> If only so that there is another alternative if a page renders poorly in webkit
I have a less optimistic take. At the moment, the only thing standing between the world and a Chrome-only monoculture is iOS Safari. Nobody in a suit can make a business case for not supporting iOS Safari, given its market share, and also given the fact that the entire C-Suite and senior management team at any given company are using Safari on their iPhone and iPad. A page not working on iOS Safari is a serious business problem that people will take seriously, today.
If it gets displaced by Chrome on iOS, with a tiny sliver of us using Firefox, I worry "works on Chrome" will be the only thing that gets solved for.
Well, Firefox users may never make up quite as much marketshare as it used to, but it does have one advantage: we're a lot louder and more annoying than Chrome users when stuff is broken. It's a feature! (Okay, I try not to be annoying. But I'm pretty sure absolutely nobody is thrilled when I report bugs about Librewolf not working. Shoutouts to SoundCloud for eventually fixing one of said issues.)
I doubt Safari will actually die on iOS. The truth is, Safari on iOS is kinda good. That said, honestly this whole line of thinking has gotten pretty tiring. I'm not really sure that an Apple/Google duopoly on browsers is really that much better than the seemingly inevitable Google monopoly. It's not like either of them are particularly good citizens, but Apple's relatively small influence has been very negative in a lot of ways. I'm not even a huge fan of using regulations to solve every problem, but even I must admit that EU regulations have done far more to start to reel in Google than Apple ever could, anyways. As for poor WebM support and pushing wgsl into the WebGPU spec, good riddance.
It's really sad that Google can't be trusted more. There's a lot of people there who are doing good work on Chromium and other web-related projects, and it's besmirched by greedy decisions at worst and optically blind decisions at best. When I was at Google, I did spend a bit of my time trying to make some intranet stuff work better in Firefox... It's probably a token gesture at best, but oh well.
You know we're at a weird point when the underdog competition in browsers is Apple, one of the richest and most resourceful companies of all time.
> Well, Firefox users may never make up quite as much marketshare as it used to, but it does have one advantage: we're a lot louder and more annoying than Chrome users when stuff is broken.
Slack refuses to work properly on Firefox. I don't think they care that we are being loud about it.
> Slack refuses to work properly on Firefox. I don't think they care that we are being loud about it.
Microsoft Teams doesn't make calls on Firefox, and their poor excuse of a desktop client for Linux forces me to use the web app on Chromium on my work computer.
Big shout out to Webex Teams, who's web app works flawlessly on both Chromium and Firefox but actually provides a better experience on Firefox because it's easier to make video calls Fullscreen
Yep. This is why I request (though I don’t enforce) my front end team to use Firefox at least part of the time when developing; if it works there, it works basically everywhere else without any hassle.
Microsoft teams barely even work standalone. It frustrates me whenever all the buttons stop working when I need to unmute myself during an online meeting. I then have to use my phone and hope it won't happen there too.
To be fair, I'm not even sure if Slack cares about web users at all. It just doesn't work that well, at least for me. (Though I obviously haven't tried it in a bit, so maybe it's good in Chrome now.)
It's true, but the Electron app always seemed more full featured, and at least for me, I had lots of issues with bugginess and slowness in the web browser, even in Chrome. I'm not sure why it would be slower in Chrome than Electron. Neither are particularly lightweight. Maybe it's my fault somehow.
One datapoint: I use Slack exclusively in the browser (both Firefox and Brave), and it works well. As far as I remember on Firefox there was some limitation on video calls but that was arbitrary (user-agent check or something like that).
I hadn't tried the user agent trick, I was just frustrated enough at being on my personal laptop and having to join a call then finding Slack was being terrible.
And for no apparent good reason other than bad quality software.
I only brought it up because it is high profile web application that has an arbitrary Firefox limitation, and as a Firefox user I will name and shame bad applications.
What doesn't work properly and are there issues for this where I can add my support?
I'm using slack on Firefox daily. Prefer it over loading that slow and resource hungry desktop app, if only for speed alone. But haven't encountered stuff that works on the desktop app, but not in the browser.
> You know we're at a weird point when the underdog competition in browsers is Apple, one of the richest and most resourceful companies of all time.
It's not so weird considering the following:
1. Safari only works on Apple operating systems
2. Safari development has been seriously underfunded by Apple, since Apple wants to keep people in their walled garden app store, and web apps, by their very nature, can't be controlled by them.
> the only thing standing between the world and a Chrome-only monoculture is iOS Safari
It's not really a good argument. It should be about user choice. If Chrome is better than Safari, and I prefer it, I should be able to install it. OS locked down browsers is 1990s era MS anti-trust behaviour that significantly reduces overall competition.
Mobile is king - if Safari/webkit wasn't so locked down on iOS, we may have gotten even a completely different player who made a really good mobile browser. Apple's behaviour is nothing short of monopolistic and there is no good defence of it imo.
> I worry "works on Chrome" will be the only thing that gets solved for.
In other words: with the choice of using other browser engines on iOS there is a real possibility an even larger percentage of websites will work only on Chrome, meaning in the end user choice will be reduced because either you use Chromium (on mobile and desktop) or you cannot use anything.
Both situations suck. If Chrome weren’t so dominant then it would be a no brainer to advocate for more openness in iOS browser rendering engines, but as it stands it may be the case that not allowing the diversity on iOS promotes it in the aggregate. Apple’s approach, despite being done for the wrong reasons, might be what’s less detrimental for the web.
> Apple's behaviour is nothing short of monopolistic and there is no good defence of it imo.
What do you actually propose then? Force them to release Safari for Android?
Chrome/blink has about 65% mobile market share, Safari has about 30%. If you are concerned with monopoly, how would enabling Blink on iOS do a single thing to displace the actual 600 pound gorilla in the room? Or is monopoly bad only if it's not *your* preferred choice?
> Apple's behaviour is nothing short of monopolistic and there is no good defence of it imo.
What if we have a straightforward choice between an Apple monopoly and a Chrome monopoly?
I've seen major online shopping websites deploy code that meant firefox users couldn't add items to their shopping baskets, and then classify it as a low priority bug because there was a workaround - using chrome.
Tell the devs (any here on this thread? Please speak!) of _iPhone_ iOS Safari (which is somehow different than iPad) to support `MediaSource` and I'll sympathize. They are often behind the curve, and with the size of market share they have, I'd at least like a timeline of when very popular features will be exposed. Until then, they're the new IE to me. It's popular because it's the default and that's it.
Agreed. While being forced into a walled garden isn't a good thing, it has the current side effect giving iOS Safari a significant market share to keep Chrome from dominating to become the new IE and have all those "works in Internet Explorer 6 with 1024x768 screen" websites again but this time for Chrome.
Maybe from the perspective of webdevs, from what it represents for users, that's Chrome. A Chrome monopoly may seem desirable, because they're catering to webdevs, but there's nothing they'd like more than having webdevs help them lasso all the users they can surveil and expose to ads as possible.
I get your point. However, unless mobile usage (vs desktop) gets to something like 90% and unless another 90% of that mobile is iPhone/iPad (vs anything non-Apple), Safari dominating like IE did is impossible.
However, for Chrome, it is possible without the walled garden (not to defend it or anything, but it is what it is).
That simplistic a comparison is simply not worth responding to in any direct way. Safari is Safari and IE is IE. there are some clear differences between the two, in both mobile market share and total market share. That’s just the beginning.
> I worry "works on Chrome" will be the only thing that gets solved for
Firefox is my daily driver, and I use their WebKit wrapper on iOS, and I have to agree. I'm not looking forward to a Blink monopoly in the browser space. The upshot is that we might have closer-to-native experiences for websites on iOS.
> closer-to-native experiences for websites on iOS.
What is native? If a website is explicitly testing for Firefox compatibility, they're probably also testing for Safari compatibility due to its increased market share.
It's not so much Safari compatibility, but WebKit compatibility. Anyone who wants their website to work on iOS has to test against mobile WebKit, regardless if their target users are on Chrome or Firefox. If these legislative changes go into effect, Webkit market penetration will plummet quickly to only those using Safari, and Apple will have less leverage to hold back on features that don't suit their App Store profits.
I know a fair few solo developers that don't test Safari compatibility because they don't own Apple hardware. And Safari only runs on Apple hardware (with the exception of Hackintosh).
> The upshot is that we might have closer-to-native experiences for websites on iOS
Strange. Android is 70% market share. Chrome is something like 80% market share (all playforms). Where are these glorious "closer to native web apps" we keep hearing about?
I specified on iOS. It would at least be possible on iOS if other renderers could be used, and both Firefox and Google would certainly have their own incentive to make this happen. Google don't want to undermine the Play Store, but they might want to undermine the App Store. Firefox have existential reasons for product differentiation, though web apps won't get traction without broader support by all players.
The parent was clearly alluding to “closer-to-native experiences” on Android. If Chrome will bring that to iOS, there should already be examples on Android.
Google don't want to undermine the Play Store, but they might want to undermine the App Store.
I’ll buy that, but it doesn’t seem like a reason to be optimistic about the way things might go.
> If Chrome will bring that to iOS, there should already be examples on Android.
I think I illustrated that the incentives are different
> doesn’t seem like a reason to be optimistic
I did say "we might have closer-to-native experiences for websites on iOS" (emphasis added) in my OP. Only because it would become possible, not because it would be likely
Better integration with OS features on iOS devices is still an upshot for people who want websites to do more useful things with their phones, if that becomes a possibility. Might not balance out the cost of having a browser hegemony, and it might not be something that’s specifically useful or interesting to you, but a small mercy nonetheless
> Better integration with OS features on iOS devices is still an upshot for people who want websites to do more useful things with their phones, if that becomes a possibility.
Again. "If", and "might help", and something else.
Question is: you have Android with 70% market share and all those capabilities you so crave for. Have all these nice hypotheticals happened there, or not?
I think we need all the things you mention in that comment, and much, if not all, are dependent on the rendering engine internals to implement. e.g., Firefox iOS couldn’t fix it without changes to WebKit
It just might not be worth doing until browser vendors have a consistent renderer across all platforms (true for Firefox and Chrome) and until Apple loses its leverage. It might also be that it requires coordination and cooperation across all browser vendors to a degree that is unlikely. I’m not privy to the internal politics, so I don’t know which is the case
You seem very animated about some aside I made in my OP comment, that was obviously made as a speculation. Not sure why. We're both speculating FWIW, so there's no real argument to 'win' here, not even a wager I'd consider making.
Indeed it was speculation. So I asked you basically what your speculation was based on. Because we have a platform where no such speculation is necessary: Android is the dominant mobile platform, it already has all the capabilities you speculate about and so on.
So, given that Android exists, and we see literally nothing come out of it as far as web apps are concerned, what are basing your speculations on?
So many words to avoid the hard truth: web apps suck, and "we might have closer-to-native experiences" is bullshit. Because, see my comment on Android which already supposedly has these "close to native experiences".
Why would Safari get displaced on iOS, though? Apple users tend to stick to first-party software even when options are available, unless third-party stuff has a significant feature gap (and keep in mind that we're talking about UX here, not how many APIs the browser supports etc). Did Chrome overtake Safari on macOS?
Google can prompt you to download Chrome in every service and every app of theirs you use, and every so often "innocently" break some aspect of their services if it's being touched by another browser.
I remember back when their enthusiasts here, on HN, urged Firefox users to keep an open mind that Google products breaking on Gecko regularly was just because they were so busy making the web awesome! It was strange back then, but also the product of another era of the Orange Site, you saw more of that tendency to identify with businesses such as Google than with other individual people.
And how well do you think something like that would go with the iOS target demographic?
Safari is different from Firefox for one simple reason: it's bundled to Apple products, which, regardless of their actual quality, are perceived as "luxury software" socially, and its userbase reflects that. And it's large enough that, for most companies actually trying to sell something, it makes sense to cater to.
Is the user, just some ordinary joe who isnt especially technical, going to switch banks to continue using FF or is he going to switch to Chrome and carry on his day? When google search, youtube, maps, and a bunch of third party sites all start recommending Chrome as well, what happens then?
Most websites have financial incentives to only support one browser, if they can get rid of WebKit they will, standards be damned.
Firefox is off the beaten path. iOS Safari isn’t. Someone has to be ballsy enough to do make that first call. These kids calling it “the new IE” are being dramatic. iOS Safari as it is right now is nowhere near what IE was. Any meaningful organisation that makes the first call on not supporting iOS Safari is…to put it one way…not somewhere that I want to work. Because it sounds like the prioritises are being set by a nerd with a chip on his (yes, his) shoulder instead of what’s best for the user or for the business.
Google will pay handsomely to a good bunch of "nerds" to gain dominance on iOS with Chrome as it did in other platforms, and then it will make business sense for independent vendors to drop support for anything but Chrome.
I’m less sure about that for a few reasons. Biggest among them is that (presumably?) in app webviews will still be WKWebView, powered by WebKit. So if you want your page to load inside Facebook’s browser (and you do) you’re still going to have to care about Safari.
Fair point. They already do this on Android. For compatibility reasons you understand, not so that they can track absolutely everything you do, no sir.
It might make Apple work harder maybe? For instance on my m1 MacBook Air, safari is vastly better for my battery life than chrome or ff for my workload. It makes a huge difference. That would make me use it over the others if that’s the same on the iPhone or iPad where battery life is even more important.
Presumably, the people who care about web would only install firefox on their iOS devices, while the people who don't care would just keep safari.
in other words, the chrome share of the iOS market would remain small.
So a product manager cannot just say that it works on chrome and forget about safari. Unless, somehow, google manages to boost chrome's iOS marketshare up and above safaris'!
Every time I log into a Google web app it tells me to use Chrome for a better experience. It’s happened in two, maybe three browsers in the last month. I have no hope for your hope. Google will pummel users into using Chrome, relentlessly.
I know a lot of non-technical people who use Webkit-Chrome on their iPhones because they (have to?) use Blink-Chrome on their computers.
Currently they just accept that "iPhone" browsers don't behave exactly like computer browsers, but if Google started a campaign saying "now you can get exactly the same behaviour on your phone" I'm sure it would influence them.
If your website only works on one of the browsers, you are probably doing something wrong. It is not like it was in the 90s, it can pretty much be expected your website will work on all browsers, if you are following the current HTML/CSS specs and best practices.
Its… not an argument? Have you lost your mind? It was presented as an argument for why it would be bad to let users have freedom to choose their mobile browser. Of course an argument can be born out of a concern, that’s obvious. But you can’t just dismiss a rebuttal by saying an argument is not real it’s just a concern.
> I have a less optimistic take. At the moment, the only thing standing between the world and a Chrome-only monoculture is iOS Safari. Nobody in a suit can make a business case for not supporting iOS Safari, given its market share, and also given the fact that the entire C-Suite and senior management team at any given company are using Safari on their iPhone and iPad. A page not working on iOS Safari is a serious business problem that people will take seriously, today.
This doesn't sound like an argument against the change, only a pessimistic outlook for its effects.
Right, both things can be true. Apple has a closed web browser ecosystem, and that's bad for users. Opening up that ecosystem could possibly lead to even greater market dominance by Chrome, which would also be bad for users.
MS sat on their laurels and allowed everyone else catch up though. Through the living standard all google needs to do is keep Chrome updating at a frantic pace and no one will be able to come close.
If MS doesn't have the capability of maintaining their own browser, the chances of someone else entering the market is basically nil.
IE dominated because it was the default / only known choice for a while. Then Mozilla/FF was huge because of features (tabs). Then Chrome was huge because Google had bazillion $$$ to burn on advertising it everywhere. I'm not sure how we can move away from that local maximum this time.
On the iOS side, Apple had the default + locked browser choice. Now they can try to outspend each other with Google there.
When IE 6 came out, it was also one of the best/fastest browsers at the time. Heck, it even came with the first implementation of what we all call AJAX today.
The problem was that MS declared victory and stop developing IE, expecting to use their OS leverage to keep others out.
They lost the favor of web developers, because they thought that by pushing a crappy browser they could stall the advancement of web applications. They wanted to stifle the web and have people use IE the least as possible and have developers keep making native applications.
Google doesn't have that incentive, it has the incentive to make the browser as shiny as possible to keep the loyalty of web developers, so that they won't campaign in a way that will make fewer people download their ads delivery platform. They want people to use Chrome
I'm not that optimistic that Mozilla is capable of building a good iOS browser. It's been a few months since I last used it, but the issues of Firefox on iPadOS were not because of the engine. Tabs would frequently lose order, closing a tab would close some other tab, broken keyboard shortcuts, cursor/selection issues in the address bar, random non-responsiveness and just janky UI. The issues were so obvious that it felt like it was built without any QA process, so I resorted to using Safari most of the time, which worked perfectly.
Firefox Focus on Android works much better, but it's also a simpler browser. I haven't used the full Firefox on Android, so can't comment on that.
Firefox is my default browser on Android for couple of years now. It supports uBlock Origin, and I cannot browse internet without it anymore. I don't have major trouble with it, except 1-2 cases per quarter, when it is faster to open Chrome than turn the ad blocking off and then back on.
Another case for Chrome for me is full page translation. It is very neat and mostly of decent quality.
It you go the extra mile and actually disable Chrome on Android, even Google apps will start making calls to Firefox as the browser. It makes for a much better experience, otherwise Google apps don't honor the default browser choice in many circumstances.
I don't have any Google apps with this problem (I don't use mentioned below Google News). My biggest problem so far are apps without setting "Use external browser to open links".
I can't use the internet with Firefox on Android, because while is supports uBO, it doesn't support full-page translation or Bypass Paywalls Clean.
So instead, I use Firefox Nightly on Android. It supports any extension I want to install, not just those approved by Mozilla for the Android browser. I would have a very hard time without translation.
Being able to use Fennec F-Droid was my primary motivator to switch off of iPhone. It's not perfect, but there are things it offers that iOS Safari does not that I consider to be absolute necessities for browsing the web. (uBlock Origin is certainly one of them, also WebM support.)
I've been told this at least three times now on HN over the years (pretty soon I'm going to start keeping a list of URLs so people know I'm not exaggerating.) Every single time it turns out that it isn't actually true.
It was added to desktop Safari. iOS Safari supports VP9 only in WebRTC. It may have changed, but I can't find any evidence that it has.
If you see it working somewhere, it is almost definitely using the polyfill[1].
> It's been a few months since I last used it, but the issues of Firefox on iPadOS were not because of the engine.
You don't actually know that, though, it's entirely possible that these issues are caused by having purposely limited ways to hook into the engine and system as 3rd party browser.
If GP is talking about the same issues that I frequently run into, then I'd say that's almost definitely not the case. I continue to use Firefox iOS despite these issues because I like the shared history and bookmarks with my desktop, but they do annoy me on the daily.
A couple off the top of my head...
If you do something to trigger a page load, like open the app after it has been suspended, and while the page is still loading you touch the address bar to enter an address or pick one of your "recently visited" or whatever, you will be surprised when the page finishes loading and replaces the view. It replaces the view, but you're still in the "navigation bar selected" state, so you can get them back without hitting the tiny back chevron and tapping the address bar again. I doubt this has anything to do with how they are forced to hook into WebView. It's just sloppy handling of async code.
Speaking of that same view, the top four links shown there as favicons are in a constant state of flux. Generally, it's HN, Reddit, Google News and whatever else I frequently visit, but sometimes for reasons I don't understand they get completely jumbled into something else. The icons are constantly disappearing and reappearing. It's not a big deal, but it feels unstable. I'm not sure why they don't just let me pick bookmarks to save on this view instead of automatically picking them for me. There are many things I would like to have available at a single tap, but I don't visit frequently enough to make it into my top four. Like trash pickup schedule. I don't read that several times a day, but when it's time for the trash truck to come and I forgot if today is plastic or paper recyclables, I'd like to have that link bookmarked for quick access.
Without actually digging into the code and integrations, it's speculation on both of our parts. I've had to work with platforms that made implementing certain "easy" and "simple" features in a bug-free manner difficult to impossible.
Once the native engine is available to the general public, there will be more users. When there are more users, there will likely be more resources thrown at development.
The issues in question aren't something you'd ignore just due to lack of a native engine - Firefox on iOS matters for market share reasons, they need to care about that stuff regardless of what's running under the hood.
> Once the native engine is available to the general public, there will be more users.
Why do you think this will happen? The landing page for firefox.com above the fold only makes one claim about "a lightning fast browser", with their selling points being privacy, Firefox View, editing PDFs in-browser, and total cookie protection, all of which are possible in the current WebKit experience. Either Mozilla really doesn't know how to market Firefox, or less people download Firefox if their CTA is "our browser engine is better than Chrome".
Other browsers on android can do that too. Actually, firefox has a fairly restrictive extension policy, while browsers like Kiwi let you install any chrome extension that you want.
I use it as my main browser and only had to go Chrome to open some trash sites (litteral “let me load a bitcoin miner in an invisible element” kind of trash)
Unfortunately, I had the same experience with iOS and iPadOS versions of Firefox. Very janky, lots of bugs that went on unfixed for months and years, and general lack of polish and thoughtfulness in the UI. Despite using Firefox on every other platform, I had much better experience with Safari, and kept Firefox installed only for an occasional password lookup.
FWIW, I noticed all of the same issues when using FF on my iPad, but I stuck with it, and it actually got much better, and I haven't noticed a UI/UX bug in months now. It's been rock solid once they got the kinks worked out, and I've loved running FF on all of my devices and having everything synced between them appropriately.
I use firefox on iOS. I like it because it has integrations with firefox's password management, and it feels somewhat fire-foxy.
But it is a bit janky and it is strictly worse than the android version, and that's because it's layered on top of the wrong engine and there's only so much customisation they can do to make it more firefoxy.
I really welcome a full-fat fox on iOS, not least because it implies extensions like ublock origin, and adblocking on iOS is just not as good compared to UBO on android or the desktop.
That's a disappointing thread to read. "Vlad" didn't even bother looking at what NoScript actually does, and why it's better than just having a giant on/off switch for the entire page.
Google needs Mozilla though - Firefox is the last remaining Chromium competitor Google can use as a counterargument against claims about their de facto monopoly.
That's Safari. It has way more users, and website creators actually care about providing Safari support because they want it to work on the non-technical boss's iPhone.
There's no significant Firefox presence on Android either. Sure there is an app, and there are 100+ million installs, corresponding to an install market share of >4%, but people almost never use Firefox. Usage wise, Firefox has a 0.5% market share.
Safari (WebKit) is the one that is the last remaining serious competitor against Chromium.
Firefox has already lost years ago and is so useless to counter Chrome that they have to be funded by Google in order to survive. Mozilla's competitiveness for Firefox is close to zero.
The EU Digital Markets Act will just further solidify Chrome's dominance.
> Safari (WebKit) is the one that is the last remaining serious competitor against Chromium.
Safari isn't available on platforms other than Apple's (which have a minority share of computing devices on the market), so it's obviously not an actual competitor to Chromium based browsers.
Even if the DMA somehow results in Blink engine dominance, at least the engine is open, so alternative freedom and privacy-respecting browsers can build on it and patch out any evil features while mostly maintaining compatibility. Not a great outcome, but it'd be worth it to stamp out closed computer operating systems that don't let their users control what software they install. The current state of iOS and iPad OS is completely unacceptable.
Sadly, they're probably headed into a worse situation, where they lose most of that 90% of their funding since their browser marketshare is at an all time low of 3-4%. Renegotiation is this year.
I couldn't link to any websites that render incorrectly under Safari on iOS (WebKit) off the top of my head, but I think that's rather a side effect of WebKit being the only engine available on iOS: I don't want my site to be unusable on iOS devices, so I end up spending a lot of time trying to work around bugs that only happen on Apple devices.
Sure, this ultimately means that everything Just Works on Apple devices... but it's not because their browser is up to standards. It's just that I'm forced to make it work.
To me, this is very reminiscent of the Internet Explorer situation, where I end up baking a bunch of hacks into my code just to ensure it works for the majority.
are you implying that all other web browsers implement and comply with all web standards? are you implying that no website is leveraging experimental features and hence not standard yet?
I am not, and that sounds like quite an uncharitable interpretation of my comment. All web browsers have bugs, and practically all web browsers support features that are not part of the standards track. That's not the problem.
The problem is two-fold: we have a specific browser engine that lags way behind the standards, and this same engine is literally the only choice for an operating system that runs on over 1 billion[0] devices.
When I say "lags way behind the standards", I'm not talking about unsupported features, but rather, well-established features that are supposedly functional but are simply buggy. And they're not niche features: I have personally seen bugs in features like the CSS filter property, Web Audio, and SVG rendering, that are unsolved to this date.
Web devs have to deal with Safari bugs all the time, that's why you don't tend to see them. Maybe now that there's going to be other browser engines on iOS, we can show nice "please open this page in Firefox" banners and force Apple to stop undermining their browser to push native apps.
Those of us that remember "This page works best in Internet Explorer 5" are shivering at your statement. I love Firefox and use it as my primary browser on my desktop. But suggesting to users that they should use that instead of fixing issues in your site feels bad.
There's a subtle but important distinction between "a browser misbehaves and incorrectly renders my compliant site, and I refuse to make my site wrong to satisfy it" and "a browser doesn't render my malformed site the way I want it to and I refuse to fix it because other browser (incorrectly) renders my site how I want".
Have you tried comparing it with Bromite, Brave or even Chrome? There is a very noticeable difference.
Also, I think Site Isolation* doesn't work in FF Android as it does in FF Desktop. Firefox Android is categorically less secure than its Chromium counterparts.
I have not done much comparison, as it works fine for me. I could believe that it is slower, but I still wouldn't call in slow. Perhaps my using an adblocker with FF makes it better for me.
