Is Firefox Doomed?

http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/is_firefox_doomed.php#.TtqVTl2ZdU4.hackernews

by johnpaultitlow • 15 years ago

68 122 15 years ago

ck2• 15 years ago

If Microsoft can be sued (and lose) for making IE the only/default/integrated browser on millions of copies of Windows - why does not the same apply to Chrome/Safari on Android/Iphone?

bergie• 15 years ago

At least on Android Firefox works really well, and thanks to the intent system can replace the default browser regardless of where in the system you open a link.

This doesn't mean we wouldn't be in the old IE monopoly of "nobody downloads browsers"

Dylan16807• 15 years ago

Works really well as long as you don't have an armv5 processor that's unsupported because it can't automatically fix alignment mistakes.

olivercameron• 15 years ago

Because neither Apple or Google have a monopoly on the browser market anywhere near what Microsoft had. Also, Microsoft was sued for actively thwarting competition[1] in order to maintain it's position.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft

Karellen• 15 years ago

While your first point is valid, the fact that Apple completely refuse to allow any 3rd party browsers on iPhone/iPad/etc... puts them in a worse position competition-thwarting-wise than MS with IE.

mbreese• 15 years ago

Android and the iPhone don't have a monopoly on mobile phones. So long as you aren't a monopoly, you are free to restrict the software on your phone as much as you'd like.

Plus, you can have a different browser on both the iPhone and android.

georgemcbay• 15 years ago

The issue with IE came from the notion that Microsoft already had a monopoly on operating systems and was using that monopoly as unfair leverage in the "browser market". (This made more sense at the time than it does today, as now the idea that a desktop OS would ship without any browser seems silly).

As long as Android and iOS both remain strong competitors, neither can really be seen as a smartphone (or tablet) monopoly. This is part of the reason I think Apple going "thermonuclear" on Android is counterproductive for them -- if they succeeded beyond their wildest dreams and Android disappeared tomorrow, Apple would essentially be assured of having the government (not just the US, but perhaps even more so in Europe) come in and force them to open up iOS far more than they would be comfortable doing.

extension• 15 years ago

At the time, there was pretty much only one category of personal computing device and Microsoft's OS ran on nearly every one sold. Legally, they were considered to have a monopoly in the consumer OS market and to be abusing this monopoly to stifle competition in the web browser market.

Now we have a variety of devices and platforms and I think it's fair to say that there is no comparable conglomeration of power in the industry. Not yet, anyway.

super_mario2• 15 years ago

Having a monopoly in a market is not illegal. Using your monopoly in one market to win another (by not competing fairly) is illegal. This is precisely what Microsoft was convicted for.

kijin• 15 years ago

Becoming the #3 browser doesn't make Firefox anywhere near "doomed". It's just back where it was a few years ago, as far as market share is concerned. The desktop and laptop userbase isn't going to disappear anytime soon, either.

I don't know much about the search engine partnership issue, but it seems that the author suggested his answer to that. No search service can afford to ignore a browser with over 20% market share.

jyrkesh3• 15 years ago

I think the issue here is that Mozilla can't afford to still exist without that 100 million from Google a year. But yeah, I don't see why someone else wouldn't come in and swoop on that.

ehthere• 15 years ago

Bing?

marshray• 15 years ago

Last I checked, the statement I read looked like Mozilla had a pile of cash in the bank. Enough to go on for many years if they're not dumb with it.

Would be interesting to see if they've put out an updated statement since then.

jyrkesh3• 15 years ago

It actually does seem pretty likely that someone else--Yahoo, Microsoft, who knows--and use Firefox to their advantage in some way. But yeah, I don't see Google renewing the deal.

Bo102010• 15 years ago

Firefox isn't doomed. Not only is it still a good web browser that many (myself included) continue to use daily, inertia will keep it installed on millions of PCs.

As far as I know, Mozilla and Google maintain good relations. Even if the deal that provides money from Google to Mozilla isn't renewed, I doubt they will entirely disentangle themselves from each other.

rjd7• 15 years ago

Firefox is doomed because its lost its developer foot hold, anecdotally most devs I know refer to it as a joke and use Chrome instead. Its a browser that relies on recommendation to exist, and it no longer is getting recommendation.

On a technical note each version isn't really getting any better, historical problems have never been addressed, version fragmentation is occurring, on several matters its in direct conflict on the w3c standards with other major players.

The UI is polarising (its the major complaint I actually here next to 'laggy behavior'), the options to change it rely on 3rd party modules which are often bugging and not supported between versions. It's never nailed OSX, it just doesn't 'feel' the same as the rest of the operating system and is slightly jarring at times.

Personally if you take a base install of Opera 11 it is exactly how I want FF to be set up, everything works smoothly, fast, and 'clicky'. I'd recommend any FF user to try the new version of Opera for a few days, then go back to FF and see just how different it feels even though they are aesthetically quite similar.

sounds• 15 years ago

Developer here, and I prefer firefox over chrome.

FrankBooth3• 15 years ago

Most of your post is emotion and opinion, so I thought I'd address the part that is factually incorrect:

> On a technical note each version isn't really getting any better

That's simply not true. To take a single example, the type inference engine added to the JS engine in FF9 significantly improved performance. With the new high frequency release strategy, it's not guaranteed that there will be huge new features or improvements in any given release, but the features and improvements are coming as fast as ever.

> historical problems have never been addressed

You can find ancient pet bugs for any project that either take a long time to get fixed or are never fixed. Do you have something specific in mind?

> version fragmentation is occurring

That's more-or-less false. There's some adjustment going on due to the switch to the high frequency release schedule, but the fact is the vast majority of Firefox users are on a small number of versions, almost all that have been offered an upgrade are on the latest stable release.

> on several matters its in direct conflict on the w3c standards with other major players.

Can you point to anything specific to back up your claim? If you pick and choose specs, this is true for all browsers. Nobody implements everything completely and correctly. The specs are being developed as fast as ever, and it's common for one browser to be ahead in certain areas. It's also common for competing implementations to differ as the standard develops. This is not confined to Firefox.

theshadow2• 15 years ago

"anecdotally most devs I know refer to it as a joke and use Chrome instead."

Ahh the world of cargo cult browser fanboyism. All I can say is that the devs you are hanging out with aren't very good, any dev who would write off and "laugh at" a browser which boasts the widest and the most mature array of development tools is probably not very good to begin with.

grannyg00se• 15 years ago

"The UI is polarising"

What exactly do you mean by that? The UI in a browser shouldn't do anything but get out of the way and display the web page's UI.

Personally, I don't even want to see a menu bar unless I hit the ALT key - which is working nicely for me in Firefox right now.

And I don't notice any "laggy behaviour". Although I haven't run any comparison tests so maybe I'm missing out.

knewter• 15 years ago

> Its a browser that relies on recommendation to exist, and it no longer is getting recommendation.

I agree with the first part of your statement, and partially agree with the second. I personally recommend it to everyone over chrome, because firebug is better than chrome's dev tools...well, chrome's js tool is perhaps as good now, but firebug's better for everything else.

djbender• 15 years ago

"Is Firefox Doomed!? FIND OUT MORE AT 10!"

_bbs2• 15 years ago

Google benefits from being the default search engine in Firefox. They wouldn't pay $100 million per year to Mozilla if there wasn't some reasonable return on that investment. I imagine that the search traffic generated by Firefox will remain valuable to Google until FF's market share drops into the single digits.

The article implies that Google is charitably allowing Firefox to exist ("Google doesn't need Firefox anywhere near as much as Firefox needs Google."). I'd like to the think the Google-Mozilla relationship is mutually beneficial.

Firefox may become a viable alternative to Android's built-in browser once the native UI version is complete.

sliverstorm• 15 years ago

Google doesn't need Firefox anywhere near as much as Firefox needs Google

Even if true, that doesn't mean Google doesn't need Firefox.

portentint• 15 years ago

Google's developing Chrome as part of their 'headless' browser, which now powers their crawler. If I had to guess, they'll keep Firefox around as a partner to cover all their bets. Between that and Chrome, they have a nice chunk of market share to compete against Internet Elephant.

togasystems• 15 years ago

What does Mozilla do with their cash?

dangrossman• 15 years ago

http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/documents/

nfm2• 15 years ago

They publish their audited financial statements online:

http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/documents/

http://static.mozilla.com/moco/en-US/pdf/Mozilla%20Foundatio...

As of December 31, 2010, they have assets of $168MM, of which $35MM is in cash and $105MM in investments. In the 12 months they spent $62MM on software development, $10MM on branding and marketing, and $12MM on 'General and administrative'.

There's more granular detail if you're interested.

queensnake• 15 years ago

They hire people like mad and pay them well. They get some good people though, because they're Mozilla. Also, they get nice offices and keep them well :)

nfm2• 15 years ago

No, it's clearly not doomed.

Google wants people to use their services, and to use browsers that are up to scratch to do so. They also want to influence web standards so that they can build better products. This is why they built Chrome.

Firefox helps them to achieve these goals by being another alternative to IE, and having similar views about evolving web standards.

jarcoal• 15 years ago

I would be surprised if Google didn't renew their contract. There are still a TON of Firefox users out there, and I'm sure they would love to market to them.

It's the same reason they still make iOS apps. They don't care about what software you use, just that you're searching with Google.

mappu• 15 years ago

Mozilla is a non-profit foundation. It isn't out to be the best at everything in every market, it's out to encourage competition and provide a solid FOSS solution to a difficult problem. As far as they're concerned, they've already won.

thedaveoflife2• 15 years ago

That's a bit of an oversimplification. Non-profits are interested in "providing a solution to a difficult problem", but they are also interested in self preservation.

ticks• 15 years ago

Chrome is too closely linked to Google, so Firefox will always be a good alternative for people who care about privacy.

thedaveoflife2• 15 years ago

It's entirely possible that Google won't renew the deal, which would put about $100 million of Firefox's revenue at stake.

It would make no sense for Google to renew this agreement... if Mozilla suddenly changed Firefox's default SE that would not go over well with the users. It seems much more likely that they would form a new deal with less revenue going to Mozilla.

Of course that doesn't mean Firefox is done. That is highly dependent on Mozilla's innovation in the next few years.

joshu• 15 years ago

I am sure someone else would pick up the slack.

super_mario2• 15 years ago

I hope not. Currently nothing beats Firefox with Pentadactyl, Adblock Plus, Firebug, Tabmix plus combination. For real VIM geeks this is an insanely fast way to navigate the web and do online research.

w1ntermute• 15 years ago

Same here. I'm using all of those extensions, plus a number that help increase web privacy/security, such as BetterPrivacy, Ghostery, HTTPS-Everywhere, LastPass, and OptimizeGoogle.

There's no way to replicate that level of customization in Chrome. In fact, it's much worse because of all the tracking functionality Google's included.

eropple2• 15 years ago

> In fact, it's much worse because of all the tracking functionality Google's included.

[citation needed], because as far as I'm aware of there's no such "tracking functionality" anywhere in Chrome.

"In fact," claims like this without proof are pretty shitty.

polyfractal• 15 years ago

Agreed, and add Treeview tabs to that list. That extension alone is keeping me from moving to Chrome

paul9290• 15 years ago

Agreed I cant switch to Chrome because there is no exact Tab Mix Plus extension for it.

It's a more stable browser but I need Tab Mix Plus!

tux1968• 15 years ago

Hey... thanks for mentioning Pentadactyl... nice addition to the bag of Firefox tricks.

cft• 15 years ago

it's doomed since Google withdrew its support [1] to Mozilla foundation, and decided to focus on its own browser instead. Firefox was Google's skunk works project in its competition against IE until 2008.

1. http://techcrunch.com/2008/11/19/google-makes-up-88-percent-...

_bbs2• 15 years ago

That article explains that Google renewed its contract with Mozilla in 2008 for three years. The current discussion relates to the future of that contract. There is no evidence that Google has permanently withdrawn support for Firefox.

smudgy• 15 years ago

It's not doomed but it's not doing to well. The last versions have not been different enough to warrant new version numbers and Firefox 8, while being decidedly quicker for some tasks, has been incredibly slow for my mundane tasks.

I'm a hardcore Firefox guy, I've been using it and Mozilla since M6 but I changed to Chrome yesterday and, while it's not flexible and customizable as Firefox, it's Good Enough.

I hope it gets better - perhaps focusing on the browser instead of higher version numbers and striving to look like IE or Chrome. Until then, I'm a Chrome guy.

gkoberger4• 15 years ago

Don't worry about the version number -- a higher number doesn't mean there's a ton of new features; it merely means 6 weeks has passed. Pretty soon, upgrade dialogs will be completely suppressed and it won't matter what version you're on (much like Chrome). I like the rapid release; it means as a developer I can play with new features much sooner.

Firefox is as fast or faster than any other browser (assuming you don't load it up with add-ons). [1] So it's not like everyone at Mozilla stopped programming and started focusing all their energy on merely incrementing the version number from 7 to 8.

I don't know why you're so worried -- version is just a number.

[1] http://lifehacker.com/5844150/browser-speed-tests-firefox-7-...

grimlck• 15 years ago

Version number does matter because they can't seem to create a stable add-on API, and therefore version increment == add-on breakage.

theshadow2• 15 years ago

There is something incredibly funny about a post incriminating Firefox for not having enough new features to justify a new version number at the same time declaring Chrome as awesome at the end of the post

asadotzler• 15 years ago

Opera made $50M last year in search revenue from Google, Bing, Yandex, Amazon, and a few others. They did that with about 53M users -- 2-3% usage share according to StatCounter and Net Applications http://grab.by/blcC

(screenshot from this Opera report PDF http://media.opera.com/media/finance/2011/3Q11_presentation.... )

troymc• 15 years ago

Google isn't giving money to Mozilla just because they're nice and they like Firefox. Google often makes money when someone uses Firefox's search box to do a Google search: the search results page may have ads and if the searcher clicks on one of those ads, Google makes money, which they share with the referrer. The referrer in this case is Firefox but Google has a similar arrangement with tons of other referrers (through their "AdSense for Search" program).

I suspect Google's deal with Mozilla hasn't been renewed simply because renewal time hasn't arrived yet.

xxiao• 15 years ago

I guessed so. google was the major financial source for it, and it's going away. IE for Bing, Chrome for Google, Firefox for?

bmuon• 15 years ago

Firefox for Bing http://www.firefoxwithbing.com/

AaronMT• 15 years ago

No. It is not doomed. Google would not let ~350 million potential users go to waste.

insertnickname• 15 years ago

Most users would probably just set Google as the default search engine themselves if it wasn't default.

lmorchard• 15 years ago

Most users never touch defaults. I'd bet you $100 million a year that AltaVista would stay default in the majority of Firefox installs, if it were released that way.

bad_user7• 15 years ago

I'm a developer that switched back to Firefox, after I gave up on it during the 3.5 days. Firefox almost died in its transition to version 4, however now it is back on track.

I prefer it over Chrome because Firefox is a platform, not a product that treats me like a dumb user.

I use it on my Android too. It's a little sluggish and still uses too much memory, however it has a killer feature - it syncs everything with my desktop. It syncs my bookmarks and my saved login data for various websites I use. Saves me from a lot of manual typing and it is so addictive I can't give it up. Plus I'm seeing progress and they've promised a native interface that will be more efficient.

The desktop version is pretty stable these days too - I'm on the Beta channel (version 9) and I don't have problems. Even the versioning problems for the plugins I use have been sorted out.

I still recommend it to people, I would recommend it even to my hypothetical grandma.

If people from Mozilla are reading this - thanks for all your hard work.

jshen• 15 years ago

the mobile version has better features than the android browser, but it would lock up my droid x2 all the time so I had to stop using it :/

michaelcampbell• 15 years ago

> not a product that treats me like a dumb user

I use both Chrome and FF, and I never felt like a browser was "treating me" like anything. They're both tools.

Maybe because I AM a dumb user? ... Oh god.

fferen2• 15 years ago

Plus, Chrome basically comes with Firebug by default.

I feel that Chrome is similar to Apple products in that it feels restrictive when you first use it (especially with regards to its extension system), but that eventually you realize that you didn't really need those features in the first place. For me those were tree style tabs, as well as the "Awesome bar". The only truly killer feature that Chrome lacks is a reliable Adblock plus.

Of course, YMMV, etc.

StuffMaster• 15 years ago

I get the "You're a dumb user" feeling every time I open the options in Chrome.

abraham• 15 years ago

You might try the mobile nightly. The UI got rewritten as native and should be much faster. Still a little rough last I checked but surprisingly smooth.

https://wiki.mozilla.org/Mobile/Platforms/Android#Download_N...

diminish• 15 years ago

I am using Firefox since version 0.x and Chrome at the same time, though using Rekonq, Opera, Aurora, Epiphany for various purposes. Mobile web browsing still needs a lot of innovation, and I believe Firefox must stay away from the desktop metaphor and innovate in the mobile version. Here are some ideas for Firefox. http://www.augmentedmadness.com/suggestions-to-improve-mobil... I know Firefox early builds have other better mobile and touch integration.

azakai• 15 years ago

> So far, Bott's inquries to Mozilla about whether or not the Google deal has been renewed haven't yielded a straight answer. It's entirely possible that Google won't renew the deal, which would put about $100 million of Firefox's revenue at stake. [..] Google doesn't need Firefox anywhere near as much as Firefox needs Google.

This is completely mistaken.

What Google mainly cares about is search market share. Even 0.1% there is crucial, and worth a lot of money. Google would be willing to throw almost any amount of money at anything that would increase its share in search or keep it at its current height. The same is true of Microsoft with Bing.

Consider what happens if Google drops the deal with Firefox. Google will no longer be the default search engine in Firefox, and a lot of goodwill towards Google from Firefox users will be lost. Those two factors can easily account for far more than %0.1 of search. Worse, it is very likely that Microsoft would step in and pay the same amount to Firefox, so Google would be helping its main competitor in search.

$100M in that context is a laughably tiny amount.

ch0wn• 15 years ago

> $100M in that context is a laughably tiny amount.

Considering that Google spent $2.11B on traffic acquisition last quarter[0] it seems even less.

[0] http://investor.google.com/earnings/2011/Q2_google_earnings....

billpatrianakos• 15 years ago

Google isn't exactly about the browser, they're all about search. Not renewing wouldn't make sense. Microsoft would benefit greatly by partnering with Mozilla and Google shouldn't let that happen from a business standpoint.

I think that despite Chroke's dominance Firefox isn't going anywhere. The article kind of made it sound like Mozilla was on the ropes which it's pretty far from. There will always be a market for those who want a browser from a company that is on their side and that's Mozilla. Chrome is aweso,e but there are going to be people concerned about the data collection that goes on. Chrome is out there to enrich Google. IE is infamous for being behind the times and just a crappy browser all around for standards, weird toolbars that install the,selves, etc. Then there's Mozilla. What ulterior motives do they have? From all I've ever learned they're just out there trying to build a kick ass browser and move the web forward. No search engine to support, no billion dollar software company to promote, just a humble browser maker in it for the users.

Chrome may overtake them in market share but I don't see Mozilla straying too far behind Google for the foreseeable future. IE share will keep tanking and Safari, while a great browser, will still be kind of a trailing behind cult classic.

dendory• 15 years ago

Less than a week after Chrome passes Firefox and we get the "is firefox doomed?!" articles. Good old Internet blog pundits...

gujk2• 15 years ago

Firefox wins on only two feature, but important ones: privacy and advertising addons. It is the only reason I tolerate the rest of Firefox's slowness and memory hogging. 95+% of the market doesn't care about privacy and half don't care about ads though.

baq• 15 years ago

last year ff started to make changes that are becoming visible only now. they lost a lot of users, but are getting better all the time. i've been using chrome exclusively for the past year and now i've got both chrome and ff open.

i guess the biggest feature ff now lacks compared to chrome is the silent autoupdater. it can be optional, just stop asking me for admin rights every time it wants to update.

Is Firefox Doomed?

Related Stories