4 ms·

Maybe it should just align the incentives and get the users to pay for it? The Enterprise™ spends millions on very dubious security products. On the other hand,

Maybe it should just align the incentives and get the users to pay for it? The Enterprise™ spends millions on very dubious security products. On the other hand, the browser is on the front line when it comes to online attacks - a paid browser with enterprise-level features such as ad, malware & phishing blocking or DLP could sell for decent money and actually provide tangible security benefits.

micromacrofoot 5y ago
> get the users to pay for it Unless they switched to a subscription-only model (which I don't think aligns with their mission) this would almost definitely doom them... users don't want to pay for shit, especially with freely available alternatives.
- Nextgrid 5y ago
  You could offer a free version and lock out the enterprise-specific features behind a subscription, or just sell support - a lot of companies seem to do fine on an open-source product and selling support or managed services.
  - tmottabr 5y ago
    then enterprise will just not use firefox.. they will use chrome that will have enterprise features available for free.. not that many enterprises use firefox to begin with..
    - Nextgrid 5y ago
      Does Chrome have ad/malware blocking or DLP (for which companies currently use expensive middleboxes that break TLS and can cause problems)? The point isn’t that they would pay for a Chrome equivalent, it’s that they would pay for something better than Chrome which Google won’t replicate as it’s against their entire business model. The amount of money companies spend on various security products (some of which are dubious) suggests there's definitely an appetite for security and doing so at the browser level makes sense and could be a successful strategy.
      - tmottabr 5y ago
        Firefox already have better ad/malware blocking today and companies are not using it since they can just use middleboxes to do that in a central location without then having to worry about each computer configuration. If companies wanted to go to that route they can do it today for free, and they are not doing it, so changing firefox from free to charge for enterprise stuff will not help in any way.. also, google will not replicate the ad/malware blocking capacities from firefox because they are the leaders. not firefox.. If ever chrome marketshare goes down to below 5% and firefox rise to chrome position above 60% then i bet that google will be willing to do better ad/malware blocking if that means changing the game..
babypuncher 5y ago
I'll take "fastest ways to kill a web browser for $200", Alex
- Nextgrid 5y ago
  There isn’t much left to kill though - marketshare is near zero already because casual users aren’t interested in a slower Chrome knockoff. Differentiating themselves on features that Chrome can’t ever have (because of their business model) could actually reverse the trend.
acomjean 5y ago
Thats actually not a bad idea. It would be a nice change from when I had to run to a different machine run citrix to logon to a windows NT machine to run IE because our time keeping software only worked on ie..

micromacrofoot 5y ago

> get the users to pay for it Unless they switched to a subscription-only model (which I don't think aligns with their mission) this would almost definitely doom them... users don't want to pay for shit, especially with freely available alternatives.

Nextgrid 5y ago
You could offer a free version and lock out the enterprise-specific features behind a subscription, or just sell support - a lot of companies seem to do fine on an open-source product and selling support or managed services.
- tmottabr 5y ago
  then enterprise will just not use firefox.. they will use chrome that will have enterprise features available for free.. not that many enterprises use firefox to begin with..
  - Nextgrid 5y ago
    Does Chrome have ad/malware blocking or DLP (for which companies currently use expensive middleboxes that break TLS and can cause problems)? The point isn’t that they would pay for a Chrome equivalent, it’s that they would pay for something better than Chrome which Google won’t replicate as it’s against their entire business model. The amount of money companies spend on various security products (some of which are dubious) suggests there's definitely an appetite for security and doing so at the browser level makes sense and could be a successful strategy.
    - tmottabr 5y ago
      Firefox already have better ad/malware blocking today and companies are not using it since they can just use middleboxes to do that in a central location without then having to worry about each computer configuration. If companies wanted to go to that route they can do it today for free, and they are not doing it, so changing firefox from free to charge for enterprise stuff will not help in any way.. also, google will not replicate the ad/malware blocking capacities from firefox because they are the leaders. not firefox.. If ever chrome marketshare goes down to below 5% and firefox rise to chrome position above 60% then i bet that google will be willing to do better ad/malware blocking if that means changing the game..

babypuncher 5y ago

I'll take "fastest ways to kill a web browser for $200", Alex

Nextgrid 5y ago
There isn’t much left to kill though - marketshare is near zero already because casual users aren’t interested in a slower Chrome knockoff. Differentiating themselves on features that Chrome can’t ever have (because of their business model) could actually reverse the trend.

acomjean 5y ago

Thats actually not a bad idea. It would be a nice change from when I had to run to a different machine run citrix to logon to a windows NT machine to run IE because our time keeping software only worked on ie..