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."
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.
Just give people options to disable things. I believe certain things are better as addons but others acrually benefit from deeper integration.
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.
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.
Don't "exactly" me and then suggest incredibly hostile UX 😂 that sounds horrible and would scare off lost users.
It might be a horrible UX and scare off users, but that's a price I'm willing to pay for a lightweight, productive browser that isn't weighed down by needless features like bolded text.
Well I'm not willing to pay that price.
Just because of Poe's Law: I've been sarcastic this entire thread, for exactly that reason. "Focusing on 'browsing'" or "just add it as an option" sound like easy solutions, but in practice whatever you ship by default needs to work well for many users, and thus will never be perfectly tailored to any individual user.
Obviously I don't actually think bold text is bloat.
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.
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.
But unironically. Make them first party plugins. Enabled by default sure, because they're not insane, but optional