Mozilla's latest quagmire

Why Firefox Beat IE, and How Chrome Took Over

• Several commenters dispute the article’s “respect and agency” framing, arguing Firefox won because IE stagnated: poor standards support, no tabs, rampant popups, ActiveX-driven spyware.
• Others insist Firefox really was better: tabs, extensions, built‑in popup blocking, Firebug and dev tools that made web development vastly easier.
• Chrome’s rise is attributed to: speed (JIT JavaScript, multi‑process sandboxing), strong dev tools from day one, huge marketing spend, bundling in installers, and platform leverage (YouTube’s anti‑IE nudging).
• There’s debate over whether Firefox ever truly “beat” IE in market share, with some pointing to Microsoft’s OS bundling and antitrust history skewing the metrics.

AI Features in Firefox: Optional Convenience or Hostile Design?

• One side: AI chat sidebar and related features are optional, easy to close, and stay gone. Some AI uses (e.g. local models for PDF image alt‑text) are seen as legitimately helpful and privacy‑respecting.
• Opposing view: AI is enabled by default, surfaces in right‑click menus, highlights and tab groups, and requires scattered about:config flags to disable fully. This is viewed as user‑hostile and disrespectful of prior opt‑outs.
• Concerns include: hallucinated content altering what users see, silent transmission of sensitive data to third‑party LLMs, inability to add local/self‑hosted endpoints via the UI, and lack of a single “kill switch” for all AI.

Mozilla’s Strategy, Mission Drift, and User Base

• Some argue Mozilla largely achieved its original mission (standards‑compliant, open‑engine web) and is now in a “post‑victory” identity crisis, trend‑chasing with Pocket, crypto flirtations, and now AI.
• Many feel Mozilla abandoned its core power‑user/evangelist base by simplifying, removing advanced features (e.g. XUL ecosystem, Panorama), and copying Chrome without Chrome’s marketing muscle.
• Others counter that Firefox must evolve or wither; it’s already niche, and appealing only to AI‑averse users may be strategically limiting.
• Mozilla is criticized as behaving like a corporate “search traffic vendor” overly dependent on Google, with bloated leadership and extensive telemetry that’s non‑trivial to disable.

Broader Reflections

• Some see heavy criticism of Firefox as misdirected, given that Chromium‑based browsers are often more user‑hostile.
• Others have moved to hardened forks (Librewolf, Mullvad Browser, Zen) and wish they could fund “just Firefox” separate from the rest of Mozilla.
• There’s nostalgia for the era when Firefox (and XUL) felt like a true hacker’s browser, and regret that Mozilla didn’t capitalize on opportunities like Firefox OS or a first‑class app platform akin to Electron.