7 ms·

Microsoft As The Firefox Savior?

33 points by tilt 15y ago

gcp 15y ago
I don't see anything new here, the potential of a MS-Firefox partnership has been brought up many times, with the pros or cons for all parties. Then there's some claims that Firefox and Chrome are bloated, to which I can only say: you are aware that current webpages are more complex than those of 5 years ago, are you? I strongly suspect both browsers have gotten significantly faster over the years in relevant benchmarks. If the author had done some basic research, he could have avoided this: But Marco is right, the real key going forward is mobile. And Mozilla is going to have a very hard time competing there simply because they do not control their own platform. Firefox Phone, anyone? This effort already exists for some months: https://wiki.mozilla.org/B2G https://wiki.mozilla.org/B2G
lftl 15y ago
Then Firefox too became bloated. And it slowed down. I started using Mozilla’s Camino (their Mac-focused browser) as a result. Then Chrome arrived, in a similar way to the way that Firefox had. It was refreshingly fast… This quote made me laugh, because Firefox was forked from Mozilla because Mozilla was too bloated. It just seems like a perpetual cycle.
- indy 15y ago
  Accusing Chrome of becoming bloated seems harsh, technologies like SPDY and V8 have improved the browsing experience and isn't it a main priority of the Chrome team to never increase the start-up time?
  - nuttendorfer 15y ago
    This doesn't change the fact that more and more features get tacked onto a browser which have nothing to do with browsers. Chrome didn't have much useless features a year ago, but now Google is trying to make it into a platform.
    - indy 15y ago
      Which non-browser features have been tacked onto Chrome? That's a genuine question, the only thing I can think of is the 'Apps' dashboard with a link to the Chrome Web Store, apart from that Chrome seems to consist of just the essential elements of a browser.
      - berkut 15y ago
        Chrome native client, Flash plugin (built in), PDF browser. The PDF browser is the only one useful to me, and it's been broken in Linux for the last 3 versions of Chrome... Some of the newer WebKit features are getting bloated as well, and are built-in even if you don't need them - e.g. the new Javascript de-obsfucation feature in the developer tools.
        elgoato 15y ago
        Don't know about you but I prefer my plugins to be auto-updated to the latest, safest versions. Last I checked the non-bundled Flash still had to be manually updated from time to time by the user. The built in Flash/PDF is updated with Chrome. You might not think this is useful, but just wait till you click on a link and get pwned. Even if you don't, because you're on Linux, what about your parents?
        msteinert 15y ago
        Homer: Mr. Mayor, I hate to break it to you, but this browser is infested with Flash. Helen: Think of the parents!
  - azakai 15y ago
    > Accusing Chrome of becoming bloated seems harsh The word 'bloated' can be overused, but let's ignore the choice of word the GP used. The fact is, Chrome downloads have been getting bigger and bigger (there was an article here on HN a while back with some numbers), which isn't surprising because a lot more is being included. For example, * Flash * PDF viewer * Developer tools suite * Chrome-specific technologies like NaCl * Chrome Store support * Proposed web standards like Web Audio API and WebSQL (which are significantly more complex and large in comparison to alternative proposed standards to them) and SPDY Now, the significant increase in size might be justified in some people's opinion, it's debatable of course.
billpatrianakos 15y ago
This isnt going to happen. Search is too important to Google to let go in Firefox. Remember, Google is not a browser maker (well, technically it is I guess), its focus is on search. Chrome is the unofficial child of Googlebot and the reason it exists is to help them dominate search. It wouldn't make sense for Google not to renew with Mozilla because that would be a gift to Miscrosoft's Bing. As far as bloat goes, well addons account for a lot of bad performance and we have to remember that Firefox is old and there are people who have been using it for ages. Those people are carrying a lot of baggage in the form of old browser profiles, the user database, maybe even years worth of cookies and history. Setting up a totally fresh Firefox install would speed things up for many. But I can't be a Mozilla apologist. I switched to Chrome but use FF for testing. I've found that FF is what I wouldn't exactly call "slow" but just "less fast" than Chrome. It seems most software ends up bloated. Anyone who codes knows that code is never finished. There's always that temptation to add more and more to a project. Security updates and under the hood stuff is boring. New features are sexy! Sex sells. I recently created my own little web dev boilerplate and the first version was a nice starting point. Then I had this urge to add stuff until it was no longer a boilerplate but pretty much an entire website minus content. Ridiculous. It sucks but it's reality and we need to control that impulse to constantly add where no additions are needed. Edit: spelling.
- randomdata 15y ago
  > Chrome is the unofficial child of Googlebot and the reason it exists is to help them dominate search. Technically Google is in the business of advertising. They don't really care how you see the ads, so long as advertisers remain happy. Search just happens to be a good way to present those ads.
  - billpatrianakos 15y ago
    Okay that's fair. I stand corrected. Even so, it's still to their benefit to make sure people are directed to where their ads are (google.com) and that means renewing with Firefox in the context of this discussion. They must be first in search for their ad network to be so lucrative.
adotify 15y ago
Until webkit introduce a better debugging tool than it currently has, i dont think any web developer is going to stop using firefox and firebug as their main development browser.
- rimantas 15y ago
  Lots and lots already already did just that.
- billpatrianakos 15y ago
  I use Chrome and the built in dev tools. I think they're great. I also got this plugin that helps debug styles but that's about it. Firebug is the reason Firefox can be so slow at times. There's a decent sized exodus from FF and Firebug to Chrome and Chromium. I love Webkit, personally.
- stuartmemo 15y ago
  I hear this all the time, yet not one person can tell me precisely what Chrome is lacking when it comes to dev tools. What is it you're missing? Anyone?
Zakuzaa 15y ago
I remember Mozilla people saying something like this few years ago - "We put Google Search as default not because Google funds us, but because it's best for our users." But now that Bing is equally good (kind of), I think they can really consider it if need be and still manage to not seen as selling out its users.
- gkoberger 15y ago
  Google search has mind share, which (unfortunately) is more important than actual search accuracy.
wavephorm 15y ago
Mozilla is in trouble if the PC and the entire "desktop computing" model continues to be sidelined in favor of mobile devices and natural UI's. Of the three mobile devices I own (phone, tablet, ipod) on none of them do I need to go to www.Google.com to find information, nor I do use any Firefox browser. What happens to Firefox when I no longer need a laptop or desktop computer of any kind? The quality of the browser and the team, the philosophy, and goodwill is meaningless if their product isn't on the devices I'm using.
- tree_of_item 15y ago
  https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/mobile/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/mobile/ You say you don't use Firefox on mobile, which is fine, but then you seem to claim their product isn't on the devices you're using, when it is.
  - wavephorm 15y ago
    I'm aware of Firefox mobile, but it isn't installed on my devices. How does Mozilla expect to gain users (and search revenue) on these platforms if they can't even convince power users like me? This time they're competing against built-in browsers that are as competent and secure as what they're offering.
    - billpatrianakos 15y ago
      I'm not sure if power users are the ones that need convincing. Mozilla's philosophy is that the web is for everyone. As far as "everyone" goes, us power users are in the minority. They need to convince the average computer user, not people like us.
      - wavephorm 15y ago
        Trying to convince home users of this used to be easy. Microsoft has a long history of making inferior and insecure products that are dangerous to use. I can't say the same thing of Safari on iOS or the Android browser. I'm a power user and wouldnot recommend ordinary users bother switching to Firefox purely because of philosophical reasons.
asadotzler 15y ago
Mozilla and Firefox don't require a savior. With hundreds of millions of users, any search service would be happy to pay for Firefox's search traffic. Ex. Opera has about 1/10th the usage of Firefox and it has a lucrative deal with Google (and Bing and others) that put about $50M in its coffers every year. Search traffic is valuable, both at small scales like Opera and at large scales like Firefox.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
Synaesthesia 15y ago
I wouldn't quite write Firefox off yet. They're iterating faster and making some good improvements to the browser. Personally I use Chrome & Safari, but my mom uses Firefox, and I've certainly noticed the speed improvements going from version 4 to 8. They've reduced the bloat too, we're on 2gb RAM, and the number of tabs we have open sometimes is astonishing, and it's always responsive these days. What do you guys experience?
- nirvdrum 15y ago
  Their accelerated release schedule is precisely why I've stopped installing Firefox on relatives machines. I'm tired of having to answer why Firefox just started up asking them if they wanted to search for updates for their addons, why some of them got disabled, and why some extensions just stopped working. I've also had the unfortunate experience of an update just not working at all. Basically, they're delivering nothing my family is looking for at the cost of stability. It's just not worth it.
  - what_ever 15y ago
    You can install add-on compatibility checker add-on. I think almost all of the add-ons which work for FF4, work for rest of the versions as well. And almost all of the add-ons have been ported to FF4. So basically, everything works.
    - nirvdrum 15y ago
      Well, it's that compatibility checker screen that throws my relatives off. They don't even know that they have add-ons for the most part. And they don't know that Firefox just updated on them. All they know is the next time they start it up they're greeted with a foreign window spouting off something about add-ons.
      - what_ever 15y ago
        Agreed. Compatibility check hack is not so obvious. They need to fix it. I was just suggesting that you can install it once and set to disable checking compatibility for once and all. Your relatives can ignore any warnings after that.
arpitnext 15y ago
Firefox is too slow, and it is getting slower with every release. Mozilla should stop using Gecko, and switch to WebKit ...... or should release a WebKit version. I believe that there is still huge scope for a better browser. Chrome is Google's browser - and open community cant trust Big G. Chromium has a big minus point: no auto-update. You need to download and install newer versions manually. I want a fast browser (may be WebKit + V8) developed by any non-profit and reputed organization like Mozilla.
- guard-of-terra 15y ago
  Chromium does have auto-update on linux, using system package management.
  - arpitnext 15y ago
    there are some third party tools for Windows to automate the process of installing newer version. But we can't expect an end-user to use such things. I find Chromium an uncomplete product. :( Also, it is not developed by the open-community.
- gkoberger 15y ago
  Switching to Webkit isn't going to speed Firefox up. Gecko is very fast, especially now. As is SpiderMonkey. Firefox's biggest enemy when it comes to speed is add-ons -- which ironically is one of its best features. Also, Chrome does definitely auto-update. It does it better than Firefox does (and I'm saying that as a Mozilla employee). Give Firefox 8 (or 9 or 10 or 11, if you're into betas or nightlies) another chance, with a clean profile. I think you'll find it to be incredibly fast.
  - arpitnext 15y ago
    yeah, I use nightly as my default browser. It is faster than the Fx8, but not as the Chrome - even without add-ons. I agree that add-ons are slowing down Firefox. I expect Jetpacks to overcome this problem, but it seems that add-on devs are not much happy with jetpacks/addon sdk. >> Also, Chrome does definitely auto-update I am talking about Chromium here

33 points by tilt 15y ago

gcp 15y ago

I don't see anything new here, the potential of a MS-Firefox partnership has been brought up many times, with the pros or cons for all parties. Then there's some claims that Firefox and Chrome are bloated, to which I can only say: you are aware that current webpages are more complex than those of 5 years ago, are you? I strongly suspect both browsers have gotten significantly faster over the years in relevant benchmarks. If the author had done some basic research, he could have avoided this: But Marco is right, the real key going forward is mobile. And Mozilla is going to have a very hard time competing there simply because they do not control their own platform. Firefox Phone, anyone? This effort already exists for some months: https://wiki.mozilla.org/B2G https://wiki.mozilla.org/B2G

lftl 15y ago

Then Firefox too became bloated. And it slowed down. I started using Mozilla’s Camino (their Mac-focused browser) as a result. Then Chrome arrived, in a similar way to the way that Firefox had. It was refreshingly fast… This quote made me laugh, because Firefox was forked from Mozilla because Mozilla was too bloated. It just seems like a perpetual cycle.

indy 15y ago
Accusing Chrome of becoming bloated seems harsh, technologies like SPDY and V8 have improved the browsing experience and isn't it a main priority of the Chrome team to never increase the start-up time?
- nuttendorfer 15y ago
  This doesn't change the fact that more and more features get tacked onto a browser which have nothing to do with browsers. Chrome didn't have much useless features a year ago, but now Google is trying to make it into a platform.
  - indy 15y ago
    Which non-browser features have been tacked onto Chrome? That's a genuine question, the only thing I can think of is the 'Apps' dashboard with a link to the Chrome Web Store, apart from that Chrome seems to consist of just the essential elements of a browser.
    - berkut 15y ago
      Chrome native client, Flash plugin (built in), PDF browser. The PDF browser is the only one useful to me, and it's been broken in Linux for the last 3 versions of Chrome... Some of the newer WebKit features are getting bloated as well, and are built-in even if you don't need them - e.g. the new Javascript de-obsfucation feature in the developer tools.
      - elgoato 15y ago
        Don't know about you but I prefer my plugins to be auto-updated to the latest, safest versions. Last I checked the non-bundled Flash still had to be manually updated from time to time by the user. The built in Flash/PDF is updated with Chrome. You might not think this is useful, but just wait till you click on a link and get pwned. Even if you don't, because you're on Linux, what about your parents?
        msteinert 15y ago
        Homer: Mr. Mayor, I hate to break it to you, but this browser is infested with Flash. Helen: Think of the parents!
- azakai 15y ago
  > Accusing Chrome of becoming bloated seems harsh The word 'bloated' can be overused, but let's ignore the choice of word the GP used. The fact is, Chrome downloads have been getting bigger and bigger (there was an article here on HN a while back with some numbers), which isn't surprising because a lot more is being included. For example, * Flash * PDF viewer * Developer tools suite * Chrome-specific technologies like NaCl * Chrome Store support * Proposed web standards like Web Audio API and WebSQL (which are significantly more complex and large in comparison to alternative proposed standards to them) and SPDY Now, the significant increase in size might be justified in some people's opinion, it's debatable of course.

billpatrianakos 15y ago

This isnt going to happen. Search is too important to Google to let go in Firefox. Remember, Google is not a browser maker (well, technically it is I guess), its focus is on search. Chrome is the unofficial child of Googlebot and the reason it exists is to help them dominate search. It wouldn't make sense for Google not to renew with Mozilla because that would be a gift to Miscrosoft's Bing. As far as bloat goes, well addons account for a lot of bad performance and we have to remember that Firefox is old and there are people who have been using it for ages. Those people are carrying a lot of baggage in the form of old browser profiles, the user database, maybe even years worth of cookies and history. Setting up a totally fresh Firefox install would speed things up for many. But I can't be a Mozilla apologist. I switched to Chrome but use FF for testing. I've found that FF is what I wouldn't exactly call "slow" but just "less fast" than Chrome. It seems most software ends up bloated. Anyone who codes knows that code is never finished. There's always that temptation to add more and more to a project. Security updates and under the hood stuff is boring. New features are sexy! Sex sells. I recently created my own little web dev boilerplate and the first version was a nice starting point. Then I had this urge to add stuff until it was no longer a boilerplate but pretty much an entire website minus content. Ridiculous. It sucks but it's reality and we need to control that impulse to constantly add where no additions are needed. Edit: spelling.

randomdata 15y ago
> Chrome is the unofficial child of Googlebot and the reason it exists is to help them dominate search. Technically Google is in the business of advertising. They don't really care how you see the ads, so long as advertisers remain happy. Search just happens to be a good way to present those ads.
- billpatrianakos 15y ago
  Okay that's fair. I stand corrected. Even so, it's still to their benefit to make sure people are directed to where their ads are (google.com) and that means renewing with Firefox in the context of this discussion. They must be first in search for their ad network to be so lucrative.

adotify 15y ago

Until webkit introduce a better debugging tool than it currently has, i dont think any web developer is going to stop using firefox and firebug as their main development browser.

rimantas 15y ago
Lots and lots already already did just that.
billpatrianakos 15y ago
I use Chrome and the built in dev tools. I think they're great. I also got this plugin that helps debug styles but that's about it. Firebug is the reason Firefox can be so slow at times. There's a decent sized exodus from FF and Firebug to Chrome and Chromium. I love Webkit, personally.
stuartmemo 15y ago
I hear this all the time, yet not one person can tell me precisely what Chrome is lacking when it comes to dev tools. What is it you're missing? Anyone?

Zakuzaa 15y ago

I remember Mozilla people saying something like this few years ago - "We put Google Search as default not because Google funds us, but because it's best for our users." But now that Bing is equally good (kind of), I think they can really consider it if need be and still manage to not seen as selling out its users.

gkoberger 15y ago
Google search has mind share, which (unfortunately) is more important than actual search accuracy.

wavephorm 15y ago

Mozilla is in trouble if the PC and the entire "desktop computing" model continues to be sidelined in favor of mobile devices and natural UI's. Of the three mobile devices I own (phone, tablet, ipod) on none of them do I need to go to www.Google.com to find information, nor I do use any Firefox browser. What happens to Firefox when I no longer need a laptop or desktop computer of any kind? The quality of the browser and the team, the philosophy, and goodwill is meaningless if their product isn't on the devices I'm using.

tree_of_item 15y ago
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/mobile/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/mobile/ You say you don't use Firefox on mobile, which is fine, but then you seem to claim their product isn't on the devices you're using, when it is.
- wavephorm 15y ago
  I'm aware of Firefox mobile, but it isn't installed on my devices. How does Mozilla expect to gain users (and search revenue) on these platforms if they can't even convince power users like me? This time they're competing against built-in browsers that are as competent and secure as what they're offering.
  - billpatrianakos 15y ago
    I'm not sure if power users are the ones that need convincing. Mozilla's philosophy is that the web is for everyone. As far as "everyone" goes, us power users are in the minority. They need to convince the average computer user, not people like us.
    - wavephorm 15y ago
      Trying to convince home users of this used to be easy. Microsoft has a long history of making inferior and insecure products that are dangerous to use. I can't say the same thing of Safari on iOS or the Android browser. I'm a power user and wouldnot recommend ordinary users bother switching to Firefox purely because of philosophical reasons.

asadotzler 15y ago

Mozilla and Firefox don't require a savior. With hundreds of millions of users, any search service would be happy to pay for Firefox's search traffic. Ex. Opera has about 1/10th the usage of Firefox and it has a lucrative deal with Google (and Bing and others) that put about $50M in its coffers every year. Search traffic is valuable, both at small scales like Opera and at large scales like Firefox.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

Synaesthesia 15y ago

I wouldn't quite write Firefox off yet. They're iterating faster and making some good improvements to the browser. Personally I use Chrome & Safari, but my mom uses Firefox, and I've certainly noticed the speed improvements going from version 4 to 8. They've reduced the bloat too, we're on 2gb RAM, and the number of tabs we have open sometimes is astonishing, and it's always responsive these days. What do you guys experience?

nirvdrum 15y ago
Their accelerated release schedule is precisely why I've stopped installing Firefox on relatives machines. I'm tired of having to answer why Firefox just started up asking them if they wanted to search for updates for their addons, why some of them got disabled, and why some extensions just stopped working. I've also had the unfortunate experience of an update just not working at all. Basically, they're delivering nothing my family is looking for at the cost of stability. It's just not worth it.
- what_ever 15y ago
  You can install add-on compatibility checker add-on. I think almost all of the add-ons which work for FF4, work for rest of the versions as well. And almost all of the add-ons have been ported to FF4. So basically, everything works.
  - nirvdrum 15y ago
    Well, it's that compatibility checker screen that throws my relatives off. They don't even know that they have add-ons for the most part. And they don't know that Firefox just updated on them. All they know is the next time they start it up they're greeted with a foreign window spouting off something about add-ons.
    - what_ever 15y ago
      Agreed. Compatibility check hack is not so obvious. They need to fix it. I was just suggesting that you can install it once and set to disable checking compatibility for once and all. Your relatives can ignore any warnings after that.

arpitnext 15y ago

Firefox is too slow, and it is getting slower with every release. Mozilla should stop using Gecko, and switch to WebKit ...... or should release a WebKit version. I believe that there is still huge scope for a better browser. Chrome is Google's browser - and open community cant trust Big G. Chromium has a big minus point: no auto-update. You need to download and install newer versions manually. I want a fast browser (may be WebKit + V8) developed by any non-profit and reputed organization like Mozilla.

guard-of-terra 15y ago
Chromium does have auto-update on linux, using system package management.
- arpitnext 15y ago
  there are some third party tools for Windows to automate the process of installing newer version. But we can't expect an end-user to use such things. I find Chromium an uncomplete product. :( Also, it is not developed by the open-community.
gkoberger 15y ago
Switching to Webkit isn't going to speed Firefox up. Gecko is very fast, especially now. As is SpiderMonkey. Firefox's biggest enemy when it comes to speed is add-ons -- which ironically is one of its best features. Also, Chrome does definitely auto-update. It does it better than Firefox does (and I'm saying that as a Mozilla employee). Give Firefox 8 (or 9 or 10 or 11, if you're into betas or nightlies) another chance, with a clean profile. I think you'll find it to be incredibly fast.
- arpitnext 15y ago
  yeah, I use nightly as my default browser. It is faster than the Fx8, but not as the Chrome - even without add-ons. I agree that add-ons are slowing down Firefox. I expect Jetpacks to overcome this problem, but it seems that add-on devs are not much happy with jetpacks/addon sdk. >> Also, Chrome does definitely auto-update I am talking about Chromium here