I feel like I've seen this cycle a few times now. Around the 2010-2013 time Firefox was pretty popular and the browser wars had cooled down a bit, various standards had progressed to the point where the web was mostly the same for Firefox users and Chrome users.
Then Google Docs, Drive, Voice and a few other apps with the addition of Chromebooks started to appear and all of the sudden a few key features stopped working for Firefox. Probably the most important teachable moment was just how few features it takes to flip users.
Maybe we'll see Firefox regain browser share are users dump Chrome. Edge even has a shot at this point - a strange irony bringing us full circle.
I guess the real question is how long until we iterate on this loop again? What will compel users to jump back into the embrace of <insert not yet but eventually evil company> versus the relatively consistent arms of Mozilla.
Also, FWIW, Mozilla isn't innocent either. Despite being very much _less scummy_ they have still upped their scum factor a bit over the years. Let's not forget they are quite happy to trade millions of dollars to make Google the homepage for their users. While nowhere near as egregious they have some tracking happening ("experiments"), they aggressively push their Firefox Accounts stuff, appear to be selling spots on the homepage tabs, etc.
I didn't flip because of features, everything was working just fine for me. I flipped beacuse Chrome, at the time, was incredibly faster and snappier than Firefox. And it remained like that for a long time. I bet a ton of users switched for the same reason.
> Also, FWIW, Mozilla isn't innocent either. Despite being very much _less scummy_ they have still upped their scum factor a bit over the years. Let's not forget they are quite happy to trade millions of dollars to make Google the homepage for their users.
"Innocent Mozilla" wouldn't exist today, first because apparently there's always something to complain about, and second because those people also feed families and pay bills.
First thing every web user does, pro or amateur, is configure their browser to access Google easily. One way or another, Firefox will serve Google first, except for a loud minority of people who would use Duck Duck Go or something like that.
So why would Mozilla walk away from millions of dollars? Only to see itself bankrupt and Chrome take its already dwindling marketshare?
Isn’t the newer edge based on chrome’s rendering engine anyway? What’s stopping google from doing what they did with Android: remove more and more and more of the parts included with open source Android and move them into closed source Android to the point where vanilla open source Android has much lower utility?
Thanks to desire to kill Flash, and the broken support for hardware accelerated canvas and WebGL, given that as game studio you have zero control over hardware support on customer's browser, the flourishing Flash indie scene has moved into Unreal, Unity and Godot targeting native instead.
Even if WebGPU and WebAssembly ever fix what happened during the last decade, they are years away to actually replicate the capabilities Flash offered to gamedevs in 2011.
"Apple has decided to make Internet Explorer its default browser on the Macintosh (booing, clearly audible “Nos”). Since we believe in choice (laughter), since we believe in choice we’re going to be shipping other Internet browsers as well on the Macintosh and the user can of course change their default should they choose to (cheering), but uh, we believe that Internet Explorer is a really good browser (jeering) and we think it’s going to make a fine default browser" - Steve Jobs, obvs
Since we believe in choice ... the Google homepage "scum accusation" is a little harsh.
I'm very happy Mozilla / FF are still in the game.
Mozilla, you're like... 50/50 on this. You do awesome things like per-site containers and default off for 3rd party cookies, and then you do weird things like the Mr. Robot alternate reality game.
Like... it kills me, because I'm pretty sure you were just trying to be fun and delight your users. And I hate that the web is at the point where nobody trusts anyone. (JoCo? If you're reading this, "Solid State" was ahead of it's time. My favorite album.)
Don't use Chrome and don't use other browser based on Chromium either. As long as Google's engine has 85%+ market share, they can just unilaterally do whatever they want to the web.
I do use Firefox and have been since its used to named 'Netscape'... Everyone in my family uses Firefox on all their devices but that's just a microscopic fraction.
Google used all the scummy practices, incl. youtube, gmail, docs and all advised to switch to faster/modern/etc. browser. Android straight out comes w/ chrome that's built-in and cannot be removed (save for rooting).
With the amount of wealth and power (and interests), it's unrealistic to expect a change would happen on its right own. Firefox is effectively a slave of google ads money as well.
Back in the days Microsoft was close to get split over IE. What google does is in no way less sinister, so unless there is an antitrust process involved, I don't quite see the hegemony of Chrome ending anytime soon (or ever).
Ditto. Firefox takes security and privacy more seriously as well. Google's business model is selling online advertising which by nature requires data collection and tracking. I've been using Firefox as main browser and for web development for years and never thought about going back to Chrome.
I'm not entirely sure whether it is more sustainable to maintain a separate rendering engine than to gradually build up Chromium expertise outside of Google.
With FloC, we now have a test case where we will see whether or not other Chromium based browsers can make independent decisions that go against Google's interests.
> Use Firefox if you actually want to fix the web.
I think "the web" (search engines, youtube, social networks) are a lost cause. Too centralised, too much opportunity for tracking, privacy nightmare, security nightmare. The solution? RSS.
How you read RSS content shouldn't be that important - let's stop focusing so much on rendering pages, and more on delivery.
Indeed: it's incredibly obnoxious and will serve only to irritate most website visitors. It won't turn people against Chrome: it'll turn them against website owners. Seems more focussed on getting a reaction than getting an outcome. Very counterproductive.
> Stop using Google Chrome, and install another browser
As a thought experiment, i've wondered what would happen if webdevs started to add those ugly "This website does not support Chrome, please install [Firefox](...) for the best experience."
Does Chrome have the branding to sustain it? Would the websites take the traffic hit? If trends continue as they have the last 5+ years, it may be a test worth running.
Well, when I saw sites that didn't work properly on Chrome because they were tailored to IE/Edge, or went out to of their way to inconvenience me about it, I just stopped browsing them. Or disabled all scripts and blocked cookies, or wrote a filter on uBlock.
I don't think sites want to risk losing users because of the the browser they use. Competition is brutal out there.
And interestingly you have to turn this off separately on every single device. It's not an Apple account thing as you might expect. I had it turned off on my iPhone but Apple was still tracking me on my Mac until I noticed just now. Sneaky.
> Some website owners think the best strategy is to opt their websites out of FLoC by attaching a header.
I've tried to look up which header that would be. The only thing I could find was a github issue, but only containing a request for such a header, not actually describing one. https://github.com/WICG/floc/issues/13
So I understand it correctly, currently publishers can't opt out from this tracking? What if you process sensitive data, e.g. protected by HIPAA, or attorney client communication?
It's freaking stupid that it's opt out, but what you're gonna do. I've added it to my own website as soon as I found out. Organization I'm working for will be doing the same.
People have framed in their minds that "FLoC == tracking, no FLoC == no tracking". But that is actually 0% true, FLoC is less tracking than what is currently happening today
People think they are getting more tracked by this but in reality it is trying to make them be less tracked
It sounds like floc is a way to tag people as a particular type of user rather than track every individual, well, individually. Isn't that an improvement over cookies?
No because third party cookies (which are needed for cross site tracking) are often (and should be) blocked.
The floc is based on your browsing history. It is sort of a hash of the sites you visited and can be requested via a Js call by any (!) site you visit.
The floc is shared by a group of users not sure how that works but it is stated that those are a few 1000 large.
Combine that with other tracking stuff like fingerprinting and ip and you can easily identify a user (especially if you are google and your adds hang around everywhere in the net).
Since the cohorts are so small (a few thousand), it's extremely likely that the FLOC id and the ip address is all you need to track someone, even behind NAT.
In general, there are so many conflicts of interest in the google ecosystem and good alternatives (though not as well integrated). Even if it’s less convenient it’s good to be open to other options and actively try to use and improve them.
> Nearly every browser is based on open source code
"We lost the war, haven't we?"
What's stopping you, or anyone else, from forking code and making it privacy focused?
Microsoft got complacent and IE lost to Mozilla.
Mozilla got bloated, lazy and they lost their focus after several missteps, several of which alienated the fuck out of the FOSS community. (Forcing several distros to fork and rebrand to something like Iceweasel? Seriously? Way to dilute your own branding.)
Chrome took over because it simply was the better browser. It brought a lot of new things to the table that made Firefox look stale in relatively short amount of time. Is it still the better browser? I don't think that's quite as clear cut these days... but unfortunately, browsers like "Brave" aren't doing anyone any favors with their misleading presentation, sketchy tactics and meme like spamming from users who don't look beyond bitelines. So when it comes down to it, every Chromium fork that currently exists still has a business, with business motives, behind it.
The source is there. Does somebody want to make an effort to fork it and let it be the true privacy focused browser or are we just going to complain about losing a war that nobody's really fighting?
Yes, people need to get out of the HN filter bubble and realize that this is a problem no-one in the real world actually cares about. The storm will continue in the teapot but no sites with any substantial traffic will do anything about it.
It depends on the scope I think. There's obviously nothing stopping anyone from running other browsers, blocking tracking as best they can, anonymizing as much as possible, or hell even starting their own networks to avoid it all together. The technology is still there, still open and free.
But the net now contains the general populace, and as such significant power has been amassed by controlling it. I don't believe the internet as we know it is in the hands of the netizens anymore, and I have to doubt that the majority of the netizens would even care.
Google and Amazon have both showed continued behavior showing that they'll eat, buy or smother anything that comes a little too close to them, why should we expect that it would be any different if we tried to kick their behaviors off the network?
> "I wish it need not have happened in my time," said Frodo.
> "So do I," said Gandalf, "and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."
It looks bleak... but hey. Hobbits toppled the Eye of Sauron.
I dont understand why people that care so much for privacy just go and switch browsers? Website designers will never change and block users from using their site with Chrome because that would just kill 70% of the traffic.
I'm using FF myself and never had a problem with it
I feel like the real battle is not in things like this, but bigger future stuff. TBH - I think the future of the web will be different, and will render the past stuff irrelevant, and so the main aim is that the "big players" aren't allowed to gatekeep, and block future development via legal means.
Stuff like net-neutrality, and legality of reverse engineering protocols and APIs are key to this. The Ad-war is far from over, so long as people still own their own things - this is why I see the cloud, or at least the monopolisation cloud, and the monopolisation of certain hardware (chip fab etc) as at-least as important as software.
[+] [-] ddtaylor|4 years ago|reply
Then Google Docs, Drive, Voice and a few other apps with the addition of Chromebooks started to appear and all of the sudden a few key features stopped working for Firefox. Probably the most important teachable moment was just how few features it takes to flip users.
Maybe we'll see Firefox regain browser share are users dump Chrome. Edge even has a shot at this point - a strange irony bringing us full circle.
I guess the real question is how long until we iterate on this loop again? What will compel users to jump back into the embrace of <insert not yet but eventually evil company> versus the relatively consistent arms of Mozilla.
Also, FWIW, Mozilla isn't innocent either. Despite being very much _less scummy_ they have still upped their scum factor a bit over the years. Let's not forget they are quite happy to trade millions of dollars to make Google the homepage for their users. While nowhere near as egregious they have some tracking happening ("experiments"), they aggressively push their Firefox Accounts stuff, appear to be selling spots on the homepage tabs, etc.
[+] [-] boobsbr|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] slver|4 years ago|reply
"Innocent Mozilla" wouldn't exist today, first because apparently there's always something to complain about, and second because those people also feed families and pay bills.
First thing every web user does, pro or amateur, is configure their browser to access Google easily. One way or another, Firefox will serve Google first, except for a loud minority of people who would use Duck Duck Go or something like that.
So why would Mozilla walk away from millions of dollars? Only to see itself bankrupt and Chrome take its already dwindling marketshare?
[+] [-] ornornor|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pjmlp|4 years ago|reply
Thanks to desire to kill Flash, and the broken support for hardware accelerated canvas and WebGL, given that as game studio you have zero control over hardware support on customer's browser, the flourishing Flash indie scene has moved into Unreal, Unity and Godot targeting native instead.
Even if WebGPU and WebAssembly ever fix what happened during the last decade, they are years away to actually replicate the capabilities Flash offered to gamedevs in 2011.
[+] [-] LightG|4 years ago|reply
Since we believe in choice ... the Google homepage "scum accusation" is a little harsh.
I'm very happy Mozilla / FF are still in the game.
[+] [-] bjt2n3904|4 years ago|reply
Mozilla, you're like... 50/50 on this. You do awesome things like per-site containers and default off for 3rd party cookies, and then you do weird things like the Mr. Robot alternate reality game.
Like... it kills me, because I'm pretty sure you were just trying to be fun and delight your users. And I hate that the web is at the point where nobody trusts anyone. (JoCo? If you're reading this, "Solid State" was ahead of it's time. My favorite album.)
But we need you, HARD.
[+] [-] AegirLeet|4 years ago|reply
Use Firefox if you actually want to fix the web.
[+] [-] xxs|4 years ago|reply
Google used all the scummy practices, incl. youtube, gmail, docs and all advised to switch to faster/modern/etc. browser. Android straight out comes w/ chrome that's built-in and cannot be removed (save for rooting).
With the amount of wealth and power (and interests), it's unrealistic to expect a change would happen on its right own. Firefox is effectively a slave of google ads money as well.
Back in the days Microsoft was close to get split over IE. What google does is in no way less sinister, so unless there is an antitrust process involved, I don't quite see the hegemony of Chrome ending anytime soon (or ever).
[+] [-] miguelmota|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fauigerzigerk|4 years ago|reply
With FloC, we now have a test case where we will see whether or not other Chromium based browsers can make independent decisions that go against Google's interests.
[+] [-] CodeGlitch|4 years ago|reply
I think "the web" (search engines, youtube, social networks) are a lost cause. Too centralised, too much opportunity for tracking, privacy nightmare, security nightmare. The solution? RSS.
How you read RSS content shouldn't be that important - let's stop focusing so much on rendering pages, and more on delivery.
[+] [-] mikaoj85|4 years ago|reply
Do as the good old times when we showed a banner to IE users below a certain version, and suggest better alternatives.
[+] [-] bartread|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] liquidise|4 years ago|reply
As a thought experiment, i've wondered what would happen if webdevs started to add those ugly "This website does not support Chrome, please install [Firefox](...) for the best experience."
Does Chrome have the branding to sustain it? Would the websites take the traffic hit? If trends continue as they have the last 5+ years, it may be a test worth running.
[+] [-] boobsbr|4 years ago|reply
I don't think sites want to risk losing users because of the the browser they use. Competition is brutal out there.
[+] [-] mavhc|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fauigerzigerk|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kevingadd|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] scottoreily|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] est31|4 years ago|reply
I've tried to look up which header that would be. The only thing I could find was a github issue, but only containing a request for such a header, not actually describing one. https://github.com/WICG/floc/issues/13
So I understand it correctly, currently publishers can't opt out from this tracking? What if you process sensitive data, e.g. protected by HIPAA, or attorney client communication?
[+] [-] input_sh|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] red0point|4 years ago|reply
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26828967
[+] [-] varenc|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MatthewWilkes|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mellavora|4 years ago|reply
Also interesting if GDPR applied.
Basically, this would make it extremely risky for companies NOT to opt out of Floc.
Which might be the way to kill it
[+] [-] charcircuit|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fsflover|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] anaisbetts|4 years ago|reply
People think they are getting more tracked by this but in reality it is trying to make them be less tracked
[+] [-] billytetrud|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] LordHeini|4 years ago|reply
The floc is based on your browsing history. It is sort of a hash of the sites you visited and can be requested via a Js call by any (!) site you visit.
The floc is shared by a group of users not sure how that works but it is stated that those are a few 1000 large.
Combine that with other tracking stuff like fingerprinting and ip and you can easily identify a user (especially if you are google and your adds hang around everywhere in the net).
[+] [-] PikachuEXE|4 years ago|reply
Probably start with "What are some of those privacy concerns with FLoC?"
[+] [-] withinboredom|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] harha|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dt3ft|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] techrat|4 years ago|reply
> Nearly every browser is based on open source code
"We lost the war, haven't we?"
What's stopping you, or anyone else, from forking code and making it privacy focused?
Microsoft got complacent and IE lost to Mozilla.
Mozilla got bloated, lazy and they lost their focus after several missteps, several of which alienated the fuck out of the FOSS community. (Forcing several distros to fork and rebrand to something like Iceweasel? Seriously? Way to dilute your own branding.)
Chrome took over because it simply was the better browser. It brought a lot of new things to the table that made Firefox look stale in relatively short amount of time. Is it still the better browser? I don't think that's quite as clear cut these days... but unfortunately, browsers like "Brave" aren't doing anyone any favors with their misleading presentation, sketchy tactics and meme like spamming from users who don't look beyond bitelines. So when it comes down to it, every Chromium fork that currently exists still has a business, with business motives, behind it.
The source is there. Does somebody want to make an effort to fork it and let it be the true privacy focused browser or are we just going to complain about losing a war that nobody's really fighting?
[+] [-] nine_k|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Kiro|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ehnto|4 years ago|reply
But the net now contains the general populace, and as such significant power has been amassed by controlling it. I don't believe the internet as we know it is in the hands of the netizens anymore, and I have to doubt that the majority of the netizens would even care.
Google and Amazon have both showed continued behavior showing that they'll eat, buy or smother anything that comes a little too close to them, why should we expect that it would be any different if we tried to kick their behaviors off the network?
[+] [-] bjt2n3904|4 years ago|reply
> "So do I," said Gandalf, "and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."
It looks bleak... but hey. Hobbits toppled the Eye of Sauron.
[+] [-] bitlevel|4 years ago|reply
https://vivaldi.com/blog/no-google-vivaldi-users-will-not-ge...
[+] [-] staticelf|4 years ago|reply
1. It is unfriendly and hostile.
2. It doesn't say what alternatives there are. Many people don't know about alternatives.
3. The biggest point of all: sites will lose the majority of their visitors if they redirected away chrome users.
[+] [-] alexf95|4 years ago|reply
I'm using FF myself and never had a problem with it
[+] [-] Chris2048|4 years ago|reply
Stuff like net-neutrality, and legality of reverse engineering protocols and APIs are key to this. The Ad-war is far from over, so long as people still own their own things - this is why I see the cloud, or at least the monopolisation cloud, and the monopolisation of certain hardware (chip fab etc) as at-least as important as software.
[+] [-] jasonvorhe|4 years ago|reply
Oh come on.
[+] [-] SuperSandro2000|4 years ago|reply
Yeah, sure. It isn't.
If you redirect people to that site you can also serve them a 404.
[+] [-] cl3misch|4 years ago|reply
I don't think you'll convince any non-technical users with such language.
[+] [-] user-the-name|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aembleton|4 years ago|reply
I mean they could stop use of their TLD, but you could move to another one, or publish an IP address.
[+] [-] thargor90|4 years ago|reply