3 ms·
I don't agree with you. Firefox is an infrastructure product; it's how end users interact with actual products they care about (e.g., Facebook, Netflix, etc).
by stonogo 11y ago
I don't agree with you. Firefox is an infrastructure product; it's how end users interact with actual products they care about (e.g., Facebook, Netflix, etc). Few people fire up a web browser without the intention of consuming third-party (non-Mozilla) content, just like few people boot a linux system just to watch the kernel run.
- pcwalton 11y agoAs a matter of fact, we have empirical data posted just yesterday about who is committing to the mainstream browser engines: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10503653 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10503653 You are welcome to draw your own conclusions about the viability of constructing a modern browser engine on donated time from a handful of Facebook and Netflix engineers.
- gsnedders 11y agoOTOH, there's the counter argument that if search engines and OS vendors are willing to pay for browsers, why should Facebook and/or Netflix spend any money? It seems to be the classic business case problem of, "well everyone else is paying for it already, and as a result we won't have much affect". I do, of course, realise that FB and Netflix very much have an interest in the web platform, and could undoubtedly influence it more if they were willing to contribute code. That said, it's probably worthwhile to point out to those who don't know that both FB and Netflix are W3C members, and have several people who contribute heavily to specs.