• Virkkunen@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    10 hours ago

    If every single person that uses adblock decided to move to Firefox because of MV3, it wouldn’t make a single dent in Chromium’s dominance. We vastly overstate the amount of people that even know what an adblocker is.

    • Rob200@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      48 minutes ago

      It would actually.

      Google makes money on ads. They think they can force more money to make. People switching to Firefox makes that a wasted effort for Google as you descibed.

    • unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      31
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      9 hours ago

      Nah it would make a big dent for sure.

      Firefox has ~180 million users

      Amount of users using adblockers is ~900 million.

      It would massively change the market.

      Numbers according to mozilla and statista

      • ByteJunk@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 hours ago

        Im using Firefox because fuck Google’s monopoly, but Firefox seems to care little for some stuff I think is critical, namely AV codec support. Lack of out of the box support for HEVC and a few others, which my underlying OS supports perfectly, is a big turn off.

        May be time to give Opera a spin

      • Virkkunen@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        9 hours ago

        There are at least 3.45 billion Chrome users (not chromium, chrome).

        Out of those ~900 million adblocker users, how many are using those adblockers that let paid advertiser’s to get on a whitelist? How many are willing to make an effort to change browsers? Firefox’s 180 million users is the indicative of this, and not all of them user adblockers, so the numbers keep getting thinner.

        It wouldn’t make a single dent in Chrome’s dominance.

        • unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 hours ago

          If every single person that uses adblock decided to move to Firefox

          This is the hypothetical we are talking about. This is obviously not realistic so i dont know what your point is.

    • lemmeBe
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      9 hours ago

      That’s true. 2 years ago, I come by my friend’s house for a drink, and his kid is watching cartoons on YT. My friend’s been a gamer for +20 years. Spent most of his life around PC. All of a sudden, I hear ads.

      What’s that? What? What’s with the ads? Oh that, that’s YT.

      I know it is, but what’s with the ads? Well, they have ads. I know they do, but why do you have them…

      Installed adblocker for him, he’s looking at it in shock. I’m looking at him shocked…

      People have no idea, what we take for granted. 😅

    • ihatetheworld@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      8 hours ago

      Yes I agree. If you are using adblocker you are already not an average user. Using A adblocker with custom filters put you on the extreme end and most of those users are either already on FF or have migrated to FF since the MV3 announcement.

      And let’s not forget adblock made for MV3 will work well enough for those users who aren’t using adblocker with custom filters.

      Even if Google kill off adblock completely with its browser, chrome will still be dominating the market by a huge margin.

    • babybus
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      9 hours ago

      Then why is Google fighting against ad blockers?

      • emax_gomax@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        9 hours ago

        Because their an ad company and they don’t like any threats to their revenue stream. Same logic as video game companies using DRM. Selling a worse product at a bigger expense to tell shareholders their compelling pirates to pay (even tho most pirates will just not play the game rather than suddenly start purchasing it).