I would argue the opposite: their core product is great, best in market. However, due to the browser landscape, your core product is virtually WORTHLESS. Every browser does just enough right to be interchangeable, so unless you are drastically taking a new approach to browsing in general (and your brand), you have zero chance in hell without being able to leverage your own hardware/added services.

> their core product is great, best in market

Man, I wish that were my experience. I'd love to keep using Firefox. My experience is the opposite of that, though.

Best in market? Why?

Market share is not always indicative of execution. There is a reasonable argument that their browser market share decreasing or not growing should prompt diversification of their business rather than doubling down on something that is not showing great returns on investment.

I am not saying that is always indicative of execution but I don't think Mozilla has any indicative of good execution? Hey, they invented a new programming language to reengineer the browser. The programming language is very succesful and it is growing in market share but Firefox continues to be written in C++.

IMHO there is a room for innovation in this space, long term but you can see if this happenning observing the project. Currently browser engines are one of the most complex pieces of software. There are new ways to attack these mammoths.

> Firefox continues to be written in C++

The amount of Rust code in Firefox is pretty substantial, and growing. Did you expect an instant rewrite?

Rust is from 2015, one year ago the Rust code in Firefox was 10%. What is now?