It seems like every thread talking about Firefox always has someone asking that question, so if you search back you should find plenty of reasons. Unfortunately, it’s been my observation that valid and polite criticisms always get downvoted. I don’t understand why. It’s not like downvotes are going to make the problems disappear.
Most of us would like Firefox to succeed, and it’s none of our faults that Mozilla is constantly neglecting it and going off on wild goose projects which get promptly abandoned.
I use Firefox on both Linux and Android for 99% of my web browsing needs. At least for me it's the best browser out there, and doesn't seem neglegted at all.
Good for you. I’m genuinely glad, you should use whatever you like, I don’t care for flame-wars. For me, it lacks several must-haves (I’m not going to waste my time repeating them, history has shown that’s a stupid waste of time and the downvotes on the original comment only prove my point). That’s why we have so many apps, everyone has different needs.
Upvotes are not going to make problems actually relevant to solve.
The question keeps getting asked because people say they have problems. Answers (if any come) tells everyone what the problem is for this one user that raised it.
In aggregate we can all see that the problems are not very real for the vast majority of users.
The biggest problem users actually face with using Firefox is that web devs don’t want to support more than one browser and they have picked Chrome now. Or IT departments have blessed one and only one browser on corporate machines and it is the one most corpoware developers build extensions for.
Chasing web standards is a second order problem and will not make the user experience better in a relevant manner for end users. If web developers want an open web, they have to work to support open browsers.
Yeah the criticism is not invalid, but it is also often half-relevant soapboxing and I would wager that is why it tends to get downvoted.
LMFAO. You web devs just want more tools to fingerprint and track users. When Firefox raises privacy concerns for your spyware tools, you play like victims and say that "Firefox doesn't want better for users". F that.
HN is a good website. Ebay is another good example where JavaScript is optional but with good functionality. Marko was mocked, but now Astro is cool because they invented ssr...
I’d trust their assessment more than a vague “everyone knows”. There’s nothing “everyone knows”.
Should Apple be better at repairability? Absolutely! But let’s criticise accurately and in good faith. When we don’t, points are easily dismissed and no one takes the valid parts seriously.
So no, it’s not what the above scores tell, because you were actively selective. If you scroll down the list in good faith (with is sorted from Newest to Oldest) what you see is that Apple is not the worst and has been getting better starting with the 15.
> Polite reminder that companies don't care about us if we love them or support them or not. Especially online.
You don’t have to tell me that, I’m an active critic of Tim Cook and the current state of Apple.
I’m also pretty vocal about not shilling for corporations and billionaires which would sell your nuts in a heartbeat. But I do care about criticism being valid, because when it’s not people ignore the valid points.
Again, Apple should absolutely do better and so should other companies. But lets call them out on what they actually do (or don’t), false accusations don’t help.
How do those numbers look with similar products from Huawei, Samsung, etc...? Fairphone/HMD are competitors focused on repairability above other factors so it's not really a fair comparison.
> But let’s criticise accurately and in good faith.
Apple pioneered some huge anti-repairability measures like e.g. soldered-in RAM.
Wasn't always that way though. I recall repairing a late 2011 MBP, so contemporary to the first soldered MBAs. Really easy to work on, with the battery held in place with just two triangular screws. That was four years ago and the user is still using it.
In doing an "everyone knows" assessment, you should analyze iFixit scores over time, which is what reputation is built on, rather than a point in time. Additionally, we're talking about Apple as a whole, not just one product. They've had several Macbooks that had scores of 1/10, and the Airpods received a 0/10. Even a recent iPhone had its score reduced from a 7/10 down to a 4:
I have machine washed my Airpods multiple times and they still work, and I use them for 3+ years. Seems like a good enough product, based on the alternatives available in the market.
However if we're going to talk about "eco progress" specifically we do have to talk about repairability. To be fair though, a long lasting product is probably more "green" than any easily repaired one in many circumstances.
Not op but that's missing the forest for the tree. Those devices are not meant to be e-waste conscious at all, which is the undertone here: you can't replace the battery yourself, you can't expand storage when you need, you can't safely expand their life when they are outside of Apple support period because they are soft and hardware black boxes. Instead, you just buy anew.
True, Apple is no more no less guilty of this than the competition, but they are also not shifting the needle while pretending to do so, with so many untaped opportunities.
Not true at all. I have a close friend (not an electronics or programming nerd in any way) which has replaced the battery (and a screen) on multiple iPhones with nothing more than iFixit instructions.
> you can't safely expand their life
Again, not true. See above.
> with so many untaped opportunities.
Which is obvious I agree with, since I said they absolutely should be better at repairability. But consider the dismissive tone of the original comment, which is justified with false information.
To give you an exaggerated example, let’s say someone is telling you about all the awful practices Nestlé engages in. All of them are true, but then they end with “and their CEO is literally Hitler, who survived and changed his face due to an agreement with the Beelzebub, and is going to control humanity through chocolate”. At that point most people would dismiss them as a nut job and ignore the other true valid points as fabrications too.
Which is why we should criticise, yes, but based on truth, not lies and rage bait.
They didn't say "nobody can replace the battery themselves", and "you" here was probably intended to mean "a normal consumer". Relative to items with replaceable batteries (a TV remote control, a camera, a pre-iPhone mobile phone), the batteries are extremely hard to replace.
The batteries are also not safe to replace, relative to items with replaceable batteries. There is a very low chance of me accidentally damaging my TV remote control while replacing the batteries.
None of the information you're responding to is false, and it's perhaps worth asking yourself why you're here defending Apple.
There's an easier argument that is simply "But Samsung!".
A "normal consumer", at least in most of the US, can take their iPhone to an Apple store, a Best Buy, and probably several small phone repair services that have small stores or kiosks in a nearby mall or inside a Walmart.
From an environmental point of view it doesn't matter if you do the repair yourself or you have it done by someone else.
> and "you" here was probably intended to mean "a normal consumer".
Which is why I used a normal consumer as an example.
> None of the information you're responding to is false, and it's perhaps worth asking yourself why you're here defending Apple.
I’m not defending Apple, I’m defending accuracy. When someone says something inaccurate about someone or something I oppose, I try to correct that too. It’s important that arguments are based on truth, because when they are not people start dismissing the true with the false.
My comment history shows I’m an Apple user but am constantly criticising its current state and Tim Cook. You’ll find more comments of mine criticising than praising them.
Perhaps it’s worth asking yourself why you see someone making an argument once and immediately assume they may have ulterior motives, and why you’re actively ignoring the arguments which do not feed your view, including my clear and repeated assertions in the thread that Apple should absolutely do better.
> There's an easier argument that is simply "But Samsung!".
Which was not once my argument. I abhor whataboutism.
I suspect the OP made a mistake and forgot the word “not” in “I'm accusing Apple of lying, but I'd like to get more context than” (otherwise the “but” makes little sense).
I expect they are asking in good faith if there are audits, not accusing the auditors of being corrupt.
It really comes down to whether we trust Apple to do the work; auditors can be found that will certify anything you need even if not at the fraud levels of Arthur Anderson.
And this kind of thing can be hard to independently verify.
Given Apple’s track record I suspect they actually do care about this internally and spend the effort to make sure it is “real”.
I don't expect absolute perfection from Apple but I think they are putting in good faith effort towards these improvements and are just proud of their accomplishments.
If it was strictly a feel-good PR effort then that would have the complete opposite effect if their environmental claims were found to be fabricated, and it would just take one whistleblower anywhere in their own staff, their auditing teams, or anywhere in their global supply chain to bring down that whole facade.
To see previous ones, simply change the year in the URL.
You can get to that from apple.com/environment or apple.com/2030 (which redirects to the former). Near the end, right before and in the appendix you can find third-party independent reviews and assessments.
Now, are those trustworthy? I don’t know. But it gives you the context to start looking. The broader document will also probably help answer the other specific questions.
> When I read pieces like this all I think is, resistance to change is a helluva drug.
When I read comments like yours, I’m reminded of (though I’m not comparing you to—I believe you are arguing in good faith) the cryptocurrency shills saying anyone who is against cryptocurrencies is just jealous they didn’t get in on the gold rush; they are incapable of imagining or accepting other people have their own reasons beyond what the author can themselves conceptualise.
When people criticise cryptocurrencies, NFTs, the Metaverse, LLMs, they’re not just stubbornly “resisting change”. Those technologies have important issues and repercussions which should be addressed, we shouldn’t just accept change unquestionably.
> Of course, this all depends on using AI to enhance cognition and access to knowledge, as opposed to just letting a machine write all your code for you without review, Yegge-style.
And the latter is exactly what is going to happen and is already happening in large enough quantity that it’s going to be a serious problem.
> But the one about "endangering human development" is wholly in our individual hands. You can use AI to help you learn, or to replace the need to learn.
That completely ignores the loss of skill that happens without you realising, as you lean more on a tool.
No, the solution is to fix the societal issues leading people to resort to crime. Surveillance cameras are not a solution, they are a band-aid placed several steps away from the wound.
> For indies, the pressure to clear the 2 hour mark was hung ominously overhead when Valve updated their policy to allow refunds up to that threshold.
If the game is good, I doubt most people would return it. “The Dark Queen of Mortholme”¹ comes to mind. I didn’t really find it enjoyable (good idea, boring execution) but the reviews praise it and I do get why.
The game takes 30 minutes from beginning to end. Maybe you’ll do 90 minutes if you want to try multiple things, but you can do everything in under two hours. And yet it’s a success, not a return fest.
A bunch of folks on social media used to crow about refunding the indie games they beat in under 2 hours. No idea how widespread a phenomenon it really was, but it certainly got airtime in gamedev circles
That’s useful context, thank you. On the other hand, GOG allows refunds up to thirty days after purchase, which is much more ripe for abuse, and they seem to be doing fine (though I don’t know for sure, would appreciate some context there as well).
There's plenty of sociopaths and people with not a lot of disposable money, but my theory is that as we (gamers) get older, richer, and with less available time, we will prefer the short and sweet experience over the 100+ hour game loop.
I know that's the case for me, and one of my favourite pastimes is install the little games from itch.io, which average at 10 minutes long, and just enjoy the naivety and craft that never overstays its welcome no matter how uncooked it is. You can have too much of a good thing; once I really cared about getting enough enjoyment/dollar, these days I'd rather spend $20 dollars for a good 2 hour experience, than find myself bored after 15 hours of the same.
It's difficult, I'm sure to some degree "fraud" happens (someone buys a game, enjoys it, and refunds anyways) but I also think that "game was way shorter than I expected" (where expectations are set by the store page, description, and most importantly price) is a real flaw in the product that is refund worthy.
It seems like every thread talking about Firefox always has someone asking that question, so if you search back you should find plenty of reasons. Unfortunately, it’s been my observation that valid and polite criticisms always get downvoted. I don’t understand why. It’s not like downvotes are going to make the problems disappear.
Most of us would like Firefox to succeed, and it’s none of our faults that Mozilla is constantly neglecting it and going off on wild goose projects which get promptly abandoned.
reply