http://www.ghacks.net/2016/01/06/surprise-40-of-firefox-users-dont-use-add-ons
That blog speaks for itself. And as i am lazy as fuck, i quote one guy from there:
>Lestat January 6, 2016 at 1:31 pm # Interesting. The normal reason when someone starts to ask if people actually use something, that usually means a decision making process is started about justifying to axe a feature or not. What that means, should be totally clear without any trace of a possible misunderstanding.
One thing for sure, that way Mozilla would beat Chrome finally in simplictiy if they would really thinking about axing add-ons.
Then they would get all Chrome users and Mozilla would be the winner.
The only problem is that this will never happening, no add-ons, no Chrome users are using Firefox.
I'm kind of surprised it's that high desu
>>52273472
or low rather*
I'm surprised so many people installed addons
>>52273472
Yeah. And looking in telemetry features, this could lead Mozilla to axe add-on support as a whole.
They argued already countless of times that way and every time things have been killed afterwards.
Seems they have not as much money available anymore than they are constantly telling the public
>chrome and edge are faster
B-B-BUT MUH ADDONS
>mozarella cut addon
B-B-BUT MUH SOCIAL DIVERSITY
>bazingilla hire only black trans homo
>>52273545
Doubt it that's about the only defining feature of Firefox. Considering how many people are using them it would be a colossally stupid move. The couple of features they have argued for removing in the past were used by very few people.
>>52273652
Customization was used by tons of people. That only was removed in favoring simple users.
>40% of Firefox users don’t use add-ons
idk why don't we remove addons WHAT'S THE WORST THAT COULD HAPPEN
>>52273652
In fact most users of Firefox have been power users. Granted, most of them have left ship after Australis, but at that earlier point it has been the majority of users.
And Mozilla still acted against the majority.
>>52272840
Mozilla won't best Chrome in simplicity, period. All they will do is alienate their userbase. The 40 percent of users who don't use any addons are not particularly concerned about what browser they are using. They use Firefox now because that's what the IT guy in the family told them to use instead of IE, 10 years ago. The remaining 60 percent (the majority) are using Firefox because they don't want to use Chrome.
>>52272743
i'll just switch to chrome.
firefox's fucked up in more than one way anyway.
>>52273786
Better to switch to Otter browser or Qutebrowser. Or if you insist on switchting to closed source, switch at least to Vivaldi. Google botnet is not recommended at all. So Chrome origin is the worst choice to switch to.
Indeed, if I wasn't using add-ons, I might as well have switched to Chrome already.
Bravo Mozilla.
guys, srs, what is the point of still using firefox? Are they slowly becoming irrelevant? Are they slowly killing themselves?
>>52273866
Problem is, for many people it is the only alternative so far. There is no really polished replacement so far.
But once QTWebengine is out and add-on support is available in Otter, Qupzilla or Qutebrowser, people have a reason to switch. We are almost there, but not fully yet.
>firefox drops addons
>firefox userbase drops by 60%
>retarded SJW's don't understand what they did wrong I mean its $CURRENT_YEAR and they have a diverse team how could they do any wrong
>>52273678
>>52273707
It's not happening stop fear-mongering. Explain to me this, if they want to reach parity with chrome which has addons why would they remove addons?
>>52273925
>developers only know nodejs
>in charge of actual productivity
Mozilla's marketshare continues to drop. They're now down to single digits.
YOU THINK THEY'D TAKE THE HINT AND REVERSE DIRECTION
>>52273928
You remember they are in a neverending contest with Chrome about simplicity and minimalism - There is a high number of users which do not use add-ons, not only in Firefox, also in Chrome, which - thanks to the higher market share is much higher than in Firefox.
Removing add-on support from Firefox could be tempting that users to switch just because Firefox has less evil botnet and more security features.
Mozilla sees that possible as a win-win possibility.
I don't know what to do, I use firefox, I like it a lot because it's customizable but they've been fucking up for years, I will never switch to chrome, I don't like it, it's a shit browser that forces me to use it in a way that I don't enjoy, what other options do we have?
>>52273978
wtf, you can use firefox without addons anyway? Why would the lack of addons suddenly attract people?
>>52274005
I've gone for chromium
>>52273978
They're not removing addons.
>>52273786
Chromium/Vivaldi, brah. Opera's fine, too (it's more stable than vivaldi)
>>52273928
And Mozilla wants to beat Chrome in minimalism and simplicty anyway and they want these days most attractive for simple users, who only care about DRM movies, social networking or chat features.
That kind of users do not need add-ons, if Mozilla would remove support totally and scraps Webextensions they would lose tons of dead weight.
Or, they could just make Webextensions thanks to that user research even more simple and drop the plan to create additional API which would enhance that new concept.
>>52272743
Mozilla is trying to turn Firefox into Chrome.
What they don't realize is that when Firefox becomes Chrome, there will be no reason to use Firefox over Chrome.
Or, more likely, they know this and this is their true intention.
>>52274005
Chromium based browsers which add customization, or browsers which will have QTWebengine. Both solutions are Google botnet free.
>>52274028
Chromium is just like chrome.
>>52274057
no botnet
>>52273978
>removing addons
>security
Come on, they aren't this stupid. Addons aren't going anywhere.
What's with the constant shitposting against Firefox on this board?
>>52274033
Opera new has almost no customization. It is almost as worse as Chrome.
>>52274087
Because Mozilla turned into a shit company which is aping Google Chrome?
You guys are too easily manipulated, read the bug report it's in reference to e10s. Mozilla wants to know how many people will be affected by e10s' rollout in the coming months and how many people wont be.
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1229949
Addons are the biggest source of problems with rolling out e10s.
This has NOTHING to do with removing addons.
>>52274129
shhhhhhh... let them fight
>>52274087
If you are not honoring values like being unique and special and try to be mainstream and lame and throw away all your strength, then you earn it that people do shit posting about you.
A company which refuses to be special and much more advanced than the competition and wants to be equal as limited and stupid.. Such a company ears no respect.
Is there a legit reason as to why everyone uses chrome over firefox? In my experiance ff is faster and more user friendly and has better addons. I just dont get it.
>>52274129
And you fall for every double-speech of Googlezilla.
Mozilla is the same way as trustworthy as Google these days. Which means you can believe zero in what they tell the public/what they allow the public to read.
>>52274182
Better add-osn are going soon, E10 will also increase memory usage of Firefox, and all the changes for Chrome parity will remove what is left of Firefox being special against Chrome.
>>52274182
Chrome is bundleware, a lot of programs install it if you don't pay attention and then it makes itself the default web browser so people will use it eventually.
>>52274182
I used to use chromium and I found firefox a lot slower when I started to use it. It uses less memory but opening tabs/switching tabs is sometimes slower.
>>52274034
God, why must we simplify tech?
Just look at the last 20 or so years.
>Win 95 > 98 > ME > XP (holy shit! that fucking blue, and that fucking embossing!) > Longhorn (a clusterfuck) > Vista (really nice change, it probably inspired the skeumorphic wave a few years ago) > 7 (like Vista, but slightly simpler) > 8 (metro everywhere, dumbed-down flat icons, no start menu (!!!), Windows 10 (flat, black window color can't be changed, the flat icons here look worse than the ones in the old windows versions)
>Android
whatever they were using until 2.2 > Gingerbread (aw yiss, that black was refreshing!) > Tron-inspired Holo (the best stage in Android's history, IMO. Content density is higher than pre-holo and material design, it's (good!) minimal.) > Material (the animations have "weight" behind them, but in practice, it's implemented badly, and it often has extremely low content density)
>>52272743
It's a bit like:
>only 60% of people have penises
>let's stop putting urinals in new buildings
>>52274392
Hey, that would fit Mozilla's vision exactly. Because they are anti-male and all for diversity aka gays, lesbians or some otherwise retarded SJW spin-offs
The cuckening continues!
What now wite boi?
>>52274455
>tfw closet trans
>tfw sjw shit means i'll never leave the closet
Why must you be so cruel, lord?
>>52272840
>Then they would get all Chrome users and Mozilla would be the winner.
plebs are too stupid to assess the simplicity of a browser. Google drives the browser on the masses computers, and it stays there.
>>52274005
Bide your time with Pale Moon until Otter Browser becomes complete.
>>52274526
That is only Mozilla's dreamworld. Of course it is clear from the start that this daydream shatters like glass on the floor in the end.
Only Mozilla believes in wonders, there are no realists anymore on board.
