Firefox wants to level the browser playing field with Microsoft, Google, and Apple

AppleInsider

Mozilla has published a list of ways big tech gatekeepers prevent independent browsers -- such as its browser, Firefox -- from flourishing on their platforms.

Mozilla alleges tech giants' bias against Firefox

In a recent blog post, Mozilla expressed concerns about how tech companies like Apple, Google, and Microsoft use tactics to ensure users pick their browsers instead of independent options like Firefox.

It goes on to state that companies do this in several ways, such as "making it harder for a user to download and use a different browser, ignoring or resetting a user's default browser preference, restricting capabilities to the first-party browser, or requiring the use of the first-party browser engine for third-party browsers."

To shed light on the issue, the company has published a new issue tracker documenting how it views Firefox as being disadvantaged.

Apple has, by far, the most issues as Mozilla sees it, with ten individual complaints being listed, compared to Microsoft and Google's three each. Included in its list of issues, Mozilla cites Firefox's inability to "programmatically set itself as the default [browser]", import browsing information like history, bookmarked sites, and cookies, and read Messages data as major concerns.

Mozilla may claim the most individual issues against Apple, but Google's Chrome has the largest worldwide share by far. Chrome holds more than three times the marker share that Safari has, across Mac, iPad, and iPhone.

Mozilla also calls on other browser vendors and non-browser groups to publish their concerns similarly.

The browser developer's indexing comes at a time when big tech faces increased scrutiny over alleged gatekeeping practices. Recently, European media and technology companies have signed a letter stating that tech giants have neglected their obligations to comply with the EU's Digital Markets Act.

After more than four years of investigations, the Department of Justice is preparing to sue Apple for alleged anticompetitive behavior, potentially in the next few months.

In an attempt to assuage concerns and comply with regulations, Apple announced plans to open up its onboard iPhone NFC technology to third-party mobile payment providers, allowing them to offer their services across the EU.



Read on AppleInsider

gatorguy

AppleInsider said:

Mozilla has published a list of ways big tech gatekeepers prevent independent browsers -- such as its browser, Firefox -- from flourishing on their platforms.
Mozilla alleges tech giants' bias against Firefox

To shed light on the issue, the company has published a new issue tracker documenting how it views Firefox as being disadvantaged.

Apple has, by far, the most issues as Mozilla sees it, with ten individual complaints being listed, compared to Microsoft and Google's three each. Included in its list of issues, Mozilla cites Firefox's inability to "programmatically set itself as the default [browser]", import browsing information like history, bookmarked sites, and cookies, and read Messages data as major concerns.

Mozilla may claim the most individual issues against Apple, but Google's Chrome has the largest worldwide share by far. Chrome holds more than three times the marker share that Safari has, across Mac, iPad, and iPhone.


Read on AppleInsider

So again, Apple is too small and weak to be required to face the same regulation as the other techs? That seems to be a theme lately when Apple deals with regulators or competition authorities.

edited January 2024

lowededwookie

Firefox is a has-been browser that has failed due to its own incompetence.

Its own code is hugely buggy, insecure, and resource intensive which is why Apple forced WebKit engines only on iOS devices.

Firefox had its time years ago.

Hell, even Opera ditched its own engine for Chromium as did Microsoft. Not that I think Chromium is better. I refuse to use Chrome and Google is not making me desire it with the stupid systems being implemented. But I’d prefer a Chromium browser to a Mozilla engined browser any day.

mike1

Web browsing is such basic functionality these days, it really should just be part of the OS of choice. Google would disagree, of course.

I switched to Firefox on my work PC when Apple discontinued Safari for PCs, because IE (at the time) sucked. My new PC has Edge which I am getting used to and never bothered to download Firefox. As someone mentioned above, it is a resource hog. Another gripe is that whenever they do one of their silly updates, every site thinks I am using a new device and wants me to re-authenticate. So annoying.

ranson

lowededwookie said:

Firefox is a has-been browser that has failed due to its own incompetence.

Its own code is hugely buggy, insecure, and resource intensive which is why Apple forced WebKit engines only on iOS devices.

Firefox had its time years ago.

Hell, even Opera ditched its own engine for Chromium as did Microsoft. Not that I think Chromium is better. I refuse to use Chrome and Google is not making me desire it with the stupid systems being implemented. But I’d prefer a Chromium browser to a Mozilla engined browser any day.

This is a really hot take, and I'm not sure what the point is of bashing an open source browser that is being maintained and improved by a community of volunteers.

It is unfortunate that more mainstream users (including myself) do not use Firefox, because it is actually a decent browser that is quite privacy-conscious.

"Hugely buggy" is certainly untrue - it objectively has about as many bugs and vulnerabilities as chrome and safari - measured by outstanding bug reports + cadence of issues fixed.

"Insecure" is patently false. In fact, a quick stroll over to any browser-related forum on ArsTechnica - a community of the most technical folks on the internet - shows that a measurable portion of the community has consciously switched from Chrome to Firefox in the last year - _because_ it is viewed by them as more secure and private. Firefox is the preferred browser of most Linux users. In fact, Safari could arguably be the _least_ secure, since it cannot currently be patched without a Apple issuing a new minor or bugfix OS release, whereas the others only require an update to the browser application itself. Meaning that actively exploited vulnerabilities can linger longer on Apple devices due to the time it takes them to publish an OS release and the time it takes most users to patch an OS versus getting automated app updates overnight while charging the device. And on iOS, since all browsers must use the OS-provided webkit library, that makes all browsers on iOS inherently more insecure than those browsers's releases on other platforms - and the browser maker can't even do anything about it (!!!). What Apple is doing with webkit lock-in on iOS should be illegal (and someday will be).

There was definitely a time where the quality/performance of FF was suspect. But over the last 5 or so years, they have largely rejoined the pack in those matters. It certainly hurt them at the time. But Mozilla's contention now (about which they are correct) is that, despite having a comparable browser to the rest of the pack, the largest forces in desktop and mobile OSes are making it increasingly harder for users to choose a browser other than one offered by the OS maker. That is exactly what got Microsoft in trouble in the late 90's over Internet Explorer, which cost them billions in antitrust fines.

edited January 2024

tht

Sigh. If the government wants to regulate something, they should regulate the open standards that businesses should use. Since it is a "standard" any browser maker can implement them.

As it stands, Google is doing the typical network effect of getting website developers to design their websites for Chrome, not a standard. Since websites work best with Chrome, Chrome will be used more, thereby giving Google a rather huge hand in how the web works.

By  website developers to design to a an open published standard, it levels the playing field and all web browsers should be able to render websites identically.

There's a lot of turtles on top of each other here too. Web data brokers, ad APIs, tracker APIs, who knows what else, are all designed to work best with this or that browser. It's all part of the network effect. This stuff has to be open and standardized so any web browser can implement. Websites surely will have preference with Google as search result placements and ad space money is on the line, and will do a lot to optimize the solution that makes the most money, which is probably Chrome since Google has so much control over the ad placement money.

If someone is penalised, it should be the entities who are trying to break the government approved web standards.

gatorguy

tht said:

Sigh. If the government wants to regulate something, they should regulate the open standards that businesses should use. Since it is a "standard" any browser maker can implement them.

If someone is penalised, it should be the entities who are trying to break the government approved web standards.

Where can we read about those government-approved web standards you mention? Surely Mozilla must be aware of them.

edited January 2024

tht

gatorguy said:

tht said:

Sigh. If the government wants to regulate something, they should regulate the open standards that businesses should use. Since it is a "standard" any browser maker can implement them.

If someone is penalised, it should be the entities who are trying to break the government approved web standards.

Where can we read about those government-approved web standards you mention? Surely Mozilla must be aware of them.

It's should have been obvious that that was my proposed action, and that not current gov't regulated web site standards exist.

This would be opposed to some kind of government action involving penalties, browser ballots, anti-trust monitors, so on and so forth.

danox

Safari's sole reason for existing was the lack of support from the rest of the computing world the Mac browsing space was too small to support sound familiar? Very similar to the current AAA game fiasco, in short Apple had to roll its sleeves up and design their own browser or face a slow death.

As a vertical computer company who holds a small portion of the market in comparison to Android and Windows, Apple time and time again needs to design most of the core OS/Programs tools if they want to continue to survive in the world of computing.

There are many programs, hardware devices and SOC chips that had to be created over the years that allowed Apple to survive aside from Safari. iMessage, Apple Maps, Swift, Xcode, Apple Watch, Apple Silicon, all had to be created and the list goes on.

Apple needs to create core software to support their hardware. If they did not, they would not sell any hardware, Safari was created because the other browsing programs (no surprise) at the time and currently do not support the Apple ecosystem and that’s not going to change ever (the market is too small).

FireFox like most of the free pizza and beer groups wants more freebies like Spotify their business plan isn't profitable nor sustainable like most of the linux distros. If FireFox really wants to do something Darwin open source is still available.....

edited January 2024

gatorguy

tht said:

gatorguy said:

tht said:

Sigh. If the government wants to regulate something, they should regulate the open standards that businesses should use. Since it is a "standard" any browser maker can implement them.

If someone is penalised, it should be the entities who are trying to break the government approved web standards.

Where can we read about those government-approved web standards you mention? Surely Mozilla must be aware of them.

It's should have been obvious that that was my proposed action, and that not current gov't regulated web site standards exist.

This would be opposed to some kind of government action involving penalties, browser ballots, anti-trust monitors, so on and so forth.

Thanks. Reading your initial post for a second time makes that clear, so my apologies. 

davidw

>In a recent blog post, Mozilla expressed concerns about how tech companies like Apple, Google, and Microsoft use tactics to ensure users pick their browsers instead of independent options like Firefox.<

Mozilla claim loses a lot of credibility when they include Microsoft ...... for using tactics to ensure users pick their browsers instead of independent options like Firefox. Last i checked, MS Windows still have over  70% share of the World computer market and about 30% of the World OS market share (when including mobile OS ). But their Edge browser only have about 6% of the market share. That means over 50% of Microsoft Windows users are not using what should be Microsoft own browser. So unless Microsoft is picking Chrome to be their browser on Windows, they can't be accused of using tactics to ensure users pick their browsers instead of independent options like Firefox.

tht

davidw said:

>In a recent blog post, Mozilla expressed concerns about how tech companies like Apple, Google, and Microsoft use tactics to ensure users pick their browsers instead of independent options like Firefox.<

Mozilla claim loses a lot of credibility when they include Microsoft ...... for using tactics to ensure users pick their browsers instead of independent options like Firefox. Last i checked, MS Windows still have over  70% share of the World computer market and about 30% of the World OS market share (when including mobile OS ). But their Edge browser only have about 6% of the market share. That means over 50% of Microsoft Windows users are not using what should be Microsoft own browser. So unless Microsoft is picking Chrome to be their browser on Windows, they can't be accused of using tactics to ensure users pick their browsers instead of independent options like Firefox.

Mozilla is definitely in a bind in regards to Google. Google’s search engine default payment to Apple is gigantic, but Apple doesn’t really need it. 

Google also pays Mozilla for search engine default placement and I think it is in the hundreds of millions, the vast bulk of their money. With the recent antitrust suit against Google, these search engine default deals from Google might be going away. 

Apple may take a hit, but might be able to recover some of that money from other search engine companies, as long as it holds a 20% share, especially with Apple’s customer base.

Mozilla? They will eventually go out of business without Google’s money, especially with FireFox usage share going down. Why would a search engine give them money for placement at such low usage shares?

That Google money may go away anyway, so Mozilla has to be thinking they are in an existential crisis right now. 

dewme

tht said:

Sigh. If the government wants to regulate something, they should regulate the open standards that businesses should use. Since it is a "standard" any browser maker can implement them.

As it stands, Google is doing the typical network effect of getting website developers to design their websites for Chrome, not a standard. Since websites work best with Chrome, Chrome will be used more, thereby giving Google a rather huge hand in how the web works.

By  website developers to design to a an open published standard, it levels the playing field and all web browsers should be able to render websites identically.

There's a lot of turtles on top of each other here too. Web data brokers, ad APIs, tracker APIs, who knows what else, are all designed to work best with this or that browser. It's all part of the network effect. This stuff has to be open and standardized so any web browser can implement. Websites surely will have preference with Google as search result placements and ad space money is on the line, and will do a lot to optimize the solution that makes the most money, which is probably Chrome since Google has so much control over the ad placement money.

If someone is penalised, it should be the entities who are trying to break the government approved web standards.

Having a government regulate an "open standard" would make the standard no longer open. The government would own it and it would called a law, a government standard, an enforceable mandate, or government regulation and the government would be responsible for enforcing, auditing, and handing out penalties for those who are non-compliant. Having a government mandate enforcing an open standard would be antithetical to the definition and rationale for the creation of the "open standard."

The government has a whole slew of "government standards" that it enforces (https://www.nist.gov/standardsgov/use-standards-us-federal-agencies) to address things that are under the purview and jurisdiction of the government. None of these are open standards.

There are also a slew of business standards, accounting standards, industry standards, global standards, etc., including the ISO and IEC, that are also not open standards. Unsurprisingly the US government participates in the creation and support of many standards as a stakeholder, but not as an owner or enforcer. One of the primary government agencies that is heavily involved in technology related standards is the NIST.

The government can and does mandate the use of certain standards that businesses must follow when doing business with the government. So the government could mandate the use of a certain web browser engine in all computers sold to the government or used in connection with government resources. The government could also mandate that businesses whose products operate under the jurisdiction of a government agency, like the FCC, follow certain standards. Again, these would not involve open standards.

I'd like to see open standards continue to evolve in the manner that they have been evolving, which is typically when a collection of domain experts decide to collaborate for the greater good in a certain region of technology rather than seeking  personal gain, profit, or to capture and take ownership of intellectual property that they can later exploit in some manner, e.g., through licensing fees.

Finally, when you're talking about controlling what goes into browsers and what gets access to the internet things get very tricky very quickly. Who owns the internet? Who controls the internet? When we say "the government," which government and what country are we talking about? There is no central control and some people would argue that the big tech firms like Apple, Google, Microsoft, and Meta are like giant greased-up wrestlers trying to push all of the other wrestlers out of the ring. Anyone else trying to enter the ring, like tiny Firefox, doesn't stand a chance and will get squashed like a bug if they try to enter the ring with all those heavyweights lumbering about. They want someone, anyone, to step in on their behalf. But who should it be if there is even anyone left who cares?

lowededwookie

ranson said:

"Insecure" is patently false. In fact, a quick stroll over to any browser-related forum on ArsTechnica - a community of the most technical folks on the internet - shows that a measurable portion of the community has consciously switched from Chrome to Firefox in the last year - _because_ it is viewed by them as more secure and private. Firefox is the preferred browser of most Linux users. 

You’re confusing security and privacy. They are different but not mutually exclusive.

Privacy is part of security but security includes a lot more. Yes Mozilla is more private but it’s not more secure than other browsers.

Mozilla might be the default browser on Linux but that doesn’t mean it’s the most used. Edge is the default browser on Windows but Chrome is the most used. Safari is the default on Macs but Chrome is the most used.

I’m not ragging on an open source browser because it’s open source. I’m ragging on it because in my experience it’s the worst performing browser I’ve used on multiple platforms. I just don’t get its appeal. Sure, it was great when it had Netscape’s cash funding it but those days are well and truly behind it.

But if you love it then all the power to you good sir. I’m not going to go against that view.

lowededwookie

tht said:

Sigh. If the government wants to regulate something, they should regulate the open standards that businesses should use. Since it is a "standard" any browser maker can implement them.

As it stands, Google is doing the typical network effect of getting website developers to design their websites for Chrome, not a standard. Since websites work best with Chrome, Chrome will be used more, thereby giving Google a rather huge hand in how the web works.

By  website developers to design to a an open published standard, it levels the playing field and all web browsers should be able to render websites identically.

There's a lot of turtles on top of each other here too. Web data brokers, ad APIs, tracker APIs, who knows what else, are all designed to work best with this or that browser. It's all part of the network effect. This stuff has to be open and standardized so any web browser can implement. Websites surely will have preference with Google as search result placements and ad space money is on the line, and will do a lot to optimize the solution that makes the most money, which is probably Chrome since Google has so much control over the ad placement money.

If someone is penalised, it should be the entities who are trying to break the government approved web standards.

100% agree. I’m tired of seeing “Best viewed in Chrome” plastered on websites.

Has no one learned anything from the 90s and 00s at the height of IE vs Netscape? You know why that tag exists? Because Chrome and Mozilla and Safari do colours different to each other even though #xxxxxx is literally a mix for red green blue and there’s only 256 levels for each. And yes, Safari has come out on top as being the most accurate colours. Attention to detail that others lack I guess.

But most developers develop using Chrome and leave it at that. Putting up the “Best With Chrome” tag as a cop out.

edited January 2024

s.metcalf

I stopped using Firefox when I could no longer keep track of which version number they were up to.

tht

lowededwookie said:

tht said:

Sigh. If the government wants to regulate something, they should regulate the open standards that businesses should use. Since it is a "standard" any browser maker can implement them.

As it stands, Google is doing the typical network effect of getting website developers to design their websites for Chrome, not a standard. Since websites work best with Chrome, Chrome will be used more, thereby giving Google a rather huge hand in how the web works.

By  website developers to design to a an open published standard, it levels the playing field and all web browsers should be able to render websites identically.

There's a lot of turtles on top of each other here too. Web data brokers, ad APIs, tracker APIs, who knows what else, are all designed to work best with this or that browser. It's all part of the network effect. This stuff has to be open and standardized so any web browser can implement. Websites surely will have preference with Google as search result placements and ad space money is on the line, and will do a lot to optimize the solution that makes the most money, which is probably Chrome since Google has so much control over the ad placement money.

If someone is penalised, it should be the entities who are trying to break the government approved web standards.

100% agree. I’m tired of seeing “Best viewed in Chrome” plastered on websites.

Has no one learned anything from the 90s and 00s at the height of IE vs Netscape? You know why that tag exists? Because Chrome and Mozilla and Safari do colours different to each other even though #xxxxxx is literally a mix for red green blue and there’s only 256 levels for each. And yes, Safari has come out on top as being the most accurate colours. Attention to detail that others lack I guess.

But most developers develop using Chrome and leave it at that. Putting up the “Best With Chrome” tag as a cop out.

Hate to break it to, but yup, no one learns from the past. It's always people's present emotional state that drives actions and opinions, and past history has little play into that. Well, there's all this stuff in-between those years that drive the old memories away. Heck, most of AppleInsider forum members either weren't alive or were teenagers or younger in the 90s, and it's not even in their memory let alone remembering.

The trends seem pretty clear that Google's ad and search dominance drives adoption of Chrome through website compatibility. Hence, Chrome's inexorable rise from 0% share in the 00s to 70% share now. Once the Chrome/Blink browser is in the iOS App Store, I think it means an eventual rise in Chrome share into the 80 to 90% share range.

That's basically the old MS playbook of using MS Office and MS Windows to wedge into any business they wanted. They made a strategic mistake trying to own web platform APIs with IE and ActiveX. That wasn't where the money in the web was and is. It's in search and ads, and Google had too much of head start and MS couldn't dislodge them.

ActiveX's security issues may have killed Internet Explorer all on its own though. How many people on this forum remember what it was like to browse the web on a PC in the early to mid 00s? Anyone? That's definitely a wedge for people to stop using IE and use Firefox and Chrome.

appleinsideruser

Why would a user want Firefox to be able to access their Messages? Eek 😬 giving a browser that permission sounds like a potential privacy issue.