Also, Firefox is in a tough situation where they have to purposefully shoot themselves in the foot, because their builtin tracking protection means Firefox usually doesn’t show up in a lot of browser usage stats.
I didn’t think about it, though if that makes it harder to track it (can’t they just check the user agent?) could that actually be good, as the sites will never know exactly how many users they will lose, so might be more hesitant to pull the trigger?
If you use a third-party analytics service such as Google Analytics, as almost all serious parties do (with their nice dashboards and reports), then you’ll notice Firefox is severely underrepresented because the request never reaches Google
Also, Firefox is in a tough situation where they have to purposefully shoot themselves in the foot, because their builtin tracking protection means Firefox usually doesn’t show up in a lot of browser usage stats.
I didn’t think about it, though if that makes it harder to track it (can’t they just check the user agent?) could that actually be good, as the sites will never know exactly how many users they will lose, so might be more hesitant to pull the trigger?
That would be true for competent web developers. Unfortunately, those are a vanishingly small subset.
No, they’ll just see the management summary that Firefox occupies less than 0.5% of their users’ marketshare and prioritize their budget accordingly.
That blocks user agent string? Answer: no it absolutely doesn’t
Explain how this comment isn’t completely wrong
If you use a third-party analytics service such as Google Analytics, as almost all serious parties do (with their nice dashboards and reports), then you’ll notice Firefox is severely underrepresented because the request never reaches Google
I think that may be true if you set the privacy protection to strict, which is not default.
I wonder if it’s underrepresented more so because people who use Firefox are more likely to install privacy centric extensions