I think this comment misses just how big of a leap chrome was over the competition for at least 5 years. The speed and stability improvements were light-years ahead. It was finally able to break the IE6 stranglehold and quickly overtook Firefox's adoption rate.
After that it's just inertia, it's the head of the pack because it's the head of the pack and people already use it.
To convince people to change generally you can't just offer the same or similar performance and features, it has to be a worthwhile reward for the user to bother. This change which just might be crippling enough for adblockers may be enough to get people to switch.
That has not bearing upon whether the Mozilla Corporation is for profit or not. It is for profit and the original statement was regarding a lack of understanding why someone would use a browser made by a for profit company. Firefox is factually made by a for profit company. One whose major source of income is the nefarious Google.
I'm also afraid how this usually turns out is the for-profit part takes over the non-profit part. See OpenAI or just about any major national non-profit in the US.
No, this effectively means that the corporation can do evil and will always point to its owner being non-profit as a justification for doing more evil. The corpo gets a "kind face" behind which it can do dirty deeds.
Inclusion of Pocket in Firefox is a representative example - included despite overwhelming community objections for more profit!
