Your App loading speed is same in both Firefox and Chrome latest versions.

IMO, I would recommend you to support both Firefox and Chrome.

Let me give you an example, I had never heard of Polarr Editor. Then one fine day as I browsed the Chrome store I found it to be pretty good. It even has a web version for both Chrome and Firefox. But it lacks so much exposure.

Same goes for webflow.

Why lose consumers?

Conclusion, There are some Apps in the Chrome web store exclusive to Chrome that suffer from the inexposure to Firefox.

Most developers use both Chrome and FF alternatively as they wish. And FF's share of users is more tech oriented.

1% of web browser share equivalents around 1 million users or more.

Now, the math is self-explanatory.

Hope it helps.

All your points are great, just offering these counter points for the sake of discussion:

Firefox was slower with the UX animations. It seemed to skip frames/uglify the animations. Though I did not have a lot of problems with bugs that crippled the application. Internet Explorer was mainly the browser with crippling bugs that were sometimes hard to fix.

The counter point to the "carrot" of more users from Firefox is that I'm working with limited resources. I feel like if I hired another developer, one of the things they could start out on is cross-browser compatibility. But right now, in order to get those firefox users, I have to sacrifice somewhere else. I don't think not supporting all major browsers is a good long term strategy, but I think it might be a necessary early-stage strategy.

Hmm, I agree. This app is actually pretty good. The iOS version even has brushing capabilities. I wonder if the only way to get exposure nowadays is via paid acquisition. There are literally thousands of excellent apps that you just never hear about.

I would be happy to pay a little to get free users. Once I felt ready, I was planning on just calling mobile auto detailing businesses up and trying to get them to let me demo to application. I own a mobile auto detailing business myself, so I hope maybe I won't get blown off as much as normal because of the common ground.

The brushing capability took me 3 days to implement. I did it in sort of a "manic" phase of productivity. I like the way it looks, but I feel like I burnt too many cognitive resources on something that should have just been implemented in a "good enough" way. Not sure if that tidbit is interesting?...

Hi, maker of Polarr Photo Editor on Chrome here. We spent a lot of time fighting different browsers x GPU x OSs. FF once reached out to us to have our app made for FF but after we published the app, the FF store was gone.

Consider another approach and email users using unsupported browsers. It gives you an excuse to reach out where you can turn the conversation into what their needs are, pain points, etc.

However, if your app doesn't require signup to use, maybe an intercom like message.

That's a really good idea since it does require sign up. Thank so much for this suggestion.

I was actually planning on calling them on the phone if they put their phone number in the sign up form. Its a boutique sort of app. Should end up having a low-ish number of users with high-ish revenue per user.

Restricting the browsers you support will tighten your funnel.

Have you profiled your likely userbase? Many businesses run Windows and are, therefore, likely to be using Internet Explorer.

What does tightening the funnel mean in this context?

The user base is people who own small mobile auto detailing businesses. So pretty specific. I imagine most of these companies will be way too small to have an IT department restricting their ability to install Chrome.

Tightening the funnel means that potential customers are less likely to go all the way through to signing up and becoming a regular customer.

https://blog.crazyegg.com/2014/03/03/website-conversion-funn...

It's 1999 all over again, I guess.