Firefox is dying

[billmcct]

Drops below 10%.

https://www.ghacks.net/2018/06/04/firef ... rketshare/

[SpockFan02]

How many users did switch from Firefox to another browser...?

I was one of them

[Moonraker]

Irrelavent statistics.it will never die as such and just because it does not have a high usage share does not mean it wither away.same could be applied to everything from operating systems to cars etc.

[back2themoon]

Not really that irrelevant. While it is true that a low number per se does not mean much, a low number that succeeds a very high number is quite a different story. If Windows goes to 10% are you really saying it's "business as usual"? Obviously not. Such downfalls always have an impact.

[Moonchild]

Maybe this means Mozilla will stop paying its top executives million-dollar wages... Oh, wait what am I thinking, of course not - no, it'll just come out of actual development and claiming "too high maintenance costs" for features that are actually wanted by the users. Or maybe they will continue to consider ads in their browser or adding even more affiliate partnerships than what they already have. Oh, wait, sorry, I should call it "recommended content", they aren't ads, honest.

[Moonraker]

They are a non-profit outfit apparently but are worth millions and yet seek donations?..wtf.
why does it cost millions to produce a browser....?..im mythed.

[Moonchild]

why does it cost millions to produce a browser....?

That all depends on how you approach your "production". It doesn't have to cost millions, but if you have corporate offices for your so-called "non-profit" all over the world, costs quickly get high.

[doofy]

They are a non-profit outfit apparently but are worth millions and yet seek donations?..wtf.

This is my vague understanding:

Moz used to be a single, not for profit, company. One day the taxman woke up to the fact that Moz was making serious money and challenged them on their "not for profit" status.

So Moz split into Moz corporation (which makes the serious money and presumably gets properly taxed on it), and Moz foundation, which still claims not for profit status and is the sole shareholder of moz corp.

It is the foundation which seeks donations, and occasionally doles a few dollars out to "worthy causes".

But what moz does now - which I find repellent - is to continually try to blur the distinction between the foundation and the corp. And moz fanbois do it in spades. So you continually find people who state that FF is developed and maintained by a not for profit company, when the truth is: no its not; its developed and maintained by a half bill dollars p.a. "for profit" company.

I've had this discussion a few times with moz fanbois. Their ears remain tightly closed. I've stopped.

Personally, I think the establishment of moz foundation was a deeply cynical PR exercise, designed for nothing more than to maintain the loyalty of "their base". I'd've had more respect for them if, when the taxman came calling, they'd simply said: "OK - fair cop; we're a huge company who makes a browser".

That, at least, would've been honest.

[Pelican]

By coincidence I stumbled upon dmoz.org from my old computer. I was checking to see if it still worked because my current PC has been playing up. Anyway, found on old bookmark, so clicked it as it as one of my oldest bookmarks.

The site has disappeared... the directory of who is who since the age of Mozillla no longer exists.

Anyway, re Firefox, I read somewhere that Google were the main contributors of both cash and code input. That might explain a lot.

[doofy]

Anyway, re Firefox, I read somewhere that Google were the main contributors of both cash and code input. That might explain a lot.

Google were the main contributors of cash till a few years back when moz dumped them for a highly lucrative contract with yahoo.

Then, a year or so back, yahoo got sold and (cos moz had better corporate lawyers than yahoo) moz pulled out of the contract and - breathtakingly - is suing yahoo to keep paying them. Moz has gone back to google and a couple of other search providers, dependent on geo location.

I've never read anywhere that google is a main contributor of code. An authoritative link or two would be welcome.

[Pelican]

I've never read anywhere that google is a main contributor of code. An authoritative link or two would be welcome.

They were a huge contributor of cash and code... alot of influence. But I didn't read that it was the "main" contrib for code. Sorry, no links... it was a while ago. I have had such a loathing for anything Google ever since they began using a wrecking ball on the net so I twitched on all tidbits.

[doofy]

They were a huge contributor of ... code...

A link showing google has contributed any code to FF would be a start...

[Isengrim]

A link showing google has contributed any code to FF would be a start...

At the very least, Mozilla has made use of plenty of Google's open-sourced code. Whether Google put it there or benefited from it in any way is anyone's guess.

Just do a search in the Mozilla codebase for Google or Chromium.

[doofy]

Prob just me being a pedant, and requesting clarification on the "code for influence" assertion...

[Moonchild]

For the record, "Mozilla", both the corporation and the foundation, have a single financial annual report. They are, for all intents and purposes, one entity, so the lines are blurred, indeed. The foundation is, on paper, non-profit, but doesn't actually run anything; that's all the corporation. "Mozilla" as a whole, is for-profit, no matter what they say. Having a for-profit wholly-owned subsidiary (that does all your business and produces profit-making software) as a non-profit foundation... what does that make the foundation then in practice? A shell, that's what.

[Pelican]

A link showing google has contributed any code to FF would be a start...

Today I have a problem with what day of the week it is. The article that I read was some time ago, around the same time that it was mentioned that Google had offices across the road, lunching together and sharing code... around the time that they were a huge financial contributor. Which may explain why they were mirroring browser features.

I also recall that Chrome always had a problem displaying PDF in their browser. But that changed and probably at around the same time that I do not remember

[hujan86]

Drops below 10%.

Good. Just goes to show their (foolish) effort to capture Chrome users is to no avail.

[Sajadi]

Who with a sane mind would use a mimicry variant of another browser - if the original (Google Chrome) is also available

Hope Mozilla enjoys all their (non existing) Chrome users who have switched in (non existing) masses over to Firefox

[Octopuss]

I thought Mozilla was like used by like 50% people, and the rest was I and Chrome or somethingh? This is weird.

[Night Wing]

Firefox has never had a 50% market share. I think it's high water mark was around 23%. Using Net Market Share stats just for the month of May 2018, the desktop market share for some of the other better known browsers breaks down to:

Google Chrome 62.85%
Internet Explorer 11.82%
Firefox 9.92%
Microsoft Edge (Windows 10) 4.26%
Safari 3.71%
Opera 1.47%