5 ms·

> > On smartphones, its share of browser usage is virtually nonexistent > that's surprising Not really. Think the desktop. Think MSIE. For a long time it was

> > On smartphones, its share of browser usage is virtually nonexistent > that's surprising Not really. Think the desktop. Think MSIE. For a long time it was a horrible browser, but held its market-share simply by being the default. Because people don't know they can change browser. Internet is the blue E. Etc. Now think Android. All phones comes preloaded with Google Chrome, and most people still don't recognize the idea that a browser is something you choose. Since Chrome is a reasonably good browser (apart from sending your every keystroke to the mothership), people have even less incentive to look up alternate browsers. And with Chrome being spammed everywhere Google has a piece of internet real estate (No I will not "upgrade" my Firefox to Chrome. Please stop asking), it keeps on winning usage on the desktop and thus helps cement its market-share on Android too. People genuinely ask why Firefox can't sync with their Google-account, implying that if it can't sync with Google, they don't think it can sync at all. Evidently that's how people work these days. I don't get it either.

rimantas 11y ago
> Think MSIE. For a long time it was a horrible browser, > but held its market-share simply by being the default. That's not entirely true. IE since about ~4 was the best browser around (I choose to ignore IE5 for Mac). NN4 was horrible. The problem with IE was that it stagnated, so when Firefox came out it soon started to kick IEs ass and only then the "default" part became a problem.
- iopq 11y ago
  Back then, people upgraded to FireFox because they wanted their fancy backgrounds to work in MySpace. I'm not even joking.
  - hayksaakian 11y ago
    wow thanks for the nostalgia trip. you're actually right though i think i remember seeing badges on certain myspace pages that suggested you install firefox to see the page correctly.
- pcthrowaway 11y ago
  Really? I remember Netscape being hands down better than IE, but that might have been after Netscape went out of business and before Mozilla formed, so maybe around when IE4 came out in other words.
  - nl 11y ago
    I was a webdev back during the 90's browserwars, and I can confirm that Netscape 4 was terrible (despite not wanting to admit it), IE4 was better and IE5 was pretty good. There was no Netscape 5, and Netscape 6 was an abomination. It wasn't until Phoenix (the Firefox predecessor) that IE had anything to worry about. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_web_browsers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_web_browsers
  - weland 11y ago
    Netscape before 4 kicked ass. Netscape 4 was terrible. Netscape 6 was late.
- yuhong 11y ago
  Ah the "Mariner" cancellation fiasco.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- gsnedders 11y ago
  IE5 for Mac was fantastic in terms of standards support. It was quite literally a joke in the CSS WG for a while that something from some old abandoned draft would be discussed for weeks and then eventually we'd decide to do what IE5 for Mac did a decade earlier.
bad_user 11y ago
I use Firefox on my Android, but I don't think there's any reasons for the vitriol. For example this needs a reference, because I don't buy it: > apart from sending your every keystroke to the mothers Chrome is not just reasonably good, but actually the forefront runner in some areas. It has some nice touches to it, like how it pops that magnifier on taps, preventing fat fingering. It's also the best browser in terms of web standards implemented. For example it's the only mobile browser I know that implements the Push and the Notifications API, so you no longer need the native Facebook app, as Facebook's web interface now delivers push notifications on Android: https://developers.google.com/web/updates/2015/03/push-notifications-on-the-open-web?hl=en https://developers.google.com/web/updates/2015/03/push-notif... Another example, Chrome also does web app manifests properly and Add to Homescreen actually works, compared with Firefox: https://developers.google.com/web/updates/2014/11/Support-for-installable-web-apps-with-webapp-manifest-in-chrome-38-for-Android https://developers.google.com/web/updates/2014/11/Support-fo... Along with other features, like giving access to the phone's camera, or giving each website its own "window", Chrome is the mobile browser that is built for web applications and sadly Firefox Mobile is not. And actually this has always been a difference in philosophy. It's why Chrome started with the one process per tab and with strong sandboxing on the desktop as well, Chrome being built for applications. So you know, I love my Firefox, but sometimes I feel that they are spending resources on a small niche mobile OS that would have been better spent on improving Firefox Mobile. It's the end of 2015 and Add to Homescreen is still broken, which pains me greatly because I prefer web stuff instead of native apps.
- kibwen 11y ago
  > Chrome is the mobile browser that is built for web > applications and sadly Firefox Mobile is not. And > actually this has always been a difference in > philosophy. It's why Chrome started with the one > process per tab and with strong sandboxing on the > desktop as well, Chrome being built for applications. Looking forward, Mozilla is adopting this philosophy in Servo by targeting mobile first and foremost, as well as taking sandboxing seriously from the get-go: https://twitter.com/pcwalton/status/667494515582758913 https://twitter.com/pcwalton/status/667494515582758913
  - 11y ago
chungy 11y ago
To be fair, there's little reason that browsers shouldn't support syncing among each other for most or all data. History, bookmarks, passwords, open tabs/sessions? Why can't this be serialized to a common format and synced between Firefox, Chrome, Opera, whatever else?
- toyg 11y ago
  In fact, this sort of work is what Mozilla should concentrate on, rather than an irrelevant "me too" mobile os nobody asked for: standards. Mozilla has the credibility and neutrality required in order to successfully lobby for standards across commercial players without threatening them. To be fair, they do a lot of that already, but they often approach it in adversarial terms, which is doomed to fail. Persona, for example, is interesting but will never align with anyone else's interest; whereas easy sync would (making it easier to switch OS would appeal to at least one between MS and Apple, and to Google too).
  - berkes 11y ago
    > ... this sort of work is what Mozilla should concentrate on, rather than an ... One does not exclude the other. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma > .. an irrelevant "me too" mobile os [citation needed]
    - toyg 11y ago
      > > .. an irrelevant "me too" mobile os > [citation needed] It's been developed for more than 4 years and still nobody wants it: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/magazines/panache/ultracheap-smartphones-running-on-firefox-os-gets-cold-shoulder-in-india/articleshow/46628157.cms http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/magazines/panache/ultrac... Now they're going to compete at the high-end, which means they have to find OEMs that will bet their flagship models on it. Good luck with that. There are three elements to OS choice: standardization, marketing and openness. Looking at the desktop market, you can see how Microsoft dominated standardization, Apple managed to dominate marketing, and Linux used its unrivaled openness to sneak in between the two. In the mobile world, Android already occupies two of those slots, basically pre-empting any linux-like effort from ever gaining significant traction. That means the only ways you can break in the mobile OS market (assuming you're not producing breakthrough tech creating its own market) are 1) flooding the market with such a massive amount of units that standardization stops being a factor, or 2) flooding the airwaves with such a massive amount of excellent advertising that your devices become more desirable than Apple ones. Good luck with that. (Note how price is not a factor. Mobile devices are inherently aspirational, as Nokia found out.) The hard truth is that the land grab is over: if your mobile OS has not made it yet, chances are that it never will -- at least as long as devices stay in this particular form factor and nobody comes up with groundbreaking tech. Mozilla should concentrate on standards, including a kick-ass Android browser; everything else is a waste of time.
seanwilson 11y ago
> Evidently that's how people work these days. I don't get it either. Installing and switching your workflow to using a new app, OS, browser etc. takes effort. If the effort required is too high compared to the benefit gained, most people aren't going to do it (I imagine hackernews readers have a much higher tolerance for this!). That's why monopolies in technology are so dangerous in my opinion as when you can force a "good enough" product on customers competitors aren't going to get any traction unless their product is significantly better. This means companies don't try to compete so the customer misses out on the incremental improvements from sustained competition.
moron4hire 11y ago
It depends on how we're defining "horrible". From my perspective, Firefox is the horrible browser on Android. I can't get it to run at a consistent frame rate for the life of me. Even a bare-bones example of an animation loop will wildly fluctuate between ~25FPS to 90FPS, yet the same page in Chrome on Android will peg at 60FPS.
- wtbob 11y ago
  I use only Firefox on Android, and haven't noticed what you describe. I'm not even using NoScript, although I may start soon.
witty_username 11y ago
> apart from sending your every keystroke to the motherboard This is an exaggeration. Your search inputs will be sent to Google for autocompletion, etc, but you can disable this.
- kuschku 11y ago
  I’ve had cases where I created a file that was not listed anywhere on my webserver (not listed in any index or robots.txt, not linked anywhere), and visited it with Chrome, and only a few minutes later the Googlebot would access it. Google is definitely sending more than just search inputs.
asuffield 11y ago
(Tedious disclaimer: not speaking for anybody else, my opinion only, etc. I'm an SRE at Google.) > All phones comes preloaded with Google Chrome That's not true. There's still a fair bit of Android Browser out there - it's up to the OEM whether they ship Chrome or their own customised version of Android Browser. > (apart from sending your every keystroke to the mothership) I don't believe you. Here's the source, show me where it does this: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src.git https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src.git Here's the privacy policy, which explains what it actually sends: https://www.google.co.uk/chrome/browser/privacy/ https://www.google.co.uk/chrome/browser/privacy/ (Perhaps you're thinking of the instant search feature? That's quite a long way from "every keystroke", and the page above explains how to turn it off if you don't like it.)
- Symbiote 11y ago
  That is the link for the source to Chromium. Chrome (on desktop and mobile) is a different product, derived from Chromium.
- wutbrodo 11y ago
  > I don't believe you. Here's the source, show me where it does this You're wasting your breath. This thread is littered with people uncritically repeating that assertion. It's officially graduated from "fact" to "article of faith among the cynical and ignorant".
  - JupiterMoon 11y ago
    She's did not link to the source for Chrome. She linked to the source for Chromium. Chrome is a closed source browser based upon the open source Chromium code.
- JohnTHaller 11y ago
  I believe the parent is referring to the URL/search bar, which does pass along every key stroke to Google. This is for purposes of search suggestions/autocomplete. Unfortunately, since search and URL are combined into a single bar on desktop Google Chrome, that means that every URL you type is passed along to Google, including some you may not want to be passed along. As Firefox has a separate URL and search box, it doesn't have the same issue. On mobile, it's a bit of a different story since there is only one bar for Firefox and it has the option to pass every keystroke along to your preferred search provider for suggestion/autocomplete purposes. I can't recall if it is on or off by default, though. I have it on on Firefox on Android.

rimantas 11y ago

> Think MSIE. For a long time it was a horrible browser, > but held its market-share simply by being the default. That's not entirely true. IE since about ~4 was the best browser around (I choose to ignore IE5 for Mac). NN4 was horrible. The problem with IE was that it stagnated, so when Firefox came out it soon started to kick IEs ass and only then the "default" part became a problem.

iopq 11y ago
Back then, people upgraded to FireFox because they wanted their fancy backgrounds to work in MySpace. I'm not even joking.
- hayksaakian 11y ago
  wow thanks for the nostalgia trip. you're actually right though i think i remember seeing badges on certain myspace pages that suggested you install firefox to see the page correctly.
pcthrowaway 11y ago
Really? I remember Netscape being hands down better than IE, but that might have been after Netscape went out of business and before Mozilla formed, so maybe around when IE4 came out in other words.
- nl 11y ago
  I was a webdev back during the 90's browserwars, and I can confirm that Netscape 4 was terrible (despite not wanting to admit it), IE4 was better and IE5 was pretty good. There was no Netscape 5, and Netscape 6 was an abomination. It wasn't until Phoenix (the Firefox predecessor) that IE had anything to worry about. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_web_browsers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_web_browsers
- weland 11y ago
  Netscape before 4 kicked ass. Netscape 4 was terrible. Netscape 6 was late.
yuhong 11y ago
Ah the "Mariner" cancellation fiasco.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
gsnedders 11y ago
IE5 for Mac was fantastic in terms of standards support. It was quite literally a joke in the CSS WG for a while that something from some old abandoned draft would be discussed for weeks and then eventually we'd decide to do what IE5 for Mac did a decade earlier.

bad_user 11y ago

I use Firefox on my Android, but I don't think there's any reasons for the vitriol. For example this needs a reference, because I don't buy it: > apart from sending your every keystroke to the mothers Chrome is not just reasonably good, but actually the forefront runner in some areas. It has some nice touches to it, like how it pops that magnifier on taps, preventing fat fingering. It's also the best browser in terms of web standards implemented. For example it's the only mobile browser I know that implements the Push and the Notifications API, so you no longer need the native Facebook app, as Facebook's web interface now delivers push notifications on Android: https://developers.google.com/web/updates/2015/03/push-notifications-on-the-open-web?hl=en https://developers.google.com/web/updates/2015/03/push-notif... Another example, Chrome also does web app manifests properly and Add to Homescreen actually works, compared with Firefox: https://developers.google.com/web/updates/2014/11/Support-for-installable-web-apps-with-webapp-manifest-in-chrome-38-for-Android https://developers.google.com/web/updates/2014/11/Support-fo... Along with other features, like giving access to the phone's camera, or giving each website its own "window", Chrome is the mobile browser that is built for web applications and sadly Firefox Mobile is not. And actually this has always been a difference in philosophy. It's why Chrome started with the one process per tab and with strong sandboxing on the desktop as well, Chrome being built for applications. So you know, I love my Firefox, but sometimes I feel that they are spending resources on a small niche mobile OS that would have been better spent on improving Firefox Mobile. It's the end of 2015 and Add to Homescreen is still broken, which pains me greatly because I prefer web stuff instead of native apps.

kibwen 11y ago
> Chrome is the mobile browser that is built for web > applications and sadly Firefox Mobile is not. And > actually this has always been a difference in > philosophy. It's why Chrome started with the one > process per tab and with strong sandboxing on the > desktop as well, Chrome being built for applications. Looking forward, Mozilla is adopting this philosophy in Servo by targeting mobile first and foremost, as well as taking sandboxing seriously from the get-go: https://twitter.com/pcwalton/status/667494515582758913 https://twitter.com/pcwalton/status/667494515582758913
- 11y ago

chungy 11y ago

To be fair, there's little reason that browsers shouldn't support syncing among each other for most or all data. History, bookmarks, passwords, open tabs/sessions? Why can't this be serialized to a common format and synced between Firefox, Chrome, Opera, whatever else?

toyg 11y ago
In fact, this sort of work is what Mozilla should concentrate on, rather than an irrelevant "me too" mobile os nobody asked for: standards. Mozilla has the credibility and neutrality required in order to successfully lobby for standards across commercial players without threatening them. To be fair, they do a lot of that already, but they often approach it in adversarial terms, which is doomed to fail. Persona, for example, is interesting but will never align with anyone else's interest; whereas easy sync would (making it easier to switch OS would appeal to at least one between MS and Apple, and to Google too).
- berkes 11y ago
  > ... this sort of work is what Mozilla should concentrate on, rather than an ... One does not exclude the other. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma > .. an irrelevant "me too" mobile os [citation needed]
  - toyg 11y ago
    > > .. an irrelevant "me too" mobile os > [citation needed] It's been developed for more than 4 years and still nobody wants it: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/magazines/panache/ultracheap-smartphones-running-on-firefox-os-gets-cold-shoulder-in-india/articleshow/46628157.cms http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/magazines/panache/ultrac... Now they're going to compete at the high-end, which means they have to find OEMs that will bet their flagship models on it. Good luck with that. There are three elements to OS choice: standardization, marketing and openness. Looking at the desktop market, you can see how Microsoft dominated standardization, Apple managed to dominate marketing, and Linux used its unrivaled openness to sneak in between the two. In the mobile world, Android already occupies two of those slots, basically pre-empting any linux-like effort from ever gaining significant traction. That means the only ways you can break in the mobile OS market (assuming you're not producing breakthrough tech creating its own market) are 1) flooding the market with such a massive amount of units that standardization stops being a factor, or 2) flooding the airwaves with such a massive amount of excellent advertising that your devices become more desirable than Apple ones. Good luck with that. (Note how price is not a factor. Mobile devices are inherently aspirational, as Nokia found out.) The hard truth is that the land grab is over: if your mobile OS has not made it yet, chances are that it never will -- at least as long as devices stay in this particular form factor and nobody comes up with groundbreaking tech. Mozilla should concentrate on standards, including a kick-ass Android browser; everything else is a waste of time.

seanwilson 11y ago

> Evidently that's how people work these days. I don't get it either. Installing and switching your workflow to using a new app, OS, browser etc. takes effort. If the effort required is too high compared to the benefit gained, most people aren't going to do it (I imagine hackernews readers have a much higher tolerance for this!). That's why monopolies in technology are so dangerous in my opinion as when you can force a "good enough" product on customers competitors aren't going to get any traction unless their product is significantly better. This means companies don't try to compete so the customer misses out on the incremental improvements from sustained competition.

moron4hire 11y ago

It depends on how we're defining "horrible". From my perspective, Firefox is the horrible browser on Android. I can't get it to run at a consistent frame rate for the life of me. Even a bare-bones example of an animation loop will wildly fluctuate between ~25FPS to 90FPS, yet the same page in Chrome on Android will peg at 60FPS.

wtbob 11y ago
I use only Firefox on Android, and haven't noticed what you describe. I'm not even using NoScript, although I may start soon.

witty_username 11y ago

> apart from sending your every keystroke to the motherboard This is an exaggeration. Your search inputs will be sent to Google for autocompletion, etc, but you can disable this.

kuschku 11y ago
I’ve had cases where I created a file that was not listed anywhere on my webserver (not listed in any index or robots.txt, not linked anywhere), and visited it with Chrome, and only a few minutes later the Googlebot would access it. Google is definitely sending more than just search inputs.

asuffield 11y ago

(Tedious disclaimer: not speaking for anybody else, my opinion only, etc. I'm an SRE at Google.) > All phones comes preloaded with Google Chrome That's not true. There's still a fair bit of Android Browser out there - it's up to the OEM whether they ship Chrome or their own customised version of Android Browser. > (apart from sending your every keystroke to the mothership) I don't believe you. Here's the source, show me where it does this: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src.git https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src.git Here's the privacy policy, which explains what it actually sends: https://www.google.co.uk/chrome/browser/privacy/ https://www.google.co.uk/chrome/browser/privacy/ (Perhaps you're thinking of the instant search feature? That's quite a long way from "every keystroke", and the page above explains how to turn it off if you don't like it.)

Symbiote 11y ago
That is the link for the source to Chromium. Chrome (on desktop and mobile) is a different product, derived from Chromium.
wutbrodo 11y ago
> I don't believe you. Here's the source, show me where it does this You're wasting your breath. This thread is littered with people uncritically repeating that assertion. It's officially graduated from "fact" to "article of faith among the cynical and ignorant".
- JupiterMoon 11y ago
  She's did not link to the source for Chrome. She linked to the source for Chromium. Chrome is a closed source browser based upon the open source Chromium code.
JohnTHaller 11y ago
I believe the parent is referring to the URL/search bar, which does pass along every key stroke to Google. This is for purposes of search suggestions/autocomplete. Unfortunately, since search and URL are combined into a single bar on desktop Google Chrome, that means that every URL you type is passed along to Google, including some you may not want to be passed along. As Firefox has a separate URL and search box, it doesn't have the same issue. On mobile, it's a bit of a different story since there is only one bar for Firefox and it has the option to pass every keystroke along to your preferred search provider for suggestion/autocomplete purposes. I can't recall if it is on or off by default, though. I have it on on Firefox on Android.