Um, what? Last I checked, Firefox was the only mobile browser that supports extensions, including the all-important uBlock Origin, without which the web is basically unusable.
Kiwi Browser gives you all desktop chrome addons. Yandex as well, if you prefer Russian surveillance over US surveillance.
Even Samsung’s browser offers addons.
And Vivaldi has about everything I need (including an uBlock compatible adblocker and dark mode for websites) integrated directly into the browser.
If a website doesn’t work in Firefox, there’s a problem with that website, not with Firefox. I’ve done my share of web development. I had to deal with IE6 compatibility for years. Firefox is a dream come true compared to what I’ve been through. I test my work in all three major browsers, and I suffer no excuses from developers too lazy to do the same. Especially now that there are only three of them.
That’s good of you, and as a dev I also test on FF (contrary to many of my colleagues), but that’s not what everyone does. And thus, as a user, I frequently stumble over stuff that doesn’t work on FF.
What in the world are you talking about? I’m writing this comment in Android Firefox. It works fine. It’s my daily driver. I only use Chrome for testing.
If everyone felt like that, don’t you think FF on Android would have a market share higher than 0.48% on mobile?
If a website doesn’t work in Firefox, there’s a problem with that website, not with Firefox.
That, again, comes down to maket share. If FF on Android was alcohol, it’s market share could be legally called “alcohol free” (at least over here).
No market share -> no financial incentive to fix websites for that browser -> broken websites -> reduced market share
That’s the real problem. That’s illegal, by the way; Microsoft got sued for bundling IE with Windows. Pity the courts these days don’t care about upholding the law.
It actually isn’t. Microsoft got sued in 2001 (so 22 years ago, and that matters), and they only got sued to open up their OS so that users could replace the browser if they wanted to. They were actually not prohibited from bundling IE with Windows.
And putting ad-banners on their own website to market their own browser (like Google is/was doing with Chrome on the Google search site and on Youtube) was never part of anything like that.
Unfortunately, maybe, illegal no.
Kiwi Browser gives you all desktop chrome addons.
Ad blockers (that actually work) will not be allowed in desktop Chrome starting next year.
Yandex as well, if you prefer Russian surveillance over US surveillance.
I don’t. Better to be under the surveillance of one country than two.
Even Samsung’s browser offers addons.
And Vivaldi has about everything I need
Those two are not FOSS, so they are immediately suspect.
That’s good of you, and as a dev I also test on FF (contrary to many of my colleagues), but that’s not what everyone does. And thus, as a user, I frequently stumble over stuff that doesn’t work on FF.
And that’s your cue to leave and look for an alternative to that website.
If everyone felt like that, don’t you think FF on Android would have a market share higher than 0.48% on mobile?
No one ever accused the general public of being well informed.
It actually isn’t. Microsoft got sued in 2001 (so 22 years ago, and that matters), and they only got sued to open up their OS so that users could replace the browser if they wanted to. They were actually not prohibited from bundling IE with Windows.
False. Microsoft never stopped users from installing other browsers. The issue was that IE was bundled with Windows, and other browsers were not.
From Wikipedia: “The government alleged that Microsoft had abused monopoly power on Intel-based personal computers in its handling of operating system and web browser integration. The central issue was whether Microsoft was allowed to bundle its IE web browser software with its Windows operating system. Bundling the two products was allegedly a key factor in Microsoft’s victory in the browser wars of the late 1990s, as every Windows user had a copy of IE. It was further alleged that this restricted the market for competing web browsers (such as Netscape Navigator or Opera), since it typically took extra time to buy and install the competing browsers.”
And putting ad-banners on their own website to market their own browser (like Google is/was doing with Chrome on the Google search site and on Youtube) was never part of anything like that.
That it is not, but it is an anti-competitive practice: using one monopoly (on web search) to create another (on web browsers). I’m not certain whether this particular anti-competitive practice is illegal yet, but it needs to be.