9 ms·

Happy to, I figured it was self-evident. Firefox has been losing market share steadily for years. The biggest efforts to turn that around have at best slowed i

by gfodor 6y ago

Happy to, I figured it was self-evident. Firefox has been losing market share steadily for years. The biggest efforts to turn that around have at best slowed it. Your subjective experience backs it up. That's evidence it is a failing product. Mozilla has shipped successful products other than Firefox. Rust being a strong example, and then there are moderately less successful ones that have varying impacts. I worked on one (Hubs) that had a strong trajectory when I left, both in terms of user and revenue growth.

jacquesm 6y ago
No, it is evidence of Google taking steady marketshare away from FF through underhanded tactics such as a basically unlimited advertising budget. You simply can not fight such a war and win, you can only lose gracefully. Rust is not a product. And for Mozilla it was a huge distraction, one they could ill afford. So my point stands: this is a rearguard action. Eventually they will lose, accelerating that is in nobody's interest.
- staktrace 6y ago
  > And for Mozilla it was a huge distraction, one they could ill afford. This is demonstrably false. Rust was designed for use in browser development, and it has successfully been adopted into Firefox. The payback is increased security, stability, and Firefox developer productivity.
  - jacquesm 6y ago
    You don't design a language for 'browser development'. You design a language because you feel there is a need for a language and none of the existing languages meet your needs. If Mozilla had adopted D instead of developing Rust the world would have kept on turning and they'd be further along compared to where they are today. None of the other major browsers are written in Rust, there does not seem to be a huge difference in the number of security issues listed for any of those. I once worked at a company where they wanted to build everything, preferably including their own operating system programming language and database. And all that four a payment processor, something you could probably write in any language available. Guess where that story ended? If something isn't core to your proposition it is a distraction.
    - AsyncAwait 6y ago
      > If Mozilla had adopted D instead of developing Rust the world would have kept on turning and they'd be further along compared to where they are today. D has the complexity of C++ with major drawbacks, (the stdlib was tightly tied to GC for example). Just look at D's marketshare and its overall time on the market. If you argument is that literally any Turing-complete language would somehow do then bravo for missing the point of basically every language besides asm.
      - jacquesm 6y ago
        D's market share is still much larger than Rust's, though clearly Rust is winning that battle in the longer term. Not that 'D' isn't without its flaws but those could have been fixed for a small fraction of the effort that went into making Rust. And no, your strawman doesn't hold.
        AsyncAwait 6y ago
        > D's market share is still much larger than Rusts. D has been on the market for significantly longer than Rust and reached 1.0 full 8 years before Rust had a 1.0 release, so not surprising at all. But the rate at which Rust is being adopted is much faster than that of D. Moreover Rust brings something novel to the table and even inspiring other popular languages, like Swift, in the process. D has nothing that I'd consider novel. So personally I'll trade D for Rust any day. Luckily, we don't have to pick.
        jacquesm 6y ago
        I think when all this has run its course that the only thing that will remain will be Rust. So maybe that was worth it.
- gfodor 6y ago
  I guess we have different definitions of "products" and "failing." edit: I regret using the word 'product' since it clearly allowed an instant response of goal post shifting around if Rust is a product, or whatever, by everyone else in this thread. My point was not that, it was that Mozilla is not a 'one trick pony', which was the original claim. And as a person who ships products, I consider a product a failure if less people are using it over time, regardless of the potential underlying cause.
  - jacquesm 6y ago
    Yes, it commonly helps if you use the same definitions to have a productive discussion. Rust is not a product, never was meant to be one either, if you can point to $0.01 of income brought to Mozilla because of someone paying for Rust then I will be happy to concede that it is in fact a product. Failing to me means that your product can not stand in the marketplace on merit. Underhanded - criminal at that - tactics by a competitor does not change that in principle. See also: Stacker, Netscape (hm, haven't we seen this before: browser company wants to be platform company, does a rewrite), and many other products that ultimately did not make it but had a very good run while they were alive. Mozilla is confusing their own importance to staying alive as 'Mozilla the profit seeking company' vs 'FireFox, the last stand'. And the latter to me is much closer to the stated mission of Mozilla than the former, no matter how much corpspeak they throw at it.
    - AsyncAwait 6y ago
      > Rust is not a product, never was meant to be one either, if you can point to $0.01 of income brought to Mozilla because of someone paying for Rust That's not the only way to measure it. Rust paid for itself by making Firefox more competitive. Also, I like how the focus is on one of the most useful things Mozilla does outside of Firefox and not the gazillion things that had much, much less use than Rust.
      - jacquesm 6y ago
        But Mozilla is not a 'programming languages' company in the mold of Microsoft or former Borland. Programming languages are worth $0 to the market place at the moment. So if Rust gave some unique advantages, great. Use those. And maintain focus. Because if they don't do that then we may end up with Rust and no FireFox and to me that would be net loss.
- seppel 6y ago
  > You simply can not fight such a war and win, you can only lose gracefully. Of course you can, as it was shown by FF winning against the preinstalled IE a decade ago. Users were happiliy switching away, because FF was just the better browser.
  - jacquesm 6y ago
    That was a time when Mozilla was focused on Firefox and Thunderbird, two programs that were at that time best in class. The times have - as the article headline suggests - changed since then.
    - seppel 6y ago
      Yes, which is incredibly sad. Both, that they no longer have the best product and that they no longer try.
- AsyncAwait 6y ago
  > Rust is not a product. And for Mozilla it was a huge distraction, one they could ill afford. You do realize Rust is a big part of the reason Firefox is more competitive past v57 than it ever was, right?
  - jacquesm 6y ago
    Yes, but that still does not make Rust a product for Mozilla. Mozilla should spin Rust out ASAP so they can focus on their core. Rust has enough momentum now that it does not need Mozilla attention to keep it afloat. Or at least, that's the impression I'm getting, if that's not the case then my apologies. The fact that Mozilla is a browser company seems to be well known everywhere except at Mozilla. I find this odd. The word 'browser' is mentioned exactly once in that corporate message and it is in a negative way, 'beyond the browser'. Not exactly inspiring hope, that one.
    - AsyncAwait 6y ago
      > Mozilla should spin Rust out The plan is to have a Rust Foundation.
      - jacquesm 6y ago
        Good. That will at least make sure that something good will come of all this.
lnanek2 6y ago
> Mozilla has shipped successful products other than Firefox. Rust being a strong example Isn't Rust a language? https://research.mozilla.org/rust/ https://research.mozilla.org/rust/ How is that going to keep the lights on? Doesn't seem like it contributes to the bottom line in any way, so they would have been better off allocating those people to keeping Firefox competitive. Seems like they need a "more wood behind fewer arrows" moment like Google had. Or a "sell everything but consulting" since consulting is the only thing making money moment like IBM had when they sold laptop, storage, printer, etc. divisions.
- staktrace 6y ago
  The original purpose of Rust and Servo was to build a better browser. Rust was designed with browser development in mind, and is used increasingly in Firefox. That was an investment that has paid off in spades. (Edited to add: But I agree it's not a "product" in the "provides revenue" sense)
- gfodor 6y ago
  "Mozilla is a one trick pony" implies they can't ship useful software. The definition of "product" isn't the point. If those products (or languages, or whatever) can't generate revenue that also wasn't the point of this thread. If one believes that Mozilla cannot create new things that the world finds extremely valuable, then things like Rust provide counter evidence of that claim.
- stallmanite 6y ago
  So you think IBM turning into a consulting husk was a good thing?
kgraves 6y ago
> Mozilla has shipped successful products other than Firefox. Rust being a strong example. If you think Rust is a 'successful product' in regards to business given the Mozilla Corporation's financial situation, then this is extremely worrying. I would posit that this (one) of the reasons why 250 people had to be let go. Mozilla focusing on 'distractions' rather than anything that makes them money.
- gfodor 6y ago
  I mean, I started a team of a growing, revenue generating product at Mozilla but I still don't define if something is a successful product based upon if it generates revenue or not. The scope of this thread is if Mozilla has the potential to make successful products (or, things, I guess) beyond Firefox. The OP claims its not possible for the organization to do so. In my mind, showing they have created software that has traction (some revenue generating, some not) disproves this. A PM considers a product successful if it is adopted and loved by users. Other people consider it successful if its team is cash flow positive. Others consider it successful if it bolsters the company brand. The definition of successful I was working with is one that shows Mozilla can ship useful software.
  - jacquesm 6y ago
    It is successful if it generates more revenues than went into it and if it strengthens the company that decided to put the time, effort and funds in it in the first place. The problem with your view is that if you don't have a plan on how a product will generate revenue that you are effectively taking a huge gamble that may not pay off. So you'll be 'successful' by your definition while filing for chapter 11, something that Mozilla is flirting with in the medium term if they pursue this route. Only companies with very deep pockets can pursue bets like that, and even then it could hurt. Microsoft Xbox' story is a good example of a bet that worked out, there are many examples of such bets not working out, quite a few of them killing the companies that made the bets.
    - gfodor 6y ago
      It's hard to keep up with all the goal post shifting (the definition of "product", "successful", and so on) - in any case, it's common for companies to start with the problem of delivering user value first, and then figuring out revenue later. One doesn't need a clear plan for revenue when starting out. The project I worked on at Mozilla itself is evidence of this: we had ideas for how to generate revenue for it when we started out, but the one we ended up doing was not on the list since we discovered the opportunity in the process of developing the product.
jlarocco 6y ago
IMO, this thread is a great example of why Mozilla and Firefox are becoming irrelevant. Potential users are saying, "Here are things I want in Firefox," and a Firefox/Mozilla advocate is telling them that's not what they really want, and Mozilla is going to work on something else. It's been this way for years, and at the end of the day users realize it's pointless to argue and switch to Chrome.
- gfodor 6y ago
  I never claimed there aren't unmet needs for Firefox users, or that their needs are invalid. My claim is that there's a good chance the strategy of trying to compete in the browser market is a failing strategy. That is backed up by the evidence. Mozilla has put a ton of resources into improving Firefox, and yet people are still, on-net, leaving. Executives have a tough decision to make in terms of where and how to place bets. The OP's approach is to just concede that Mozilla will be dead some day and they may as well just slow the decline. If you are the CEO, accepting this and acting in accordance with that would be a dereliction of duty. I am not claiming to know the answer. I worked on a team that tried to place a strong bet to backstop things if Firefox ultimately failed. But I don't think the confidence that it's self-evident that they should just go all-in on Firefox is justified.
  - jacquesm 6y ago
    > If you are the CEO, accepting this and acting in accordance with that would be a dereliction of duty. Why is that dereliction of duty? Actually accepting the facts as they are is the hallmark of a good CEO. Trying to pretend reality and facts don't matter and that FireFox will win this battle is - pardon the word choice - delusional at this point in time. So if your choices are between fighting a losing battle as good as you can or accelerating the drop then I'd be all for fighting that battle and drawing it out as long as I could. Accelerating it with wild-ass gambles is what got Mozilla where it is today.
    - gfodor 6y ago
      The "facts" you are claiming are just your opinion. The opinion specifically being that there is literally no way for Mozilla to survive. Others in the thread think they can survive by focusing on Firefox (you disagree obviously.) Some (like me) think they can survive by building new things people will pay for. (you think they are a 'one trick pony.') A CEO who disagrees with your opinion isn't ignoring facts, and a CEO who doesn't charter a strategy towards something other than catastrophic failure is not a good CEO.
spanhandler 6y ago
FF (Phoenix, Firebird) gained market share because a bunch of geeks & power users installed it on any computer they could get ahold of, because it was an obvious safety, performance, and usability win over default browsers, and especially IE. Maybe others are still doing that, but the situation's a lot murkier now. Firefox's UI is more confusing than it used to be (every time you open an application and it does something it doesn't normally, that's confusing to non-nerds—looking at you, update-announcement tabs and "hey come look at Pocket!" messages), other browsers have gotten better, and FF requires extensions to deliver an obviously-better browsing experience than other browsers (it may provide more privacy than Chrome or Edge out-of-the-box, sure, but my mom can't tell that, unlike automatic pop-up blocking, which was obviously a improvement over IE when FF was getting started). It's also not so lightweight that it draws comments from normies when you launch it, because it comes up so fast (this was an actual thing back when it first came out, vs. IE)

by gfodor 6y ago

jacquesm 6y ago

No, it is evidence of Google taking steady marketshare away from FF through underhanded tactics such as a basically unlimited advertising budget. You simply can not fight such a war and win, you can only lose gracefully. Rust is not a product. And for Mozilla it was a huge distraction, one they could ill afford. So my point stands: this is a rearguard action. Eventually they will lose, accelerating that is in nobody's interest.

staktrace 6y ago
> And for Mozilla it was a huge distraction, one they could ill afford. This is demonstrably false. Rust was designed for use in browser development, and it has successfully been adopted into Firefox. The payback is increased security, stability, and Firefox developer productivity.
- jacquesm 6y ago
  You don't design a language for 'browser development'. You design a language because you feel there is a need for a language and none of the existing languages meet your needs. If Mozilla had adopted D instead of developing Rust the world would have kept on turning and they'd be further along compared to where they are today. None of the other major browsers are written in Rust, there does not seem to be a huge difference in the number of security issues listed for any of those. I once worked at a company where they wanted to build everything, preferably including their own operating system programming language and database. And all that four a payment processor, something you could probably write in any language available. Guess where that story ended? If something isn't core to your proposition it is a distraction.
  - AsyncAwait 6y ago
    > If Mozilla had adopted D instead of developing Rust the world would have kept on turning and they'd be further along compared to where they are today. D has the complexity of C++ with major drawbacks, (the stdlib was tightly tied to GC for example). Just look at D's marketshare and its overall time on the market. If you argument is that literally any Turing-complete language would somehow do then bravo for missing the point of basically every language besides asm.
    - jacquesm 6y ago
      D's market share is still much larger than Rust's, though clearly Rust is winning that battle in the longer term. Not that 'D' isn't without its flaws but those could have been fixed for a small fraction of the effort that went into making Rust. And no, your strawman doesn't hold.
      - AsyncAwait 6y ago
        > D's market share is still much larger than Rusts. D has been on the market for significantly longer than Rust and reached 1.0 full 8 years before Rust had a 1.0 release, so not surprising at all. But the rate at which Rust is being adopted is much faster than that of D. Moreover Rust brings something novel to the table and even inspiring other popular languages, like Swift, in the process. D has nothing that I'd consider novel. So personally I'll trade D for Rust any day. Luckily, we don't have to pick.
        jacquesm 6y ago
        I think when all this has run its course that the only thing that will remain will be Rust. So maybe that was worth it.
gfodor 6y ago
I guess we have different definitions of "products" and "failing." edit: I regret using the word 'product' since it clearly allowed an instant response of goal post shifting around if Rust is a product, or whatever, by everyone else in this thread. My point was not that, it was that Mozilla is not a 'one trick pony', which was the original claim. And as a person who ships products, I consider a product a failure if less people are using it over time, regardless of the potential underlying cause.
- jacquesm 6y ago
  Yes, it commonly helps if you use the same definitions to have a productive discussion. Rust is not a product, never was meant to be one either, if you can point to $0.01 of income brought to Mozilla because of someone paying for Rust then I will be happy to concede that it is in fact a product. Failing to me means that your product can not stand in the marketplace on merit. Underhanded - criminal at that - tactics by a competitor does not change that in principle. See also: Stacker, Netscape (hm, haven't we seen this before: browser company wants to be platform company, does a rewrite), and many other products that ultimately did not make it but had a very good run while they were alive. Mozilla is confusing their own importance to staying alive as 'Mozilla the profit seeking company' vs 'FireFox, the last stand'. And the latter to me is much closer to the stated mission of Mozilla than the former, no matter how much corpspeak they throw at it.
  - AsyncAwait 6y ago
    > Rust is not a product, never was meant to be one either, if you can point to $0.01 of income brought to Mozilla because of someone paying for Rust That's not the only way to measure it. Rust paid for itself by making Firefox more competitive. Also, I like how the focus is on one of the most useful things Mozilla does outside of Firefox and not the gazillion things that had much, much less use than Rust.
    - jacquesm 6y ago
      But Mozilla is not a 'programming languages' company in the mold of Microsoft or former Borland. Programming languages are worth $0 to the market place at the moment. So if Rust gave some unique advantages, great. Use those. And maintain focus. Because if they don't do that then we may end up with Rust and no FireFox and to me that would be net loss.
seppel 6y ago
> You simply can not fight such a war and win, you can only lose gracefully. Of course you can, as it was shown by FF winning against the preinstalled IE a decade ago. Users were happiliy switching away, because FF was just the better browser.
- jacquesm 6y ago
  That was a time when Mozilla was focused on Firefox and Thunderbird, two programs that were at that time best in class. The times have - as the article headline suggests - changed since then.
  - seppel 6y ago
    Yes, which is incredibly sad. Both, that they no longer have the best product and that they no longer try.
AsyncAwait 6y ago
> Rust is not a product. And for Mozilla it was a huge distraction, one they could ill afford. You do realize Rust is a big part of the reason Firefox is more competitive past v57 than it ever was, right?
- jacquesm 6y ago
  Yes, but that still does not make Rust a product for Mozilla. Mozilla should spin Rust out ASAP so they can focus on their core. Rust has enough momentum now that it does not need Mozilla attention to keep it afloat. Or at least, that's the impression I'm getting, if that's not the case then my apologies. The fact that Mozilla is a browser company seems to be well known everywhere except at Mozilla. I find this odd. The word 'browser' is mentioned exactly once in that corporate message and it is in a negative way, 'beyond the browser'. Not exactly inspiring hope, that one.
  - AsyncAwait 6y ago
    > Mozilla should spin Rust out The plan is to have a Rust Foundation.
    - jacquesm 6y ago
      Good. That will at least make sure that something good will come of all this.

lnanek2 6y ago

> Mozilla has shipped successful products other than Firefox. Rust being a strong example Isn't Rust a language? https://research.mozilla.org/rust/ https://research.mozilla.org/rust/ How is that going to keep the lights on? Doesn't seem like it contributes to the bottom line in any way, so they would have been better off allocating those people to keeping Firefox competitive. Seems like they need a "more wood behind fewer arrows" moment like Google had. Or a "sell everything but consulting" since consulting is the only thing making money moment like IBM had when they sold laptop, storage, printer, etc. divisions.

staktrace 6y ago
The original purpose of Rust and Servo was to build a better browser. Rust was designed with browser development in mind, and is used increasingly in Firefox. That was an investment that has paid off in spades. (Edited to add: But I agree it's not a "product" in the "provides revenue" sense)
gfodor 6y ago
"Mozilla is a one trick pony" implies they can't ship useful software. The definition of "product" isn't the point. If those products (or languages, or whatever) can't generate revenue that also wasn't the point of this thread. If one believes that Mozilla cannot create new things that the world finds extremely valuable, then things like Rust provide counter evidence of that claim.
stallmanite 6y ago
So you think IBM turning into a consulting husk was a good thing?

kgraves 6y ago

> Mozilla has shipped successful products other than Firefox. Rust being a strong example. If you think Rust is a 'successful product' in regards to business given the Mozilla Corporation's financial situation, then this is extremely worrying. I would posit that this (one) of the reasons why 250 people had to be let go. Mozilla focusing on 'distractions' rather than anything that makes them money.

gfodor 6y ago
I mean, I started a team of a growing, revenue generating product at Mozilla but I still don't define if something is a successful product based upon if it generates revenue or not. The scope of this thread is if Mozilla has the potential to make successful products (or, things, I guess) beyond Firefox. The OP claims its not possible for the organization to do so. In my mind, showing they have created software that has traction (some revenue generating, some not) disproves this. A PM considers a product successful if it is adopted and loved by users. Other people consider it successful if its team is cash flow positive. Others consider it successful if it bolsters the company brand. The definition of successful I was working with is one that shows Mozilla can ship useful software.
- jacquesm 6y ago
  It is successful if it generates more revenues than went into it and if it strengthens the company that decided to put the time, effort and funds in it in the first place. The problem with your view is that if you don't have a plan on how a product will generate revenue that you are effectively taking a huge gamble that may not pay off. So you'll be 'successful' by your definition while filing for chapter 11, something that Mozilla is flirting with in the medium term if they pursue this route. Only companies with very deep pockets can pursue bets like that, and even then it could hurt. Microsoft Xbox' story is a good example of a bet that worked out, there are many examples of such bets not working out, quite a few of them killing the companies that made the bets.
  - gfodor 6y ago
    It's hard to keep up with all the goal post shifting (the definition of "product", "successful", and so on) - in any case, it's common for companies to start with the problem of delivering user value first, and then figuring out revenue later. One doesn't need a clear plan for revenue when starting out. The project I worked on at Mozilla itself is evidence of this: we had ideas for how to generate revenue for it when we started out, but the one we ended up doing was not on the list since we discovered the opportunity in the process of developing the product.

jlarocco 6y ago

IMO, this thread is a great example of why Mozilla and Firefox are becoming irrelevant. Potential users are saying, "Here are things I want in Firefox," and a Firefox/Mozilla advocate is telling them that's not what they really want, and Mozilla is going to work on something else. It's been this way for years, and at the end of the day users realize it's pointless to argue and switch to Chrome.

gfodor 6y ago
I never claimed there aren't unmet needs for Firefox users, or that their needs are invalid. My claim is that there's a good chance the strategy of trying to compete in the browser market is a failing strategy. That is backed up by the evidence. Mozilla has put a ton of resources into improving Firefox, and yet people are still, on-net, leaving. Executives have a tough decision to make in terms of where and how to place bets. The OP's approach is to just concede that Mozilla will be dead some day and they may as well just slow the decline. If you are the CEO, accepting this and acting in accordance with that would be a dereliction of duty. I am not claiming to know the answer. I worked on a team that tried to place a strong bet to backstop things if Firefox ultimately failed. But I don't think the confidence that it's self-evident that they should just go all-in on Firefox is justified.
- jacquesm 6y ago
  > If you are the CEO, accepting this and acting in accordance with that would be a dereliction of duty. Why is that dereliction of duty? Actually accepting the facts as they are is the hallmark of a good CEO. Trying to pretend reality and facts don't matter and that FireFox will win this battle is - pardon the word choice - delusional at this point in time. So if your choices are between fighting a losing battle as good as you can or accelerating the drop then I'd be all for fighting that battle and drawing it out as long as I could. Accelerating it with wild-ass gambles is what got Mozilla where it is today.
  - gfodor 6y ago
    The "facts" you are claiming are just your opinion. The opinion specifically being that there is literally no way for Mozilla to survive. Others in the thread think they can survive by focusing on Firefox (you disagree obviously.) Some (like me) think they can survive by building new things people will pay for. (you think they are a 'one trick pony.') A CEO who disagrees with your opinion isn't ignoring facts, and a CEO who doesn't charter a strategy towards something other than catastrophic failure is not a good CEO.

spanhandler 6y ago

FF (Phoenix, Firebird) gained market share because a bunch of geeks & power users installed it on any computer they could get ahold of, because it was an obvious safety, performance, and usability win over default browsers, and especially IE. Maybe others are still doing that, but the situation's a lot murkier now. Firefox's UI is more confusing than it used to be (every time you open an application and it does something it doesn't normally, that's confusing to non-nerds—looking at you, update-announcement tabs and "hey come look at Pocket!" messages), other browsers have gotten better, and FF requires extensions to deliver an obviously-better browsing experience than other browsers (it may provide more privacy than Chrome or Edge out-of-the-box, sure, but my mom can't tell that, unlike automatic pop-up blocking, which was obviously a improvement over IE when FF was getting started). It's also not so lightweight that it draws comments from normies when you launch it, because it comes up so fast (this was an actual thing back when it first came out, vs. IE)