I don't even know what this is, but I must say, AI features don't seem to be improving the web experience, so anything AI related is usually not worth keeping (as far as I know, maybe there is something I haven't considered).
Mozilla seems to be going down a lot of rather futile side-paths, if you know what I mean. Nobody asked for this? Just make Firefox a better browser, work on the web standards I guess, do the things people actually need.
The only AI thing Mozilla added that I thought was genuinely useful, was on device language translation. Being able to read foreign language pages without feeding your browsing history into Google Translate is pretty cool.
But that's the only thing I've liked, and they keep killing projects that were genuinely useful and worth paying for (Pocket, Firefox Send).
One other "AI" thing that I really liked came before the LLM boom. Mozilla made a speech-to-text engine called [DeepSpeech](<a href="https://github.com/mozilla/DeepSpeech" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/mozilla/DeepSpeech) for running on-device when you use dictation in the browser. Apparently, it was discontinued last year, so I'm not sure what they use now.
Having tried using it, stuff like whisper.cpp even like 4 years ago is leaps and bounds better in terms of output quality so I imagine they didn't see any reason to continue it.
> Nobody asked for this? Just make Firefox a better browser, work on the web standards I guess, do the things people actually need.
That's what I wish they would do too. But, realistically, that stuff doesn't actually pay the bills. How many Firefox users actually pay for it? So I'm not surprised that they're thrashing around trying to find some way to make money beyond Google paying them for the search bar.
Mozilla is already Google's charity project. They squandered Firefox's marketshare and there's really no reason for Google to pay them as much as they do at the moment, other than to pretend there's competition in browser engines and it's not just Chrome + Safari.
That then begs the question: how much does Mozilla really need?
The AI push and all of their little side-projects that no one asked for are pushes to make money that they arguably wouldn't need to make if they stopped with their little side-projects.
I know that there's a bit of for-profit/non-profit mix going on with the corporate structure of Mozilla. Ultimately, if you make free software, just stick with the non-profit side of things. Make browser improvements, update documentation. That's it. That's all that Mozilla needs to do.
> Mozilla seems to be going down a lot of rather futile side-paths, if you know what I mean
This has a been a pattern for Mozilla for a long time. I think part of the reason reason is they are trying to find a way to make money that isn't dependent on a search deal with Google. But most of their attempts end up not being something people actually want and/or what they make isn't actually good enough to draw people. But even when they make something decent, like Lockwise and Send, they seem to lose interest and give it up.
>Just make Firefox a better browser, work on the web standards I guess, do the things people actually need.
This accusation seriously has to stop. They're constantly pushing performance improvements (most recently they've made their PDF viewer more efficient and found some efficiencies with images), they push millions of lines of new code every year on a rapid release cycle with an extremely rapid release cadence throughout the year in the release notes for every updated version go deep on the weeds for everything from CSS fixes to performance improvements to bug fixes and so on.
I at least understand the accusation that a bunch of their side projects didn't end up contributing to their bottom line and may have hurt user experience, but the velocity and volume of code they're pushing is not debatable. and the vast majority of it is exactly these kinds of improvements in technical fixes that people in the HN comment sections keep claiming aren't happening.
I'm not going to say everyone should read the release notes, but you definitely should if you're comfortable accusing them of not actually working on the code.
The annual reports are public. You can look up yourself how much money they are squandering each year. Mozilla is actually incredibly well funded. They are just extremely mismanged.
> AI features don't seem to be improving the web experience
Elaborate? it's done nothing but ruin the internet so far. Slop content, search engines are unusable, and now the lowest common denominator simply chatbots a half-baked website and thinks it's good when it isn't.
Mozilla has grown very fat and lazy over the past decade+ of receiving the big checks from Google, very little of what they do is actually trying to compete in the market, and most of it is "let's throw something at the wall and see if it sticks and then lets go out for a 3 hour lunch and have mimmoas on our bloated middle manager salaries"
eliasebner · · focus · HN ↗
Mozilla seems to be going down a lot of rather futile side-paths, if you know what I mean. Nobody asked for this? Just make Firefox a better browser, work on the web standards I guess, do the things people actually need.
SyneRyder · · focus · HN ↗
But that's the only thing I've liked, and they keep killing projects that were genuinely useful and worth paying for (Pocket, Firefox Send).
andrewl-hn · · focus · HN ↗
pyreko · · focus · HN ↗
jeroenhd · · focus · HN ↗
I'd use the page summaries too if they didn't rely on some foreign server processing all the text.
munificent · · focus · HN ↗
That's what I wish they would do too. But, realistically, that stuff doesn't actually pay the bills. How many Firefox users actually pay for it? So I'm not surprised that they're thrashing around trying to find some way to make money beyond Google paying them for the search bar.
mhurron · · focus · HN ↗
None, since you can't.
Zanfa · · focus · HN ↗
An absolute failure of Mozilla's leadership.
lenerdenator · · focus · HN ↗
The AI push and all of their little side-projects that no one asked for are pushes to make money that they arguably wouldn't need to make if they stopped with their little side-projects.
I know that there's a bit of for-profit/non-profit mix going on with the corporate structure of Mozilla. Ultimately, if you make free software, just stick with the non-profit side of things. Make browser improvements, update documentation. That's it. That's all that Mozilla needs to do.
thayne · · focus · HN ↗
This has a been a pattern for Mozilla for a long time. I think part of the reason reason is they are trying to find a way to make money that isn't dependent on a search deal with Google. But most of their attempts end up not being something people actually want and/or what they make isn't actually good enough to draw people. But even when they make something decent, like Lockwise and Send, they seem to lose interest and give it up.
glenstein · · focus · HN ↗
This accusation seriously has to stop. They're constantly pushing performance improvements (most recently they've made their PDF viewer more efficient and found some efficiencies with images), they push millions of lines of new code every year on a rapid release cycle with an extremely rapid release cadence throughout the year in the release notes for every updated version go deep on the weeds for everything from CSS fixes to performance improvements to bug fixes and so on.
I at least understand the accusation that a bunch of their side projects didn't end up contributing to their bottom line and may have hurt user experience, but the velocity and volume of code they're pushing is not debatable. and the vast majority of it is exactly these kinds of improvements in technical fixes that people in the HN comment sections keep claiming aren't happening.
I'm not going to say everyone should read the release notes, but you definitely should if you're comfortable accusing them of not actually working on the code.
Hendrikto · · focus · HN ↗
VCFundedGenYer · · focus · HN ↗
Elaborate? it's done nothing but ruin the internet so far. Slop content, search engines are unusable, and now the lowest common denominator simply chatbots a half-baked website and thinks it's good when it isn't.
tosti · · focus · HN ↗
KetoManx64 · · focus · HN ↗