Having worked at Mozilla a while ago, the CEO role is one I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy. Success is oddly defined: it's a non-profit (well, a for-profit owned by a non-profit) that needs to make a big profit in a short amount of time. And anything done to make that profit will annoy the community.
I hope Anthony leans into what makes Mozilla special. The past few years, Mozilla's business model has been to just meekly "us-too!" trends... IoT, Firefox OS, and more recently AI.
What Mozilla is good at, though, is taking complex things the average user doesn't really understand, and making it palpable and safe. They did this with web standards... nobody cared about web standards, but Mozilla focused on usability.
(Slide aside, it's not a coincidence the best CEO Mozilla ever had was a designer.)
I'm not an AI hater, but I don't think Mozilla can compete here. There's just too much good stuff already, and it's not the type of thing Mozilla will shine with.
Instead, if I were CEO, I'd go the opposite way: I'd focus on privacy. Not AI privacy, but privacy in general. Buy a really great email provider, and start to own "identity on the internet". As there's more bots and less privacy, identity is going to be incredibly important over the years.. and right now, Google defacto owns identity. Make it free, but also give people a way to pay.
Would this work? I don't know. But like I said, it's not a job I envy.
I love Mozilla but this feels like marketing imo.
From the article: "AI should always be a choice — something people can easily turn off" and "Firefox will remain our anchor. It will evolve into a modern AI browser". I highly doubt you will be able to turn of the transformer tech features in an AI browser imo. And they won't make a separate browser for this.
This really feels like the beginning of the end for Mozilla, sadly.
Are there any true alternatives (not dependent on financing or any engines from third parties) to Google, if you wish to use the web in 2025?
The beginning of the end was a long time ago. We are well past the middle of the end of Mozilla.
What even is an "AI browser"? It's a browser, it's mainly supposed to render web pages / web apps. There is no obvious reason why it would need any AI features.
A browser with current definition obviously doesn't "need" AI. And we also know all too well how it's going to turn out - they will both use the AI to push ads onto us and also collect and sell our personal data.
However, a strong locally-executed AI would have potential to vastly improve our experience of web! So much work is done in browsers could be enhanced or automated with custom agents. You'd no longer need any browser extensions (which are privacy nightmare when the ownership secretly changes hands). Your agents could browse local shops for personalized gifts or discounts, you could set up very complex watches on classified ads. You could work around any lacking features of any website or a combination of several websites, to get exactly what you seek and to filter out anything that is noise to you. You would be able to seamlessly communicate with the Polish internet subculture, or with Gen Alpha, all without feeling the physical pain. With an AGI-level AI maybe even the Reddit could be made usable again.
Of course this is all assuming that the web doesn't adapt to become even more closed and hostile.
If browsing the internet causes you physical pain, maybe you should see medical attention instead of AI slop.
Translation?
Image search?
Live captions?
Dubbing?
Summary?
Rewrite text better?
Translate sure.
Image search? I have a search engine for that.
Live captions? Didn’t ask for that, wouldn’t use it.
Dubbing? Ditto.
Summary? Wouldn’t trust an AI for that, plus it’s just more tik-tokification. No fucking thanks. I don’t need to experience life as short blips of everything.
Rewrite text better? Might as well kill myself once I’m ready to let a predictive text bot write shit in my place.
So… no thanks.
> Image search? I have a search engine for that.
Plus, Search by Image[0] is one of the most popular extensions, with 3x as many people using it as tree-style tabs.
I don't use it but a grammar tool is the next most popular[1], so I could see this being quite a useful feature.
But the other stuff, I'm with you. I like translate but I personally don't care for dubbing, summarizing, or anything else.
[0] https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/search_by_ima...
[1] https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/languagetool/
Local RAG on your browsed pages (either automatically, manually or a mix (allow/disallow domains/url) ?
local LLM assisted 'tampermonkey' userscript generation?
I get very annoyed by generative AI, but to be fair I could imagine an AI-powered "Ctrl+F" which searches text by looser meaning-based matches, rather than strict character matches; for example Ctrl+AI+F "number of victims" in a news article, or Ctrl+AI+F "at least 900 W" when sorting through a list of microwave ovens on Walmart.
Or searching for text in images with OCR. Or searching my own browsing history for that article about that thing.
> Translation?
> Image search?
> Live captions?
> Dubbing?
> Summary?
> Rewrite text better?
Choose the implementation that you like, or contribute to help make one better. Just like all other software on your computer.
Don't like Libreoffice's implementation of Word support? Install Koffice. I take it you've never installed non-OEM software on your computer?
Not at all. If you want or need a feature it's not some "my browser has to support it or my OS does" dichotomy.
As a couple parents up stated, there's no technical reason a browser has to have a transformer embedded into it. There might be a business reason like "we made a dumb choice and don't have the manpower to fix it", but I doubt this is something they will accept, at least with a mission statement like they have.
I much prefer every individual piece of software and website I interact with implement their own proprietary AI features that compete for my attention and interfer with each other.
> But Mozilla is not KDE or Gnome
Exactly. Would be nicer if they did their own features somewhat right (including interfaces for configuration and disabling approachable for non-engineers) before they scope-creep the entire desktop.
All those things we had before AI?
Google Translation never "became very good" and it still isn't when you compare it to DeepL or Kagi.
Where it excels is quantity. Often, niche languages are only available on Google Translate.
Google Translate isn't what's meant when tech CEOs say "AI" in 2025.
Stop blurring the lines, google translate using machine learning has nothing to do with turning firefox into an ai browser
Many of these things were "AI" but the marketing hype hadn't gotten there yet. E.g. the local translation in FF is a transformer model, as was Google translate in the cloud since 2018 (and still "AI" looong before that, just not transformer based).
Yes, tools have used machine learning, nobody is questioning or denying that.
But that’s not what the CEO of mozilla means when he says he will turn Firefox into an AI browser.
It means there will be stupid fucking LLMs shoved in your face.
Safari does most of this by leveraging system-level AI features, some of which are entirely local (and in turn, can be and do get used elsewhere throughout the system and native apps). This model makes a lot more sense to me than building the browser around an LLM.
Firefox uses local models for translation, summarisation and possibly other stuff. As it is not restricted on one platform, I guess that it has to use its own tools, while apple (or macos/ios focused software in general) can use system level APIs. But the logic I guess is the same.
Interfacing with local or remote LLMs with the browser as a first class "agent"
Better text to speech with recap for long content
Semantic search in content and in developer tools
Freeing the world from electron monopoly
Exactly. There’s doom and gloom in this thread but the truth is that the early adopters who are using AI-integrated browsers love them.
Mozilla having unique features is what made it popular in the first place (tabbed browsing versus IE6).
I’m not exactly surprised that AI grifters that have probably bet all their life savings on nvidia “love” their AI browsers.
Comet, for one
A bored LLM that will constantly hit reload on hackernews hoping to see something new.
Why use a drinking bird pointed at your F5 key when data centers crammed full of GPUs (and a touch of global warming) will do?
If they can perfect that feature, then users can be done away with once and for all.
It is really incredibly nice to be able to highlight a passage, right click on it, and select "Summarize" or "Explain this." That's all FireFox does at the moment. It's an option on the right-click menu. You can ignore it. If nobody told you the evil AI thingy was there, you would probably never notice it.
This is the equivalent of Blockbuster rejecting Netflix.
At the risk of becoming the infamous iPod and Dropbox posters, I really don't think so. My browser having an LLM directly integrated adds nothing for my use cases that couldn't be accomplished with a web service or dedicated tool/app. For me, an integrated LLM running concurrently with my browser just represents a whole lot of compute and/or network calls with little added value and I don't think that this is unusual.
Yep. I mention this in my other reply, but having the LLM be system-level (and preferably, user replaceable) and leveraged as needed by applications (and thus, not redundant) is clearly the best model. Apple is currently the closest to this, offering system level third party LLM integrations, but a Linux distribution would be the best positioned to achieve that goal to its fullest extent.
This use case feels better served by a dedicated utility with a specialized UI rather than shoehorned into a browser. It'd fit the macOS services model (which adds items to context and application menus, e.g. "Research this…" when right-clicking a link or text selection) and could optionally also be summoned by the system app launcher (like Spotlight).
Blockbuster could have bought Netflix, stifled the idea, and then lost to… whatever, Vine or YouTube or something.
These stories just look compelling and obvious in retrospect, when we can see how the dice landed.
Time will tell, but I doubt it.
This is why I'm hopeful that at least one of Ladybird, Flow, and Servo emerge as a viable alternative to the current crop.
I recently learned of Flow, and I don't understand why people group it together with Ladybird and Servo, which are both developing the browser engine from scratch mostly, while Flow seems to be based on Chromium. Is Flow doing anything different compared to the numerous other Chromium-based browsers? Genuinely curious.
Are you talking about https://flow-browser.com ? I wasn't aware of this project before, but it appears to a new chromium based browser.
The Flow people are talking about when they talk about Ladybird and Servo is https://www.ekioh.com/flow-browser/ which does have it's own engine. It has a similar level of standards compliance to Servo and Ladybird, although it's not open source which puts it in a somewhat different category.
Kagi's Orion browser is 1.0 on Mac and working on the first full Linux release - it's built on WebKit. That WebKit is a "third party" dependency but it's still a break from the browser monoculture and it doesn't seem like Mozilla has as much interest in pushing the browser engine space forward after pulling back from Servo.
This is why I've been using Firefox forks like Zen or LibreWolf. These forks will disable/strip out the AI stuff, so I never have to see it.
LibreWolf ftw, I switched to it, installed my extensions and am not looking back. Would be nice to have a mobile Firefox(LibreWolf) with all extensions, I should go look around F Droid again.
in ff if you're reading this go to about:config and type privacy - why these aren't immediately obvious in the Settings is beyond me
Palemoon still exists...
> This really feels like the beginning of the end for Mozilla, sadly.
I really feel like every time Mozilla announces something, someone gets paid to leave comments like this around. I've seen many "beginning of the end" comments like this, and so far, it hasn't happened.
What I do see is a lot of bashing, and hypocrisy, and excuses for why its OK that you don't personally try to do better...
Personally try to do what better? Run Mozilla? Make a browser?
> Are there any true alternatives (not dependent on financing or any engines from third parties)
Servo is still a work in progress, but their current positions give a great deal of hope.
The beginning of the end was getting rid Brendan Eich for wrongthink. This is the middle of the end.
He resigned April 3, 2014 after two weeks in the role.
According to https://www.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/137ephs/firefoxs_d...
Google Chrome exceeded Firefox market share in early 2012 after a steady rise starting in 2009 afaict.
If his resignation was involved, it was a symptom and not a cause. The end was already forecasted at least two years earlier.
Having seen what Brave became, I'm extremely happy that Eich wasn't allowed to bring his "vision" to my favorite browser.
Even in a compromised state, if given the choice between Firefox and Brave, I would choose Firefox 10 out of 10 times. A closed source chromium fork put out by a business that still isn't sure what its business model is and already has a fair number of "whoopsies" under its belt is a complete non-starter for me.
That is, given the choice between Firefox and Brave. For what it's worth, my current browser is Zen, and I'm quite happy with it.
Fair enough. I'd still be very hesitant to use it on account of it being a chrome fork. Moreover, I don't really understand how Brave expects to be a viable business without deeply betraying their userbase at some point.
It admittedly is a gut feeling, but Brave started out with a browser and some handwavy crypto magic beans and seemed like it careened from idea to idea looking for a business model, occasionally stepping on toes along the way. They have products like AI integration, a VPN and a firewall, but those aren't particularly stand-out products in a very crowded market.
As a point of comparison, Kagi started out with a product that people were willing to pay for, and grew other services from there. I feel comfortable giving them money, and I'd be willing to at least try their browser - if it ever releases for Windows.
Brave is great. Takes just a few seconds to turn off the bloat. Anyone try Helium?
I still use Firefox, however it has been away from our browser matrix since 2019, very few customers worry with browsers under 5% market share.
> It will evolve into a modern AI browser
OMG, please, no! What are they thinking and who wants an "AI browser"?
> Are there any true alternatives
Firefox with blocked updates works pretty well.
"Anchor" is interesting. Because it could mean cornerstone or it could mean the thing weighing the company down.
I'm excited about what Kagi is doing:
I have no illusions that they will turn into google the first chance they get, all companies do. But for now they seem pretty good.
I tried Orion about a year ago. I tried using the profile sandboxing. Logging into my google account in one profile also logged me in in another profile.
I can definitely excuse some bugs (there were crashes for example that I didn’t overly mind; I understand I was using prerelease software). But something like account containers should be built fundamentally to disallow any data sharing. If data sharing is a bug, and not fundamentally disallowed by the architecture, then it’s going to happen again later.
So for that reason I’m not bullish on orion.
I'd be interested if the issue you ran into was actually due to poor architecture or just something not fully implemented in the pre-release. Unfortunately, it's closed source - so hard to tell from the outside.
I understand what your claim is, I just disagree it's that blanket. You could e.g. absolutely build the UI for a profile switcher before your implementation of the backend changes are merged without carrying implications of how well that will handle isolation in the same way in security you could implement the null cipher in TLS to test that portion of the code without it forever implying you have bad encryption.
Google is what it is because of advertising. Kagi's whole raison d'etre is to have a search engine without advertising.
google is what it is because they have shareholders and need to make money. Maybe Kagi gets around that by setting up as a PBC, I hope so. I am not holding my breath.
Not sure why you're getting downvoted. Orion has matured as a browser and just hit 1.0. It's mac- and ios-only for now, but linux and windows ports are in the works. It has ad-blocking out of the box and has zero telemetry. I use it every day.
But Orion has the exact same issue that we are facing now with Chrome and Edge and Firefox. Orion is funded by Kagi, so it's a money losing venture. If Kagi folds tomorrow, who will pick the pieces and continue its' development?
Replace Orion with Chrome and Kagi with Google and you will find that we are in the same exact boat. Browsers cost money to maintain. Money has to come from somewhere. If the general public does not want to pay then who does?
Furthermore, what makes you think that Kagi will not one day do the same exact thing that Google has done with Chrome? Are you willing to bet that it won't happen?
And I am not here to bash on Kagi, I am one of their customers but I will not use Orion for the same reason I don't use Chrome.
If Kagi goes tits-up, you could switch to another browser. I don't see how this is a permanent decision.
My two cents - I'm not doing the "proprietary browser" shtick again. Unless I have real assurance that the software isn't going to become a $50/month SaaS, why should I leave my perfectly good current browser?
I get the feeling this kind of product will only appeal to unconscious iOS and macOS users. Windows and Linux users have much better (and freer) options than a WebKit wrapper.
> Not sure why you're getting downvoted
Orion browser is proprietary
That would be my guess.
That might be OK for you, but I have been burnt, as have many others, by proprietary software
If there is a choice, I make it
> This really feels like the beginning of the end for Mozilla, sadly.
The moment Mozilla failed to stop being dependent on Google's money whilst being true to their own mission in being a 'privacy first browser' it already was the end and the damage in trust was done.
In 2007, the CEO at the time said they could live without Google's money - Now, their entire survival was tied to Google funding them [0] and got rewarded for failure whilst laying off hundreds of engineers working on Firefox.
Other than the change in leadership after 17 years of mis-direction, the financial situation has still not changed.
Do you still trust them now?
> Are there any true alternatives (not dependent on financing or any engines from third parties) to Google, if you wish to use the web in 2025?
After thinking about it, the only viable browser that is not funded by Google (Firefox 75%, Safari (>20%) and Chrome) is Ladybird. [1]
[0] https://web.archive.org/web/20120105090543/https://www.compu...
>In 2007, the CEO at the time said they could live without Google's money
Can you say more about where that quote came from? I'm seeing it as being from 2015.
https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/firefox-make...
> The moment Mozilla failed to stop being dependent on Google's money whilst being true to their own mission in being a 'privacy first browser' it already was the end and the damage in trust was done.
I understand your position but what is the alternative funding source that could keep a company making a free browser running?
Apple funds Safari's development but it's basically a side project for them, Google funds Chrome's development as side project to their ad business, Edge is the same for Microsoft.
Obviously we don't want Firefox to become ad-supported so that leaves either donations which to be honest does not work (see all the OS projects that ask for donations when you install NPM packages for reference) or they need to start charging money (we know how well that worked out for Netscape) or finally find another corporate sponsor willing to shove billions of dollars each year into a product that will not improve their bottom line.
I am all for alternatives and I agree with you that something needs to change but the real question is how?
Maybe I am presumptuous in this assumption but I am pretty sure that if Mozilla had another palatable solution on the table, they would have probably implemented it by now.
> After thinking about it, the only viable browser that is not funded by Google (Firefox 75%, Safari (>20%) and Chrome) is Ladybird.
Ladybird is sponsored by many big companies as well. What makes you think that somehow their fate will be any different than Firefox? Do you believe that Shopify for example is more altruistic than Google and therefore should be trusted more?
I personally don't.
In my opinion the problem is the expectation that things should be free always on the internet and we can thank Google and Facebook for that. Most people these days who are not in the tech world simply have no idea how many hours and how much money it takes to create something, having it used by people and iterating on it day in day out until it is in a good shape and can be used by the general public.
Therefore besides a small cohort of users in tech (like Kagi's customers for example who understand that a good search engine is not free), the vast majority of people will not accept to have to pay for a browser. Which brings us back to the question I asked above.
Who will fund this supposedly free for all browser that does not track you, that does not show you any ads, that does not incorporate AI features, that does not try to up-sell you or scam you? From my vantage point it's not like there are 100s of solutions to get out of this conundrum.
I believe you stated the problem in a way that its unsolvable. Charge your customers money, so you can work for them. I'm not nearly as certain as you are that Netscape failed because it was charging money. Netscape just stopped updating for multiple years at the height of the browser wars.
For Firefox in particular, I would 100% be willing to pay for it. Individuals like me who will pay are rare, but companies that will pay aren't. I think the answer for modern Mozilla is a Red Hat style model. Charge a reasonable amount of money. Accept that someone is going to immediately create a downstream fork. Don't fight that fork, just ignore it. Let the fork figure out its own future around the online services a modern browser wants to provide.
Then, lean hard into the enterprise world. Figure out what enterprise customers want. The answer to that is always for things to never, ever change and the ability to tightly control their users. That isn't fun code to write, but its profitable and doesn't run counter to Mozilla's mission. That keeps Mozilla stable and financially independent.
Mozilla will maintain lots of influence to push forward their mission, because hopefully their enterprise customer base is big, but also they are the ones actually doing the work to make the downstream fork possible.
Firefox is reportedly rolling out an enterprise option in 2026 so we'll see how that goes.
> I believe you stated the problem in a way that its unsolvable.
I think you misunderstood me. I asked a question because the answer is far from obvious. If the solution to this problem was obvious, we wouldn't be having the same discussion on HN every 6 months when a new press release from Mozilla comes out.
I am very much interested by what people think the solution should be. Now, you mentioned Enterprise customers which is interesting because usually what I have read on this sort of threads was that Mozilla had made many mistakes (I agree), Mozilla should change their ways by removing this feature or adding this feature but almost everyone conveniently forgets that at the end of the day someone has to pay for all this stuff.
> Charge your customers money, so you can work for them.
Which is what I mentioned in my comment. Start charging people. The problem is how do you convince the general public to use Firefox instead of Chrome or Edge, especially is you need to pay for the software?
If privacy was a selling point, then Meta would have closed shop many years ago.
> I'm not nearly as certain as you are that Netscape failed because it was charging money. Netscape just stopped updating for multiple years at the height of the browser wars.
It doesnt matter because we will never know. The reality is that people expect to browse the internet for free. Asking them for cash has never been done at this scale.
If Mozilla was to start charging money tomorrow, you would find that many people would object to that and most people would simply move to Chrome because why not?
> Then, lean hard into the enterprise world. Figure out what enterprise customers want. The answer to that is always for things to never, ever change and the ability to tightly control their users. That isn't fun code to write, but its profitable and doesn't run counter to Mozilla's mission. That keeps Mozilla stable and financially independent.
I understand the comparison with Red hat but I am doubtful that this model will work. Red Hat helps companies ship stuff, it makes people more productive, it increases the bottom line. What would a paid version of Firefox do that makes people more productive or makes companies money that they couldn't get from Chrome? I am genuinely asking because again, it's mot very clear to me.
> Mozilla will maintain lots of influence to push forward their mission, because hopefully their enterprise customer base is big, but also they are the ones actually doing the work to make the downstream fork possible.
That is big assumption that has not been proven at this time. I think that making any sort of plans based on hypothetical paid version is highly speculative.
> donations which to be honest does not work
It would work if I knew my donations go towards the fucking browser and not towards "AI" or whatever the craze was before it.
Since they refuse to do that, I don't donate.
I was going to say a similar thing. I'm still not sure I have seen an example of a browser at the scale of Firefox (hundreds of millions of users, 30 million lines of code) being successfully monetized, basically ever, unless it was entirely subsidized by a trillion dollar company that was turning its users into the product. Or alternatively, succeeding by selling off its users for telemetry or coasting off of Chromium and tying their destiny to Google.
All the "just monetize differently" comments are coming from a place of magical thinking that nobody has actually thought through. Donations are a feel good side hustle, but completely unprecedented for any but Wikipedia to raise money that's even the right order of magnitude. Any attempts at offering monetized services run into delusional and contradictory complaints from people who treat them to "focus on the browser" but also to branch out and monetize. Hank Green has used the term hedonic skepticism for the psychology of seeking to criticize for its entertainment value, which I think is a large part of what this is.
For a more serious answer on funding, I think the most interesting thing in this space is their VC fund. Mozilla has been brilliant in building up and carefully investing their nest egg from nearly two decades of search licensing, and while it's not Ycombinator, they have the beginnings of a VC fund that may be a very interesting kind of Third Way, so to speak, depending on how that goes.
For sure. Like any side bet it should be staged and complementary rather than all or nothing.
>what is the alternative funding source that could keep a company making a free browser running?<
i wonder how linux does it?
linus and anthony should have a head to head.
> Linux desktop experience, however, leaves a lot to be desired.
No, it does not.
It is a wonderful world fill of variety, choice and diversity
I think you are comparing apples to oranges here. Linux is made of many distros, each one with their own strong points and features. Many different maintainers matain them. There is no single point of funding for them.
Mozilla on the other hand makes basically one semi well-known product (and other even less known stuff) and gives it away for free.
If tomorrow Google pulls the plug, who will pay for the salaries of the engineers who maintain Firefox? The general public does not care if Firefox lives or dies. In my circle of friends and family, I am the only one who uses Firefox. Most people are on Chrome or Brave. That's it.
Someone in the comments above mentioned that Mozilla could release a paid version for Enterprise customers, imitating Red Hat in a way, but I am highly skeptical that Enterprise customers in times such as these will be willing to pay for something that they can get for free from Google or Microsoft.
I guess we will have to wait and see.
> Apple funds Safari's development but it's basically a side project for them, Google funds Chrome's development as side project to their ad business, Edge is the same for Microsoft.
Edge is a Chromium fork so essentially they don't have that much work in keeping up.
Does anyone else feel like the "Trust" angle is the only card they have left to play? Technically, Chrome is faster on JS benchmarks. Edge has better OS integration on Windows and comes by default. Safari wins on battery life on Mac. Firefox's only unique selling point is "We aren't a massive data vampire." If they clutter the browser with AI which inherently requires data processing, often in the cloud, they dilute their only true differentiator.
Yes, there is no more: plugins, XBL, original extensions, and XSLT is removed not from Chrome but from the web standards !
Anything left ?
>Technically.....
Since its birth, Firefox is still the only browser that manage multiple ( hundreds or in some cases, thousands! [1] ) tabs better than any browser. And in my view in the past 12 - 24 months Firefox has managed to be as fast as chrome. While Chrome also improved on its multiple Tab browsing experience.
Safari.... I dont know why this battery life argument keeps coming up because it is not the case. It hasn't been so for at least 5 - 6 years.
Mozilla could have played the trust angle when they have the good will and money. They could have invested into SaaS that provides better revenue generations other than getting it from Google. They could also have partnered with Wikipedia before they got rotten. But now I am not even sure if they still have the "trust" card anymore. Gekco is still hard to be embedded, XULRunner could have been Electron. They will need to get into survival mode and think about what is next.
[1] https://www.tomshardware.com/software/mozilla-firefox/firefo...
No doubt the browsers are constantly leapfrogging each other, so this isn't always the case. But, anecdotally: switching from Chrome to Safari actually felt like I got a new computer. The difference was that apparent.
Safari is fast and performant but once you load a heavy web app that uses a lot of memory safari will kill the tab. It’s incredibly frustrating to have a page reload with a banner simply saying the site was using too much memory and was reloaded. Especially when you’re on a maxed out MacBook with plenty of resources.
I agree, in practice I see this occasionally on gigantic GitHub pull requests with 1000+ files, or very clunky Atlassian/Confluence pages. I'd say both sides need to work on their resource management!
(On that note, many complaints about Safari I hear from developers fall on my ears as "I don't care about web compatibility!" as it has never NOT been the case on the web that you need to care about feature support and resource management.)
I will also note that Safari is almost /too/ deeply integrated in the system, when I'm running a high-stress task elsewhere, my browser would jitter or hang, the same couldn't be said for chromium, for some reason.
> Safari.... I dont know why this battery life argument keeps coming up because it is not the case. It hasn't been so for at least 5 - 6 years.
I can assure you, this is still true. I use Chrome when plugged in at my desk and Safari for everything else on the go. Chrome still isn't great on memory or battery life.
Have you compared with something else than Chrome? Otherwise it might be that Chrome is just very power hungry compared to Safari, but maybe Firefox is more efficient by now? Chrome has slowly turned into a monster on it's own, not unlike what they competed against initially when Chrome first arrived.
>It's even more obvious when watching video where safari will be 5 to 10 points lower than Firefox.
Safari uses macOS for video so the points will be on macOS. Firefox uses it own internal video decoder. That is why image and video codec support on Safari is dependent on macOS upgrade not Safari.
> Safari.... I dont know why this battery life argument keeps coming up because it is not the case. It hasn't been so for at least 5 - 6 years.
I mean, observably, this is still the case.
Now, luckily the M-series laptops have such insane battery life that it barely matters compared to before... but I can still observe about an hour of battery life difference between Safari and Chrome on an M2 Macbook Air (running Sequoia). Now, my battery life is still in the region of 7.5 hours, so even if it's a large difference it's not impacting my workday yet (though the battery is at 90% max design capacity from wear).
I know this, because there are days where I only use chrome, and days where I only use Safari, and I do roughly the same work on each of those days.
I suspect that the people making these claims that Safari is no longer the most battery efficient are not Apple users. It's quite easy to empirically validate which browsers are most efficient by looking at the average energy impact in Activity Monitor. Safari is the winner, Chrome/Brave are not far behind, and Firefox is the clear loser.
I use all three.
Safari loses out when you run with a lot of Tabs. Both Chrome and Firefox knows when to unload tabs. ( Firefox even have about:unloads to tell you the order of Tabs it will unload! )
Try opening Tab Overview in Safari and it will start loading all the website for thumbnails, paging out to disk due to low memory, writing hundreds of GB to page. It also put Tabs on low running priority in the background rather than pausing them like Firefox or Chrome. ( Not sure if that is still the case with Safari 26, at least it was with 18 ). To combat that, restarting the browser time to time helps.
Safari is well tuned for iOS as a single tab, single page usage. On MacOS when doing many tabs it start to get slow and inefficient. And this is very much a Safari issue not an Webkit issue because Orion is a lot better at it.
And yes I have filed Radar report for many of the issues but I have come to the conclusion Apple doesn't care about multi tab usage on desktop Safari.
I think the difference is fundamental to the engine and the gap will be hard to close, too (I mean, how long has it been and the gap remains?). WebKit-based ultralight browsers remain usable after you’ve cranked hardware specs down far enough that nothing based on Chrome or Firefox’s engines do. Resource use among the three engines seems to differ at some kind of low, basic architecture level.
I remember people saying that chromium is better at sandboxing than firefox, so more secure.
> Safari.... I dont know why this battery life argument keeps coming up because it is not the case. It hasn't been so for at least 5 - 6 years.
Uhh, not my experience. I default any video watching longer than a short clip to safari. It is still the best browser for video IME.
What does "faster JS" actually get me? Youtube is probably the most heavy site I and I think most people use, I'm certainly not trying to do heavy scientific computation in my browser, so what difference does it really make?
Anyway, Firefox's killer feature is still extensions, despite everything that's happened on that front. There's nothing like Tree Style Tabs for Chrome (not usably implemented anyway) and while I think maybe Brave has it, Firefox has uMatrix which is better than anything Brave uses (Brave may share lists or even code with that, but the uMatrix UI is where its at.)
They also have the "extensions that can do real ad blocking" angle.
Indeed, manifest v2 support alone is a killer feature that will keep me on FF as long as they support it.
It definitely helps that it's also a great (though imperfect) browser.
The wider point here is that you can only use FF as long as Mozilla can fund it and Mozilla can only fund it as long as Google funds them. At some point, it will be cheaper for Google to pay monopoly fines than funding Mozilla.
I don't think the FTC prioritizes that right now
There's penalties other than fines for abusive monopolies.
Fines are only the slightest punishment.
Yes, although they can't go all in on that because it doesn't help monetization...
chromium-ungoogled works perfectly fine with "extensions that can do real ad blocking" ;)
I've been using Chrome with uBlock Origin Lite and not even once I found a case when this version of uBlock was behaving differently (as less efficient) than the "full" uBlock Origin
Maybe I'm just lucky, but even this argument is quite ... meh
I've found it a bit like "what car did you drive in to work with today" in that any typical current and working car is not going to be a stark difference to a high end car in terms of how fast you get there... but you'd definitely notice a piece of crap with a donut, broken heating, and screeching brakes causing you problems if that's what you were comparing instead.
I.e. I can count the number of times I said "wow, uBO Lite didn't make this site usable but loading up Firefox with uBO and it worked fine" on one hand. At the same time, if I ever look and compare how much is actually getting blocked, uBO is definitely blocking way more. Doing a side by side compare of dozens of sites it becomes easier to see minor differences I wouldn't otherwise have noted, but may not have mattered as much.
How's that work for you on Android? Firefox on Android with uBlock is the huge win.
I commented about this a few weeks ago here about this, but essentially: v2 allows you to block things you can't see, but you still probably don't want, like folks hiding cloud analytics behind CNAME cloaking to allow it to appear as a first-party site rather than Google Analytics, for example.
You won't "feel" this in your day-to-day browsing, but if you're concerned about your data being collected, v2 matters.
Does it not still suck at blocking YouTube video ads? As in, you get a delay before videos start playing.
I'm not really sure of the actual mechanism, but on Firefox with a fully updated block list the delay doesn't seem to happen for me. Whereas I could never quite get rid of it on Chrome. This was a while ago, though, when they first introduced it.
I don't even have this issue with uBlock Origin Lite on mobile Safari. I'm fully browser-based on mobile for YouTube these days. No ads, no delay.
There are a lot more Manifest V2 only extensions than only Adblockers.
Doesn't work for Prime Video ads. Tbh I don't mind that too much.
Have you tried Brave?
Brave is adware.
Firefox doesn't sell BATs, in-browser notification ads, or new tab takeovers. The closest you can get is a pinned site in the new tab page (new installs only) and ads in Pocket, or whatever they're calling that new tab thing these days.
Calling Firefox adware is a stretch at best, and disingenuous at worst. Adware doesn't mean that the software survives because of one advertisement that that user can turn off.
I don't know, Brave says it's every third new tab. https://brave.com/brave-ads/browser/
Been running it since 2021. The adblocker is simply great. A d keeps getting better.
It's good enough when some terrible lazy web designer only tested on Chrome. It does nothing to protect against the future when Google decides they are sick of people trying to get around their Ad Block ban and change the license because no one has any real alternatives anymore.
Also blocking is not as good as intentionally poisoning with something like Ad Nauseum
No Chromium fork developer not called Microsoft have the resources to maintain a web browser engine.
But focus on the license overlooks a more important threat. Google made Web Environment Integrity so services could require approved devices, operating systems, and browsers. Resistance led Google to remove it from desktop for now. But they kept something like it in Android. And they will try again.
Chromium uses the BSD license. Google could take Chromium closed source tomorrow without needing to change the license.
A few years ago. Crashed constantly and didn’t support tagging bookmarks.
Looking at their strategy doc, it doesn't seem like they hear their users at all. It's riddled with AI. In fact their aspiration is "doing for AI what we did for the web." Oh boy!
https://blog.mozilla.org/wp-content/blogs.dir/278/files/2025...
I will eat my hat if Google had nothing to do with the demise of Mozilla, what an absolute disgrace.
How incompetent can they be, how out of touch with their core (and arguably only) product ?
Nobody wants AI in firefox.
Nobody wants three or four corporations manipulating and controlling information (with a mix of hallucinations) all behind a subscription. The large tech companies have nearly universally lost all trust.
The models I've run recently on Ollama seem to about as good as the models I was running at work a year ago. The tech isn't there yet, but I see a path. I would be fine with that enhancing, not replacing, my usage.
I want a good AI integration with Firefox. The current chatgpt shim is horrible, something more refined would be nice.
Would you pay $20 a month for it? Like Cursor but for your browser?
Why though?
>I will eat my hat if Google had nothing to do with the demise of Mozilla
One has to be truly naive to think they get half a bi a year from Google "just because." They have less than 5% of desktop market share and ZERO mobile presence.
IMHO, they wouldn't get this kind of money if they had a competent, technical C-suite that actually cared about creating a truly competitive free browser. The money is flowing because, not in spite of, the current C-suite.
Do we know for a fact that 'nobody wants AI in Firefox'?
Yeah, but there's a selection bias present in most feedback like this, isn't there? People are more motivated to submit feedback when something annoys them. This is speaking as someone who is also annoyed by AI features.
And a 15 second look at that page makes it extremely obvious that (as expected) all this feedback is coming from the 1% of extremely vocal terminally online losers who haven't left their house in the past 6 months and spend their free time consuming furry porn and "tooting" on Mastodon, and for whom hating AI is 75% of their personality. Not actual normal people.
Mozilla (in its previous form) has long been doomed. Mobile cemented it, I think. Browsers are part of the operating system and getting users to switch from the default is an incredible uphill climb. Especially when browsers are essentially utilities, there are so few unique compelling features.
That lack of connection to tech giants is a strength in the trust angle. And I think they’re right to be thinking about AI: people are using it and there does need to be an alternative to tech giants/VC funded monsters
Will they be successful? The odds are stacked against them. But if they’re not going to even try then what purpose will they serve any more?
It's interesting that most people on Windows PCs switch to Chrome when Edge is the default. It was obvious why people switched from IE6 to Firefox and later from IE7 to Chrome; IE was terrible; Firefox was better; Chrome was better still. Edge is not obsolete, unstable, or a security nightmare the way IE was.
Chrome even has significant user share on Mac OS; the numbers I'm finding are around 40%.
It's hard to guess whether people are much less inclined to switch browsers on mobile than on desktop, or if they just like Chrome. Either way, the odds are against anyone who tries to compete with it.
Exactly.
Unfortunately, we live in a time when anti-trust regulations mean nothing.
The fact that it's difficult to separate Chrome from Android dooms most competitors, which is bad for everyone.
Right. The myth that keeps getting confidently repeated in HN comment sections is that Mozilla supposedly lost market share due to a series of strategic missteps. But it basically was about the pivot to mobile, and the monopoly lock-in of Google. Actually think one fantastic remedy for Google's search monopoly might be allowing the use of alternative browsers on Android via a pop-up rather than preloading and privileging Chrome. Because browsers and mobile are part of the strategy of creating a path dependency tied to Google search.
But to your point, I think the simple reality is that LLMs are increasingly taking the place of search and so having all your funding based on search licensing might be risky when it's at least possible that we're going to be in a new paradigm sooner than later.
I honestly think AI in the browser right now is generally very half-baked and doesn't have any well thought out applications, and raises all kinds of trust issues. I can think of good applications (eg browse the Kindle unlimited store for critically acclaimed hard sci-fi books), but there might be better ones that I'm not thinking of. It just might make sense to be involved so you went caught flat-footed by some new application that quickly progresses into something people expect. And of course because HN commenters are famously self-contradictory in response to literally everything Mozilla does, it's a damned if they do damned if they don't situation: if they load AI into the browser it's pointless feature bloat. If they don't then they were sitting on their thumbs while the world moved on when they should have been reinventing themselves and finding new paths to revenue.
You said it better than me. This is the real reason Firefox has declined, and it's basically because of a monopoly.
IDK. I tried Orion on iOS and within five minutes I knew I was never going back to Safari.
They are still the only browser I know, which has actual useful chrome like changing the stylesheet, is CUA compliant and behaves and feel like a native GTK+ app (now-a-days only after restoring the OS window bar and enabling the menubar).
They also have useful keyboard behaviour and provide both a search and a URL bar, which makes it effortless to search locally and perform additional refinery searches while hunting down something, because you can change the search term without returning to the search website. Searching via the search engines portal is also often slower than via the search bar on crappy connections. Their search provider integration is also great (not sure how other browsers are in this regard) which makes opening a Wikipedia or MDN page about a specific topic a single action, without needing to look at a search result list.
There Profile Manager is also a breeze (not the new crap), it allows to open any URL in any Profile by clicking on any link in another program.
The extension system and the advanced configuration is also quite good.
> They also have useful keyboard behaviour
Like not being able to change the default shortcuts?
We're implementing it though: about:keyboard in a Nightly build does what you expect, this is tracked in https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2000731 and dependencies.
Thanks for sharing this! Went and changed some keybinds right away.
No, it doesn't do what I expect, the list of the default rebindable keybinds is small, can't bind multiple shortcuts to a single function, can't bind without modifiers- if I recall correctly after trying it out a while ago.
I find that any performance benefits Chrome and Safari have are more than offset by the performance benefits Firefox gets by being massively better at blocking ads and the huge amount of JS and tracking garbage that comes with them.
Firefox always feels snappier to me, and I think most of that comes from less time downloading a bunch of ad shit I don't want anyway.
To me, Firefox has way better dev tools than Chrome. I don't even mention Safari here - who can stand their horrible dev tools? Firefox has a fantastic add on marketplace which competes with Chrome's. Firefox without too many addons actually do not drain battery life on MacOS. Firefox has "native" profile management with real separation of cookies. JS benchmarks provide no value to me, since I try to avoid heavy-JS web apps anyway.
I don't know. As a dev and user, Firefox wins on every single aspect for me. I understand that every user is different. But I'm glad it exists.
> Technically, Chrome is faster on JS benchmarks.
I'm not browsing benchmarks :-/
When I do then chrome will have an advantage.
Meanwhile, in the real world, a JS engine can be half the speed of the Chrome one and the browser can still be faster, because blocking ads is what gives you the biggest speed up.
All the performance advantages in the world fail to matter if you're still loading ads.
On my Android phone, Chrome opens web pages noticeably (and consistently) faster than Firefox. And I wasn't using a stopwatch. I am literally making a sacrifice to use Firefox.
Why do you need THAT fast js for? Firefox is amazing speed even if second in the benchmarks.
Fitefox has faster WASM and WebGPU at least. Kind of doesn't matter since Chrome has bloated the standard so much that many websites only work in chrome
> faster WASM and WebGPU
Regarding WASM at least, it seems to depend. https://arewefastyet.com/
And, a different way of stating the same thing, they're actually way ahead of everybody in shipping production Rust code in the browser, which is a big part of the efficiency gains in recent years.
As a semi Rust hater, but Firefox user, I believe Mozilla should go absolutely all-in on Rust, for a mixture of direct and indirect effects. That and/or launch an open source e-Reader development project.
No MBA type is going to be able to do anything of the sort.
And they used to have a literal witch as CEO iirc. Not sure how she won the position... Weird.
You've confused them with GNOME. The witch is out, she did not last long.
What sort? Inquiring minds and all that... like a "Good Witch of the North"? Or a Hermione Granger type? Or the kind that own crystal shops that serve tea from renewed storefronts in quaint coastal towns?
Not sure who or how, but someone somewhere confused Gnome for Mozilla/Firefox. The claim was that Mozilla has had an "literal witch as CEO" but that article is about Gnome.
I can only assume you're referring to Mitchell Baker? Mitchell Baker has gotten a /lot/ of negative comments on HN, and some for good reason, but the constant ask of "how she won the position" and the like just shows the ignorance of the commenters...
Mitchell Baker co-founded Mozilla, and was the legal mind that structured both the split from Netscape that salvaged the code and wrote the majority of the Mozilla Public License and the legal/philosophical stance of the organization. She's an attorney with a specific background in intellectual property law, and without her contributions the entire world would be poorer for it. Mozilla, long before Firefox, was instrumental in the early parts of the open-source movement helping to define what it even meant to being open-source and creating a more rigorous and legally tested framework.
I am not a huge fan of Mitchell, so I understand and agree with much of the criticism, but it stinks of sexism or some other ulterior motive when people "wonderingly" suppose "how she won the position". Is anyone curious how Mark Zuckerberg became CEO of Meta, even though he's mostly blown through billions of dollars on boondoggles and acted in unethical ways? No, not at all, because he's the (co-)founder. So why is a different standard applied for Mitchell? Is it only because she's a woman, or is there some other reason?
The accusations aren't "towards anyone who dares question her", they're towards people who assume that she had come in after the fact and unfairly got into somebody else's role, which is ignorant (and easily cleared up by glancing at a Wikipedia article) and also a common refrain aimed at any woman in any position of authority.
I'm not a fan of Baker for many reasons, but "how did she even get that role?" always pings my shithead radar, and isn't a question I hear for incompetent male CEOs, who are assumed to be just incompetent, while the women are assumed to be incompetent infiltrators who were hired on the basis of their sex.
> I can question the qualifications of a person as it relates to a specific position
Sure, but do people generally question the qualifications of founders that successfully grew something from inception? Or is it only for people who are women? Because I definitely see a trend in the comment threads in HN over the last many years.
Obviously through pagan rituals
This is sexist nonsense. You’ve got your irrationally hated female CEOs confused!
Irrationally?
"Trust" is just community goodwill, and Mozilla has steadily been chipping away at that goodwill by pivoting to AI and ad businesses, and occasionally implying that it's the community that wants things like AI, and it's the community's fault for misunderstanding their poorly written license agreement.
Well, that's kind of their whole point-- can AI be done in a way that guards privacy. It's not impossible even with cloud processing.
And "Trust" should be a big deal-- unfortunately most people don't care and Chrome has a much bigger marketing budget (and monopoly on Android).
Confidential compute (intel, amd and nvidia) already is a thing and has nothing to do with mozilla. Without such drastic measures, no, it IS impossible with regular cloud processing.
Firefox is the only browser that actually blocks all ads effectively using ublock origin. Even youtube, etc.
It's the only realistic alternative to a chromium-based browser if someone wants to make their own fork. I use the Zen browser, and it strips out some stuff I'm not a huge fan of in baseline Firefox. Manifest v3 not rearing its ugly head is also a huge plus, as a competent adblocker is essential these days.
Extension (adblock) support on mobile is worth more to me than anything you just listed off.
>Firefox's only unique selling point is "We aren't a massive data vampire."
That's a big selling point. Along with "still allows ad-blocking extensions".
Besides being able to turn off all online AI features, and the fact that forks like Librewolf will inevitably strip it out, I am stunned by how HN readers think "Translate this for me immediately and accurately" and related functions are not desirable to the average person.
It's interesting because I've heard Manifest 3 was an effort to not make extensions quite have full trust capability and isn't as odious as it sounds but it's also Google, so...
Ah Manifest 3: Will still happily allow an extension to silently transmit all of your browsing and AI chat history to data brokers to be packaged and sold to the highest bidder.
While conveniently and regrettably unavoidably nerfing ad blockers :(
For your safety of course.
Have you tried using Manifest V3 adblockers on Chrome? They're not nearly as capable or useful as the old ones.
Rather than develop its own AI (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45926779), Firefox should develop a system to pipe your html rendered browsing history in real time so external local services can process it (https://connect.mozilla.org/t5/ideas/archive-your-browser-hi...). See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45743918
Firefox probably won't suddenly have the best AI, but it could be the only browser that does this. Previous: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46018789
If I were the CEO, I would:
- focus 100% on Firefox Desktop & Mobile - just a fast solid minimalist browser (no AI, no BS) - other features should be addons - privacy centric - builtin, first-class, adblocker - run on donations - partner with Kagi - layoff 80% of the non-tech employees
I worked for them for many years, I guarantee you that Mozilla will be fine without all the non-sense people, just put engineers in charge.
Donations only get you so far. Take a mid-sized project, that needs $500k per year (a few devs, very modestly paid, zero expenses). It's a lot of money. It requires a huge user base. Say you have 500k users, and 5% donate $25 per year (I'm optimistic). And that's just $500k US, a few devs, zero expenses. A project that size probably has audit requirements, hosting costs, accounting, legal, trademarks, etc.
I see finances for a few free software projects, and many of them really struggle to get donations year after year, in a way that helps make the project predictable and sustainable.
For the US, people want you to be a 501c3, and then you need a EU equivalent. Canadians are unlikely to give to a US org (especially these days), but the market is too small to setup a local charity. So you need partners. All that has many compliance requirements and paperwork, so you need non-tech employees for the fundraising and accounting.
Eventually your big donors start blackmailing the project if you don't do what they want, and often their interests are not aligned with most users. You need various income sources.
With 1.3b in reserves, it's enough for funding development for many years to come if they fire most of management and close irrelevant to the browser things.
It would be organizational suicide to spend down their endowment just because they can. Right now it exists as a firewall to buy them some time in the event that search licensing goes away, which I think is exactly what they should have done with it.
And it's been talked to death before but the idea that the browser side bets are at some prohibitive cost is an unsubstantiated myth, conjured into existence by vibes in comment sections. It's the HN equivalent of American voters who think foreign aid is 50% of the federal budget.
How do you think they got that money in the first place? They've been growing this fund from $100MM in the 2010s to where it is now, by carefully managing and investing it.
Hilariously, you're here presenting something Mozilla has already been doing for nearly two decades like it's a new idea that only you have thought of. Yes, I realize how much that is: enough to cover their operating costs for like 2.5 years.
And sure, it's amazing how much an endowment can do if you give up and wipe out most of their staff and embrace magical thinking.
I dont even think they employ close to 100 FTE devs actually working on Firefox at this point.
To expand on Firefox mobile: if you haven’t tried it, give it a shot. uBlock Origin works just like on desktop. I have seen maybe five ads on my phone browser (including Youtube!) since buying it in 2019.
Yes! I can confirm it works just like on desktop. I'm shocked when I have to use other people's phones. How do they put up with all these ads?
This! So many times!
Can I get details on ad blocking in Firefox on iOS? I have an ad blocker which works well in Safari but not Firefox. What am I missing?
It doesn't work on iOS. All browsers in iOS are Safari with a different frontend. Apple doesn't allow it to be any different.
I think you might need to use Nightly version for this.
The only issue is that Firefox on mobile is visibly breaking a couple of sites every now and then; if you can put up with that for no ads (I can), then its great.
Which? I've never seen this through many years of daily use.
Good, agreed. Let's just hope Anthony will read this.
Also, speaking of trust, return the "never sell your data" to the FAQ.
No. Kagi uses Google results behind the scenes. Partner with Duckduckgo, yes. Or others. But please stop fueling Google, even indirectly.
Kagi already has their own WebKit based browser, not sure they'd be interested in that partnership.
I don't know that a partnership with Kagi is the move, as great as the two work for me. The last thing you want users to see when starting up a new browser is a paywall. It would be rad to see Firefox treat Kagi as a first-class citizen, but I think a true partnership would be detrimental to both.
Agree with you on everything else, though.
Frankly, looking at the shape of Firefox I don't think that Mozilla cares for it at all - they just hold the brand because it's really well-established.
What would be the best solution today is to convince all these Firefox spinoff projects into combining forces and fully forking Firefox away from Mozilla, and don't look back. But seeing what happens around, how various projects - even the smallest ones are being lead, the moods in communities, I highly doubt that's actually possible.
> 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 like what the interim CEO was doing, focusing more on the browser and forgetting these side projects that leads to nowhere, but it seems it's back to business with this one.
> "a modern AI browser"
No thanks. Absolutely not.
i wouldn't touch anything from Mozilla with a twenty-foot pole
Dumb question: who’s Firefox target user?
Chrome is able to capture the mass consumer market, due to Google’s dark pattern to nag you to install Chrome anytime you’re on a Google property.
Edge target enterprise Fortune 500 user, who is required to use Microsoft/Office 365 at work (and its deep security permission ties to SharePoint).
Safari has Mac/iOS audience via being the default on those platform (and deep platform integration).
Brave (based on Chromium), and LibreWolf (based on Firefox) has even carved out those user who value privacy.
---
What’s Firefox target user?
Long ago, Firefox was the better IE, and it had great plugins for web developers. But that was before Chrome existed and Google capturing the mass market. And the developers needed to follow its users.
So what target user is left for a Firefox?
Note: not trolling. I loved Firefox. I just don’t genuine understand who it’s for anymore.
> Dumb question: who’s Firefox target user?
These days, it seems to be people who:
* Don't want to be using a browser owned by an ethically dubious corporation
* Want a fully functional ad blocker
* Prefer vertical tabs
> Want a fully functional ad blocker
My main reason but also
* want to ensure competition because I'm sure that once it's chromium all the way, we're gonna have a bad time.
Mind you, you can get all that and more in a browser like vivaldi. And that market is.. small. Vivaldi doesn't have to develop a browser engine
The problem is the list keeps shrinking since now Mozilla Corp is an ethically dubious corporation.
Brave already has an adblocker built into the browser itself and supports vertical tabs.
> What’s Firefox target user?
It seems as if you ask Mozilla, the answer would be "Not current Firefox users."
I really don't know the answer to this question, and I don't know if Mozilla has defined it internally, which probably leads to a lot of the problems that the browser is facing. Is it the privacy focused individual? They seem to be working very hard against that. Is it the ad-sensitive user? Maybe, but they're not doing a lot to win that crowd over.
It kind of feels like Firefox is not targeted at anyone in particular. But long gone are the days when you can just be an alternative browser.
Maybe the target user is someone who wants to use Firefox, regardless of what that means.
Ostensibly nerds. Linux users and maybe Mac users. Technical people who understand more about the software industry than all Mozilla Corp management since Brendan.
It's difficult to monetize us when the product is a zero dollar intangible, especially when trust has been eroded such that we've all fled to Librewolf like you said.
It's difficult to monetize normies when they don't use the software due to years of continuous mismanagement.
I think giving Mozilla a new CEO is like assigning a new captain to the Titanic. I will be surprised if this company still exists by 2030.
Right and to your point, there's not a whole lot of precedent for browsers successfully funding themselves when the browser itself is the primary product.
Opera was the lightweight high performance extension rich, diversely funded, portable, adapted to niche hardware, early to mobile browser practically built from the dreams of niche users who want customization and privacy. They're a perfect natural experiment for what it looks like to get most, if not all decisions right in terms of both of features users want, as well as creative attempts to diversify revenue. But unfortunately, by the same token also the perfect refutation of the fantasy that making the right decisions means you have a path to revenue. If that was how it worked, Opera would be a trillion dollar company right now.
But it didn't work because the economics of web browsers basically doesn't exist. You have to be a trillion dollar company already, and dominate distribution of a given platform and force preload your browser.
Browsers are practically full scale operating systems these days with tens of millions of lines of code, distribued for free. Donations don't work, paying for the browser doesn't work. If it did, Opera (the og Opera, not the new ownership they got sold to) would still be here.
> Browsers are practically full scale operating systems these days with tens of millions of lines of code, distributed for free.
Well there's your problem! Google owns the server, the client, and the standards body, so ever-increasing complexity is inevitable if you play by their rules. Tens of thousands of lines of code could render the useful parts of the web.
Can you say more? I do think Google has effectively pushed embrace-extend-extinguish, changing the rules so that it's a game they can win. And I do think part of the point of web standards protocols is to limit complexity. So I agree the rules as they exist now favor Google. I think the "real" solution was for the standards bodies to stay in control but seems like that horse left the barn.
Yes, I would literally pay a nominal fee for Firefox if I were confident in the org's direction. As things stand though, the trust is gone as you said.
It seems to me Android users who want to block ads are a strong target market. Desktop Chrome has extensions and despite the nerf, it has adblockers that mostly work; Android Chrome doesn't have extensions.
A built in adblocker would probably help Firefox attract those users, but might destroy their Google revenue stream.
I use Firefox because I don't want to use a browser provided by an advertising company e.g. Chrome.
Just one that is entirely funded by an advertising company?
There are three browsers: FF, Chrome, Safari. I'm not on Apple so FF is the least worst option.
Yet ... with firefox that is exactly what you are using. Except there's a proxy in the middle (Mozilla).
I'm raising my hands, you got me.
Me! I want the best thing that's not Google or Chromium. Right now that's Firefox. Maybe someday it will be Ladybird.
> Dumb question: who’s Firefox target user?
Partly me. It's the only browser where I can disable AV1 support to work around broken HW acceleration on Steam Deck.
Also tab hoarders. (I migrated to Chrome 3 years ago to try and get rid of my tab hoarding)
I've been using Firefox for a long time, longer than it's had that name, and it used to be excellent for my tab hoarding habits. Specifically, it could handle a large number of tabs, and every couple of months it would crash and lose all of them. I would have to start over from scratch, with an amazing sense of catharsis and freedom, and I never had to make the decision on my own that I would never be able to make.
Now, it's no better than the others. I'm at 1919 tabs right now, and it hasn't lost any for many years. It's rock solid, it's good at unloading the tabs so I don't even need to rely on non-tab-losing crash/restarts to speed things up, and it doesn't even burn enough memory on them to force me to reconsider my ways.
This is a perfect example of how Mozilla's mismanagement has driven Firefox into the ground. Bring back involuntary tab bankruptcy and spacebar heating!
Firefox users are people who would use LibreWolf, but installed it, tried it, saw it doesn't have dark mode, and figured that Firefox was good enough after all.
It looks like they chose a Product Manager and MBA. Why can't we get a software engineer or computer scientist?
They had one. Until he made a fatal mistake of giving a tenner to the wrong people.
He gave $1000 donation to support a ban on gay marriage, to be clear.
And people don't have to all agree on the same things. People can get together to work towards cause X and then individually believe in mutually exclusive causes alpha, beta, gamma.
I dunno. Public Defenders (and defense attorneys in general, but PDs don't get oodles of cash) have to work with some pretty reprehensible people sometimes.
I used to live in Bahrain while my wife worked in oil and gas, and a lot of her colleagues had some... pretty different... views from us but we still got along. Hell, the country itself has a pretty significant Sunni / Shia divide, with employees being one or the other and they managed to work with each other just fine.
I think in general people should be able to work with others that they have significant differences in opinion with. Now, in tech, we've been privileged to be in a seller's (of labor) market, where we can exercise some selectivity in where we work, so it's certainly a headwind in hiring if the CEO is undesirable (for whatever reason), but plenty of people still will for the cause or the pay or whatever. You just have to balance whether the hiring problems the CEO may or may not cause are worth whatever else they bring to the table.
If you were on a hiring committee, and your otherwise-qualified-candidate had a political opinion you objected to in this way, perhaps with a similar donation, would you refuse to hire them?
Ive worked with Catholics and my views on sola scriptura and the authority of the Pope never came up once. Ive worked with Muslims, and it was never an issue. Ive worked with Hindus. Ive worked with Chinese, Pakistanis, Indians, Bangladeshis, Nigerians, Brazilians, Kenyans, Russians, Ukrainians, Poles, Ghanans, Mexicans, and many other nationalities. I have been on many teams and in my companies with a combinatorial explosion of fundamentally incompatible beliefs.
So yes I do expect staff to work under a ceo that is opposed to gay marriage, an idea that I would bet globally has a less than 50% popular support.
> It's not really possible to do that when the opposing beliefs are so fundamental.
Sure it is. I've lived and worked in the Middle East and in China. People do it all the time.
What's so fundamental about marriage?
I don't think childless couples (of any gender) should get any societal advantages yet I have no problem working with people that disagree. Why has everything to be black-or-white, left-or-right, with us or against us? That's not a productive way to think about others.
It's basic tolerance, it's not that hard. You do your job and collect your paycheck at the end of the week, same as everyone else.
I'd donate to a campaign to ban child marraige, is that disordered?
>curtailing the freedoms you disagree with
So pretty much any law that is opposed by someone. Shop lifting shouldn't be legal because there are people who like free stuff. Curltailing the freedom of people who want free stuff improves society by protecting people's property.
Just because people can get together to work towards a cause while believing in mutually exclusive ideals, that doesn't mean it's the most effective way for people to work together. The ability to do a thing and the ability to do a thing well is a big difference.
Yeah except "people I don't like shouldn't have rights" is not a valid or defensible position. That makes you a bad person, no qualifiers.
In political terms $1000 is basically nothing.
A ban that was supported by the majority at the time and the donation was six years old at the time he became CEO. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44461541
The point was not "whatever the majority wants is therefore good". The point is that if you were to apply the "you get fired from your job for this" standard evenly, the majority of the country would've had to get fired from their jobs. That is a pretty unreasonable standard to apply, imo.
Also, come on man. It's in really bad taste to compare stuff to the Holocaust. Nobody was being murdered here, it's not remotely the same.
No, those are all completely separate things.
Brendan Eich is a rich nerd who probably got cornered in a party by someone smart and signed $1000 check.
It is like blaming me for giving $10 to an bump without checking what he was gonna do with it.
No part of this is true, fwiw. His salary at Mozilla was not high and he was a strong advocate of keeping executive compensation low (and as supporting evidence, that compensation shot up soon after he left). He may have made more from Brave, but that was obviously well after the donation. He also never backed down from his donation and the directly implied opposition to gay marriage, only stating that it comes from his personal beliefs and that he refused to discuss those openly. (I disagree with his position on gay marriage, or at least the position that I can infer from his donation, but I agree with his right and decision to keep it a private matter.)
I had... complex but mostly positive feelings about Eich in the time I worked for him (indirectly), but I can state unequivocally that he's not someone who would bend his principles as a result of getting cornered at a party.
[flagged]
Oh yes, totally worth it to risk THE FREE INTERNET because of that.
He's not defending "THE FREE INTERNET" at his new place.
(Which for the record, is less important than physical freedom).
> risk THE FREE INTERNET because of that
Come off it, as if he is the only one who can save us. Spare me.
But then he went on to make Yet Another Chromium Fork, so it doesn't seem like he was particularly attached to Gecko or what it stands for in the browser engine market anyway. What's to say that Mozilla wouldn't have given up the fight and pivoted to Chromium, like Opera and Edge did, if he was still in charge?
They originally started with Gecko and switched to Chromium.
"There were a ton of issues using Gecko, starting with (at the time) no CDM (HTML5 DRM module) so no HD video content from the major studios, Netflix, Amazon, etc. -- Firefox had an Adobe deal but it was not transferable or transferred to any other browser that used Gecko -- and running the gamut of paper-cuts to major web incompatibilities especially on mobile, vs. WebKit-lineage engines such as Chromium/Blink."
And he went in on integrating trendy things like Ads that pay crypto and AI integrated into the browser, so it's not like there wouldn't be AI if he were in charge.
Is there a name for the fallacy where you assume the path not taken is much better? Because I agree, this is that. Mozilla’s challenges are foundational, Eich as CEO wouldn’t have made a dramatic difference in outcomes.
It isn't really Yet Another Chromium Fork, they're the company that does most anti-ad research / development. Stuff like Project Sugarcoat[0]. Their adblocking engine is also native and does not depend on Manifest V2, making it work better than any blocker that has to switch to MV3 when Google removes MV2.
And they're the only browser that has a functional alternative for webpage-based ads. Active right now. And you can instead fund pages / creators by buying BAT directly instead of watching private ads.
On top of that, Brave's defaults are much more privacy-protecting than Firefox's, you only get good protection on Firefox if you harden the config by mucking about in about:config.
People love to hate on Brave because they made some weird grey area missteps in the past (injecting affiliate links on crypto sites and pre-installing a deactivated VPN) and they're involved in crypto. But its not like Firefox hasn't made some serious missteps in the past, but somehow Firefox stans have decided to forget about the surreptitiously installed extension for Mr. Robot injected ads (yes really).
If people could be objective for a second they'd see that Brave took over the torch from Firefox and has been carrying it for a long time now.
[0] https://brave.com/research/sugarcoat-programmatically-genera...
Eich chose to resign due to internal and external protest in the form of petitions and resignations.
No one forced him to do anything, and Mozilla itself certainly didn't force him out.
His free speech was met with the free speech of others, and he decided it was too painful to stay in that spotlight.
How would you prefer it to have gone?
Translation: he had donated to ban same-sex marriage in California[1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brendan_Eich#Appointment_to_CE...
I'm afraid they're delegated to coding nowadays and even open source projects are run like corporations with attached "foundations" parasites where funneling out money on unrelated stuff occurs.
This piece linked is a dry marketing and nothing else, and I don't believe in a single bit this guy is saying or will ever say.
The line about AI being always a choice that user can simply turn it off: I need to go to about:config registry to turn every occurrence of it in Firefox. So there's that.
Why do you think a software engineer or computer scientist would be more qualified?
This site in general has a massive hate boner for any part of a corporate structure that isn't the engineering department. Sales, admin, marketing, legal, HR, etc... all get flak from the HN community for being irredeemably idiotic wastes of space.
They need to build a great product as well as somehow fund the project. Seem like those credentials match the requirements.
Wouldn't it make more sense to have them program and let a product person handle big picture ideas
The track record of MBA's destroying companies says otherwise.
What Mozilla needs is a change in leadership direction, not another MBA.
I very much doubt that the track record of companies fronted by an hands-on engineer is much better. If anything they probably fail faster on average so we never hear about them.
Yes and he is writing like an MBA/Product Manager (or is it the AI?)
Actually he is most likely a drone. Meaning he is speaking like he believes he is the CEO of a public company talking to the shareholders, so of course he talks about how AI is changing software.
But guess what Mozilla is not a public company, there is no stock to pump and the thing it really miss is its users. Going from 30% to less than 5% market share in 15 years with a good product. Actually I am pretty sure the users who left just do not want to much AI.
But he is an MBA drone so he is just gonna play the same music as every other MBA drone.
Well Ladybird [0] it is
I'm reading HN on my laptop outside, and a ladybug landed on my screen right as I was reading this comment. It's sitting there as I write this. I know this doesn't contribute to the discussion in any way but it's so neat I just needed to share.
I know it's very shallow but the marketing page gives me the ick. I have been Pavlov'd that websites with such designs are scams/vaporware.
> it is
You must be meaning "will be". Because the first alpha release is promised some time in 2026. So hopefully by 2028 it will be solid enough.
You can use it right now if you build it from source, in fact I am writing this HN comment from it.
Is this usable day to day yet? I built it a few months ago and there were showstopper bugs on any nontrivial website.
Exciting project nonetheless.
And we can at least donate directly to Ladybird's development [0]
Unlike Mozilla which Firefox is completely funded with Google's money.
You can donate to any nonprofit and stipulate that your money be used only for a certain purpose, and they're legally bound by it.
Not relevant here. Yes, you can donate to Mozilla.org and stipulate whatever you like, but Mozilla.org does not develop Firefox so telling them to use it for developing Firefox will do about as much good as telling them to use it to resurrect unicorns. Mozilla.org owns Mozilla Corporation, which is a for-profit entity that develops Firefox, but thus far the corporation hasn't wanted the complications and restrictions that would come from accepting donations.
Looking at his LinkedIn profile, he seems to be the MBA type, with little to no technical experience. For the past year he's been the SVP or GM of Firefox, whatever that means. Take that as you will...
> Aspiration: doing for AI what we did for the web.
> Strength: $1.3B in reserves + diverse operating models (product, deep tech, venture, philanthropy) make Mozilla unusually free to bet long-term.
> Strategy: Pillar 1: AI. Pillar 2: AI. Pillar 3: AI.
Oh yes.
> Firefox will remain our anchor. It will evolve into a modern AI browser
Aligning yourself with garbage generators is how you lose trust. Meanwhile, the top user requested features still point to basic deficiencies of browser UI
> 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.
Please don't.
It continues to amaze me how a company racking in over 500 million a year in revenue can continue to fail so spectacularly. With that income there's no reason they shouldn't be the leading browser. Doubling down on AI is only going to burn more money while they continue to lose market share.
"Mozilla's former CEO, Mitchell Baker, earned nearly $7 million in 2022, with compensation rising from around $3 million in 2020 to over $5.5 million in 2021 and $6.9 million in 2022"
I wonder how much the new CEO is making now.
Just to clarify how outrageous the Mozilla CEO compensation is, consider that Tim Cook makes 0.019% of Apple's revenue in compensation ($75M on $391BN of revenue). For Sundar Pichai (Google), it's 0.003%; Samsung is 0.0001%; Nadella at Microsoft is 0.032%.
For Mozilla? 1.18%! That's almost FORTY TIMES these other companies. Apple revolutionized mobile computing; Google revolutionized search, Microsoft owns enterprise software, and Samsung is one of the largest hardware manufacturers in the world. Mozilla makes a second-rate web browser whose sole distinguishing feature is supporting a community-built addon that does a great job blocking Youtube ads.
I could give $100k per year to Mozilla for the rest of my life, and my lifetime donation would cover less than half of the CEO's salary.
Compensation for employees is not based solely on revenue. CEOs of major global organizations cost a lot of money.
Yeah, considering how poorly it went and how much market share they lost I also always thought it was outrageous... Also so many people laid off and projects shut down. I don't have any insight, and I could be way off, but it always felt like the company was captured by bureaucracy and drained as long as it was possible. Again I could be way off, as I don't have any personal connections to it. I was a regular user until around 10 years ago, but Chrome just leapfrogged them and that was it. There was at one point nothing left other than nostalgia.
edit: I still remember using Mozilla which was this "good thing" but somehow clunky, and then getting so excited when trying Phoenix for the first time, which was then renamed to Firebird, and lastly Firefox. It was so "obviously" the right thing to use.
The only answer is for them to go back to "plan A" and do their own things. Stop copying Chrome. Stop looking at Safari and Edge. Stop the rapid release nonsense. Go back to the fundamentals of speed, security, and stability on desktops and leave the rest to plugins. Once desktop is back on track, they should begin fixing mobile. When both are great, do nothing else except bugfix and performance fixes. We want this and nothing more.
If AI feature are on by default then no thanks!
This is how to burn what little trust remains: "AI should always be a choice — something people can easily turn off."
It has to be opt-in or you're not worthy of trust.
Fire fix usage went from I forget what but really significant down to the level people don't build site for it anymore.
Pretty sure it's because they made security changes that broke the Intranet.
What you want una browser is that it t works. Not some security pop-up telling it doesn't work. Especially if you wrote the website.
Still annoying evert time https://127.0.0.1 is flagged as insecure
#6 in hacker news ChatGPT images announcement doesn't work in Firefox Android as a perfect example.
i feel like there ought to be a meaningfully large market for a "trusted" company where part of the brand identity is being able to form sentences that do not include the token "ai", especially with e.g. microsoft's recent excesses in this direction, but what do i know about the alleged realities of running a tech company in $YEAR
"Firefox will remain our anchor. It will evolve into a modern AI browser and support a portfolio of new and trusted software additions."
reading this genuinely disgusts me. I am so tired of this nonsense being shoved where it doesn't belong. I just want a fast browser that stays out of the way.
> As Mozilla moves forward, we will focus on becoming the trusted software company.
Does this sentence feel incomplete to anyone else? Is it supposed to say "the most trusted software company" or is it supposed to be an emphasis (i.e. the trusted software company)?
I swear I've heard this trust angle used by so many CEOs throughout the years. When I hear this I know nothing good is on the way.
At least he seems focused on Firefox.
Hopefully this translates into clearer direction for Firefox and better execution across the company, instead of pushing multiple micro products that are likely destined to fail, as Mozilla has done over the past 5+ years.
From his LinkedIn profile [1], his recent roles have been consistently centered on Firefox:
Chief Executive Officer
Dec 2025 - Present · 1 mo
-------
General Manager of Firefox
Jul 2025 - Dec 2025 · 6 mos
-------
SVP of Firefox
Dec 2024 - Jul 2025 · 8 mos
-------
He appears to have a solid background in product thinking, feature development, and UX. If his main focus remains on Firefox, that could be a positive sign for the product and its long term direction.
I was on board with this until he said, Firefox would become a “modern AI browser.” I am not sure what that looks like or means, and I am not sure anyone really does. It feels like some kind of obligatory statement to appease someone somewhere.
What browser should I use then? I quit chrome in a futile attempt to be tracked less. They killed support for my adblocker.
Brave. It's a Chromium fork with a built-in ad blocker that's equivalent to uBlock Origin. It works great on Android too.
It is sad that the choice is either an AI browser or a Blockchain browser
Librewolf
Would any of these soft forks survive without Mozilla working on Firefox?
No
fwiw I've been running brave for the past 5 years and it seems fine, they put a bunch of weird shit in it you need to turn off, but otherwise it...browses the internet well?
What would be nice is something like the Python foundation, people can be a reasonable membership to become "members" of the organisation with a right proposal and vote for decisions.
Well it surely cannot get any wor-
> ...investing in AI...
Ugh, nevermind.
I have a laptop with 4 GB of ram and firefox keeps crashing. I wish they'd fix this instead of saddling me with AI features I don't need.
> AI should always be a choice — something people can easily turn off
and a couple of lines below
> It will evolve into a modern AI browser
Besides the obvious "what the fuck is an AI browser?" aren't the two mutually exclusive?
You want "Trust"?
Cut executive pay 75% back to what Brendan was getting paid, and invest that money in the company instead of lining your own pockets.
Ditch the AI crap that nobody wants or needs and focus on making a good browser and email application, and advertising them to increase user count.
Anything less than this is not trustworthy, it's just another lecherous MBA who is hastening the death of Mozilla.
I for one, am grateful to Mozilla for still being around, pushing for an open web.
Their documentation is excellent, the improvements and roadmap for Thunderbird made me finally adopt it, and I appreciate their privacy-friendlier translation services. uBO works great in Firefox, and I can't stand using a browser without its full features.
About MBA types: the free software project I work for has an MBA type, which I initially resented as being an outsider. However, they manage the finances, think about team and project growth long-term (with heavy financial consequences), and ignore the daily technical debates (which are left to the lead devs), and listen to users, big and small. Some loud users like to complain that we don't listen to them, and sometimes we kick them out, because we do listen to users.
I don't know much about Mozilla internals, if I am to judge from the results: Mozilla is still here, despite everyone saying for 10+ years that they are going to die. They are still competitive. They are still holding big tech accountable, despite having a fraction of their power. I can imagine that they make a lot of people here very uncomfortable.
> despite everyone saying for 10+ years that they are going to die.
What many people have been saying in my experience is pretty much the opposite: that Mozilla isn't going anywhere because Google wants them (needs them) to be around. That it's their antitrust Trojan horse.
They dont need an anti trust trojan horse the US gov has 0 intention of enforcing anti trust.
Firefox exists as long as uBlock exists. It’s a niche product and the only (thin) argument about using it is “don’t let Google become a monopoly" (the very same company that keeps Mozilla alive). Its terrible management decisions, its questionable telemetry and at the end of the day, its performance are the reasons why it will never catch up and it will never get new users.
> As Mozilla moves forward, we will focus on becoming the trusted software company.
That's what I'd do.
The question is whether they really mean it.
Mozilla will have to recover from some history of disingenuous and incompetent leadership.
The only thing that gives some slight semblance of hope is that he at least acknowledges that Mozilla is vulnerable and he very very briefly mentions needing new sources of revenue.
No mention of an endowment (like Wikipedia has) or concrete plans to spend money efficiently or in a worthwhile way, and I sure hope ‘invest in AI’ doesn’t mean ‘piss away 9 figures that could have set up an endowment to give Mozilla some actual resilience’.
I hope is that he’s at least paranoid enough about Mozilla’s revenue sources to do anything about their current position that gives them resiliency. Mozilla has for well over a decade now been in a pathetic state where if Google turns off the taps it is quite simply over. He talks a lot about peoples’ trust in Mozilla. I don’t really remember what he’s talking about to be honest, but if Mozilla get to a point where they seem like they can exist without them simply being Google’s monopoly defence insurance, perhaps I’ll remember the feeling of trusting Mozilla. I miss it.
> AI should always be a choice — something people can easily turn off.
Welp. Starting off on the wrong foot. "AI should always be a choice - something people can easily opt in to".
Can't teach what there's profit in not learning, etc. Oh well.
> AI should always be a choice — something people can easily turn off.
Literally 5 sentences later:
> [Firefox] will evolve into a modern AI browser…
Neat! I didn't make it that far. Nice thing about red flags is, there's no value in continuing after you see them. Turns out, the thing the red flag made me accuse them of was their stated goal. Case in point!
Same with tabs, sandboxing or pop-up blocking. All of the features should be opt-in.
Mozilla for the love of God I do not want “AI features” in the tool I use to do my online banking. Stop this madness.
Nobody is switching away from Firefox because it’s not agentic.
But there might be a small amount of people willing to switch away from Chromium slop browsers BECAUSE IT ISNT.
Why do you think Waterfox and Librewolf leave this crap out?
If the next update fails to remove ads on by default we can assume these are empty promises.
https://www.quora.com/How-do-I-disable-sponsored-suggestions...
Well good luck with those 3%, assuming that incrementing market share is actually the main goal for the new CEO.
Why does firefox need a CEO? Is the Linux model not feasible?
The Linux Foundation has an executive director, which is the usual title (not CEO) for the head of a non-profit.
Because Mozilla is an explicitly mission driven non-profit. Linux doesn't really have a model, the closest equivalent is basically Chromium which is to say it's an open source project to which extremely large companies donate the vast majority of developer hours.
> AI should always be a choice — something people can easily turn off.
One sentence later:
> It will evolve into a modern AI browser
One more sentence later:
> In the next three years, that means investing in AI that reflects the Mozilla Manifesto
I mean if you wanted to concretely see how much ignoring their users is in their DNA.
What a daring approach. Truly worth the millions he's gonna earn.
You really only need to make $2M before you can live off the interest forever. That's the goal of these people imo.
The mozilla exec salaries are way higher than that.
Now Mozilla only needs to find a CEO that understands tech.
Bring back Mozilla OS - Android based! Privacy focused.
I hope like hell Mozilla leadership can just go back to focusing on what is actually important: making a free, fast, secure, private web browser.
Mozilla needs to get back to just being a browser project with foundation-based corporate governance.
I don't get why everything has to include the latest trend. Do what the Linux kernel project does: be a bazaar. If someone wants to create deeper AI integration into Firefox, they'll pick up that task, put it in a branch, and the community will discuss whether it merits inclusion in the main. If it does, it'll be there; if not, it won't be.
Operate on donations of time and money with a clear goal of what the project should be.
Verge interview with some comments about AI:
https://www.theverge.com/tech/845216/mozilla-ceo-anthony-enz... (https://archive.ph/li0ig)
What I want to see instead of all this AI nonsense is replacing Gecko with Servo and implementing Vulkan rendering.
From my perspective, Firefox, a while back, just stopped working on issues that matter. They got into politics, they tried to do everything, but not as good.
If they just focused to produce a good browser, they would be way ahead. And time when you could get $100Ms from Google are slowly coming to an end. Money attracts grifters and this is what brought them down from my perspective.
Now, just to be honest, I wish they find a way. We always could use alternatives. Just don't expect this alternative to come from Mozilla.
Good for them.
Currently they spend millions of dollars (that mostly come from people wanting to support their browser) on huge salaries and projects that have nothing to do with their browser. At the same time they keep on taking steps to alienate those that are donating or using their products.
The bar for success is pretty low - stop wasting all them bucks, and stop alienating your users.
If you could do that, there is plenty of next steps.
Good luck
No, their millions of dollars dont come mostly from people wanting to support their browser.
It comes from search ads on google.com
I agree that most of their money comes from Google (at least for now).
But when you load their home page (https://www.mozillafoundation.org), the first thing you are greeted with is a banner that says they have raised over $6M in their last campaign alone.
So, it seems that millions are being donated by users.
The claim that most of those users want it to go to their browser is not supported or refuted by that page, but I have read a detailed breakdown of all their donations and attempts to guess what people really think they are donating for, and it matched my original statement - though I haven't got the time to search now, what do _you_ think people are donating for?
It's literally impossible to donate to Mozilla for Firefox.
Now they put a LinkedIn cowboy in charge. Great.
"The World’s Most Trusted Software Company"
I'm sure the new leader of the trojan horse (fox?) is not going to pivot to AI...
"...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..."
"It will evolve into a modern AI browser"
and there it is, the most "trusted" software company pivoting to AI.
Can't imagine a worse angle for regaining trust than doubling down on AI slop.
[flagged]
So much BS and nitpicking isn't humanly possible to produce. We're looking at the work of corpo bot farms with deep pockets and deep experience in subversion.
I think it's more because they are too much "in the middle", so they get shit from both sides: the side that wants them completely disconnected from BigTech and the side that, well, just doesn't want them because BigTech is good (I presume?).
Every organization and every org leader make mistakes, often or less often, and Mozilla is no exception. But the sentiment here on HN towards it in every news that talks about Mozilla is frankly disappointing.
But enough about the last 10 years of Mozilla leadership.
I will never understand the intense hatred people have for Mozilla and Firefox then go on to tell them how they should run the company. Which usually boils down to stuff they are already doing or fixing things they have no control over.
I don't trust Mozilla. I don't trust them with my donation money. I don't trust their software any more than other browser vendors.
"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."
Yeah, no. Just make a browser that doesn't suck. Mozilla has been wasting a ton of money, lost almost all of their market share, and have been focusing on making new products nobody wants for a VERY long time and this looks to continue.
What product or market mozilla still relevant? Of all the sites I manage, or companies I worked with in the last 5 years mozilla browsers were less than 1% of the userbase.
In Germany and France Mozilla has about the same market share as Edge, in Austria it's even more. Yes, Mozilla makes some dumb decision, but I think the bigger problem is that computer literacy has declined overall. Most people don't even realize they have a choice. Things like ad-blockers and privacy should be taught in schools.
"Trust" and "AI" are mutually exclusive. Not really impressed with this guy. My guess is the board vetted this guy to be more politically correct than anything else.
Oh, let's see who's going to be the leader of the organization that's going to save privacy on the internet. Bet he has a track record of valuing free information and user privacy.
Wait, just like the last CEO, the only way to find out anything about him is a LinkedIn page. I'd have to create an account, log in, and consent to letting them collect and do anything they want with my information.
Apparently Mozilla doesn't have the technical capability of displaying an html web page that doesn't require a login and surrendering to data collection in order to view. Now try to find information about Satya Nadella without giving up your privacy.
Super well stated and interesting point regarding (general) privacy.
I miss the days where Mozilla (Firefox) was known to be the "fastest browser." It worked and such an easy transition for users (including myself) who were tired of the bloated browser experience.
I'm still sad they shelved Mozilla Persona due to low adoption. There is a hole in the market around privacy and identity, and Mozilla would be a natural choice to fill it, but it's going to be an uphill battle to get major sites and end users on board. Not a job to be envious about indeed.
And just to add, I kind of mourn FirefoxOS. We couldn't have guessed it at the time, but as of 2025, Google is pushing developer verification and stepping closer and closer to ecosystem lockdown. It would have been a great time for an alternative mobile OS 10+ years in the making, to welcome all the energy that has gone into beautiful projects like F-Droid.
If I could time travel into the past, in addition to preventing all the bad things (e.g. Young Sheldon), I might have told Yahoo they should flex some financial muscle while they still had relevance and worked to mobilize (no pun intended) developer time, energy, etc and perhaps even provide a baseline ecosystem of stock apps to support FirefoxOS.
The best that Mozilla can do for AI is to make Firefox more headless and scriptable.
What would you like to see from Firefox to make it more headless and scriptable? Are there specific usecases you're interested in supporting?
Firemail should be the name of a free and privacy oriented email client wholly owned by Mozilla with a web and mobile app. I would sign up instantly and gradually migrate from gmail, while being assured for its sustainability.
Maybe not exactly what you’re looking for but Thunderbird is working on a paid email service: https://www.tb.pro/en-US/
“Free”. Therein lies the Mozilla problem. Everyone wants everything free.
It’s real hard to compete with Google who happily gives out free email and browser because they can monetize attention.
> I'd focus on privacy.
I would love that. that said, right now firefox unstoppably and constantly phones home
The job was always very easy, fire all of the pure managers and sock the google money into an endowment before it runs out. Then focus on privacy as you mentioned.
They’ve taken in several billion dollars by now. Let that sink in. They're supposedly a non-profit, so this plan is the well-trodden playbook.
But of course no Manager instance could imagine such a thing. Cue Upton Sinclair quote.
Indeed - Google successfully undermined Mozilla here. It was a huge mistake to get addicted to the Google money; now it is too late to change it.
What's the quote?
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
I agree with the person you're responding to. Decades of funding and they have zero savings to show for it.
Though it's questionable as to how much big players like Google would have continued to fund Mozilla if they had seen Mozilla making the financial moves that would have made it an independent and self-sufficient entity.
> Though it's questionable as to how much big players like Google would have continued to fund Mozilla if they had seen Mozilla making the financial moves that would have made it an independent and self-sufficient entity.
Look at how much money Google gave to Apple (Safari) vs Mozilla (FireFox) per year.
The CEO has unarguable been doing a poor job. Losing market share has lost them more potential revenue than any of their pet projects raised.
So if you have a billion in the bank, you can collect 5% return and never touch the money. So you get $50m a year to pay enough engineers to make a browser.
That's plenty of money if they recognize they need a super lean company with 0 bloat and a few highly paid experts who focus on correctness and not bullshit features.
Care to explain how would they get the money in the process you described? Selling privacy to Google or someone is the only money maker they have.
There is no reason to believe manager pay is even 10% of the total expense.
Google (currently) pays Mozilla $400-500 million a year to be the default search engine in firefox.
edit: in 2023 they took in $653M in total, $555M of which was from Google. They spent $260M on software development, and $236M on other things.
> Mozilla burns a batshit amount of money on feel good fancies.
How much?
Mozilla took in the money from the distant past all the way into the present. They have leaned into privacy the whole time, while not being perfect.
At some point they ease off the google money or it goes away itself. And they move forward on privacy.
Google was less demanding in the past as well; they continue to give Apple billions each year.
There are a number of privacy-oriented business models, as listed here: https://aol.codeberg.page/eci/status.html - while not as lucrative as some, combined with an endowment its a good living that many companies would envy.
> What Mozilla is good at ...
Firefox - the one thing they do not want to work on is the only thing that makes them special.
They do work on it. A lot.
But the issue is browsers don't make money. You can't charge for it, you can't add ads to it, etc. You're competing with the biggest companies in the world (Google, Apple), all of whom are happy to subsidize a browser for other reasons.
> You can't charge for it
They could try. I just keep hearing people who would pay for no extra features as long as it paid for actual Firefox development and not the random unrelated Mozilla projects. I would pay a subscription. But they don't let me.
They could make it so we could subsidize development like with Thunderbird.
You're assuming Mozilla would be successful at a privacy play because they are a trusted organization. I can't stress this enough: they are not.
> Instead, if I were CEO, I'd go the opposite way: I'd focus on privacy.
Where it comes to AI in that regard, I would also focus on direct human connection. Where AI encapsulates people in bubbles of tech isolation and social indirection.
> that needs to make a big profit in a short amount of time
Why? might be I'm just missing something, but I don't understand why this needs to be a goal of theirs?
This. I want a password/passkey/auth and bookmark manager that work across platforms and devices.
Don't you have this already? Chrome and Firefox both have these. Devices have solid password manager integration, I use mine across 3 OSes and who knows how many devices.
I think password manager integration is pretty janky but that’s not something Mozilla can solve in general.
No passkeys, no authenticators.
Well, then I’ve gotta bust your balls here and tell you to step away from the Win98 machine, because that’s been around for some time.
Even secure, privacy-respecting versions!
Why is so much profit needed?
Depends on how you look at it. They made $653 million in 2023, most coming from their biggest competitor, Google.
They don't need this much money, but it means more layoffs and cutting scope drastically. It's expensive to run a modern browser.
Do you mean they need income, or do you actually mean profit?
In a nonprofit, you don’t need layoffs unless you’re losing money (negative profit), normally.
Yeah you're right, I said profit in the original post because it was a nice polyptoton, but I did indeed mean revenue. That's on me!