You don't see a correlation between browser bloat and energy efficiency?
At the very least you have to agree that any amount of time spent on "bloat" features take away time that could be spent on improving energy efficiency.
I don't quite understand this correlation of user-centric functionality with bloat on HN. News flash: users want features!
Most users didn't care that Google Chrome had become a CPU and RAM dog the last few years. They cared that their favorite websites worked. Period.
Please recognize that while you want things like energy and RAM efficiencies to the hilt, this isn't what most users care about or even know how to detect/measure. Realistically speaking, how often are you in a spot where a power outlet isn't available? Most trains and planes these days have power outlets, and any of the popular browsers give you about 4-hours on a full charge. What's the beef?
Could it be that you want Mozilla to focus on your agenda as opposed to listening to their core user group? If yes, then by all means complain away. Otherwise, laud them for trying something new to entice users to use their browser vs. the competition.
> I don't quite understand this correlation of user-centric functionality with bloat
A web browser is inherently designed to browse the web, and display pages. Practically every OS in recent history has the screenshot capability, and almost all of them can run client-server type applications that allow functionality like screen-sharing, SSH, etc.
But somehow Chrome and then Mozilla have decided that their browsers should become these giant monoliths of largely existing user functionality. Remember when Microsoft tied Windows Update to MSIE. Nobody was claiming that was a good fucking idea, were they?
> News flash: users want features
News flash: users want things to be fast, secure and not kill their battery.
> Most users didn't care that Google Chrome had become a CPU and RAM dog the last few years.
[Citation needed].
> Please recognise that while you want things like energy and RAM efficiencies to the hilt, this isn't what most users care about or even know how to detect/measure.
"My computer is slow/hot/loud/lasts just 2 hours instead of 7 on battery when using Chrome" is very much something a non-technical user can determine quite easily.
> Realistically speaking, how often are you in a spot where a power outlet isn't available?
Battery life is just one advantage of energy efficiency. Have you felt how hot a laptop can get when it's chewing a lot of CPU cycles for an extended amount of time? More energy in = more heat out.
> Otherwise, laud them for trying something new to entice users to use their browser vs. the competition.
Um, no. Firefox started out as lean, high performance competition to MSIE, just after Safari was launched by Apple. The original trigger was SOFTWARE BLOAT in the Mozilla suite, the features of which were still more related than what Google and Mozilla have added lately. At some point that goal of being a high performance standards-compliant web browser has apparently fallen away in favour of a keeping-up-with-the-joneses approach against Chrome.
Chrome's reason for existence is to allow Google more control over their revenue source. If they don't have a browser they control, they can't push whatever new technology they decide will make their business do better.
Part of Google's business is continually pushing the concept that user's don't need an OS that runs apps locally - everything can be in a browser (i.e. ChromeOS/Chrome browser with its kitchen sink approach to functionality)
So while Google's reasoning is not commendable (fuck the user experience, we need people to buy into our business model) their logic in pushing every possible feature into Chrome at least is understandable, if not agreeable.
Mozilla has no business case to artificially "encourage" reliance on a web browser for all user functionality, so why give up the hedgehog approach (do one thing, and do it fucking excellently) for whatever the fuck they're doing now?
