• Firefox offers better privacy and security than Chrome, with upcoming support for 200 new add-ons. • While Chrome dominates, Firefox gains ground with user-friendly browsing experience and open-source model. • Mozilla’s focus on user privacy and transparency challenges Google’s ad-centric approach, making Firefox a viable alternative.
I never understood why so many people thought it was a good idea to hand Google the near monopoly power we had just prevented Microsoft in keeping. And that was AFTER we saw how bad it was that Microsoft had that power.
Too many people go for short term gain for way greater long term losses.
Chrome was much faster and more stable than Firefox for a time, but they’re similar now.
This is my recollection, when chrome first came out it seemed significantly faster than IE and Firefox at the time, and Google was much less evil big brother at the time.
Back when it was only really known for Search.
So it’s only feasible to prevent a monopoly now, because it’s convenient? Disregarding the huge inconvenience a monopoly always result in!
Yes, but not because I didn’t try. I tried Opera and Konqueror for a time and they had some serious rendering problems. Being on the Internet all day for work I kinda just need a browser that works. Firefox is that for me now, but it wasn’t always up to the task.
That’s because 99% of people don’t care, exactly the same as with Microsoft. Average person will understand why monopoly is bad when there’s only a single company that sells them gas and suddenly he has to pay $100 per gallon. With tech stuff they simply have no idea. It’s not like they were using IE and thinking ‘It would be so much better if this could pass Acid test’. With Chrome they don’t think ‘it would be nice if this could block youtube ads’ and don’t understand what Google controlling the internet really means. Even governments don’t care about it for the same reasons we do. We don’t like monopoly because of technology and standards. They don’t like it because it slows down economy.
Google took a novel approach of trying to give people a free product that had value to them and features they wanted in a way that was easy to use. Such a product gave a better experience and only at the cost of someone looking over their shoulder, something that people have grown accustomed from their governments.
That’s a huge misconception of what’s going on. The consequences are way more far reaching, because Google is also a giant in other aspects. If it was only Chrome, it wouldn’t be nearly as bad.
People really bought into that “don’t be evil” clause they used to have, and I’m actually astounded they bothered removing it. It’s not exactly legally binding, so why not just leave it there and do evil shit anyway?
I feel like it actually got worse after they removed it. Although the signs were beginning to show.
most people don’t give af which browser they use. they trust the brand of google because the search engine was “the best” so they moved from firefox/edge over to chrome thanks to an advertising blitz and deals with vendors to put chrome on laptops, at the time was a better browser and much more stable since it silo’d tabs into processes (which is what almost all browser do now).
Many people that are not very tech minded, are very well aware that Google has become to big, and control and know to much. Yet they use Google services, because they are default, and they don’t know how to change it or use alternatives. That’s probably the case for about 90% of people, which is why defaults are so powerful.
The real idiots are those that know tech, but don’t care.