5 ms·

Why is it Focus by Firefox and not Focus by Mozilla? Mozilla is the name of the company, Firefox is the name of one of Mozilla's products. So a software program

by gnu8 11y ago

Why is it Focus by Firefox and not Focus by Mozilla? Mozilla is the name of the company, Firefox is the name of one of Mozilla's products. So a software program was created by another software program? This type of illogical branding is becoming typical of Mozilla these days. It's a shame because the web really needs browser leadership from an organization that isn't a multinational corporation.

samclearman 11y ago
Probably because Firefox is a well known brand and Mozilla isn't.
0942v8653 11y ago
And even worse, it's for (and only works with) Safari, not Firefox.
- FussyZeus 11y ago
  Content blockers are only supported in Safari, per Apple.
  - 0942v8653 11y ago
    Yes. It just seems misleading to say "by Firefox" for the majority of users, who don't know that.
    - FussyZeus 11y ago
      That's true, I was wondering myself why it wasn't "by Mozilla."
    - ethbro 11y ago
      Maybe that's hopefulness that Apple reverses its decision. "Why doesn't Focus by Firefox work on Firefox?" is an amusing and fair question for Apple.
    - lkiernan 11y ago
      It feels excessive to call this misleading. The web browser team within Mozilla must be pretty well placed to be significant in creating an app for mobile web browser experiences.
  - 01Michael10 11y ago
    What? When is someone going to sue Apple? Why would anyone even create a browser on iOS with all the restrictions?
    - shinratdr 11y ago
      > When is someone going to sue Apple? For what? Not writing an API so that their software that runs on 15% of phones works the way you want it to? Good luck. > Why would anyone even create a browser on iOS with all the restrictions? The same reason anyone creates a browser for any platform. Because people use it.
      - 01Michael10 11y ago
        > The same reason anyone creates a browser for any platform. Because people use it. I wouldn't use a browser that was crippled like most people... Actually, I'd move to a different platform.
        shinratdr 11y ago
        That's fine, do what works for you. Many don't care though, and browser vendors are happy to cater to them as well.
    - e1ven 11y ago
      IANAL, but I'm not sure anyone would have a legal leg to stand on. Microsoft's legal troubles about bundling IE were possible because MS was ruled to have a monopoly position in desktop PCs. Apple has around 14% of the smartphone market, by no means a monopoly. Their share gets even smaller when you look at the total cellphone market. To the best of my knowledge, there isn't anything illegal about using product A to promote product B, or having a restricted platform. You need some other trigger, such as having a dominant market position, or collusion between vendors, etc..
    - FussyZeus 11y ago
      There are no legal breaches here. Apple's platform, Apple's rules. I have no idea. I don't create browsers for that and many other reasons. Any browser on iOS is still using Safari webkit underneath anyway so there isn't much point.
  - bydo 11y ago
    Safari and anything using the Safari View Controller. Which is, admittedly, a bit limited to use for a full custom browser. The faster JS engine was also limited to Safari for a few iOS versions before it was extended to third-party applications, so perhaps they're taking the same approach here. It's worth noting that they could also integrate their own ad blocking into their custom browser, which other third-party iOS browsers have been doing for years.
    - FussyZeus 11y ago
      Didn't know it also applied in the safari view controller. +1 Informative.
ahoy 11y ago
The number of people who recognize the Firefox brand vastly outnumber the people who recognize the Mozilla brand. It makes complete sense.
bad_user 11y ago
I mean no offense, but out of all complaints I've heard about Mozilla's work on Hacker News, this is probably the stupidest. What the web really needs is less vitriol against those that actually do something.
- josefresco 11y ago
  Not really. This irks people (rational or not) who are put off by inconsistencies with naming and branding. I understand why the Firefox brand was chosen, but it feels "messy". We'll get over it.
  - bad_user 11y ago
    Please explain why on such a project announcement that parent comment is the second one in the thread (instead of technical discussions, platform limitations, privacy, trackers, alternatives, you know, things that would actually make sense). I'm having a hard time right now to not liken HN to a cesspool and this time the offense is intended.
- tedunangst 11y ago
  The web needs fewer people using "vitriol" to refer to any kind of criticism.
smacktoward 11y ago
"Firefox" is the brand normal people recognize, and Mozilla has been shedding things that aren't Firefox for quite some time now.
felipeerias 11y ago
"Firefox" is a much better known brand than "Mozilla". Mozilla are not only using the "Firefox" brand for a single application, but also for other solutions which are related to Web browsing in one way or another (e.g. Firefox OS). "Made by the same people who make Firefox" is a great presentation card. You can not expect people to have intricate knowledge of the IT sector before deciding if one add-on is trustworthy or not. And if Mozilla ever want to include a content-blocker in Firefox proper, well, they already have a name for it.

by gnu8 11y ago

samclearman 11y ago

Probably because Firefox is a well known brand and Mozilla isn't.

0942v8653 11y ago

And even worse, it's for (and only works with) Safari, not Firefox.

FussyZeus 11y ago
Content blockers are only supported in Safari, per Apple.
- 0942v8653 11y ago
  Yes. It just seems misleading to say "by Firefox" for the majority of users, who don't know that.
  - FussyZeus 11y ago
    That's true, I was wondering myself why it wasn't "by Mozilla."
  - ethbro 11y ago
    Maybe that's hopefulness that Apple reverses its decision. "Why doesn't Focus by Firefox work on Firefox?" is an amusing and fair question for Apple.
  - lkiernan 11y ago
    It feels excessive to call this misleading. The web browser team within Mozilla must be pretty well placed to be significant in creating an app for mobile web browser experiences.
- 01Michael10 11y ago
  What? When is someone going to sue Apple? Why would anyone even create a browser on iOS with all the restrictions?
  - shinratdr 11y ago
    > When is someone going to sue Apple? For what? Not writing an API so that their software that runs on 15% of phones works the way you want it to? Good luck. > Why would anyone even create a browser on iOS with all the restrictions? The same reason anyone creates a browser for any platform. Because people use it.
    - 01Michael10 11y ago
      > The same reason anyone creates a browser for any platform. Because people use it. I wouldn't use a browser that was crippled like most people... Actually, I'd move to a different platform.
      - shinratdr 11y ago
        That's fine, do what works for you. Many don't care though, and browser vendors are happy to cater to them as well.
  - e1ven 11y ago
    IANAL, but I'm not sure anyone would have a legal leg to stand on. Microsoft's legal troubles about bundling IE were possible because MS was ruled to have a monopoly position in desktop PCs. Apple has around 14% of the smartphone market, by no means a monopoly. Their share gets even smaller when you look at the total cellphone market. To the best of my knowledge, there isn't anything illegal about using product A to promote product B, or having a restricted platform. You need some other trigger, such as having a dominant market position, or collusion between vendors, etc..
  - FussyZeus 11y ago
    There are no legal breaches here. Apple's platform, Apple's rules. I have no idea. I don't create browsers for that and many other reasons. Any browser on iOS is still using Safari webkit underneath anyway so there isn't much point.
- bydo 11y ago
  Safari and anything using the Safari View Controller. Which is, admittedly, a bit limited to use for a full custom browser. The faster JS engine was also limited to Safari for a few iOS versions before it was extended to third-party applications, so perhaps they're taking the same approach here. It's worth noting that they could also integrate their own ad blocking into their custom browser, which other third-party iOS browsers have been doing for years.
  - FussyZeus 11y ago
    Didn't know it also applied in the safari view controller. +1 Informative.

ahoy 11y ago

The number of people who recognize the Firefox brand vastly outnumber the people who recognize the Mozilla brand. It makes complete sense.

bad_user 11y ago

I mean no offense, but out of all complaints I've heard about Mozilla's work on Hacker News, this is probably the stupidest. What the web really needs is less vitriol against those that actually do something.

josefresco 11y ago
Not really. This irks people (rational or not) who are put off by inconsistencies with naming and branding. I understand why the Firefox brand was chosen, but it feels "messy". We'll get over it.
- bad_user 11y ago
  Please explain why on such a project announcement that parent comment is the second one in the thread (instead of technical discussions, platform limitations, privacy, trackers, alternatives, you know, things that would actually make sense). I'm having a hard time right now to not liken HN to a cesspool and this time the offense is intended.
tedunangst 11y ago
The web needs fewer people using "vitriol" to refer to any kind of criticism.

smacktoward 11y ago

"Firefox" is the brand normal people recognize, and Mozilla has been shedding things that aren't Firefox for quite some time now.

felipeerias 11y ago

"Firefox" is a much better known brand than "Mozilla". Mozilla are not only using the "Firefox" brand for a single application, but also for other solutions which are related to Web browsing in one way or another (e.g. Firefox OS). "Made by the same people who make Firefox" is a great presentation card. You can not expect people to have intricate knowledge of the IT sector before deciding if one add-on is trustworthy or not. And if Mozilla ever want to include a content-blocker in Firefox proper, well, they already have a name for it.