The day ublock origin doesn't work on chrome is the day users will flock to firefox. We have seen time and time again that users aren't afraid of switching browsers. This is because since their core functionality is so similar, small advantages will tip the scales.
But how many are actually using uBlock Origin? Nearly every person I come across is using AdBlock, AdBlock Plus, or some other adblocker, no matter how many times I recommend they switch to uBlock Origin. Most people are not aware of what Chrome’s changes mean (or of the changes at all) and for those that do use uBlock Origin, my guess is most people will simply switch to a different adblocker rather than switch to a different browser.
I doubt uBlock Origin being removed from Chrome will change the status quo. Maybe in a few years when enough powerusers convince enough casual users. If you just look at software out in the world, it's clear that powerusers have next to zero influence. It's why desktop Linux use, for example, is still just a blip after all of these years.
> my guess is most people will simply switch to a different adblocker rather than switch to a different browser.
the moment they can't find ad blocker that actually works they will stop switching ad blockers and switch browsers.
What's holding back linux isn't the lack of influence power users have, it's that it's still lacking in gaming, hardware compatibility, and ease of use (although those are improving all the time)
This is correct. I remember showing friends Chrome after hearing their complaints about how slow IE was. Some had to get over the hurdle of downloading and installing chrome (whereas IE just came with the laptop) but once they used it they never looked back.
That's just wrong. It's impossible for uBlock Origin to turn itself into a content blocker while retaining its current functionality.
Content blockers in Safari are limited to 50k filters. uBlock Origin's default filters have more than that. Therefore, the choice is between a new, but much less useful extension, or no extension at all. uBlock Origin decided on the latter.
People always downplay the power that technical users have on regular people.
Who do you think the moms and friends all listen to? Their technical friends. This of course won't hit 90% of users but it's enough to have a large influence well beyond just power users.
Few companies survive pissing off the nerds when there is legitimate competition available in consumer products.
B2B enterprise sales is a totally different beast than free consumer software. That type of boardroom decision making is inherently disconnected from the technical capabilities and even integration success rates.
I think if it was that small, Google wouldn’t take an aggressive stance against ad blocking. They would likely retain more users overall by appealing to that small power user minority that converts others.
This was true during an intermediate period where all browsers were more-or-less equivalent. It wasn't true before then, when many sites were designed with Internet Explorer in mind, and tended to work less well on other browsers. I don't think it will be true now, either, now that most sites are designed with Chrome in mind, and tend to work less well on other browsers.
The big difference is that the functionality problems 20 years ago were easier to explain, and therefore easier to get people upset about. It's a lot easier to weave a compelling political story about straight-up incompatibility than it is to weave one about degraded performance due to differing just-in-time compiler optimization behavior.
Also, we seem to be stuck in a situation where people are still so fixated on a monarch that hasn't been in power for over a decade that they maybe haven't been so concerned that the old monarch's overthrower has consolidated power to become a new monarch.
There seems to be this idea that some sites work worse with FF but in all the time Chrome has existed, I've never found any sites that didn't work with FF.
I've never found any that don't work, but Firefox supports fewer "standards", so you can end up with a somewhat degraded experience on some sites. My own company's product, for example, has some janky bits on browsers other than Chrome. The performance is only a little bit behind on most benchmarks, but isn't anywhere near as fast for certain kinds of animation. It can be noticeable on sites that run a lot of animation. Like, say, sites with ads. Possibly only if you're using an older or less powerful computer. Which isn't how we of the orange header bar like to roll, but also isn't a terribly uncommon thing to do out there in the wider world.
(Scare quotes around "standards" because calling Chrome-only things standard nowadays seems a bit like calling AcitveX a standard 20 years ago.)
I use Chrome almost exclusively at work, Firefox on my gaming computer, and Safari on my personal MacBook. Other than extensions on Safari and minor differences in keyboard shortcuts, I don't really notice the differences.
Maybe it's ublock, but I've had plenty of sites that just don't work on firefox. barclaycard, blackboard, and the schools web print system (dts) are my recent examples.
As a chrome-user: this. Firefox lost me years ago due to performance differences, and since chrome works fine for me, there was no ux-related reason to switch back. The day I'll see ads everywhere will be the day I'm back to firefox, and without second thoughts at that. If I really like your service, I'll happily pay for it. I hate ads, the psychological strats behind them are completely unacceptable. I'd happily pay google a subscription-rate, if that's what it takes tbh. Take my money, not my attention.
I think Firefox is faster than Chrome these days. Unfortunately I prefer the web developer tools in Chrome, so I use Chromium as I wasn't a fan of every URL I type going to Google.
Likewise. Unfortunately, some services such as YouTube TV don't work on chromium. Also if you're not on linux, updating is a pain (you must do it manually iirc)
Edge is macOS/Windows only but VSCode is available over there. Worth keeping an eye out because I wouldn't be surprised if Edge lands on desktop Linux[0] someday. I'm not a web developer and a Firefox diehard for almost 20 years now, but the Edge beta has become my fulltime Chrome alternative when I feel I need to try something on a Chromium-based browser.
Is unlimited system resource usage ok for you? If not, you should really re-evaluate your premise of performance differences. Fire up sys mon, activity mon, top, or what have you, open both browsers. Firefox wins on every metric by substantial amounts (memory for example wins by an order of magnitude).
Since I never max out my resources (mbp 2016, 16 gigs, entire workload happens on servers and not on my local machine) that doesn't really affect me - and with 50+ tabs open frequently, just go ahead and take my ram to keep them available, sure. Unused resources are wasted resources - and again, I'm never above 10gigs, maybe 12-13 if I have a local vm running.
Like I said: ux-wise, I'm not impacted negatively by using chrome, at all. If my laptops resources were more limited or my local workload was bigger, I'd probably check out Firefox, but since I'm not bottlenecked, why bother?
That logic works if you're not bounded on RAM, but it's not an inexhaustible resource; personally I'd rather keep it free for VMs or other high cost operations.
>The day ublock origin doesn't work on chrome is the day users will flock to firefox.
>This is because since their core functionality is so similar, small advantages will tip the scales.
It is a a bold assertion, which is not backed up by the data. Despite Mozilla repositioning Firefox recently and reclaiming some lost ground, it is to a larger extent, still only maintaining a steady set of core users. To make an assumption that small advantages will tip the scales in favour of FF is wishful thinking, as demonstrated by some of the conversations. Furthermore, it is inherently not in the best interests of Google to actively promote ad-blocking policy unless it serves it's own purpose, coupled with the acute awareness of why power users and developers pick Chrome ─ they are well positioned to throttle any competition.
I have started moving my friends and family from Chrome to FF. Biggest piece is the privacy angle, but the multi-site containers is also pretty important. It's nice to be able to block facebook API calls from other sites, etc. etc.
You say that (and I agree - I use Firefox everywhere because there's no Chrome plugin support on Android) but I'm genuinely curious to see what happens if/when Chrome stops supporting ublock origin. I suspect - sadly - that there won't be the "flocking to firefox" we might be hoping for. Just enough ads will get blocked with a new, gimped ublock origin, or built-in ad blocking of some flavour, to prevent any meaningful exodus.
Firefox on Android is a usability shitshow compared to Chrome on Android. And I say that as someone who doesn't like Google products.
I think most people who wanted adblocking on Android switched to Brave instead, which is essentially a Chrome fork without the Google stuff and with better tracking protection.
FFAndroid (Fennec?) does strange things. A few examples:
1. You are on this web page in Fennec[1], and you want to do a web search. Click the address bar, type in your query, hit go. Sometimes, Fennec will start the progress bar and act like it is searching, but will draw another tab in the main viewport before resetting the progress bar and changing the url to the SERP you want. If you don't know its going to do that, it looks like Fennec completely ignored your search and loaded another tab.
2. Fennec will sometimes lose its cool and stop rendering pages. The UI layers will respond, you can open hamburger menus, tab listings and thumbnails, but no matter what tab you select, it no longer renders anything but a blank canvas in the viewport. You have to force close Fennec to restore normal behaviors.
3. Fennec will after a long time of being active lose its extensions like noscript et al, you have to force close and re-open to get them to show up in the hamburger menu again.
A good list, but it won't matter for much longer. Fennec is dying, Firefox Preview is coming.
As in, the core browser is available and seems to work fine, but for many people there's not much point in switching until it supports extensions. It won't replace Fennec until it does.
I personally never liked the nav bar and everything at the top. It loads sites much better than Brave and feels more precise for things like dismissing cookie/signup notifications, but navigating the interface always felt tedious. If they just had options for interface layout or nav bar contents it would be great.
I only use Firefox on desktop, but I stopped using it on Android because for a period of time it needed something like one minute to show a web page. Since I don't mobile browse much I just uninstalled it and use Chrome. Privacy is a lost cause on Android anyway. Maybe one day I'll be able to afford an iPhone + the Mac needed to make apps for it.
Exactly, especially for people who don't do web development the difference is hardly there. Actually I recently started to prefer Safari, despite its less smoother Tab UX but this was enough reason to make me switch to Firefox (Nightly). I'm also surprised that it seems to start faster than Safari.
