Right, I had an option to choose it (I think I chose device default, though I'm not exactly sure what it means on Windows but I assume it's like "system theme" on Android).
The whiplash from seeing that selectable on my screen to seeing someone claim it's not there in the same 60 seconds is really something.
There's a lot of HN users who are just absolutely furious about Firefox and will jump into any thread to scream about how much they hate it and everyone involved in making it. The heat behind the complaints is so out of proportion it would be comical if they weren't targeting real people. It's baffling to me the scale of negativity people have to this actually pretty good piece of software existing in an unbelievably hostile product space.
> The heat behind the complaints is so out of proportion
You're talking about a browser that has shed about 92% of its userbase since its peak. Firefox was never a default or a pushed selection, people were drawn to adopt it because they wanted it, and almost all of them were alienated and confused by the decisions that the browser made and continues to make.
In trying to make sense out of this own goal, they see the massive payments from google to firefox, they see firefox intervening in google's antitrust case, they see executives being paid an enormous amount of money for continuous failure, and they watch the slide continue. To see these and avoid understanding this as firefox taking a dive (that should be illegal, would be nice if we had antitrust) is a sort of blindness. It's also not to be blamed on some UI designer who just got there a few years ago - those red herring "real people" - these are corporate decisions.
If I invested with you, and you lost 92% of my money, there's no degree of heat that would be out of proportion.
> unbelievably hostile product space.
If you're subsidized a half-billion a year from your biggest competitor, and you started with a browser that was probably 35% of the market at peak, there is nothing hostile about this product space. It is the easiest job in the world. Especially if the job is to fail.
> almost all of them were alienated and confused by the decisions that the browser made and continues to make.
I don't think so. I've never been alienated by it. It's a browser. It does browser things. It's fine.
What decisions have confused and alienated you? People in this thread are screaming bloody murder because of a couple pixels on tab bar and a low-contrast gradient. This isn't a rational reaction to a minor graphical tweak, it's bonkers hysterics.
It turns out it's really tough to compete with one of the largest companies in the world when they are very highly motivated to capture as many users as they can (unlike Microsoft around the turn of the millennium). I think there are things Firefox could do to recapture the audience[1], but I also don't think turning the tabs into pills or whatever justifies the kind of language being used in this thread.
[1] I think implementing new popup blocking would generate some real positive conversation: <a href="https://www.smokingonabike.com/2025/12/31/web-browsers-have-stopped-blocking-pop-ups/" rel="nofollow">https://www.smokingonabike.com/2025/12/31/web-browsers-have-...
Where's the 92% coming from? As far as I can tell the peak monthly active users was about 500 million [1] and they're currently at 208 million [2]. If they had shed 92% of their userbase I would expect their active users to be around 40 million. And if we're talking the past few years, they have lost users, but six years ago they were sitting at 231 million compared to today's 208 million, which if my calculator is correct, is a 11% loss not 92%.
The inconvenient fact for these anti-Mozilla narratives is that most of those losses were in the 2010s before any of the side bets that people point to. The side bets era is approximately the 2020s, and the big market share losses were approximately in the 2010s, and so the side bets couldn't retroactively have caused the market share losses, and the actual market share losses of the 2020s are real but not consistent with the hysterical narratives that come out in the hn comment sections.
And the other inconvenient fact for these polemics is that actual driver of market share change is Google's dominant position as the world's most visited website and as a distributor that gets to pick the default browser on more than one billion Android devices and counting.
When Microsoft Edge grew it's market share, it wasn't because users A|B tested it against Firefox and found it more preferable, it's because it was a preinstalled default that gained ground over device churn. When Opera had practically the perfect browser in 2011-2012, they didn't conquer the world. When Mozilla did their massive quantum overhaul that delivered huge advances in performance and stability, their market share continued to decline. There are natural experiments left right and center testing the claim that market share is a perfect 1 for 1 response to changes in browser design, and so far they've failed to confirm that hypothesis.
Meanwhile the accusation seems to change on a nightly basis. Yesterday someone was outraged that anyone would dispute that average users don't care about any of this, they just want whatever browser is in front of them as long as it's fast and stable enough (so they claimed). Today, you've tagged in to claim users are hyperfocused on the minutia of Mozilla's design decisions on a day to day basis. Tomorrow somebody's going to claim it's really about something else. The only thing these competing explanations have in common besides hysterical exaggeration, is that they rely on unverified Trust Me Bro stories that never address the inconvenient fact that Google's distribution advantage is the primary driver of market share change. It feels like recreational outrage.
hattar · · focus · HN ↗
Improve Adblock capabilities, better tab and session management, improve sync, improve site css and js management, built in dark-mode.
Hell, just look at the list of most used extensions, it’s a great place to start understanding what users want.
coldpie · · focus · HN ↗
It has built-in dark mode, check out the Themes in your settings.
glenstein · · focus · HN ↗
The whiplash from seeing that selectable on my screen to seeing someone claim it's not there in the same 60 seconds is really something.
coldpie · · focus · HN ↗
pessimizer · · focus · HN ↗
You're talking about a browser that has shed about 92% of its userbase since its peak. Firefox was never a default or a pushed selection, people were drawn to adopt it because they wanted it, and almost all of them were alienated and confused by the decisions that the browser made and continues to make.
In trying to make sense out of this own goal, they see the massive payments from google to firefox, they see firefox intervening in google's antitrust case, they see executives being paid an enormous amount of money for continuous failure, and they watch the slide continue. To see these and avoid understanding this as firefox taking a dive (that should be illegal, would be nice if we had antitrust) is a sort of blindness. It's also not to be blamed on some UI designer who just got there a few years ago - those red herring "real people" - these are corporate decisions.
If I invested with you, and you lost 92% of my money, there's no degree of heat that would be out of proportion.
> unbelievably hostile product space.
If you're subsidized a half-billion a year from your biggest competitor, and you started with a browser that was probably 35% of the market at peak, there is nothing hostile about this product space. It is the easiest job in the world. Especially if the job is to fail.
coldpie · · focus · HN ↗
I don't think so. I've never been alienated by it. It's a browser. It does browser things. It's fine.
What decisions have confused and alienated you? People in this thread are screaming bloody murder because of a couple pixels on tab bar and a low-contrast gradient. This isn't a rational reaction to a minor graphical tweak, it's bonkers hysterics.
It turns out it's really tough to compete with one of the largest companies in the world when they are very highly motivated to capture as many users as they can (unlike Microsoft around the turn of the millennium). I think there are things Firefox could do to recapture the audience[1], but I also don't think turning the tabs into pills or whatever justifies the kind of language being used in this thread.
[1] I think implementing new popup blocking would generate some real positive conversation: <a href="https://www.smokingonabike.com/2025/12/31/web-browsers-have-stopped-blocking-pop-ups/" rel="nofollow">https://www.smokingonabike.com/2025/12/31/web-browsers-have-...
glenstein · · focus · HN ↗
1. <a href="https://venturebeat.com/dev/firefox-on-fire-with-500m-users-and-50m-android-downloads-for-2013" rel="nofollow">https://venturebeat.com/dev/firefox-on-fire-with-500m-users-...
2. <a href="https://data.firefox.com/dashboard/user-activity" rel="nofollow">https://data.firefox.com/dashboard/user-activity
The inconvenient fact for these anti-Mozilla narratives is that most of those losses were in the 2010s before any of the side bets that people point to. The side bets era is approximately the 2020s, and the big market share losses were approximately in the 2010s, and so the side bets couldn't retroactively have caused the market share losses, and the actual market share losses of the 2020s are real but not consistent with the hysterical narratives that come out in the hn comment sections.
And the other inconvenient fact for these polemics is that actual driver of market share change is Google's dominant position as the world's most visited website and as a distributor that gets to pick the default browser on more than one billion Android devices and counting.
When Microsoft Edge grew it's market share, it wasn't because users A|B tested it against Firefox and found it more preferable, it's because it was a preinstalled default that gained ground over device churn. When Opera had practically the perfect browser in 2011-2012, they didn't conquer the world. When Mozilla did their massive quantum overhaul that delivered huge advances in performance and stability, their market share continued to decline. There are natural experiments left right and center testing the claim that market share is a perfect 1 for 1 response to changes in browser design, and so far they've failed to confirm that hypothesis.
Meanwhile the accusation seems to change on a nightly basis. Yesterday someone was outraged that anyone would dispute that average users don't care about any of this, they just want whatever browser is in front of them as long as it's fast and stable enough (so they claimed). Today, you've tagged in to claim users are hyperfocused on the minutia of Mozilla's design decisions on a day to day basis. Tomorrow somebody's going to claim it's really about something else. The only thing these competing explanations have in common besides hysterical exaggeration, is that they rely on unverified Trust Me Bro stories that never address the inconvenient fact that Google's distribution advantage is the primary driver of market share change. It feels like recreational outrage.