In late 2012, when I started up the Firefox for Metro team (I know that’s not what Microsoft calls it anymore, but it remains how we talk about it in Mozilla), it looked like the next battleground for the Web. Windows is a massive ecosystem and Microsoft pushes its new platforms hard. At first, it looked like we would be locked out completely. We eventually broke open Metro (though never the RT line of ARM-based products) and we got to work.
In the months since, as the team built and tested and refined the product, we’ve been watching Metro’s adoption. From what we can see, it’s pretty flat. On any given day we have, for instance, millions of people testing pre-release versions of Firefox desktop, but we’ve never seen more than 1000 active daily users in the Metro environment.
Makes sense.
I used the browser, it really was truly terrible. Probably their decision to use HTML for the browser chrome (yet not WinJS) which made everything feel out of place.
I think another big issue was how it was delivered, it wasn’t on the Windows Store (which sees 4M transactions a day) but behind some obscure link.
Oh well, I never saw a compelling feature that put it above modern IE.
Strangely, I have to agree with you. Their own figures agree: they have “millions” using nightly, but only “thousands” using release versions. That implies that people are waiting for a usable stable version, and Mozilla haven’t delivered one yet.
I think you might have misunderstood, here is it written out:
– 100’s of millions use the Firefox desktop version
– millions use the nightly version of the Firefox desktop browser
– only thousands downloaded the Metro version
The Metro version didn’t support extensions…WTH? The ONLY advantage over Chrome and IE is Firefox having that huge extensions catalog!
This is like making a Metro app that merely calls a CLI window and runs everything from there, you have killed any reason for choosing it on the platform in question. All I can figure is that Moz WANTED it to fail, either that or they are so mismanaged they don’t know that extensions are their biggest selling point.
Either explanation doesn’t look good and when you consider how much time and effort they just wasted the whole thing it confirms for me what I’ve been thinking for awhile,Moz has lost their way.
Moz hasn’t lost their way.
They are a much smaller company than Google, Microsoft or Apple so they have to pick their battles carefully.
They didn’t know if Metro apps or even Windows RT would be really popular so they had to start work on it. And then later they evaluated and found it, there is no interest in it.
It couldn’t enter Windows Store, because it wasn’t release yet. And even after it would, it wouldn’t be presented as metro application due to Microsoft’s policy on metro web browsers.
Yeah, the install flow for Metro styled browsers is such an afterthought. Terrible.
Hopefully it improves with future releases of Windows.
It isn’t an afterthought, It was specially designed that way to make difficult to use another browser that is not IE and not break antitrust agreements. Microsoft doesn’t have the luck the Apple have to force everyone to use only their browser engine
No argument there – it was just… bad.
However, the decision to use HTML (actually XUL) for the UI is a cornerstone of firefox – the two have always gone hand in hand. XUL is frankly kind of the whole point of Firefox, it is the reason why it has such an extensive library of cross-platform plugins, many of which cannot exist on other browsers. If you make make a browser and call it Firefox, it has to use XUL for the UI if you want to be able to use actual plugins…
Why bother? There are no real web browser in the Windows Store – none. There are a few amateur “wrappers” around IE, but that’s it. Microsoft won’t allow any 3rd party browser’s on RT, and few Pro users bother with the windows store…
Just saying, there is really no point of putting a browser in the windows store, or even building one for Metro. The limitations (no RT) mean that there is almost no audience for one. Google and Mozilla were hedging their bets in case Metro took off on the desktop – it didn’t.
In fact, I would not be surprised at all if Google dropped Metro support from Chrome too. Do a google search for “Chrome Metro” – almost all you see is posts asking how to turn it off…
Edited 2014-03-15 00:20 UTC
Why should you use Firefox?
I think the only compelling reason is that Firefox has the best and most capable extensions. That’s why I use Firefox on my desktop machine.
The engine is much worse than Blink, Webkit and even Trident. Scrolling using a multitouch screen or trackpad in Chrome, Safari and Internet Explorer is perfectly smooth, but in Firefox on the same machine, it’s jerky.
Still, I would have loved to use Metro Firefox with all my favourite extensions on my Windows 8 tablet – but Metro Firefox didn’t support any extensions.
I’m sure Metro Firefox would have gained many new users if they had added extension support, but without it, it simply didn’t make sense to switch from Metro IE or Chrome to Firefox.
Edited 2014-03-14 23:35 UTC
i have literally zero lag in firefox being in metro ui mode or desktop.
Same here, and it’s running a fairly old Touchsmart TX2 convertible tablet. It really was the lack of extensions that made me put off using it. I mean when I have Adblock installed in the desktop version then switch to metro version and it’s advertisements everywhere! That’s rather off-putting, to say the least.
I just stop visiting sites with “advertisements everywhere”
Really, if you just block all ads, you don’t know which sites respect you (by having none or small number of unobtrusive ads)
I gave it a try on my Surface. My conclusion is that IE11 does a much better job.
I still use Firefox in the desktop environment although I need to find a theme with bigger close buttons on the tabs.
I hoped to get firefox for Metro just in order to be available to use web inspector without having to leave Metro.
FWIW there was a steady stream of metrofox bug reports by non-employees, which indicated loyal user base waiting for release. Just dismissing their existance is practical but nasty step. (Yes, I know I’m talking of company, not of moral being.)