[frostiness]

On the other hand, as someone on an old android device, the performance difference between the two is massive and it isn't getting better. Some sites (usually the ones that are actually important such as restaurant menu) are perfect on Chrome and nearly unusable on Firefox, even with an adblocker.

Performance already matters a lot on desktop browsers, but when battery life is thrown into the mix, it matters even more.

[fooker]

It's a bit perplexing to me that Firefox proponents keep denying performance issues for years.

You can just compare it yourself or look at the some of the zillion benchmarks.

[genocidicbunny]

Are they...issues?

Like, I frankly couldn't care less if Chrome is capable of running some funky JS that is mainly used on sites that I don't visit a bit faster, or is capable of rendering some css animation that I would honestly prefer died in a fire a bit faster.

[genocidicbunny]

I know it's just anecdata, but on my 2 year old phone, Firefox+Adblock+NoScript uses about 33% less power than the stock Chrome. I grant that my browsing habits aren't such that I tend to use a lot of media-heavy sites in the first place, so perhaps on those I wouldn't see such savings.

[frostiness]

I do the same, and honestly it's why I still use Firefox on mobile at all. But stock Firefox (which is what most people use anyways) has clear issues.

[happymellon]

How old? My S10e isn't very new and FF works great.

[frostiness]

It's an S7. Though newer phones probably don't have as noticeable performance issues, it still indicates that the browser's going to use more power even if the performance is fine.