Mozilla’s interim CEO Laura Chambers “says the company is reinvesting in Firefox after letting it languish in recent years,” reports Fast Company, "hoping to reestablish the browser as independent alternative to the likes of Google’s Chrome and Apple’s Safari.

“But some of those investments, which also include forays into generative AI, may further upset the community that’s been sticking with Firefox all these years…” Chambers acknowledges that Mozilla lost sight of Firefox in recent years as it chased opportunities outside the browser, such as VPN service and email masking. When she replaced Mitchell Baker as CEO in February, the company scaled back those other efforts and made Firefox a priority again. “Yes, Mozilla is refocusing on Firefox,” she says. “Obviously, it’s our core product, so it’s an important piece of the business for us, but we think it’s also really an important part of the internet.”

Some of that focus involves adding features that have become table-stakes in other browsers. In June, Mozilla added vertical tab support in Firefox’s experimental branch, echoing a feature that Microsoft’s Edge browser helped popularize three years ago. It’s also working on tab grouping features and an easier way to switch between user profiles. Mozilla is even revisiting the concept of web apps, in which users can install websites as freestanding desktop applications. Mozilla abandoned work on Progressive Web Apps in Firefox a few years ago to the dismay of many power users, but now it’s talking with community members about a potential path forward.

“We haven’t always prioritized those features as highly as we should have,” Chambers says. “That’s been a real shift that’s been very felt in the community, that the things they’re asking for . . . are really being prioritized and brought to life.”

Firefox was criticized for testing a more private alternative to tracking cookies which could make summaries of aggregated data available to advertisers. (Though it was only tested on a few sites, “Privacy-Preserving Attribution” was enabled by default.) But EFF staff technologist Lena Cohen tells Fast Company that approach was “much more privacy-preserving” than Google’s proposal for a “Privacy Sandbox.” And according to the article, “Mozilla’s system only measures the success rate of ads — it doesn’t help companies target those ads in the first place — and it’s less susceptible to abuse due to limits on how much data is stored and which parties are allowed to access it.” In June, Mozilla also announced its acquisition of Anonym, a startup led by former Meta executives that has its own privacy-focused ad measurement system. While Mozilla has no plans to integrate Anonym’s tech in Firefox, the move led to even more anxiety about the kind of company Mozilla was becoming. The tension around Firefox stems in part from Mozilla’s precarious financial position, which is heavily dependent on royalty payments from Google. In 2022, nearly 86% of Mozilla’s revenue came from Google, which paid $510 million to be Firefox’s default search engine. Its attempts to diversify, through VPN service and other subscriptions, haven’t gained much traction.

Chambers says that becoming less dependent on Google is “absolutely a priority,” and acknowledges that building an ad-tech business is one way of doing that. Mozilla is hoping that emerging privacy regulations and wider adoption of anti-tracking tools in web browsers will increase demand for services like Anonym and for systems like Firefox’s privacy-preserving ad measurements. Other revenue-generating ideas are forthcoming. Chambers says Mozilla plans to launch new products outside of Firefox under a “design sprint” model, aimed at quickly figuring out what works and what doesn’t. It’s also making forays into generative AI in Firefox, starting with a chatbot sidebar in the browser’s experimental branch.

Chambers “says to expect a bigger marketing push for Firefox in the United States soon, echoing a ‘Challenge the default’ ad campaign that was successful in Germany last summer. Mozilla’s nonprofit ownership structure, and the idea that it’s not beholden to corporate interests, figures heavily into those plans.”

64 points

Fuck me: A browser, that’s what I want. Lightweight, productive. Let there be addons for the rest if and only if people choose to install them.

permalink
report
reply
27 points

And of course, we can all agree on what “the rest” is. For example, surely tabs are a function for the window manager, so ditch those. And we don’t need synchronisation across devices, there are specialised apps for that. And I’ll have my download manager handle downloads, thank you very much. And do you know how many vulnerabilities have been found in image codec support? Why not just leave that to my dedicated image viewer? So much bloat, just give me a browser, darnit. Just use an addon if you want to render bold text.

permalink
report
parent
reply
17 points

Just give people options to disable things. I believe certain things are better as addons but others acrually benefit from deeper integration.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Wouldn’t it be lovely if a minimal browser was installed and on first-run it showed a checklist of modular features you could choose to install? It could be default addons made by mozilla, or something else, IDC. I’ll have to look at Librewolf, I keep seeing people bring it up.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Exactly. On first setup I want to walk through a form that asks me whether I want to enable tabs, downloads, image rendering, bold fonts, etc. Of course, they should all be off by default.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

The more options and configuration the more to support by the developers and more likely for problems to arise due to odd side effects of various options combinations.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points
*

We aren’t being asked to “agree” on anything, so the point you’re making doesn’t actually come up. New and invasive and unecessary and privacy-breaking and resource-intensive “features” are being added to firefox all the goddamned time and we don’t get to agree to it. Great point, though, in a falling-into-it-backasswards sort of way: maybe there should be some sort of democratization of features.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

But unironically. Make them first party plugins. Enabled by default sure, because they’re not insane, but optional

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

So Arch, the browser?

permalink
report
parent
reply
36 points
*

“But some of those investments, which also include forays into generative AI, may further upset the community that’s been sticking with Firefox all these years…” Chambers acknowledges that Mozilla lost sight of Firefox in recent years

Chambers says Mozilla plans to launch new products outside of Firefox under a “design sprint” model, aimed at quickly figuring out what works and what doesn’t. It’s also making forays into generative AI in Firefox, starting with a chatbot sidebar in the browser’s experimental branch.

👎 I’d love Firefox more if they’d actually focus on it like they said they were going to.

permalink
report
reply
28 points

Do people genuinely find that helpful? I actually don’t get it. I have never thought “if only there was a chatbot in my browser, right now!” The thought literally never even enters my mind.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

i have never even had the desire to use a chatbot, the only AI thing i’ve really found actually useful is DDG’s thing where it will just pull directly from sources like wikipedia to answer a question, like “what is the combined population of NYC and boston?”.

permalink
report
parent
reply
25 points

that the things they’re asking for . . . are really being prioritized and brought to life.

All right then, bring back always ask cookies. I’ve been increasingly bitter over them deprecating useful features as they continue to add and maintain all sorts of frivolous shit.

permalink
report
reply

Unless Mozilla can show a clear focus on developing Firefox features for the user I’m gonna stick with Librewolf while looking for other alternatives

Edit:
just as I hit submit I remembered that Falkon developed by KDE exists

permalink
report
reply
16 points

Falcon looks nice, but a quick search tells me that it’s based on QtWebEngine, which in turn is based on Chromium, so that’s unfortunate.

permalink
report
parent
reply

you’re right

rip, we need someone to make a better FOSS copyleft alternative

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

Some of that focus involves adding features that have become table-stakes in other browsers.

Speaking of this, does anyone else feel like Firefox’s lack of ability to wirelessly screencast is a major problem when it comes to convincing others to switch away from chromium browsers? I know chromecast and airplay themselves are both proprietary, and therefore counter to firefox’s open source philosophy, but they could at least implement first party support for miracast (or DLNA?) A surprising number of smart TVs work well with those protocols. They just tend not to advertise it because most people don’t know what they are.

I admit that I haven’t looked much into this since some years ago when I first switched over to firefox as my main browser, but at the time I found that there weren’t even any decent addons for screen casting functionality. I’ve learned to live without it, but I know a lot of people who use that functionality on a daily basis and could (quite justifiably) never be convinced to switch without an equivalent.

permalink
report
reply
5 points

I don’t understand why browser “casting” is a thing, instead of regular screen cloning / expanding? Why limit it to your browser when there’s so many other applications that could benefit from it?

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

I don’t disagree, but Windows’ built in screen casting is hard to find and clunky to use. Linux is even worse off. Until earlier this year there was no real support from any Linux desktop environment. There’s a GNOME project that’s supposed to be putting together support. It was announced to ship with GNOME 46, but I’m not a GNOME user so I just tried to install the flatpak on my Kubuntu machine. It detects my TV but fails to connect with it. Definitely still needs work.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Different people have different needs.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Firefox

!firefox@lemmy.world

Create post

A community for discussion about Mozilla Firefox.

Community stats

  • 333

    Monthly active users

  • 278

    Posts

  • 2.2K

    Comments

Community moderators