Microsoft As The Firefox Savior?

http://parislemon.com/post/13698115578/microsoft-as-the-firefox-savior

by tilt • 15 years ago

33 46 15 years ago

gcp• 15 years ago

I don't see anything new here, the potential of a MS-Firefox partnership has been brought up many times, with the pros or cons for all parties.

Then there's some claims that Firefox and Chrome are bloated, to which I can only say: you are aware that current webpages are more complex than those of 5 years ago, are you? I strongly suspect both browsers have gotten significantly faster over the years in relevant benchmarks.

If the author had done some basic research, he could have avoided this:

But Marco is right, the real key going forward is mobile. And Mozilla is going to have a very hard time competing there simply because they do not control their own platform. Firefox Phone, anyone?

This effort already exists for some months: https://wiki.mozilla.org/B2G

lftl• 15 years ago

Then Firefox too became bloated. And it slowed down. I started using Mozilla’s Camino (their Mac-focused browser) as a result. Then Chrome arrived, in a similar way to the way that Firefox had. It was refreshingly fast…

This quote made me laugh, because Firefox was forked from Mozilla because Mozilla was too bloated. It just seems like a perpetual cycle.

indy2• 15 years ago

Accusing Chrome of becoming bloated seems harsh, technologies like SPDY and V8 have improved the browsing experience and isn't it a main priority of the Chrome team to never increase the start-up time?

nuttendorfer• 15 years ago

This doesn't change the fact that more and more features get tacked onto a browser which have nothing to do with browsers. Chrome didn't have much useless features a year ago, but now Google is trying to make it into a platform.

azakai2• 15 years ago

> Accusing Chrome of becoming bloated seems harsh

The word 'bloated' can be overused, but let's ignore the choice of word the GP used. The fact is, Chrome downloads have been getting bigger and bigger (there was an article here on HN a while back with some numbers), which isn't surprising because a lot more is being included. For example,

* Flash

* PDF viewer

* Developer tools suite

* Chrome-specific technologies like NaCl

* Chrome Store support

* Proposed web standards like Web Audio API and WebSQL (which are significantly more complex and large in comparison to alternative proposed standards to them) and SPDY

Now, the significant increase in size might be justified in some people's opinion, it's debatable of course.

billpatrianakos10• 15 years ago

This isnt going to happen. Search is too important to Google to let go in Firefox. Remember, Google is not a browser maker (well, technically it is I guess), its focus is on search. Chrome is the unofficial child of Googlebot and the reason it exists is to help them dominate search. It wouldn't make sense for Google not to renew with Mozilla because that would be a gift to Miscrosoft's Bing.

As far as bloat goes, well addons account for a lot of bad performance and we have to remember that Firefox is old and there are people who have been using it for ages. Those people are carrying a lot of baggage in the form of old browser profiles, the user database, maybe even years worth of cookies and history. Setting up a totally fresh Firefox install would speed things up for many.

But I can't be a Mozilla apologist. I switched to Chrome but use FF for testing. I've found that FF is what I wouldn't exactly call "slow" but just "less fast" than Chrome.

It seems most software ends up bloated. Anyone who codes knows that code is never finished. There's always that temptation to add more and more to a project. Security updates and under the hood stuff is boring. New features are sexy! Sex sells. I recently created my own little web dev boilerplate and the first version was a nice starting point. Then I had this urge to add stuff until it was no longer a boilerplate but pretty much an entire website minus content. Ridiculous. It sucks but it's reality and we need to control that impulse to constantly add where no additions are needed.

Edit: spelling.

randomdata• 15 years ago

> Chrome is the unofficial child of Googlebot and the reason it exists is to help them dominate search.

Technically Google is in the business of advertising. They don't really care how you see the ads, so long as advertisers remain happy. Search just happens to be a good way to present those ads.

billpatrianakos10• 15 years ago

Okay that's fair. I stand corrected. Even so, it's still to their benefit to make sure people are directed to where their ads are (google.com) and that means renewing with Firefox in the context of this discussion. They must be first in search for their ad network to be so lucrative.

adotify• 15 years ago

Until webkit introduce a better debugging tool than it currently has, i dont think any web developer is going to stop using firefox and firebug as their main development browser.

rimantas• 15 years ago

Lots and lots already already did just that.

billpatrianakos10• 15 years ago

I use Chrome and the built in dev tools. I think they're great. I also got this plugin that helps debug styles but that's about it. Firebug is the reason Firefox can be so slow at times. There's a decent sized exodus from FF and Firebug to Chrome and Chromium. I love Webkit, personally.

stuartmemo• 15 years ago

I hear this all the time, yet not one person can tell me precisely what Chrome is lacking when it comes to dev tools. What is it you're missing? Anyone?

Zakuzaa• 15 years ago

I remember Mozilla people saying something like this few years ago - "We put Google Search as default not because Google funds us, but because it's best for our users."

But now that Bing is equally good (kind of), I think they can really consider it if need be and still manage to not seen as selling out its users.

gkoberger2• 15 years ago

Google search has mind share, which (unfortunately) is more important than actual search accuracy.

wavephorm4• 15 years ago

Mozilla is in trouble if the PC and the entire "desktop computing" model continues to be sidelined in favor of mobile devices and natural UI's. Of the three mobile devices I own (phone, tablet, ipod) on none of them do I need to go to www.Google.com to find information, nor I do use any Firefox browser. What happens to Firefox when I no longer need a laptop or desktop computer of any kind? The quality of the browser and the team, the philosophy, and goodwill is meaningless if their product isn't on the devices I'm using.

tree_of_item• 15 years ago

https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/mobile/

You say you don't use Firefox on mobile, which is fine, but then you seem to claim their product isn't on the devices you're using, when it is.

wavephorm4• 15 years ago

I'm aware of Firefox mobile, but it isn't installed on my devices. How does Mozilla expect to gain users (and search revenue) on these platforms if they can't even convince power users like me? This time they're competing against built-in browsers that are as competent and secure as what they're offering.

billpatrianakos10• 15 years ago

Mobile is huge but the desktop isn't going anywhere any time soon. That's apples and oranges. The dust will settle and desktop and mobile will find their place as tools and nothing more. A lot of people talk about the death of desktop computing and that's just bull. Furthermore, Firefox is on mobile already. They don't need their own platform to survive. Firefox stands for something that differentiates it from the other browser makers. There will always be a market for what Mozilla offers and it isn't going away any time soon. People that are concerned about privacy will ditch Chrome, people who enjoy a fast browser that renders pages as they were meant to be will ditch IE, and as for Safari... well I'm not sure if anyone really uses it all that much (it's a great browser but to me it just collects dust).

ams61102• 15 years ago

I disagree a bit, I think that the home desktop is in real danger of being largely replaced by mobile pad/tablet computers, which do everything most home users need and are easily used in the comfort of a recliner in the living room. They may not do everything as well as a desktop, but when the time comes and people are looking at another $1,000 or more for a new PC a number of them will look at their iPad and say "that's good enough."

The business desktop will be around for a long time, I agree, as its interfaces are much more practical for all-day use.

wavephorm4• 15 years ago

Sure, buy that huge desktop computer, and 27" monitor, mouse, ergonomic keyboard, swivel chair.... to watch youtube videos and use Facebook.

Nope. The desktop computer is dead. Home users will go tablet.

Enterprise users don't use Firefox today, and they probaby won't tomrrow unless something drastic happens.

asadotzler• 15 years ago

Mozilla and Firefox don't require a savior. With hundreds of millions of users, any search service would be happy to pay for Firefox's search traffic.

Ex. Opera has about 1/10th the usage of Firefox and it has a lucrative deal with Google (and Bing and others) that put about $50M in its coffers every year. Search traffic is valuable, both at small scales like Opera and at large scales like Firefox.

Synaesthesia• 15 years ago

I wouldn't quite write Firefox off yet. They're iterating faster and making some good improvements to the browser. Personally I use Chrome & Safari, but my mom uses Firefox, and I've certainly noticed the speed improvements going from version 4 to 8. They've reduced the bloat too, we're on 2gb RAM, and the number of tabs we have open sometimes is astonishing, and it's always responsive these days. What do you guys experience?

nirvdrum3• 15 years ago

Their accelerated release schedule is precisely why I've stopped installing Firefox on relatives machines. I'm tired of having to answer why Firefox just started up asking them if they wanted to search for updates for their addons, why some of them got disabled, and why some extensions just stopped working. I've also had the unfortunate experience of an update just not working at all. Basically, they're delivering nothing my family is looking for at the cost of stability. It's just not worth it.

what_ever3• 15 years ago

You can install add-on compatibility checker add-on. I think almost all of the add-ons which work for FF4, work for rest of the versions as well. And almost all of the add-ons have been ported to FF4. So basically, everything works.

billpatrianakos10• 15 years ago

I prefer Chrome and Safari because I'm a Webkit fan. But I got my dad on Firefox and he loves it. Inertia will keep him there just like inertia kept him on IE until I pushed FF on him. Firefox is decently speedy and I even prefer it to Safari in terms of speed (though I haven't used Safari5 much at all so I cant really compare that version).

Chrome does a better job with lots of tabs. Firefox definitely slows down with each tab. I absolutely love the way each tab in Chrome is its own separate process. Why doesn't Firefox follow their lead?

ams61102• 15 years ago

Why did Chrome supplant Firefox? It was/is faster. Most people (certainly people like "my mom" or "my grandfather" who are so often presented as examples in these discussions) don't need/won't ever use things such as: plugins, tabs, javascript consoles, CSS debuggers, etc. Strip ALL that out and make a solid, simple, FAST browser that is monetized by search/ad deals.

Make a "pro" or "developer" edition with the extra tools and features to keep the likes of us happy.

azakai2• 15 years ago

> Chrome does a better job with lots of tabs. Firefox definitely slows down with each tab. I absolutely love the way each tab in Chrome is its own separate process. Why doesn't Firefox follow their lead?

Many people report the opposite, that Chrome does poorly with hundreds of tabs. The reason is that there is a tradeoff: Running tabs in separate processes as Chrome does takes more memory, but it does help with responsiveness. So whether Firefox or Chrome ends up 'faster' really depends on the number of tabs (and which web pages they are on), and how much memory you have. There is no perfect approach that is fast on everything.

what_ever3• 15 years ago

I have been using Firefox as my primary browser and Chromium as my secondary browser. Yes, Firefox has improved with respect to memory consumption a lot. And if I have 5-10 tabs open in each FF and Chromium, FF takes lesser memory.

Firefox has also gotten considerably faster. The javascript performance has improved and it is as fast if not faster than Chrome. In fact when I last heard, IE had the fastest JS engine with Chakra.

Firefox opens equally faster (cold start) with 0 or 10 tabs. This is really not a factor for me though, as I don't cold start a browser for weeks.

I love Firefox Awesomebar. I don't remember selecting a bookmark or opening history menu on FF. Also, I still don't find some equally good addons/extensions for Chromium e.g. mouse gestures. Addons are better integrated with FF compared to Chromium.

arpitnext3• 15 years ago

Firefox is too slow, and it is getting slower with every release. Mozilla should stop using Gecko, and switch to WebKit ...... or should release a WebKit version.

I believe that there is still huge scope for a better browser. Chrome is Google's browser - and open community cant trust Big G. Chromium has a big minus point: no auto-update. You need to download and install newer versions manually.

I want a fast browser (may be WebKit + V8) developed by any non-profit and reputed organization like Mozilla.

guard-of-terra• 15 years ago

Chromium does have auto-update on linux, using system package management.

arpitnext3• 15 years ago

there are some third party tools for Windows to automate the process of installing newer version.

But we can't expect an end-user to use such things.

I find Chromium an uncomplete product. :( Also, it is not developed by the open-community.

gkoberger2• 15 years ago

Switching to Webkit isn't going to speed Firefox up. Gecko is very fast, especially now. As is SpiderMonkey. Firefox's biggest enemy when it comes to speed is add-ons -- which ironically is one of its best features.

Also, Chrome does definitely auto-update. It does it better than Firefox does (and I'm saying that as a Mozilla employee).

Give Firefox 8 (or 9 or 10 or 11, if you're into betas or nightlies) another chance, with a clean profile. I think you'll find it to be incredibly fast.

arpitnext3• 15 years ago

yeah, I use nightly as my default browser. It is faster than the Fx8, but not as the Chrome - even without add-ons.

I agree that add-ons are slowing down Firefox. I expect Jetpacks to overcome this problem, but it seems that add-on devs are not much happy with jetpacks/addon sdk.

>> Also, Chrome does definitely auto-update

I am talking about Chromium here

Microsoft As The Firefox Savior?

Related Stories