people who don't like the changes to eventually throw up their hands and go "Why am I getting Chrome on delay in a container called Firefox when I could get the latest stable version called Chrome 18 months in advance?". I know the feeling, because I switched from Firefox to Chrome for exactly that reason before I really discovered Pale Moon (I had a vague idea that it existed, but I didn't know what it was going for vision wise).
Firefox needs to offer a unique alternate to the other browsers, Chrome included, which it did. Then it stopped doing it. That was a boneheaded move. There were people that loved the old interface every other browser was going away from. So, Firefox could have just said, "Hey, we're the browser with the classic interface you know and love, but with the security updates you need, and browsing speed and feature improvements you crave.". It's obvious, they blew it. Pale Moon is hopefully going to fill that void.
The third thing is that Firefox, a browser that rose to prominence in part because it was the first well-known browser to let people block ads on websites, has at least three separate times in recent years that I remember, announced plans to be the only current browser to feature ads within the browser itself (I remember that Opera did that years ago, but they realized it was stupid and stopped). Mozilla is all like "Oh hey, we're the browser that's not controlled by a big corporation, so we don't have to do the type of things corporations would do like shove ads down your throat. Oh, by the way, here are some ads in your browser that no one else makes you put up with. It's awesome. You'll love it. We're an independent foundation- backed by a for-profit corporation that loves ads. Enjoy some ads. Why are you leaving? Come back!".
And every time the backlash forces Firefox to back off it's ad plans, they just come back with a very similar advertisement plan like 6 months later. They're going to get those ads in somewhere. Meanwhile, their userbase who came to Firefox to get away from ads is obviously not going to stick around for that.
Even their freaking Android browser has pop-ups ads for Mozilla products and features on their little "home screen" type thing. I send Mozilla feedback every time I see one complaining. I really hope Pale Moon is about to find volunteers to handle Pale Moon for Android and restart development. I'm ready to jump the second there's a stable maintained version out of beta, if it comes back (Unless something better pops up in the meantime- We'll see what APB's browser is like when it comes out of beta- I don't do betas).