Choose Firefox Now, Or Later You Won't Get A Choice

[Builder]

If Google was able to completely corner the internet browsing market it would basically be a monopoly, they would be sued for violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, and as they have there headquarters in the US it would prevail and Google would be broken up into many companies. :T

 

"but Google's to big and powerful for that" Google Standard Oil >_>.

That was over 100 years ago. Times have changed. Corporations are people now, among a lot of other changes.

[GamingEssential12]

Chrome is fine, I see no need for firefox. And if chrome starts to suck there is always Opera.

[1823alex]

I see the point but there browser actually sucks a lot. Like I used it forever then they COPIED chrome with there entire UI. It really is a bad browser IMO. But I really see there point here, I say if you want me to switch make a borwser much better than Chrome, thats how you get users not a publicity campaign IMO that looks like it could happen.

[Rising]

Times have changed. Corporations are people now, among a lot of other changes.

 

 

Corporations are not people, but they can be TRIED as people. which means that a corporation is sued and no longer it's owners.

[Rising]

That was over 100 years ago.

Also Standard oil was an example of a powerful company being broken apart, a very powerful company. The Bell System is a more recent one.

[Builder]

Corporations are not people, but they can be TRIED as people. which means that a corporation is sued and no longer it's owners.

That's not what Citizens United and Hobby Lobby were about. Look it up.

 

Also Standard oil was an example of a powerful company being broken apart, a very powerful company. The Bell System is a more recent one.

Bell was still 40 years back, and even then, it's not really the same case.

 

It will be interesting to see what Time Warner Comcast turns out to be, and it will say a lot about the future of antitrust in this country.

[AzureNinja99]

Alright, what is the worst Google could do? Sure, they could make a bunch of their sites have offline access only on chrome, or ignore standard web standards forcing web designers and websites to create the sites the way Google wants them to. But If they do start doing that, then we can all jump ship, and web designers can put their sites back to normal. The people who are running the sites are the ones with the real power.

 

And with Mozilla's $25 smartphone, I think Mozilla could easily take over the world, at least in less established countries

[Techhog]

You're right. I should totally switch to inferior products and services and give up all of my ease of use for a hypothetical future that may or may not happen and may or may not gain the attention of regulators.

 

This reminds me of being told that I should stop using cell phones and web cams due to the NSA.

[mr moose]

That's not what Citizens United and Hobby Lobby were about. Look it up.

 

Bell was still 40 years back, and even then, it's not really the same case.

 

It will be interesting to see what Time Warner Comcast turns out to be, and it will say a lot about the future of antitrust in this country.

I don't think time really matters in a legal sense, the laws regarding anti-competitive behaviour are quite well defined and precedence has been set on more than one occasion.

[bmxtricky5]

But you're willing to give up the internet's freedom to Google for that?

doesn't Google already own the internet?

[RelentlessAF]

-snip-

Your post went from relevant to an obscure religious comparison without me noticing. To be honest I was confused after reading it the first time.

[Guest]

OP, rather than you telling me to choose Firefox why not let me decide which browser to use? Contradicts the point of your post.

[Mooshi]

Chrome has less plugins, is bloated as balls, has annoying quirks such as having downloaded images clutter your lower screen unlike other browsers and stupidly creates a "(1)" copy of things you accidentally downloaded twice instead of asking if you wish to overwrite previous file like a normal browser, has no alternative to no script. Google Chrome is faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar from perfect, you'd have to be blind to think Chrome couldn't stand some improvements. Even if you have lots of ram, zero excuse for unoptimized shitty code that makes you use twice as much ram vs another browser, that's just bad programing.

 

And this is coming from someone who actually uses Chrome regularly as well as it trying Waterfox

 

*Note Waterfox doesn't have the terrible memory leak of Firefox, for those that hate Mozilla for that reason alone.

[EChondo]

There is no perfect browser. I currently use Opera and I am loving it so far. Every time I use Chrome it feels like junkware and every time I use FireFox for extended periods of time my PC bluescreens.

 

Opera has been the only browser that doesn't give me problems, except if I want to watch Vines(they just don't want to load). So I keep Chrome installed since it does "just work" and watch Vines on that.

 

This is why we have choice. If Opera wasn't around I'd try a different browser like Rock Melt. Chrome would be my third to last option(with FireFox coming second and Safari coming in last ).

[PillowSmoke]

I kinda like the opera browser. It's SUPER-fast, simple to use, and better use of bookmarks.

[jmaster299]

If Mozilla wants me to use Firefox, they need to offer a superior product and not just drum up fake fear mongering against Google. I use Firefox for many years, and was very resistant to switching to Chrome. But after giving Chrome a fair chance, it won me over because it is the better product. People also need to stop complaining about Chrome's RAM usage. I have 5 tabs open and its using less than 10MB of RAM. Just because something else uses less does not mean that what Chrome uses is "unacceptable". As Chrome does more, and performs better, than Firefox, I expect it to use more system resources.

Google is only restricting what other companies can do with Android because those companies have destroyed what Android is supposed to and are causing people to have negative experiences with the OS for no legit reason. Butchering the UI and filling a phone with bloatware does not help the consumer and is not providing the consumer with choice. The openness of the Android platform is a shining example of why its not always a good thing for companies to be open with their products. People complain that Nvidia doesn't give away all of their technology, yet its not done anyone any good that Google gave away Android to any company that wanted it.

The horror show that is Samsung's line of phones is a big reason why I've stuck with Apple for so long. Apple may be lacking in hardware features, but I never have to worry about their software being crap. Yes its very restrictive, but the quality is amazing. Google needs to start dropping the hammer on other companies that use Android and start going after app developers who are creating nothing but malware. 

[LAwLz]

As Chrome does more, and performs better, than Firefox, I expect it to use more system resources.

Please explain how Chrome "does more" and I would also like to know in what areas Chrome performs better.

 

 

Google is only restricting what other companies can do with Android because those companies have destroyed what Android is supposed to and are causing people to have negative experiences with the OS for no legit reason. Butchering the UI and filling a phone with bloatware does not help the consumer and is not providing the consumer with choice. The openness of the Android platform is a shining example of why its not always a good thing for companies to be open with their products. People complain that Nvidia doesn't give away all of their technology, yet its not done anyone any good that Google gave away Android to any company that wanted it.

I completely disagree. A ton of the things in AOSP originates from skins. Releasing Android as an open source product allowed it to not only gain market share really quickly, but it also allowed for new things to be implemented very rapidly. Instead of having 1 company try to make improvements to the product, you have 4+ companies spending time and money improving it. Quick toggles is the first thing that comes to my mind. That was introduced in TouchWiz and since then everyone has adopted it, including Apple.

When you limit third party developers you limit innovation.

 

 

The horror show that is Samsung's line of phones is a big reason why I've stuck with Apple for so long. Apple may be lacking in hardware features, but I never have to worry about their software being crap. Yes its very restrictive, but the quality is amazing. Google needs to start dropping the hammer on other companies that use Android and start going after app developers who are creating nothing but malware. 

I don't think the software on or in iOS is amazing. Far from it. It's plagued with issues and faults.

[thirdworldking]

i like frefox better than chrome

[jmaster299]

Please explain how Chrome "does more" and I would also like to know in what areas Chrome performs better.

 

 

I completely disagree. A ton of the things in AOSP originates from skins. Releasing Android as an open source product allowed it to not only gain market share really quickly, but it also allowed for new things to be implemented very rapidly. Instead of having 1 company try to make improvements to the product, you have 4+ companies spending time and money improving it. Quick toggles is the first thing that comes to my mind. That was introduced in TouchWiz and since then everyone has adopted it, including Apple.

When you limit third party developers you limit innovation.

 

 

I don't think the software on or in iOS is amazing. Far from it. It's plagued with issues and faults.

The Chrome Web Store, a one stop shop for apps and extensions. Not saying everything in the store is good, I've already stated that Google doesn't do enough to control developers, but its a resource that Firefox will never come close to matching. In terms of performance, things like HTML5 by default and the overall speed of Chrome compared to Firefox makes it a better choice.

Disagree all you want, it doesn't make what I said untrue. Google did not do enough to put restrictions in place from the start, so now everyone is crying about it after the fact. But the truth is they are necessary because its become such a huge problem. So much so that countries like South Korea, where Samsung is located, has passed laws banning a lot of the crap that Samsung has been doing.

For iOS, nothing will be perfect, but it is much easier to use and navigate then it is to deal with the thousand different UIs that you have to suffer through with Android. If all UIs were stock Android, but with the specific companies branding on it, things would be much better in terms of putting up with Android. Yes you can use more 3rd party applications, but those applications should not be necessary.

[LAwLz]

The Chrome Web Store, a one stop shop for apps and extensions. Not saying everything in the store is good, I've already stated that Google doesn't do enough to control developers, but its a resource that Firefox will never come close to matching. In terms of performance, things like HTML5 by default and the overall speed of Chrome compared to Firefox makes it a better choice.

Firefox has a "shop for apps and extensions" as well.

HTML5 by default? I don't even know what that's suppose to mean. It's like saying your car drives on roads by default.

Chrome isn't even that great in terms of performance. Not compared to Firefox or any other browser for that matter. It was only true for JavaScript back when Google launched Chrome, but like I said before even Jägermonkey outperformed Chrome. These days they are pretty even.

 

Disagree all you want, it doesn't make what I said untrue. Google did not do enough to put restrictions in place from the start, so now everyone is crying about it after the fact. But the truth is they are necessary because its become such a huge problem. So much so that countries like South Korea, where Samsung is located, has passed laws banning a lot of the crap that Samsung has been doing.

But I don't think what you are saying is true. It's an opinion and I think it's a bad opinion. Yes I dislike preloaded apps/bloatware as well, but you have to take the bad with the good. The reason Android is so good today is because manufacturers were allowed to tinker and put their own spin on it. If Google had put the restrictions in place from day one I doubt that Android would be anywhere near as good as it is today. I think putting restrictions on things is always always a bad idea. It hinders innovation and progress.

 

 

 

For iOS, nothing will be perfect, but it is much easier to use and navigate then it is to deal with the thousand different UIs that you have to suffer through with Android. If all UIs were stock Android, but with the specific companies branding on it, things would be much better in terms of putting up with Android. Yes you can use more 3rd party applications, but those applications should not be necessary.

Thousands of different UIs? Do you mean in apps (apps on iOS has different UIs as well) or do you mean different Android skins? If you're talking about the skins then you're not making a fair comparison. You can't say company X, which has 1 product is more consistent than product Y which like 10 different companies has products using. You have to compare brand to brand, or phone to phone. You can't say Apple has a more consistent GUI if you're going to bundle all other manufacturers together. It's like saying going from a 2012 VW Golf to a 2013 VW Gold is more consistent than going from a Ford Focus to a Mazda2.

[jmaster299]

You don't know that Chrome uses HTML5 by default instead of Flash whenever possible? As far as everything else, you are not making any valid counterpoints to what I said. I've already acknowledged the shortcomings of Apple, but I will always take a closed system that works flawlessly and is easier to use over an open system where every Tom, Dick and Jane can shit all over it however they like. It can never be said that its not a problem when countries have had to go out of their way to make the practice of it a crime.

[ZeroBreaker]

The Chrome Web Store, a one stop shop for apps and extensions. Not saying everything in the store is good, I've already stated that Google doesn't do enough to control developers, but its a resource that Firefox will never come close to matching. In terms of performance, things like HTML5 by default and the overall speed of Chrome compared to Firefox makes it a better choice.

 

Never come close to matching.

 

 

 

Mate you must have crawled out from under a rock very recently, mozilla's was pretty much the first major successful extension/app store the internet had seen. You clearly have never touched firefox, and this with your lack of evidence to back up your points makes your comments useless and misinformed so please, stop.

 

Sincerely resisting urge to comment on your profile pic because everyone is entitled to an opinion but my god are you misinformed

[jmaster299]

Mate you must have crawled out from under a rock very recently, mozilla's was pretty much the first major successful extension/app store the internet had seen. You clearly have never touched firefox, and this with your lack of evidence to back up your points makes your comments useless and misinformed so please, stop.

I used Firefox for almost a decade before switching to Chrome. So don't try to act like you know anything about what I've used. What Firefox has looks like a child's attempt at copying their daddy's work. For those of us old enough to remember, if you wanted an app for Firefox, you had to get it from a 3rd party site. The add-ons you could get directly through Firefox were extremely limited until the last couple of years.

More people use Chrome because its better. More people use Nvidia because they are better. This isn't like Windows where there are no alternatives that actually work with every common program in existence. If Firefox was as good as you are trying to claim, millions of people would not have ditched it to use Chrome instead.

Google didn't force me to use Chrome because I don't own an Android device. But every time I have to fix an Android device for a friend or family member I want to cut my wrists.

 

[maximilian4o]

But you're willing to give up the internet's freedom to Google for that?

But.... we still have Internet Explorer. Wait... WHAT ?

[ZeroBreaker]

I used Firefox for almost a decade before switching to Chrome. So don't try to act like you know anything about what I've used. What Firefox has looks like a child's attempt at copying their daddy's work. For those of us old enough to remember, if you wanted an app for Firefox, you had to get it from a 3rd party site. The add-ons you could get directly through Firefox were extremely limited until the last couple of years.

More people use Chrome because its better. More people use Nvidia because they are better. This isn't like Windows where there are no alternatives that actually work with every common program in existence. If Firefox was as good as you are trying to claim, millions of people would not have ditched it to use Chrome instead.

Google didn't force me to use Chrome because I don't own an Android device. But every time I have to fix an Android device for a friend or family member I want to cut my wrists.

 

 

...no. Where on earth have you got this idea? before chrome took off, i remember clearly that the firefox system of theming (now personas) and add ons from their store (which may have required a restart, but numbered in their thousands) decimated anything from competitors. And in regards to apps, no. Im referring to add ons that provided extra functionality like cooliris (if anyone remembers) and were available in the store. Anything approved by firefox was available in the store, which was what i was talking about - I don't remember a time where there was ever a lack of add ons, nor do I remember any real competition, because no one could best them - it was only when it started to stagnate and become noticably bloated as a core package that chrome stepped in and forced firefox to become what it is today, the fast and customisable alternative rather than the only good choice.

And people ditched firefox when it was slower. It is now either on par or, experimentally, faster, and thanks to misinformed comments by people like yourself it will soon get to the same position firefox was once in, and i.e before it, where it will stagnate. However, unlike microsoft or mozilla, google in that position controls almost everything people assosciate with technology - smartphones, web searches, browsers, tablets, and possibly social networks (g+ is genuinely a good product and when facebook slips i imagine it will become the no. 1 choice for people). Hence we could justify calling this a monopoly, and in a monopoly we know full well that competition is very difficult to start up, and google could get away with pretty much anything.

 

All that is being suggested is people re-evaluate and choose the product that actually suits them better, rather than what they have been led to believe suits them better. Firefox currently is chrome but with proper customisation. Hence such a possible end result could be avoided, and we would all be better off if people actually used their brains.

But clearly that is too much to ask of you.