Yes- so it's important that devs don't build primarily for Chrome. If we succumb to this temptation, then the demise of the web will be our fault. Consumers don't care. They are going to use the one that is most convenient to make work correctly.
OK for 'us'. But what about my mum and dad? What's the reason for them to use Firefox over Chrome? They don't care about the web being destroyed by Google and Apple. They care about... a smooth experience, I guess? They moved to Chrome from IE because of a very poor experience on IE.
Chrome is amazing. Having most people switching away is a hard sell. I honestly think Brave has a more compelling selling point here, even if privacy is not something that sells as well as it should, meaning its adoption will be limited to early adopters / privacy-aware individuals only.
I agree with the other comments, it's our duty to ensure other browsers still exist, we can't let Chrome have it all, but we need more than obscure features to turn it around.
Why does Brave have a more compelling sell? What does it offer that could be sold to users as a feature they need? I wouldn't know how to explain Brave compellingly, unless I'm using some of the same arguments I use for Firefox (which are weakened in Brave's case due to using the same engine as Chrome).
On the other hand, explaining Firefox seems easy. People around me seem receptive to both privacy and closed garden concerns. I explain to them how their data is used if they do not take precautionary measures to prevent it. I also tell them that the web they know and love will get increasingly suffocated and rot away under the pressure of Google which has no concern for them or their needs. I tell them about Google's recent efforts to prevent ad-blockers from working well. I also mention other malicious tactics, such as AMP and the effort to hide the URL.
I then set up uBlock Origin (making a point it's the best ad-blocker but will stop working on Chrome shortly), Facebook Container and Multi-account Containers for a few of the most obnoxious websites. Multi-account Containers has a setting to make the association of a particular domain with a container permanent[+]. I give them a short introduction to containers and teach them to recognize when a website is open in a particular container (there's an indicator in the URL bar).
This works in my experience. It sticks. They continue using Firefox and at times even spread the idea to their social circle. It helps that in recent times concerns about Google, Chrome and computer surveillance are talked about in their regular news channels, so that I am not the only source where they hear about this.
> They care about... a smooth experience, I guess?
Ask them again. Try to understand their preference well enough that you can explain it clearly.
I am quite confident that they don't actually care about anything Chrome has to offer at all[@]. They're simply used to the colourful circle icon because they are being bombarded by it everywhere. It's the same as with IE before, only this time around it's a colourful circle instead of a blue 'e'.
> Chrome is amazing. Having most people switching away is a hard sell.
Firefox is amazing (in a technical sense) too. It's just as smooth as Chrome for me and sometimes even smoother since I'm a heavy tab user. I dislike some of Mozilla's decisions as well, but this takes a backseat to the more pressing issue of vendor lock-in given that there is no mainstream alternative.
[+] This could use a bit of UI work. After you assign a website to a container, you have to open the website in another container so that it asks you whether you always want to open that website in that container (it's a checkbox).
[@] As a disclaimer, I'm just extrapolating from my experience. Perhaps your parents are an exception and they do have a strong preference for a Chrome-only feature. If so, this is a useful thing to learn.
When I read your comment, the main thing that came to my mind to explain my point about Brave was their Shield and Rewards features. That's what's top of mind for me.
I checked my Firefox window and realized that they have a Shield-like feature too. Oops.
To me, Firefox's main features are the underlying foundation, and the fact they are the main Chrome contender — the rest are nuances addressed to power-users. Containers. Frankly, it's too complex for a regular user [0] who, as you say, just click on what they have been used to clicking onto.
I'm having a hard time justifying my point further about Brave than by contradicting myself around the fact privacy alone is a weak selling point... Brave is all in on privacy, they have a really clear message about it, and regular users will understand better from their website that the browser natively blocks ads [1] and more importantly why e.g.:
> As a user, access to your web activity and data is sold to the highest bidder. Internet giants grow rich, while publishers go out of business. And the entire system is rife with ad fraud.
Comparatively, Firefox's homepage lacks details. The features are listed, but why are they useful to me... not sure. e.g.:
> Automatic privacy is here. Download Firefox to block over 2000 trackers.
> Firefox shows you how many data-collecting trackers are blocked with Enhanced Tracking Protection.
I understand both statements, but someone external to tech/ad tech will probably not see that as worth unless an expert explains why they should use that browser, exactly as you explained.
> Frankly, it's too complex for a regular user [0] who, as you say, just click on what they have been used to clicking onto.
Yes, but it's at least possible to configure it for them so that it will be out of their way but still work as intended. What remains is to package these presets into installable add-ons, which is already happening to some extent in the form of "S container" add-ons where S is a popular web service. For instance, Facebook Container (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/facebook-cont...) from Mozilla.
I think it would be even better if there was a generic add-on in style of uBlock Origin which allowed downloading such container presets from some kind of repository.
⁂
On your other point, I agree that the message on Brave's website is more effective, in the sense of being more visceral and producing stronger emotions.
I also switched to Firefox a year ago or so, and I liked Chrome accounts better than Firefox containers. I ended up to using them at all and mixing everything, while on Chrome work and personal was cleanly separated.
> Preventing the web from devolving into a closed garden. For this we need alternative browser engines and hence Brave does not make the cut.
1. all web engines are open source
2. we had multiple engines. it didn't work out, at all. user experience was thrown out the window, technologies weren't implemented, the web was massively fragmented.
3. we're now trying to have a single open source engine that everyone contributes to since it's better for everyone's experience.
> 3. we're now trying to have a single open source engine that everyone contributes to since it's better for everyone's experience.
We are not trying that at all. The experience is perfectly fine with our currently existing multiple engines.
> 1. all web engines are open source
This does not matter much if your goal is to maintain a single engine. What matters is control of software releases.
In order to maintain a web which is not exclusively controlled by a single entity, the releases need to be controlled by more than a single entity. This sounds like a tautology because it almost is one.
The only thing the free software aspect helps with is that it is easier to assume control of the releases, but as soon as you do this, you've forked the engine and there are now multiple engines. Hence, there is actually no way of maintaining a single engine while also decentralizing control. Short of Google relinquishing control of Chrome and forming some kind of international browser development committee, but that sounds like a creature from nightmares and is yet again a central point of failure.
Everyone can contribute to chromium/blink but only one side calls the shots.
In other words you can contribute all you want as long as it fulfills google's needs.
Of course you can fork it and do it your way but then you will be left behind since you need massive man power to be able to do development on your own.
1. It doesn't matter. When Google decides to implement something (or doesn't), Edge, Brave, Chrome etc. will get this feature (or lack thereof). Only Safari and Firefox will be different. As an independent developer you don't have any say about this in a Blink-only system.
2. That's what the WHATWG is about. No more -moz, -ie, -webkit prefixes, just agree on a standard and implement it.
3. It's not truly open. Google has the last say. Do you want a Google-only internet? Just look at the recent ad-block controversy.
Preventing the web from devolving into a closed garden. For this we need alternative browser engines and hence Brave does not make the cut.
Other than that, containers are a pretty useful tool that's so far Firefox only.