> If you're making extensions and distributing them by hand to your friends you're so far outside the mainstream of Firefox users that you might as well not exist and they shouldn't be making decisions based on your usage patterns.
They should just release a Firefox preskool edition for Joe Average User.
But this is a great example of the rot in Mozilla. When Apple or Google sacrifice functionality to appeal to users that don't like computers, it is because they make more money by expanding their platform.
When Mozilla sacrifices functionality to try to attract new users, then what? They aren't really making any money off of it. They are just getting new users for the sake of it.
If Firefox has to remove so much functionality to become more popular, than why bother at all?
It is like if everyone is eating McDonalds, and you are selling healthy produce, but only 20% of the population ever wants your healthy food. So you start coating your healthy food in sugar and deep frying it. Even if you win, you lose.
> This is aimed at Joe Average User who maybe downloaded a program from sourceforge and suddenly every user on the computer has Myway Search installed, or something with serious privacy problems that's injecting itself into every web page they visit.
I think this is a lie. I mean, yes it does mitigate a specific kind of malware injection, sure. But if someone already can write to your filesystem, then it is game over. If Firefox actually had any marketshare and was a big enough target to care about, malware could simply inject malicious extensions some other way. Having the web browser trying to secure itself on a compromised system is a fool's errand. And it is not a justification for such a massive regression in functionality. It is not a rational decision.
I strongly suspect that it was a rational decision for Google to do this with Chrome; to put up roadblocks for users trying to have too much control of their browser, and justify it in the name of security. And then Mozilla irrationally copied them. Because they are a Google cargo cult.
Healthy food doesn't nearly as much rely no network effect to not be pushed out of the market. "Only works on Chrome" is real problem and won't get better if they don't also pander to those longing for sugar.
> They should just release a Firefox preskool edition for Joe Average User.
Seems like that's Developer Edition. The Joe Average won't know the difference, so obviously the default has to be for him.
And yeah, I also don't like were this is leading and wish they would have found a better way.
> Healthy food doesn't nearly as much rely no network effect to not be pushed out of the market. "Only works on Chrome" is real problem and won't get better if they don't also pander to those longing for sugar.
Users who are sick of the effects of unhealthy food will actively seek out Firefox. I and many others were willing to put up with the bugs and slowness of Firefox to leave Internet Explorer.
And when websites were IE6-only, the attitude was not that Firefox needed to win them over, but instead it was too bad for that site they would not get traffic from Firefox users.
And Firefox could afford to not be the best browser for all users, because they are a non-profit, and are not constrained by the same market dynamics as their competitors.
Firefox does not and should not pander to users wanting the sugar, because it will likely drive away loyal users more than it will win anyone over. And again, they can certainly afford to not win those users over. Their browser is not a cog in a content distribution platform like it is for Apple and Google. They can afford to not grow their user base at all, and focus instead on improvement. I would actually like to see Mozilla discard their user metrics and just blindly focus on making something good, instead of something popular.
They should just release a Firefox preskool edition for Joe Average User.
But this is a great example of the rot in Mozilla. When Apple or Google sacrifice functionality to appeal to users that don't like computers, it is because they make more money by expanding their platform.
When Mozilla sacrifices functionality to try to attract new users, then what? They aren't really making any money off of it. They are just getting new users for the sake of it.
If Firefox has to remove so much functionality to become more popular, than why bother at all?
It is like if everyone is eating McDonalds, and you are selling healthy produce, but only 20% of the population ever wants your healthy food. So you start coating your healthy food in sugar and deep frying it. Even if you win, you lose.
> This is aimed at Joe Average User who maybe downloaded a program from sourceforge and suddenly every user on the computer has Myway Search installed, or something with serious privacy problems that's injecting itself into every web page they visit.
I think this is a lie. I mean, yes it does mitigate a specific kind of malware injection, sure. But if someone already can write to your filesystem, then it is game over. If Firefox actually had any marketshare and was a big enough target to care about, malware could simply inject malicious extensions some other way. Having the web browser trying to secure itself on a compromised system is a fool's errand. And it is not a justification for such a massive regression in functionality. It is not a rational decision.
I strongly suspect that it was a rational decision for Google to do this with Chrome; to put up roadblocks for users trying to have too much control of their browser, and justify it in the name of security. And then Mozilla irrationally copied them. Because they are a Google cargo cult.