Fully disagree. I use zero so-called "AI" features in my day to day life. None. Not one. Why do I need them in my browser, and why does my browser need to focus on something that, several years into the hype wave, I still *do not use at all*? And it's not for a lack of trying, the results are just not what I need or want, and traditional browsing (and search engines, etc.) does do what I want.

I'd be elated if Firefox solely focused on "the pre-AI era", as you put it, and many other power users would, too. And I somehow doubt my non-techie family cares - if anything, they're tired of seeing the stupid sparkle icons crammed down their throats at every single corner of the world now.

> Because it's a browser that "just works." We can't have this if Firefox stays in the pre-ai era.

Strongly disagree.

Theres no expectation of AI as a core browsing experience. There isnt even really an expectation of AI as part of an extended browsing experience. We cant even predict reliably what AI's relationship to browsing will be if it is even to exist. Mozilla could reliably wait 24 months and follow if features are actually in demand and being used.

Firefox can absolutely maintain "It just works" by being a good platform with well tested in demand features.

What they are talking about here, are opt out only experiments intruding on the core browsing experience. Thats the opposite of "It Just Works".

>I know Mozilla doesn't have much good will right now, but hopefully with the exec shakeup, they will right the ship on making FF a great browser.

Its already a great browser. It doesnt need a built in opt out AI experience to become great.

>Without AI enabled features + agent mode being first class citizens, this will be a non-starter in 2 years.

I want an application to serve me webpages and manage said webpages. It wasn't a "non-starter" for me 2 years ago when I switched off Chrome who chose to be too user hostile to ignore. It won't be a non-starter here.

>I want my non-tech family members/friends to install Firefox not because I come over at Christmas, but because they want to. Because it's a browser that "just works." We can't have this if Firefox stays in the pre-ai era.

If "it just works" is all my non-tech family needs, I'm not really gonna intervene and evangelize for Mozilla. I don't work for them (if you do, that's fair). Most browsers "just work" so mission accomplished. These are parents who were fine paying Hulu $15/month to still see ads, so we simply have different views. I'm sure they felt the same way about my pots falling apart and insisting "well, they still work".

Meanwhile, my professional and personal career revolves around the internet, and I don't want to be fighting my screwdriver because it wants to pretend to be a drill. At some point I will throw the drill out and buy a screwdriver that screws.

I think the core of the issue is that Mozilla is thinking big. They're not happy to service a niche well (which the majority of the comments on Mozilla related posts is generally asking them to), they want to get back to their glory days, capture the mainstream.

And that is tough. Chrome won because it was an, at the time, superior product, AND because it had an insane marketing push. I remember how it was just everywhere. Every other installer pushed Chrome on you, as well as all the Google properties, it was all over the (tech) news, shaping new standards aggressively etc. Not something Mozilla can match.

But they just won't give up. I don't know if I should applaud that or not, but I think it's probably the core of the disconnect between Mozilla and the tech community. They desperately want to break into the mainstream again, their most vocal supporters want them to get a reality check on their ambitions.

If I was running Mozilla, I'd probably go for the niche. It's less glamorous, but servicing a niche is relatively easy, all you have to do is listen to users and focus on stuff they want and/or need. You generally get enough loyalty to be able to move a bit behind the curve, see what works for others first, then do your own version once it's clear how it'll be valuable to the user base. I'd give this strategy the highest chance of long term survival and impact.

Mainstream is way tougher. You kinda need to make all kinds of people with different needs happy enough, and get ahead of where those wants and needs are going.

One could argue they could do both: Serve a niche well with Firefox and try to reach the mainstream with other products. I think to some degree they've tried it, with mixed results.

> 1. This is great and Mozilla is listening to it's core fans

It's not great. Great would be "we'll stop wasting money on extraneous features and we'll concentrate on making Firefox the best browser".

This is damage control.

I am highly sceptical of all AI features and it seems Gardner and other cyber security experts are starting to wake up as well:

The programs let you outsource and automate tasks, such as online searches or writing an email, to an AI agent. The only problem is that these same AI capabilities can be tricked into executing malicious commands hidden in websites or emails, effectively turning the browser against the user.

https://www.pcmag.com/news/security-experts-warn-companies-t...

For now this is restricted to Perplexity Comet and OpenAI Atlas and only the UK has issued an official warning, but why would I, personally, want my Firefox browser with an opt-out risk instead of an opt-in?

> this will be a non-starter in 2 years.

Why though? Seriously.

Why does the browser itself need AI features ?

You can still easily visit chagpt via web if Gemini or whatever

Yeah, that's like having a browser without without support for blockchain, semantic web or UML! No one would use it without these absolutely critical features!

Lots of disagreement, but from necessity I (sort of) agree. Firefox foremost needs users. If it takes AI features to get them, so be it. However, Firefox cannot afford to lose its loyal user base, so they have to be optional.

I totally agree. It’s just going to become an expectation that AI is in the browser.

It’s so nice just to be able to ask the browser to summarize the page, or ask questions about a long article.

I know a lot of people on Hacker News are hostile to AI and like to imagine everybody hates it, but I personally find it very helpful.

I'm surprised your take is so controversial. This really is it - yes, the current core users are not interested in AI but most people in our lives who are not techies do use them, and Firefox needs win these users if it wants to stay relevant.

Of course, I have opinions on other ways it could make money instead of jumping on the latest hot thing (pocket, fakespot, VPN, etc) without actually truly building the ecosystem but at least they are trying.

At this point they should just bring back Eich and go fully trad ;)

> Without AI enabled features + agent mode being first class citizens, this will be a non-starter in 2 years.

The confidence with which people say these things...

s/AI/NFT and I've heard this exact sentence many times before.

> Without AI enabled features + agent mode being first class citizens, this will be a non-starter in 2 years.

LOL

I'd love to live in your world for a bit... I can't imagine any future where having AI in your browser is a net positive for any user. It sounds like an absolute dystopian privacy and security nightmare.

The absolute reactionary response to anything Mozilla does is quite the something to watch, I've never seen another company held to the same standards.

If you read the Mozilla and Firefox related threads over the past week, you'd think Mozilla was the scourge of the internet, worse than DoubleClick in their heyday and worse than Google's hobbling of Chrome.

That said, the AI options for Firefox are opt-in. If you don't want them, don't use them. You are correct in that this is where software is heading, and AI integration is what users will expect going forward.