"better" is completely subjective. From my point of view dev tools are way better in Blink-based browsers, so Chrome is my default dev browser. The browsing experience is really good in Safari, I love the compact tabs and minimalist UI, so that's my default on macOS. Edge has a really nice productivity feature that lets you split a window to see two different pages at the same time, so that's my default on Windows. Other than being open source I don't see what would compel me to go back to Firefox in 2024, the competition improved a lot. Also I personally lost faith in the Mozilla Foundation.
I've been using Firefox for about as long as I can remember, and really don't notice sites not working. I do notice, however, that using any browser without UBO makes my eyes bleed in an unending agony of capitalist garbage. It's like using a browser and then putting sand in your eyeballs.
That is quite literally Firefox + UBO. Like it's literally a fork of the tor browser (which is downstream firefox) with a custom config and preconfigured addons.
I don't mean this as a dig or anything but it's literally what they described.
Yes for the GP but UBO on firefox isn't defaults either. The bulk of the benefits you get from mullvad browser past what you get with default firefox + the same extensions are easy config changes. Things you can accomplish by just scrolling through the settings and flipping on a few settings with "more secure more better" worded descriptions.
For the average user there's not really a particularly good reason to jump for a downstream browser unless you are specifically using their main features (tor or VPN). It's easy enough to get 95% of the way there with 30 seconds of config tweaks off stock upstream.
The mullvad browser defaults would get it chucked in the bin very quickly by the average web user.
The extreme bent towards privacy and not retaining any identifiable or fingerprint-able behaviors is exactly what its target audience wants, of course. But it leads to a markedly more inconvenient experience than Chrome or default Firefox or Safari.
Instead of trying to figure out exactly what features would accomplish that, I wish they would focus on making it embeddable. Personally, I like the UX of Arc. Arc uses Chrome under the hood. And if anyone else wants to make a browser specifically for some small subset of users, they're going to pick Chrome.
Why not make it easer for developers to embed Firefox and let a thousand small, weird browsers bloom? Some will be terrible, but a few might be brilliant.
If they don't do this, I'm holding out hope for Servo.
This is true, though the current dominance of Chrome is evidence that a lot of people will switch. Chrome isn't the default browser on any desktop, after all, and yet a majority of non-technical users have deliberately switched to it...
Yeah, I actually switched from Firefox to Safari this month. I didn't know Safari had tab groups, the feature I missed from Chrome when using Firefox. No speed differences and Safari has less of a battery impact so far.
Hard to complain about a browser that still cares about privacy, but with tighter OS integration.
I recently switched to Wipr [0]. It’s dead simple to use, and will auto update its filter lists in the background. It’s a one time purchase, not a subscription.
Adguard [1] is a decent free option.
I also use a Pi-hole [2] on my network. That blocks ads in apps (not in the browser) like Letterboxd for example.
My deshittification suite is NextDNS (Pi-hole as a service), 1Blocker (ad blocker, bought pre-subscription model), Rekt (block bags, redirect AMP), and Vinegar (replaces YouTube player).
I use UBO on Chrome and find the above experience comparable.
I’m not the person you asked, but I’ve been happy with 1Blocker. As a bonus it can also block ads and trackers outside the browser (that part only works on iOS).
Talking about complaining: On iOS I find it an absolute no-go not to have the choice of which browser I use because technically it is Safari anyway. So yes, you can't complain that Safari is worse than Firefox because Firefox is no real Firefox on iOS.
> Using Firefox because it has a particular technological feature is a political choice. That political stance would lead users to turn to other browsers as fast as tech is added or removed.
> I use Firefox for political reasons and for what it stands.
> Which means that when Firefox gets worse I still use it and support what it stands for.
> It's very Stallmanesque and let it be clear I am not saying the choice to favour superior tech over ethic concerns is wrong. It's just a different choice.
> That's what I tell people when talking about Signal and messenger, Chrome and Firefox.
> Also, I don't think Mozilla is a white knight and in my opinion they fucked up some good things over the years (tech or ethic). But the good still largely surpasses the bad.
Let's say Firefox was the open platform it is today but with the exception of, hmmm, tabs ? No tabs. Well, using Chrome because FF has not tabs if fine of course but you are trading convenience for a Google controlled Internet viewer. At some point Microsoft tried the EEE tactics with web browsers (jscript and box models and the whole DHTML hell, etc.) and the argument was the same: "do we want a web that is controlled by MS, a web where MS is the only gateway to how content should be displayed/accessed and where MS totally control the evolution of the tech ?"
If battery life is all you care about, I'd argue you are not "core market" for FF. You're core-market for OS vendors, who will always be able to give you a better battery life by leveraging all the tips and (typically undocumented) tricks that a cross-platform project cannot touch.
Google's got a major conflict of interest with adsense and I'm sure they'll eventually ramp up the war on adblockers to a degree that will make manifest v3 look like a joke.
If Firefox decides to not implement blocking restrictions they will then have the chance to be the only browser people will still be able to normally use the internet with. That's the only chance they have for any kind of resurgence from their currently laughable 3% market share.
Small gimmicks like privacy, battery life, customizability, stability, etc. are frankly what 99.9% of people don't give a half a shit about. They will only make the switch from default once they're genuinely annoyed to the point where they can no longer use Chrome/ium. For Firefox users that moment unfortunately happens every time a government website doesn't work.
Better than IE, there was no chrome and safari was a joke.
Entreaties and ‘trying to make Fetch (firefox) happen’ won’t work, evidently.
How do we make Firefox obviously better?
I’m core market for Firefox and just use Safari. Better battery life. And it’s just as good for privacy.
At least that’s my impression. Is it wrong?
If I don’t use it there’s very little chance people will change the defaults.
Defaults are powerful.