Why did it fail?

It's amazing how they switched from trying to keep it exclusive to actively forcing it on everyone.

>firefox
Firefox is literally better in every way other than speed. Market share is irrelevant.

>Firefox WAS literally better
ftfy

phones and google jamming it down your throat every time you wanted to do anything google-related. Mostly phones, though.

>t. butthurt about unmaintained addons not working
Firefox is faster and more secure now. Stop being a babyduck, it's still better.

They were distributed with lots of other software. You know, if you don't untick this, it's installed.

>Firefox is faster and more secure now.
Literally no sandboxing without pulseaudio.
>Stop being a babyduck
My first browser was Firefox 3.something, if anything, I'm a duck for Firefox
>it's still better.
Elaborate.

My main reason to use Firefox was that add-ons didn't have shitty restrictions unlike chrome. Now that's not the case and Firefox is just a shittier version of chromium. At least latter is faster, has actual sandboxing with ALSA and doesn't have pocket and "experimental opt-out" shit.

You ever heard of extended support release, faggot?

>no sandboxing without pulseaudio.
Nobody cares
>Elaborate
Nothing changed other than removing the old unsecure addon engine, and of course it got faster and more secure as a result. So if it was better before it's better now.
>shitty restrictions
>being able to access half the system and being easily exploitable is good
No
>chromium is better
No, it's not. It doesn't give you almost any control over web content and cannot be made more secure and private than Firefox. The blink engine is just bad.
>doesn't have pocket and "experimental opt-out" shit
Anything experimental is opt in. And chromium is also sending telemetry to Google which you can't turn off.

You're replying to the wrong post.

Attached: read.png (1530x800, 104K)

>Nobody cares
I care. It's one of the shittier decisions Mozilla made and it makes Firefox extremely insecure.
>Nothing changed other than removing the old unsecure addon engine
1. This means add-ons that had better functionality than chrome are no more
2. They removed sandboxing with ALSA. This is a critical security flaw.
3. They added retarded shit like pocket and opt-out "experiments" and targeted ads that you have to go into config to turn off and check after every update.
>and of course it got faster and more secure as a result. So if it was better before it's better now.
No, it was slower but had better add-ons. Now it's just slower and with terrible "features".
>>being able to access half the system and being easily exploitable is good
>No
Being able to use vim-style navigation on any and every page was good. If you install some untrustworthy shit you have no one to blame but yourself. Removing advanced features is not good.
>No, it's not. It doesn't give you almost any control over web content and cannot be made more secure and private than Firefox.
[Citation needed]
> The blink engine is just bad.
Same here.
>Anything experimental is opt in.
Lies.
> And chromium is also sending telemetry to Google which you can't turn off.
>Look at chromium!
This doesn't make fireworks any better. Also, there is "ungoogled" if you hate Google so much.

>You're replying to the wrong post.
?

>1., 3.
False
>Citation needed
See pic.
>Lies
No, u.
>Look at chromium!
This was your argument against Firefox.
>there is "ungoogled" if you hate Google so much.
There is unmozzilla'd firefox if you hate Mozilla so much.
>?
The reply was irrelevant to what I posted.

Anyways, I see you're completely autistic and arguing with you will go nowhere. Since you haven't made an actual argument against current Firefox and are just posting lies and bullshit like "you must disable this opt-out stuff after each update", I'll just stop replying. Have a shitty day, kys.

Except the thread clearly is about market share.

Chrome is often reported as the most popular browser because it's preinstalled on almost every Android phone.
If we were to look at Desktops, the situation would probably be different.

The whole circle system is retarded

>download Google Earth
>also installs Chroms
>search for anything on Google
>GET BETTER RESULTS NOW SUPER FAST WITH CHROME
>Android phones, Chromebooks and even a lot of prebuilt PCs and laptops come with it preinstalled

Moot saw it as a rival to Jow Forums and infiltrated the botnet to deliver a poison pill.

Nobody wanted it.

For copying an existing concept without adding anything new others will find useful.

They launched invite only.

The value of a social network isn't in the website/service itself, but in the users. People use Facebook because all their friends & family use Facebook.

For browsers, it doesn't matter what other people use, for the most part. You install a new browser, it ports over your bookmarks and such, and websites work mostly the same. Thus Chrome could displace other browsers by being faster and having a very large advertisement campaign convincing people to try it.

>closed launch
>still intentionally keep the userbase small as fuck even as buzz/hype was building for it
>by the time it's open to everyone, the hype has died down completely
>eventually say "fuck it" and force it on everyone
>any/all goodwill that *may* have led people to use it is gone

Sure, Facebook already being a thing made a full and sudden switch unlikely, but Google+ easily could've occupied a space like Discord did (circa 2016/2017) by capitalizing on the hype. But when people were most interested in using it, it simply wasn't accessible.