11 ms·

Microsoft and Mozilla's continuing Chrome conundrum

43 points by acro 15y ago

ZeroGravitas 15y ago
Neither of those battles tells the whole story, and it's a shame to see the same boring "browser versus browser" story again. Firstly, out of all the other browsers that Mozilla would want to have take share, Chrome is the obvious first choice due to shared ethos and belief in the future direction of the web (e.g. WebM, WebRTC, WebGL etc.). The last choice would be IE, which is where Chrome is mostly taking share. Chrome's gains are therefore only a positive for Mozilla. Of course in a perfect world they could take that share themselves, but in reality I don't think they've got the advertising budget to reach many of those people still on IE. So they're more like a tag-team than rivals. On the other hand, Microsoft doesn't give a hoot if its browser is getting trounced. Its sole purpose for existing is to hold the web back in defence of their other cash cows, and it's the prospect of attack on that front that must keep them up at night as Chrome uptake accelerates. Viewed in that light, producing a half decent browser like IE9 is a failure, even if they have salvaged some tiny upside by restricting it to their newer OSes.
- larrik 15y ago
  Microsoft is intentionally holding back the web? I think that's attributing a lot of malice to their actions, especially when you consider that MS basically invented AJAX, or what they tried to achieve with ActiveX (despite the security nightmare it became). It seems much more likely to me that they are developing IE just like they develop the rest of their software: slowly and with big tentpole releases. I can't imagine you think they are intentionally holding back Windows and Office as well?
  - dantheman 15y ago
    Ask yourself why development stopped after IE6? I remember reading an article that mentioned they had started to build a web based office and it was stopped as soon as someone from the office team saw it. Why risk the office profit machine. Couldn't find the article now, but I don't recall how well sourced it was.
  - evangineer 15y ago
    I disagree with your first point about Microsoft intentionally holding back the web. There has been at least one civil war inside Microsoft over whether or not to embrace the web. Breaking Windows is a book that documents this conflict: http://www.breakingwindows.net/ http://www.breakingwindows.net/ The Internet doves lost and scattered to the winds, many of them eventually landing at Google like Adam Bosworth (who has since departed).
  - bad_user 15y ago
    You need to look at the big picture. Microsoft added the Microsoft.XMLHTTP wrapper in 1999 in IExplorer 5, which was for its time a kickass browser. But when IExplorer 5 got released, Netscape Navigator still had over 50% market share and IExplorer 5 was the version that broke the camel's back (so to speak). what they tried to achieve with ActiveX The only thing they tried with ActiveX was IExplorer lock-in. Also at that time Java applets got really popular and ActiveX was the alternative. Suffice to say ActiveX was not working in Netscape Navigator, but 1997 was also the year Microsoft was sued by SUN for breaching the contract they had on Microsoft's alternative Java 1.1 implementation, so investing in ActiveX was a no-brainer. Also, after IExplorer 6 most of the team moved to work on XAML / WPF / Silverlight, so development practically grinded to a halt. For reference IExplorer 6 got released in 2001, while IExplorer 7 in 2006 (5 years later) and it took another 4 years or so for IExplorer 8. I'm not counting IExplorer 6 SP2, which was a release intended for security fixes. So basically once the war with Netscape was over, Microsoft lost interest in IExplorer and now they've picked up development again, but constantly lagging behind the competition in features and you can clearly see their bias for all things non-Microsoft - for example IExplorer 9 does not ship with WebGL, even if it is a complete spec, since that would undermine their efforts with Direct 3D and Silverlight, 2 technologies which will never be web standards.
    - huherto 15y ago
      I couldn't agree more. Microsoft dominated the browser market just to slow the adoption of any internet applications. Google tried to break their lockin with partial success by helping Firefox and later on by releasing chrome. Then Microsoft had to catch up again.
  - JonnieCache 15y ago
    >Microsoft is intentionally holding back the web? I think that's attributing a lot of malice to their actions Unfortunately, it's pretty well documented. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish
- dochtman 15y ago
  Firstly, out of all the other browsers that Mozilla would want to have take share, Chrome is the obvious first choice due to shared ethos and belief in the future direction of the web (e.g. WebM, WebRTC, WebGL etc.). The last choice would be IE, which is where Chrome is mostly taking share. Chrome's gains are therefore only a positive for Mozilla. It's obviously not only a positive, but they're aligned on a lot of things. Still, in some ways Google is trying to push the web towards whatever they like, whereas Mozilla tries to find out what would help the web move forward. For example, Mozilla likes WebM because it's an open standard, but they don't think WebP is worth the effort of yet another image standard.
steveb 15y ago
Even with a minority share, Google has all the initiative in the browser market right now. They have forced their competitors to speed up development and support standards. Rapid releases, HTML 5 support and fast javascript engines benefit google as the overall web experience gets faster. A secondary benefit for Google is that Microsoft is basically forced to commoditize their own platform APIs in order to stay relevant in the browser market.
- brudgers 15y ago
  >"in order to stay relevant in the browser market" The question is, "What is the browser market?" For Opera, Mozilla and Google (and increasingly for Apple), the browser is critical to their cash flow because it allows them to capture data and monetize it through datamining or through licensing branded versions. For those companies, browser adoption goes directly to the bottom line. But those economics don't really apply to Microsoft's core business of selling software rather than user information. For Microsoft having IE used for 80% of browsing was a liability not an asset - monetizing their near monopoly was not a viable option because of the legal problems it would create.
brudgers 15y ago
>"If Microsoft wants to halt the downward slide—let alone regain share—it's going to take more than a new browser release every so often." That seems to be a big "if." From Microsoft's perspective, it is difficult to see producing the latest greatest browser as a key strategic goal - that's not to say that a solid competent browser suitable for businesses and acceptable as a default by ordinary consumers is not important. For Microsoft the browser features which are critical are quite different from those of other browser providers - Microsoft needs a browser which above all provides a large degree of predictability, stability, and automation for enterprise and business - pursuing Google's new release every week strategy would be counter productive to Microsoft's need to provide a browser which is well integrated into their technology stack. Consumer choice will never drive Microsoft's browser development (hence we don't see IE for OSX or Linux). The idea that Microsoft losing browser market share is a disaster lacks an explanation of why. IE's market dominance was a liability for Microsoft (e.g. the EU settlement) and IE itself is largely a cost center not a revenue generator - how many consumers upgraded from XP just for IE9 and how much revenue did that generate relative to the amount Microsoft spent on supporting IE6 over the years? If Microsoft was like Google or Mozilla, the loss in browser market share would affect their bottom line. But they aren't, and it doesn't.
billybob 15y ago
The biggest advantage Chrome has over the others (for now) is invisible auto-updating. That alone makes it more compliant and more secure at any given moment. As a web developer, I want everyone in the world to have a modern browser, always. When HTML6 comes out, I want to be able to use it. So my goal is not just to get everyone to upgrade to FF4 or IE9, but to put everyone on a path of continuous upgrades forever. Chrome is the easy way to do that right now. So I will champion it. Hopefully Firefox will get on board with this soon.
- ansy 15y ago
  Invisible updating is a reason to convince someone else to use Chrome. The reason I use Chrome is the fact it runs in a protected sandbox. If Firefox did this I would seriously consider switching back.
  - shin_lao 15y ago
    IE9 does this as well.
    - ansy 15y ago
      IE9 isn't cross platform so it's a non-starter.
    - billybob 15y ago
      Yes, but IE has a history of being the slowest, most insecure, least standards-compliant browser, so if I'm trying to get people onto a "good browser treadmill," I'm going to steer clear of it. If IE becomes the dominant Awesome, Fast, Safe Browser for 5 years running, I'll reconsider.
  - dochtman 15y ago
    They are working towards that, but it's a fair amount of work for a codebase that's more than a decade old. (Their codename for this is Electrolysis, or e10s; mobile Firefox already has it, IIRC.)
- blub 15y ago
billybob 15y ago
I wonder how much of that loss is due to people adopting Mac vs PC?
sp332 15y ago
Windows 8's squares and panes (edit: "tiles") will be programmable using HTML & JS. I think it's very likely that MS will add proprietary extensions to that JS code that will only render correctly in IE 10. I don't really know if MS still has enough clout to parlay that artificial "advantage" into browser marketshare, but they might.
Shenglong 15y ago
I really feel the battle is being fought on the wrong field. While it's great and nice to have more release dates and new features as an assortment of letters and numbers that the majority of the population has never heard of, past the initial adoption, browsers are very much a marketing problem. If you ask the average surfer how excited he/she is about WebM, WebRTC, WebGL, XAML, WPF, etc in a new browser you'll probably get blank stare, a dropped jaw, and at best, a response of "how fast is it?" Chrome has begun to set a precedence for being fast and uncluttered, which is why the majority of people have probably switched. I ran/run a fairly large project serving primarily the 17-22 demographic, and in the course of a year from January 2009 to 2010, Chrome useage on my forums had increased from just under 5% to a stunning 29%. Realistically, the IE brand is already damaged. If MSFT really wants to compete with Firefox and Chrome, their best bet is to create another browser for the new-adopters market.
- quanticle 15y ago
  If you ask the average surfer how excited he/she is about WebM, WebRTC, WebGL, XAML, WPF, etc in a new browser you'll probably get blank stare, a dropped jaw, and at best, a response of "how fast is it?" That's true, but it doesn't matter. When sites start using these advanced features, and the Chrome user shows the Firefox user, "But look what my browser can do!" that will drive adoption of Chrome. EDIT: Also, XAML and WPF aren't web technologies. They're Microsoft technologies that are intended for the desktop. Put simply XAML is the UI layout language used by WPF and WPF is the .Net replacement for WinForms.
  - Shenglong 15y ago
    You might be right, but consider the adoption timeline for major technologies. It isn't sudden, and I really can't think of a big visual change, other than Flash. I remember when Flash 4 was new, and I was making Geocities websites with frames on Netscape. Most widespread technologies will be adapted by browsers before the masses use it - it's inevitable. I don't think feature-innovation is a KSF for browsers. It's actually interesting. I asked a few friends about this, and while all of my consultant/banker/business friends agreed with me, 3/5 of my engineering friends talked about features.
pnathan 15y ago
My browsing experience is very minimalistic: I want adblock, flashblock, and speed. Firefox is bloated and slow on every platform I've used it on since Firefox 3. Back when Firefox was Phoenix (0.7 or so), its goal was to be "lean and mean", so I switched from Mozilla Netscape. I use Chrome because it's fast and does exactly what I need it for. If Firefox wants me back, it will have to be much faster (UI, not web-wise), and not suck memory like a vacuum cleaner. Likely it'll have to use per-process tabs with some spiff sandboxing too. Chrome continuous update is pretty awesome as well.
- JonnieCache 15y ago
  >and not suck memory like a vacuum cleaner. Not this again. It isn't 2003. If you want speed, then you want your browser to take up as much RAM as possible. What else is it there for? Storing recipes? Trust your kernel to manage your memory, it's cleverer and better qualified than you.
  - shin_lao 15y ago
    FF consumes more memory than IE9 on my machine and is much slower. Consuming too much memory can slow down your program, especially if your memory gets fragmented. The kernel only manages the virtual memory, processes manage the heap themselves through an userland library (provided by the OS or a third party).
    - JonnieCache 15y ago
      Good points. I probably spoke a little too hastily. I have become a bit aggressive about allegations of firefox's memory 'leaks' over the years, but I guess this is one place where people are actually informed enough to make them legitimately :)
  - pnathan 15y ago
    No, actually, I want my browser to take minimal CPU and minimal RAM. The browser is not the point of my computer use. Usually my editing and compilation is what my computer is for, and I hate every cycle that slows down my workflow. And, for what its worth, I clocked FF as breaking 500MB only a year or two ago, and I run under 10 tabs. Chrome does this better (or should), since it uses process-based tabs, which allow the kernel to manage memory, not the browser.

43 points by acro 15y ago

Neither of those battles tells the whole story, and it's a shame to see the same boring "browser versus browser" story again. Firstly, out of all the other browsers that Mozilla would want to have take share, Chrome is the obvious first choice due to shared ethos and belief in the future direction of the web (e.g. WebM, WebRTC, WebGL etc.). The last choice would be IE, which is where Chrome is mostly taking share. Chrome's gains are therefore only a positive for Mozilla. Of course in a perfect world they could take that share themselves, but in reality I don't think they've got the advertising budget to reach many of those people still on IE. So they're more like a tag-team than rivals. On the other hand, Microsoft doesn't give a hoot if its browser is getting trounced. Its sole purpose for existing is to hold the web back in defence of their other cash cows, and it's the prospect of attack on that front that must keep them up at night as Chrome uptake accelerates. Viewed in that light, producing a half decent browser like IE9 is a failure, even if they have salvaged some tiny upside by restricting it to their newer OSes.

larrik 15y ago
Microsoft is intentionally holding back the web? I think that's attributing a lot of malice to their actions, especially when you consider that MS basically invented AJAX, or what they tried to achieve with ActiveX (despite the security nightmare it became). It seems much more likely to me that they are developing IE just like they develop the rest of their software: slowly and with big tentpole releases. I can't imagine you think they are intentionally holding back Windows and Office as well?
- dantheman 15y ago
  Ask yourself why development stopped after IE6? I remember reading an article that mentioned they had started to build a web based office and it was stopped as soon as someone from the office team saw it. Why risk the office profit machine. Couldn't find the article now, but I don't recall how well sourced it was.
- evangineer 15y ago
  I disagree with your first point about Microsoft intentionally holding back the web. There has been at least one civil war inside Microsoft over whether or not to embrace the web. Breaking Windows is a book that documents this conflict: http://www.breakingwindows.net/ http://www.breakingwindows.net/ The Internet doves lost and scattered to the winds, many of them eventually landing at Google like Adam Bosworth (who has since departed).
- bad_user 15y ago
  You need to look at the big picture. Microsoft added the Microsoft.XMLHTTP wrapper in 1999 in IExplorer 5, which was for its time a kickass browser. But when IExplorer 5 got released, Netscape Navigator still had over 50% market share and IExplorer 5 was the version that broke the camel's back (so to speak). what they tried to achieve with ActiveX The only thing they tried with ActiveX was IExplorer lock-in. Also at that time Java applets got really popular and ActiveX was the alternative. Suffice to say ActiveX was not working in Netscape Navigator, but 1997 was also the year Microsoft was sued by SUN for breaching the contract they had on Microsoft's alternative Java 1.1 implementation, so investing in ActiveX was a no-brainer. Also, after IExplorer 6 most of the team moved to work on XAML / WPF / Silverlight, so development practically grinded to a halt. For reference IExplorer 6 got released in 2001, while IExplorer 7 in 2006 (5 years later) and it took another 4 years or so for IExplorer 8. I'm not counting IExplorer 6 SP2, which was a release intended for security fixes. So basically once the war with Netscape was over, Microsoft lost interest in IExplorer and now they've picked up development again, but constantly lagging behind the competition in features and you can clearly see their bias for all things non-Microsoft - for example IExplorer 9 does not ship with WebGL, even if it is a complete spec, since that would undermine their efforts with Direct 3D and Silverlight, 2 technologies which will never be web standards.
  - huherto 15y ago
    I couldn't agree more. Microsoft dominated the browser market just to slow the adoption of any internet applications. Google tried to break their lockin with partial success by helping Firefox and later on by releasing chrome. Then Microsoft had to catch up again.
- JonnieCache 15y ago
  >Microsoft is intentionally holding back the web? I think that's attributing a lot of malice to their actions Unfortunately, it's pretty well documented. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish
dochtman 15y ago
Firstly, out of all the other browsers that Mozilla would want to have take share, Chrome is the obvious first choice due to shared ethos and belief in the future direction of the web (e.g. WebM, WebRTC, WebGL etc.). The last choice would be IE, which is where Chrome is mostly taking share. Chrome's gains are therefore only a positive for Mozilla. It's obviously not only a positive, but they're aligned on a lot of things. Still, in some ways Google is trying to push the web towards whatever they like, whereas Mozilla tries to find out what would help the web move forward. For example, Mozilla likes WebM because it's an open standard, but they don't think WebP is worth the effort of yet another image standard.

steveb 15y ago

Even with a minority share, Google has all the initiative in the browser market right now. They have forced their competitors to speed up development and support standards. Rapid releases, HTML 5 support and fast javascript engines benefit google as the overall web experience gets faster. A secondary benefit for Google is that Microsoft is basically forced to commoditize their own platform APIs in order to stay relevant in the browser market.

brudgers 15y ago
>"in order to stay relevant in the browser market" The question is, "What is the browser market?" For Opera, Mozilla and Google (and increasingly for Apple), the browser is critical to their cash flow because it allows them to capture data and monetize it through datamining or through licensing branded versions. For those companies, browser adoption goes directly to the bottom line. But those economics don't really apply to Microsoft's core business of selling software rather than user information. For Microsoft having IE used for 80% of browsing was a liability not an asset - monetizing their near monopoly was not a viable option because of the legal problems it would create.

brudgers 15y ago

>"If Microsoft wants to halt the downward slide—let alone regain share—it's going to take more than a new browser release every so often." That seems to be a big "if." From Microsoft's perspective, it is difficult to see producing the latest greatest browser as a key strategic goal - that's not to say that a solid competent browser suitable for businesses and acceptable as a default by ordinary consumers is not important. For Microsoft the browser features which are critical are quite different from those of other browser providers - Microsoft needs a browser which above all provides a large degree of predictability, stability, and automation for enterprise and business - pursuing Google's new release every week strategy would be counter productive to Microsoft's need to provide a browser which is well integrated into their technology stack. Consumer choice will never drive Microsoft's browser development (hence we don't see IE for OSX or Linux). The idea that Microsoft losing browser market share is a disaster lacks an explanation of why. IE's market dominance was a liability for Microsoft (e.g. the EU settlement) and IE itself is largely a cost center not a revenue generator - how many consumers upgraded from XP just for IE9 and how much revenue did that generate relative to the amount Microsoft spent on supporting IE6 over the years? If Microsoft was like Google or Mozilla, the loss in browser market share would affect their bottom line. But they aren't, and it doesn't.

billybob 15y ago

The biggest advantage Chrome has over the others (for now) is invisible auto-updating. That alone makes it more compliant and more secure at any given moment. As a web developer, I want everyone in the world to have a modern browser, always. When HTML6 comes out, I want to be able to use it. So my goal is not just to get everyone to upgrade to FF4 or IE9, but to put everyone on a path of continuous upgrades forever. Chrome is the easy way to do that right now. So I will champion it. Hopefully Firefox will get on board with this soon.

ansy 15y ago
Invisible updating is a reason to convince someone else to use Chrome. The reason I use Chrome is the fact it runs in a protected sandbox. If Firefox did this I would seriously consider switching back.
- shin_lao 15y ago
  IE9 does this as well.
  - ansy 15y ago
    IE9 isn't cross platform so it's a non-starter.
  - billybob 15y ago
    Yes, but IE has a history of being the slowest, most insecure, least standards-compliant browser, so if I'm trying to get people onto a "good browser treadmill," I'm going to steer clear of it. If IE becomes the dominant Awesome, Fast, Safe Browser for 5 years running, I'll reconsider.
- dochtman 15y ago
  They are working towards that, but it's a fair amount of work for a codebase that's more than a decade old. (Their codename for this is Electrolysis, or e10s; mobile Firefox already has it, IIRC.)
blub 15y ago

billybob 15y ago

I wonder how much of that loss is due to people adopting Mac vs PC?

sp332 15y ago

Windows 8's squares and panes (edit: "tiles") will be programmable using HTML & JS. I think it's very likely that MS will add proprietary extensions to that JS code that will only render correctly in IE 10. I don't really know if MS still has enough clout to parlay that artificial "advantage" into browser marketshare, but they might.

Shenglong 15y ago

I really feel the battle is being fought on the wrong field. While it's great and nice to have more release dates and new features as an assortment of letters and numbers that the majority of the population has never heard of, past the initial adoption, browsers are very much a marketing problem. If you ask the average surfer how excited he/she is about WebM, WebRTC, WebGL, XAML, WPF, etc in a new browser you'll probably get blank stare, a dropped jaw, and at best, a response of "how fast is it?" Chrome has begun to set a precedence for being fast and uncluttered, which is why the majority of people have probably switched. I ran/run a fairly large project serving primarily the 17-22 demographic, and in the course of a year from January 2009 to 2010, Chrome useage on my forums had increased from just under 5% to a stunning 29%. Realistically, the IE brand is already damaged. If MSFT really wants to compete with Firefox and Chrome, their best bet is to create another browser for the new-adopters market.

quanticle 15y ago
If you ask the average surfer how excited he/she is about WebM, WebRTC, WebGL, XAML, WPF, etc in a new browser you'll probably get blank stare, a dropped jaw, and at best, a response of "how fast is it?" That's true, but it doesn't matter. When sites start using these advanced features, and the Chrome user shows the Firefox user, "But look what my browser can do!" that will drive adoption of Chrome. EDIT: Also, XAML and WPF aren't web technologies. They're Microsoft technologies that are intended for the desktop. Put simply XAML is the UI layout language used by WPF and WPF is the .Net replacement for WinForms.
- Shenglong 15y ago
  You might be right, but consider the adoption timeline for major technologies. It isn't sudden, and I really can't think of a big visual change, other than Flash. I remember when Flash 4 was new, and I was making Geocities websites with frames on Netscape. Most widespread technologies will be adapted by browsers before the masses use it - it's inevitable. I don't think feature-innovation is a KSF for browsers. It's actually interesting. I asked a few friends about this, and while all of my consultant/banker/business friends agreed with me, 3/5 of my engineering friends talked about features.

pnathan 15y ago

My browsing experience is very minimalistic: I want adblock, flashblock, and speed. Firefox is bloated and slow on every platform I've used it on since Firefox 3. Back when Firefox was Phoenix (0.7 or so), its goal was to be "lean and mean", so I switched from Mozilla Netscape. I use Chrome because it's fast and does exactly what I need it for. If Firefox wants me back, it will have to be much faster (UI, not web-wise), and not suck memory like a vacuum cleaner. Likely it'll have to use per-process tabs with some spiff sandboxing too. Chrome continuous update is pretty awesome as well.

JonnieCache 15y ago
>and not suck memory like a vacuum cleaner. Not this again. It isn't 2003. If you want speed, then you want your browser to take up as much RAM as possible. What else is it there for? Storing recipes? Trust your kernel to manage your memory, it's cleverer and better qualified than you.
- shin_lao 15y ago
  FF consumes more memory than IE9 on my machine and is much slower. Consuming too much memory can slow down your program, especially if your memory gets fragmented. The kernel only manages the virtual memory, processes manage the heap themselves through an userland library (provided by the OS or a third party).
  - JonnieCache 15y ago
    Good points. I probably spoke a little too hastily. I have become a bit aggressive about allegations of firefox's memory 'leaks' over the years, but I guess this is one place where people are actually informed enough to make them legitimately :)
- pnathan 15y ago
  No, actually, I want my browser to take minimal CPU and minimal RAM. The browser is not the point of my computer use. Usually my editing and compilation is what my computer is for, and I hate every cycle that slows down my workflow. And, for what its worth, I clocked FF as breaking 500MB only a year or two ago, and I run under 10 tabs. Chrome does this better (or should), since it uses process-based tabs, which allow the kernel to manage memory, not the browser.