4 ms·

> If they cannot succeed in making Firefox better They can make Firefox better, and have been doing that a lot. The problem is - it doesn't make the users to c

by kvark 6y ago

> If they cannot succeed in making Firefox better They can make Firefox better, and have been doing that a lot. The problem is - it doesn't make the users to come. Google, Apple, Microsoft - all own platforms that people use, and they heavily push the users towards their own browsers.

stingraycharles 6y ago
I think that point is not as big as you think it is. Remember how big Firefox was back in the day? This was despite Microsoft pushing IE and bundling it with Windows. Users nowadays have been conditioned that it’s perfectly normal to download Chrome after installing Windows / buying a new computer. If Google can do this, why not Mozilla?
- calcifer 6y ago
  > If Google can do this, why not Mozilla? I think you are having a very selective memory. Since day one, Google put Chrome ads everywhere including on the Google home page when you are visiting from Firefox and there is no way to permanently disable them. If you are aware of a similiar marketing outreach that Mozilla could do I'm sure they would love to hear about it!
  - jacquesm 6y ago
    What Google did - and does - should land them in some seriously hot anti-trust water. But they'll get away with it, just as Microsoft got away with it. "This is not the monopoly you are looking for...".
    - vikramkr 6y ago
      I still don't get the concept of antitrust suits with browsers. Unless the system literally prevents you from installing a competing browser, you can always just go and download the competing browser and use it. Theres nothing stopping you from doing that, where's the monopoly power here?
      - stingraycharles 6y ago
        Microsoft bundling Windows with IE, and Google using their search dominance to promote Chrome. That’s anti-competitive behavior right there, abusing your monopoly in one area to extend it to another.
      - snowwrestler 6y ago
        > Unless the system literally prevents you from installing a competing browser, you can always just go and download the competing browser and use it. Not if the company providing the competing browser goes out of business and stops offering it. That's really what antitrust regulation is for: to prevent one dominant company from killing all their competitors. Once that happens, the dominant company has no more pressure to succeed and their product stagnates, harming everyone. Browsers are actually a great example of this; despite the government prosecution, Microsoft succeeded in killing off Netscape and then had the entire browser market to themselves. The result was IE6 and "made for Internet Explorer", a horrible mess that took years to clean up.
      - danielscrubs 6y ago
        The idea is that to use soft power you got from x to push product y is not great for the users as y should compete on its own in a meritocracy. But it’s not really how the world works though as bigger companies use this soft power for everything, which is why I have stocks in FANG and it just keeps going up and up. It’s a bit like Atlassian, no one is happy with Jira by itself but they do have the whole package.
  - rrdharan 6y ago
    They didn’t start the ads on day one. Their first big push was the TV ad: https://slate.com/technology/2009/05/google-s-first-ever-tv-campaign.html https://slate.com/technology/2009/05/google-s-first-ever-tv-... The “try Chrome” ads for other browsers didn’t start for a while later after that IIRC.
- zanny 6y ago
  Firefox was big because the alternative was dysfunctional. Mozilla cannot really competitively compete with Chrome on features, not for long. Anything new they put out that can pull in a meaningful usershare increase will be replicated by Google. And all the niche features they want to push (privacy et al) aren't going to cause major market swings. Firefox circa 2004 was dominating because IE was a steaming pile of garbage and Apple had no market share at the time. If you wanted a usable browser it was your only option and even then they were still a minority to the installed by default broken trash.
seppel 6y ago
> They can make Firefox better, and have been doing that a lot. The problem is - it doesn't make the users to come. Google, Apple, Microsoft - all own platforms that people use, and they heavily push the users towards their own browsers. So what? History has shown that users happily switch to a different browser if it is better. The Mozilla Corporation should know this, as they were the ones making people switch from IE to FF a decade ago. And they were competing against a preinstalled browser!

by kvark 6y ago

stingraycharles 6y ago

I think that point is not as big as you think it is. Remember how big Firefox was back in the day? This was despite Microsoft pushing IE and bundling it with Windows. Users nowadays have been conditioned that it’s perfectly normal to download Chrome after installing Windows / buying a new computer. If Google can do this, why not Mozilla?

calcifer 6y ago
> If Google can do this, why not Mozilla? I think you are having a very selective memory. Since day one, Google put Chrome ads everywhere including on the Google home page when you are visiting from Firefox and there is no way to permanently disable them. If you are aware of a similiar marketing outreach that Mozilla could do I'm sure they would love to hear about it!
- jacquesm 6y ago
  What Google did - and does - should land them in some seriously hot anti-trust water. But they'll get away with it, just as Microsoft got away with it. "This is not the monopoly you are looking for...".
  - vikramkr 6y ago
    I still don't get the concept of antitrust suits with browsers. Unless the system literally prevents you from installing a competing browser, you can always just go and download the competing browser and use it. Theres nothing stopping you from doing that, where's the monopoly power here?
    - stingraycharles 6y ago
      Microsoft bundling Windows with IE, and Google using their search dominance to promote Chrome. That’s anti-competitive behavior right there, abusing your monopoly in one area to extend it to another.
    - snowwrestler 6y ago
      > Unless the system literally prevents you from installing a competing browser, you can always just go and download the competing browser and use it. Not if the company providing the competing browser goes out of business and stops offering it. That's really what antitrust regulation is for: to prevent one dominant company from killing all their competitors. Once that happens, the dominant company has no more pressure to succeed and their product stagnates, harming everyone. Browsers are actually a great example of this; despite the government prosecution, Microsoft succeeded in killing off Netscape and then had the entire browser market to themselves. The result was IE6 and "made for Internet Explorer", a horrible mess that took years to clean up.
    - danielscrubs 6y ago
      The idea is that to use soft power you got from x to push product y is not great for the users as y should compete on its own in a meritocracy. But it’s not really how the world works though as bigger companies use this soft power for everything, which is why I have stocks in FANG and it just keeps going up and up. It’s a bit like Atlassian, no one is happy with Jira by itself but they do have the whole package.
- rrdharan 6y ago
  They didn’t start the ads on day one. Their first big push was the TV ad: https://slate.com/technology/2009/05/google-s-first-ever-tv-campaign.html https://slate.com/technology/2009/05/google-s-first-ever-tv-... The “try Chrome” ads for other browsers didn’t start for a while later after that IIRC.
zanny 6y ago
Firefox was big because the alternative was dysfunctional. Mozilla cannot really competitively compete with Chrome on features, not for long. Anything new they put out that can pull in a meaningful usershare increase will be replicated by Google. And all the niche features they want to push (privacy et al) aren't going to cause major market swings. Firefox circa 2004 was dominating because IE was a steaming pile of garbage and Apple had no market share at the time. If you wanted a usable browser it was your only option and even then they were still a minority to the installed by default broken trash.

seppel 6y ago

> They can make Firefox better, and have been doing that a lot. The problem is - it doesn't make the users to come. Google, Apple, Microsoft - all own platforms that people use, and they heavily push the users towards their own browsers. So what? History has shown that users happily switch to a different browser if it is better. The Mozilla Corporation should know this, as they were the ones making people switch from IE to FF a decade ago. And they were competing against a preinstalled browser!