As an example of a rare counterpoint, Zotero, a citation manager, continues to be based on the Firefox platform [1]. Thunderbird is another non-browser application built upon the Firefox codebase.
The article doesn't really say anything new, but _why_ are most browser forks of Chrome instead of Firefox? Is chrome just that much easier to fork? I remember there used to be Camino for mac that was killed and rolled into firefox, and even to this day firefox support on mac is poor. The lack of a firefox equivalent to Electron also hurts things, even though it seemed firefox was ahead of the curve with XUL.
I'd wager it's due to someone complaining about firefox (its always bills, you notice? The same reason IE6 stuck around for...), without fail, everytime the word "Firefox" is mentioned anywhere.
And then we get anecdotes like "gmail and YouTube are buggy"
Oh, really? That's so weird that a multinational would hamstring a competitor that doesn't feed their shareholders more value.
If anything this article understates how ubiquitous Chrome is. Tons of Android apps use Webview, which is Chrome in disguise.
That said, it also overstates the importance of Google's particular flavor of Chrome. Chromium is open-source and other Chromium-based browsers do not need to comply with Google's DRM etc.
Chrome removed manifest v2. It's also missing from Chromium, which means that many other browsers now have to decide to maintain that version manually, or remove it. It is being removed from Edge, a big competitor, just because maintaining it is too much work. Removing V2 and adding V3 does a lot of damage to the users, in favor of adding power to Google's Ad services.
Don't hold your breath. Chrome's speed and feature-richness comes from large, specialized development teams. You can't aspire to top that on a whim. And then there are such trifles as dev tools to take care of.
It's a nice touch that the article tells you you're browsing it with a blink-based browser, it's the first time I've seen fingerprinting used to enhance an explanation
Imagine every website had a widget on the side giving an EXAMPLE of how your data will be used. Like "You have been marked with liking chocolate velvet cakes. This data can and will be used against you in the court of the next website you go to"
> The best bet would be using Firefox or something based on it. Firefox is free, open source, available on most platforms, and Mozilla has largely shown a commitment to both the user and the web.
Given the downward trajectory of Mozilla, including re. the commitment to the user, why would this help? How would it change anything at the Mozilla corporate to make this bet the best?
Unfortunately Firefox is no real competition either. Most of their revenue comes from Google, ostensibly for making Google the default search engine but, in reality, probably to allow Google to avoid antitrust lawsuits by claiming they have a real competitor.
Author here. I'm sorry if you're experiencing some scroll shenanigans, but it isn't related to my website.
The only scroll-related things that would be different on my site are disabling overscroll to prevent that annoying bounce effect which shows unintended areas when reaching the end of a scrollable area and my custom scroll indicator (https://vale.rocks/posts/the-implementation-of-this-site#scr...), which has no impact on scroll behaviour.
The Web is now ChromeOS, and everyone shipping Chrome only because it is easier, it is too complicated to do cross-browser development, yeedah yeadah..., are only repeating the IE 6 siren song.
Also take a minute to appreciate shipping Electron garbage for helping Chrome's hegemony.
I've been using Safari+Firefox for a good decade now. Just out of spite.
I was there when IE6 was the only browser that mattered, I'm doing all I can to prevent that from happening again.
I do use Chrome for webdev, the tooling is massively better than in Safari and FF. But I very rarely use it to open anything past localhost or the internal test servers.
The article really should be "Everything Is Chrome + Safari", the "Firefox on the brink?"[1] article even shows that Safari has ~37% market share (Although the underlying site[2] currently shows me ~34%.)
I do like diversity and I hope there's always be competing browser engines but folks, Chrome is really not a bad browser and Google engineers do an amazing job with it.
Just because currently it has a monopoly does not mean it's a bad product.
It doesn't matter how "good" Chrome is or will be when it's your only option (if you're not on an Apple device). Like the author states in this essay, I'm not comfortable with a browser that gives a single company complete control over Web standards and the Internet.
no, it means that it contributes to a worsening of the environment that it runs in - the web.
By making the product - the browser - the best that they can (without damaging their core businesses) Google achieves dominance to worsen the web as a whole.
I’ve been using Firefox for nearly 20 years. Lately I’ve noticed more and more websites that don’t work with it. Usually I can just ignore the bugs or avoid the site, but sometimes it’s something that I have to do (like pay a bill) and so I have no choice but to keep a Chromium install around as well.
I really hate having to double-fist browsers, but I’m too stubborn to switch to a Chromium-based browser full time. I’ll use Firefox or any other alternative for as long as the web remains usable on them.
I think it's our duty to use Firefox as much as possible, and only launch Chromium for the odd task where Firefox fails. This is the only way to fight the browser monopoly. We have to generate as much Firefox activity as possible, so that websites have to take it seriously as a platform and continue to develop against it.
> Usually I can just ignore the bugs or avoid the site, but sometimes it’s something that I have to do (like pay a bill) and so I have no choice but to keep a Chromium install around as well.
It's very odd, because recently I've had more of the opposite, where Edge (Chromium based) doesn't work, but Firefox does: on the sites where I pay my water and gas bills. Not that sites don't break on Firefox either, I've had that too, it's just odd that sometimes the mainstream browser doesn't work (wonder if it's an extension issue).
Some sites block by user agent, you may just need to use an extension to spoof it and the site should work.
Some browsers like Vivaldi do that by default.
Though, this sucks, but it's better than the alternative.
I've noticed that some sites are buggy on Firefox (hello YouTube) but I don't think I've ever had to actually switch to Chrome to do anything. Maybe it helps that I mostly use electrical invoicing, so I don't really need to use a browser to pay my bills.
People use different sites, so I believe it, especially "local" ones of zero interest to people in other countries.
That said, I've not used chrome on personal machines as a default browser for many years, and at work I also avoid it.
I don't remember when I last stumbled over a page that didn't work in Firefox... which then worked in any other Browser and was not broken per se. Or they didn't work with Firefox + UBlock Origin, which is fair as Chrome just blocks less.
Yes, let's point to an industry with arguably the lowest barrier to entry as basis of good faith comparison to implicitly deny the existence of consolidation[1]. /s
(2023) or (2024)
As an example of a rare counterpoint, Zotero, a citation manager, continues to be based on the Firefox platform [1]. Thunderbird is another non-browser application built upon the Firefox codebase.
[1]: https://www.zotero.org/support/dev/zotero_7_for_developers
"Everything is chrome in the future."
The article doesn't really say anything new, but _why_ are most browser forks of Chrome instead of Firefox? Is chrome just that much easier to fork? I remember there used to be Camino for mac that was killed and rolled into firefox, and even to this day firefox support on mac is poor. The lack of a firefox equivalent to Electron also hurts things, even though it seemed firefox was ahead of the curve with XUL.
Firefox-based browsers exist, notable ones for me being: Tor, Mullvad, LibreWolf, Zen.
Yes, I've actually been using Zen for a while now and even donated to the project as it seems a pretty worthwhile (and necessary) competitor.
I'd wager it's due to someone complaining about firefox (its always bills, you notice? The same reason IE6 stuck around for...), without fail, everytime the word "Firefox" is mentioned anywhere.
And then we get anecdotes like "gmail and YouTube are buggy"
Oh, really? That's so weird that a multinational would hamstring a competitor that doesn't feed their shareholders more value.
Chrome is a better codebase.
If anything this article understates how ubiquitous Chrome is. Tons of Android apps use Webview, which is Chrome in disguise.
That said, it also overstates the importance of Google's particular flavor of Chrome. Chromium is open-source and other Chromium-based browsers do not need to comply with Google's DRM etc.
Chromium is open source, but I believe Google is its biggest contributor.
Just like Electron is Chrome in disguise, but lets keep shipping those.
I wonder how that will work out in practice with regards to Manifest V3? Are Chromium based browsers free to stay with V2?
> Are Chromium based browsers free to stay with V2?
Yes, for the cost of keeping V2 working as the main branch continues to update without it.
Overstates?
Chrome removed manifest v2. It's also missing from Chromium, which means that many other browsers now have to decide to maintain that version manually, or remove it. It is being removed from Edge, a big competitor, just because maintaining it is too much work. Removing V2 and adding V3 does a lot of damage to the users, in favor of adding power to Google's Ad services.
So yeah, no, nothing is overstated here.
Reading in Firefox mobile.
I open Chrome / Edge 4 times or so every year it feels, either to verify something is just as broken there or because of low quality systems at work.
For this reason im somewhat hyped for Ladybird in Summer 2026, especially seeing the amount of sponsors they have
Don't hold your breath. Chrome's speed and feature-richness comes from large, specialized development teams. You can't aspire to top that on a whim. And then there are such trifles as dev tools to take care of.
It's a nice touch that the article tells you you're browsing it with a blink-based browser, it's the first time I've seen fingerprinting used to enhance an explanation
Imagine every website had a widget on the side giving an EXAMPLE of how your data will be used. Like "You have been marked with liking chocolate velvet cakes. This data can and will be used against you in the court of the next website you go to"
Browser engine identification is not the same as fingerprinting.
> The best bet would be using Firefox or something based on it. Firefox is free, open source, available on most platforms, and Mozilla has largely shown a commitment to both the user and the web.
Given the downward trajectory of Mozilla, including re. the commitment to the user, why would this help? How would it change anything at the Mozilla corporate to make this bet the best?
read this in firefox/waterfox
Unfortunately Firefox is no real competition either. Most of their revenue comes from Google, ostensibly for making Google the default search engine but, in reality, probably to allow Google to avoid antitrust lawsuits by claiming they have a real competitor.
While the author is OK in complaining about Chrome but wtf is website hijacking scrolling sensitivity/acceleration?
Author here. I'm sorry if you're experiencing some scroll shenanigans, but it isn't related to my website.
The only scroll-related things that would be different on my site are disabling overscroll to prevent that annoying bounce effect which shows unintended areas when reaching the end of a scrollable area and my custom scroll indicator (https://vale.rocks/posts/the-implementation-of-this-site#scr...), which has no impact on scroll behaviour.
The Web is now ChromeOS, and everyone shipping Chrome only because it is easier, it is too complicated to do cross-browser development, yeedah yeadah..., are only repeating the IE 6 siren song.
Also take a minute to appreciate shipping Electron garbage for helping Chrome's hegemony.
Reading this in Safari.
I've been using Safari+Firefox for a good decade now. Just out of spite.
I was there when IE6 was the only browser that mattered, I'm doing all I can to prevent that from happening again.
I do use Chrome for webdev, the tooling is massively better than in Safari and FF. But I very rarely use it to open anything past localhost or the internal test servers.
Safari + Firefox here.
But I use Firefox for webdev as well.
And unlike my colleagues using Chrome I've only once been made aware of something I made that didn't work in every browser.
The article really should be "Everything Is Chrome + Safari", the "Firefox on the brink?"[1] article even shows that Safari has ~37% market share (Although the underlying site[2] currently shows me ~34%.)
[1] https://www.brycewray.com/posts/2023/11/firefox-brink/ [2] https://analytics.usa.gov/
I do like diversity and I hope there's always be competing browser engines but folks, Chrome is really not a bad browser and Google engineers do an amazing job with it.
Just because currently it has a monopoly does not mean it's a bad product.
It doesn't matter how "good" Chrome is or will be when it's your only option (if you're not on an Apple device). Like the author states in this essay, I'm not comfortable with a browser that gives a single company complete control over Web standards and the Internet.
It's a great product to navigate ubiquitous ads
They just removed V2, and thus ublock origin. Chrome is not the product, you are. Chrome is your fodder.
no, it means that it contributes to a worsening of the environment that it runs in - the web.
By making the product - the browser - the best that they can (without damaging their core businesses) Google achieves dominance to worsen the web as a whole.
I’ve been using Firefox for nearly 20 years. Lately I’ve noticed more and more websites that don’t work with it. Usually I can just ignore the bugs or avoid the site, but sometimes it’s something that I have to do (like pay a bill) and so I have no choice but to keep a Chromium install around as well.
I really hate having to double-fist browsers, but I’m too stubborn to switch to a Chromium-based browser full time. I’ll use Firefox or any other alternative for as long as the web remains usable on them.
I think it's our duty to use Firefox as much as possible, and only launch Chromium for the odd task where Firefox fails. This is the only way to fight the browser monopoly. We have to generate as much Firefox activity as possible, so that websites have to take it seriously as a platform and continue to develop against it.
> Usually I can just ignore the bugs or avoid the site, but sometimes it’s something that I have to do (like pay a bill) and so I have no choice but to keep a Chromium install around as well.
It's very odd, because recently I've had more of the opposite, where Edge (Chromium based) doesn't work, but Firefox does: on the sites where I pay my water and gas bills. Not that sites don't break on Firefox either, I've had that too, it's just odd that sometimes the mainstream browser doesn't work (wonder if it's an extension issue).
Some sites block by user agent, you may just need to use an extension to spoof it and the site should work. Some browsers like Vivaldi do that by default. Though, this sucks, but it's better than the alternative.
I only launch chrome for google meets and google maps.
I don't know about Google Meet, as I don't use it, but why Google Maps? It's been working fine on FF for me.
Just more sluggish than on Chrome.
Are these bugs in the website or in firefox?
The website, usually.
I notice this only on web apps that should be native android apps (progressive web apps they are called, I believe).
Normal websites work almost always. Those that don't work typically don't support Firefox 's strict data protection mode (whatever that's called).
I REALLY hate that. Companies become so lazy and hire the worst web developers that don't have any clue and no self-respect.
I still keep using Firefox . Ultimately there's an alternative for everything and if a company doesn't want me as a visitor or customer, so be it.
I've noticed that some sites are buggy on Firefox (hello YouTube) but I don't think I've ever had to actually switch to Chrome to do anything. Maybe it helps that I mostly use electrical invoicing, so I don't really need to use a browser to pay my bills.
I only use firefox, and I have since Firefox 16 or something. What issue does YouTube have for you?
I don't have any issues with firefox, and I seriously smell astroturf, when day after day Firefox gets bashed.
People use different sites, so I believe it, especially "local" ones of zero interest to people in other countries.
That said, I've not used chrome on personal machines as a default browser for many years, and at work I also avoid it.
I don't remember when I last stumbled over a page that didn't work in Firefox... which then worked in any other Browser and was not broken per se. Or they didn't work with Firefox + UBlock Origin, which is fair as Chrome just blocks less.
Natural progression of an industry. It always consolidates.
Does your city only have one restaurant?
In the UK I see many places belonging to same place; same menus, same drinks but different style place to make it feel authentic. So yes.
They're starbucking us, man.
So no. Same menu/web-pages; but served differently as per individual needs.
I mean, Chrome is also reskinned to serve a particular niche by a number of providers. I don't think that really cuts it in either case.
The article in context is not just about Chrome, but the various avatars it has manifested into.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/77476/00011931251104...
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1545158/000119312512...
https://www.mondelezinternational.com/our-brands/
https://inspirebrands.com/
Mom and pops diners and the like seemed to all fail within a half decade of each other, here recently. Weird.
Can a restaurant scale to serve billions?
I don't know. But the original comment asserted universality:
> Natural progression of an industry. It always consolidates.
Yes, let's point to an industry with arguably the lowest barrier to entry as basis of good faith comparison to implicitly deny the existence of consolidation[1]. /s
[1] https://i.insider.com/5d0b8e5f638af2560c013925
If there were ten different browser engines to choose from, I don't think anyone would be complaining.
Though to play devil's advocate you would have ten conflicting ideas of how things should work.
If the original comment would have been something like the following
> Natural progression of an industry. They tend to consolidate.
then I would agree with your criticism of my nit-picking.
But what we got was:
> Natural progression of an industry. It always consolidates.