Where's Firefox going next?

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Performance, stability, and startup issues

  • Several Linux users report Firefox going compute/disk‑bound for seconds or minutes on startup, sometimes tied to very old or corrupted profiles or spinning disks; others say it starts quickly even with thousands of tabs, implying highly system‑ or profile‑dependent behavior.
  • Some Ubuntu users see UI bugs (tab close buttons not working, hamburger menu dead, stuck downloads), with speculation that Snap/Flatpak packaging and corrupted profiles are major culprits.
  • Others say Firefox is rock‑solid and fast on multiple OSes, and that when it’s slow it’s almost always due to profiles, extensions, or distro packaging.

Extensions, power features, and security

  • Many want Firefox to focus on core performance + standards and let extensions handle customization, but there’s tension over how limited WebExtensions are vs. old XUL add‑ons.
  • Old extension system is remembered as incredibly powerful but also fragile, insecure, and a blocker for multi‑process and Spectre mitigations; several defend its removal as painful but necessary.
  • Others argue Mozilla underdelivered on promised replacement APIs (e.g., keyboard shortcuts, UI control like vimperator, tray icons, tab groups), and that power users were abandoned.
  • Strong split on extensions as a security risk: some advocate minimal, recommend‑only installs; others argue adblockers are essential for security/privacy despite their power.

Privacy, ads, discovery, and AI

  • Many want Firefox to double down on privacy, adblocking, and resisting Google’s MV3 ad‑tech direction; MV2 support/uBlock Origin is seen as its main differentiator.
  • Some are disturbed by built‑in advertising/telemetry features (e.g., “privacy‑preserving ad measurement”) and see Mozilla as drifting into ad‑tech.
  • Debate over discovery: a few want recommendation feeds or algorithmic replacement for RSS; others vehemently oppose “you may also like” noise and data collection.
  • One camp wants a built‑in, fully local AI agent for browsing/summarization; another rejects any “AI slop” in the browser.

Web standards & compatibility

  • A subset of users left Firefox because key standards lagged (e.g., WebGPU, import maps) or because too many sites (forms, CAPTCHAs, streaming, games) broke vs. Chrome.
  • Standards governance is debated: some see “web standards” as Google‑driven; others note Mozilla still participates and sometimes opposes Chrome‑backed proposals.
  • WebUSB/WebSerial are a flashpoint: embedded/hardware users want them to avoid Chrome; security‑minded users say these APIs are inherently dangerous and support Mozilla’s refusal.

Platform tech and rendering

  • Wishes include: full Vulkan rendering, better Wayland and VA‑API integration (especially on Ubuntu), hardware video encode support, and renewed investment in Servo/Rust “oxidation.”
  • Others stress keeping X11/remote use cases workable, pushing back on fully dropping legacy stacks.

UX, Android, and configuration

  • Android Firefox gets heavy criticism: perceived slowness, cramped URL bar with many icons, tab explosion, private‑mode tab loss, and inability to hide certain buttons.
  • Desktop UX complaints: fragmented history views, messy bookmark hierarchies, lack of profile UX like Chrome, difficulty using containers in private mode, and reliance on about:config for important settings.
  • Many like new vertical tabs and tab groups, though power users still prefer Sidebery/TST‑style hierarchies; native vertical tabs are praised for hiding the top tab bar and having a “collapsed icon” mode.

Mozilla’s role, funding, and trust

  • There’s deep cynicism about Mozilla’s relationship with Google: some think Firefox is effectively an “antitrust sponge” funded to exist but not truly compete; others call that unfair conspiracy thinking.
  • CEO compensation vs. public donations triggers strong backlash; some see donations as de‑facto subsidizing executive pay instead of Firefox engineering, and have stopped donating.
  • Others argue Mozilla is uniquely positioned as non‑Google, non‑Apple, non‑Microsoft, and that killing it would only strengthen ad‑driven platforms.

Desired strategic direction

  • Common asks:
    • Make Firefox leaner, faster, and more memory‑efficient; fix long‑standing bugs and regressions before new experiments.
    • Prioritize privacy, tracking protection, and first‑class adblocking; keep extensions viable and powerful enough to differentiate.
    • Avoid UI gimmicks, intrusive onboarding (e.g., Colorways), and “infantilizing” marketing like animal‑style surveys; communicate more candidly and technically.
    • Expose more APIs so third‑party browsers (Zen, Floorp, etc.) can innovate on UX while Mozilla focuses on Gecko performance and standards compliance.