Most of the "abandon Firefox" rhetoric I've seen is due to their sudden focus on cramming in AI while simultaneously ignoring or half-assing long wanted features (e.g PWA support).
And to think that shoving in AI will fix any pre-existing userbase shrinkage is like thinking having a baby will save one's failing marriage.
Gee, our userbase is shrinking. What should we do? learn what the users want and cater to their needs? No, definitely what we must do is double down and force more unpopular features. That will surely bring back the users that left because of our previous decisions.
/s
@dustyData Seriously… Over the years, I must have gotten dozens of people to switch to Firefox, just out of my enthusiasm. For the last 5 years or so, I haven’t promoted it much because of the direction of the Mozilla foundation. Now I’m abandoning it altogether.
Does that include those who have switched to a Firefox fork like Librewolf?
Those who use Firefox are more likely to be tech savvy. They're therefore more likely to be comfortable switching to a Firefox fork as well.
Firefox keeps getting worse, why would those with the know how stick with it when they can use a fork which is better?
Or add it to the list of onboarding steps at the very beginning. Otherwise, it's either on by default or off by default, and our (or Mozilla's) definition of "easy" is entirely open to interpretation.
Headline is misleading. That is one sentence from a list of three points.
- First: Every product we build must give people agency in how it works. Privacy, data use, and AI must be clear and understandable. Controls must be simple. AI should always be a choice — something people can easily turn off. People should know why a feature works the way it does and what value they get from it.
- Second: our business model must align with trust. We will grow through transparent monetization that people recognize and value.
- Third: Firefox will grow from a browser into a broader ecosystem of trusted software. Firefox will remain our anchor. It will evolve into a modern AI browser and support a portfolio of new and trusted software additions.
I think the more important statement, and one that I agree with, is in the first point.
AI should always be a choice — something people can easily turn off. People should know why a feature works the way it does and what value they get from it.
If this is the goal then I agree. Mush as AI annoys me, I don't care if they build AI features into the browser. There are enough people that do want AI features for it makes sense to do so. But it needs to be optional. I don't want to have to keep going into about:config to disable AI features that should have been opt-in in the first place.
No.
AI is something that the user can easily turn on.
If somebody is forced to turn it off before they can use their browser, it's not actually optional.
The best choice is to let the user know that such a feature is available first, ask if they want it on, and tell them how to turn it on if they say no. The problem with having things off by default is that most people don't look around the options, they go with what they're given. This isn't even about AI, but features in general.
Myself on both Firefox and DuckDuckGo I saw the AI selection prominently displayed and I disabled it. Be transparent, but that includes letting your users know things are there.
I hate starting an app and being forced to choose between things that I have no idea what they are or whether I would want them right when it starts. Just leave it off and let me turn it on when I want to, thanks.
If something is enabled prior to receiving user consent, it's not truly optional.
No, fuck that. I am sick and tired of having shit pushed at me and then it being made my responsibility to be eternally hypervigilent to avoid it. It's abusive and fucking shame on you for defending it!
Yes, the only way to talk about something you don't like is to bend the actual meaning of words to make it sound worse.
...or, we can just respect what words mean. Big ask, I know.
I have turned off every AI feature I can in Firefox and most any other app. I'm not DeFeNdInG jack shit.
If something is enabled prior to receiving user consent, it's not truly optional.
TBF if our society and data harvesting practices have taught us anything, it's that the majority of users do not have the willingness or the basic understandings needed to opt out of the default settings. The amount of "install it and forget it" users is astounding.
Lemmy has such a hard-on for hating AI that it ignores what I consider to be basic facts. This, combined with the fact that Lemmy leans technical, means being out of touch is common. Seeing suggestions in this thread that the AI features should be opt in is absurd because no-one will use them because 90% of people don't change settings.
The hate for Mozilla also seems short sighted. Mozilla has to follow the group to try to gain marketshare or at least keep what it has. Firefox's marketshare is dwindling and if it gets low enough it will die, which would be bad for everyone
I generally agree, but if there's a switch at install time, I don't really care what the default value is.
I don't think there is a problem, from the user standpoint.
Personally, I find all this talk of "choice" from Mozilla to be a red herring. What exactly does it mean?
When Mozilla introduced telemetry, they had to give us a reason. They had to promise it was good because it would help them develop their browser. But with talk of "choice," Mozilla simply implies AI is good without explaining how.
Sheesh. Out of the 20 comments in this thread this is the only one that actually addressed the contents of the article, the rest of them were all talking about what other browser they were using or going to be using now or just vaguely griping about how much they hate AI.
Are there any other Firefox communities that are actually about Firefox?
I've used Firefox for a long ass time but let's be honest here.. a LOT of recent history has been trying to figure out how to turn off whatever new feature they've been putting energy into. Their community sees them as a tool and they see themselves as an ecosystem. That disconnect is a problem.
Honestly, sometimes it feels like folks are more obsessed about AI than Big Tech CEOs are. With native vertical tabs, tab groups, and the new profiles, there are more new things in Firefox I've been excited about than in the years before, but everybody's only talking about AI.
With native vertical tabs, tab groups, and the new profiles, there are more new things in Firefox I’ve been excited about than in the years before
This reads like marketing, but also other browsers have this stuff anyway? It's not a selling point anymore.
It's just a list of recent additions I'm excited about. Of course they come on top of a browser I was already consciously using, so they're just there to sweeten the deal, not as unique selling points by themselves.
Third: Firefox will grow from a browser into a broader ecosystem of trusted software. Firefox will remain our anchor. It will evolve into a modern AI browser and support a portfolio of new and trusted software additions.
Oh, geez.
My same reaction. Sometimes you just need to do one thing well, particularly when they thing you're doing is this very general use multipurpose interfacing tool.
although:
First: Every product we build must give people agency in how it works. Privacy, data use, and AI must be clear and understandable. Controls must be simple. AI should always be a choice — something people can easily turn off. People should know why a feature works the way it does and what value they get from it.
I have no issue with the option being available, i have an issue when i do not get an option at all.
Ignore all the AI stuff. I do not want my web browser to ever "evolve" into "more than a web browser". I want it to be a web browser. I do not want an "ecosystem" of related products. I want a web browser.
I agree that would be ideal, but if you look at how Firefox lost popularity over the last decade, it's obvious that "just a browser" doesn't seem to cut it anymore in todays integrated IT landscape if you want a relevant marketshare, making sure you don't just get ignored when sweeping changes are made by the likes of Google and co.
I'd say let them cook, he seems at least to know that respecting user choice and clear communication is important to make sure people don't lose trust in your brand, something that the previous leadership didn't demonstrate tbh. The browser landscape is depressing enough, i don't think it can get much worse.
I'll stick with "just a browser", specifically one derived directly from Firefox (FF being free software is the only good thing about FF that Mozilla won't revoke or change). Mozilla lost my custom and I'm not responsible for cheerleading for them.
Check out the reply to this from the lead of the Waterfox project. Would I rather use a browser by the guy promising to turn my browser into an "ecosystem" of tools, or the one saying:
"Waterfox will not include LLMs. Full stop."
"The browser’s job is to serve you, not to think for you. That core Waterfox principle hasn’t changed, and it won’t."
"If AI browsers dominate and then falter, if users discover they want something simpler and more trustworthy, Waterfox will still be here, marching patiently along. We’ve been here before. When Firefox abandoned XUL extensions, Waterfox Classic preserved them. When Mozilla started adding telemetry and Pocket and sponsored content, Waterfox stripped it out. I like to think that where there is want for a browser that simply respects you, Waterfox has delivered."
"Waterfox exists because some users want a browser that simply works well at being a browser. The UI is mature - arguably, it has been a solved for problem for years. The customisation features are available and apparent. The focus is on performance and web standards."
And hey, because Waterfox is a Firefox fork, that oh so precious user agent data people love to bring up to dissuade people from leaving poor Mozilla to shrivel up is still telling websites 'yep, this is a Gecko engine browser'.
Mozilla's a non-profit so what shareholders need to be please by bolting on this garbage to their browser?
Google's.
Because you could theoretically order it to never show you stupid manipulative shit propaganda & brainrot and thus reclaim your spiritual/political/social life.
Disclaimer: I have not investigated at all how browsers are actually trying to apply AI.
I’ve already switched to librewolf because of the ai update
It’s really just a matter of trust and they’ve clearly chosen to trust ai first and users second. That’s why you must turn it off instead of having to turn it on.
sad state of affairs
BOOOOOOOO
How about LibreWolf?
As there seems to have been recent confusion about this, just a quick "official" toot to then pin: we haven't and won't support "generative AI" related stuff in LibreWolf. If you see some features like that (like Perplexity search recently, or the link preview feature now) it is solely because it "slipped through". As soon as we become aware of something like this / it gets reported to us, we will remove/disable it ASAP.
First: Every product we build must give people agency in how it works. Privacy, data use, and AI must be clear and understandable. Controls must be simple. AI should always be a choice — something people can easily turn off. People should know why a feature works the way it does and what value they get from it. Second: our business model must align with trust. We will grow through transparent monetization that people recognize and value. Third: Firefox will grow from a browser into a broader ecosystem of trusted software. Firefox will remain our anchor. It will evolve into a modern AI browser and support a portfolio of new and trusted software additions.
Are the first and third points not contradicting? Having control over AI in the browser means that the browser cannot be AI first. Maybe they need to step back and look at their core audience and a shifting user preference for less big tech and more control.
I think the biggest thing that they can do is look at what the Firefox forks are doing and try and implement the features that led to people leaving. I'm using Zen not only for the addition features and UI elements it brings, but also the things that it chooses not to include.
They can also look at what IronFox and LibreWolf do to create a new built in profile that maximizes privacy and security trading off convenience.
Finally, they have failed to capture new users when google is blocking ad blockers. When you have a smaller market share you need to take advantage of your competitor's mistakes.
I'm worried you are right as well. Fortunately there are a number of great Firefox forks. I just wish they would put more focus into their core product.
One thing that really baffles me is that they aren't getting any revenue for having a default AI or something like that. Surely one of these companies would pay some decent money to have their AI agent as the default just as Google does for search.
It seems like Mozilla's end game is to become a rival to Google for advertising revenue.
Google's stranglehold on search produces a huge volume of hugely valuable user data. That data + search market share drives demand for their advertising products.
If Mozilla can embed an LLM in their browser that meets people's search needs, then Mozilla and their 'AI' will be the ones hoovering up gobs of user data and selling the data and advertising space to marketers.
I'm looking into Helium. It's chrome-based but at this point I might as well use something that works
Why not Waterfox or one of the other open source Firefox forks?
That's still alive? I thought it became mostly irrelevant Pale Moon... Anyway, last I looked it was buggy, out of date, and vulnerable. I use librewolf and it has pretty quick updates and doesn't follow ESR.
The only decent browsers seem to be downstreams with shit ripped out of them, with some exceptions like Floorp. Helium adds and changes things to improve UX which makes me curious about where it's going...
Firefox is already a second-class citizen on the web, and forks of it tend to be sloppy. I'm holding out some hope for a future with ladybird but until something like that happens, the gap between "chrome with shit ripped out" and "Firefox with shit ripped out" will be quite small in terms of privacy and security; but chromium ones will have an edge in compatibility.
Interesting. Looks like Waterfox's last release was 9 days ago.
ETA: I know the Firefox based browsers sometimes have problems rendering pages, but from what I've seen that's become less of an issue over time (it used to be a pretty big problem). I'm avoiding Chrome-based browsers wherever possible because of how the extension ecosystem has been wrecked by Google.
Everyone hated that
"Modern", "AI" - buzzwords for shareholders
Hey Mozilla, any chance you could add the ability to add tags to bookmarks on mobile during this evolution?
Or make add-on settings/configuration container specific (noscript forex)?
Yes that too!
Yes that too!
Librewolf or Floorp I guess. They work well enough, though Librewolf might be a bit too opinionated for some.
Gross.
We meager 2% of browser users are not the customer base Mozilla is targeting for with stuff like this. This isn't for us - it's for the other 98% that Mozilla desperately wants to attract. I wouldn't necessarily say we 2% don't matter to Mozilla, but the fact is, losing us to gain something like 10% of the market would be a huge success for Mozilla.
This definitely sounds like what Mozilla wants to do, but who will care? People who want AI in the browser already have Edge and browsers developed by AI companies. Mozilla is just arriving late to the party, the same way they did with VR.
Yeah, I agree. Mozilla is just jumping on the bandwagon. It's unlikely to change anything for them.
Mozilla is a lost cause, and Firefox is too big to be rescued by one singular web-browsing development entity (that's because the web has become too complicated so as to allow for terminal capitalism).
The solution is, honestly, for a well-constituted organization to hard-fork the web standards model as a whole package, to start a sort of "re-web" project. Pick up something like gemini but iterate it to a level where it can actually be useful (gemini, nifty as it is, is actually less capable of layout and styling than the printing press from the 1500s and that's saying something). Maintain a "convertible subset" of HTML+CSS as an input option for people who want to maintain and develop simple sites that might want to eventually convert to re-web.
gemini, nifty as it is, is actually less capable of layout and styling than the printing press from the 1500s and that’s saying something
it's like that by design, that's the point of the protocoll
Yeah but that doesn't really help much if the goal is "the web, but mote vintage of it". My impression of gemini is it's more like, to publish things you'd read on a beeper from the 90s.
Funded by fascists, last I heard.
They are getting both Proton and Cloudflare sponsoring IIRC. Plus the dev has a history.
Well, I guess we just need to move to Ladybird. Either that or my browsing is going to become entirely curl + Links.
So uninstall?
@lemmy.world
A community for discussion about Mozilla Firefox.
go to feed...
@lemmy.world
A community for discussion about Mozilla Firefox.
go to feed...
How about you make it something people have to turn on, and make it useful enough that they will enable it?
save