2 ms·

I guess equally or better than isn't good enough. It was a lot better than IE6/7 when I started using it. It was still a log slog to make 1% gains in market sh

by netcan 13y ago

I guess equally or better than isn't good enough. It was a lot better than IE6/7 when I started using it. It was still a log slog to make 1% gains in market share. People didn't even think of browsers as an application you can replace. It was just the internet. Firefox won by being good enough that users nagged other users into replacing IE. They definitely were and I think we have FF to thank for a lot of the improvements to the web. I love it when companies compete simply on being better. It's probably more controversial, but I appreciate Apple for the same reason. They don't use "crutches" like corporate support, lock-ins or cheap prices. For the most part they set out to make something people will want to buy with their own money even though its more expensive. I think Apple are losing mobile phone market share for the same reason. That strategy sets a high quality bar. You need to be substantially better than the competition. When it works, it pushes the whole bar up and everyone benefits, even consumers who choose the easiest/cheapest option. Maybe Firefox's smartest strategy isn't 'make the best browser' anymore. I'm not going to call on them to abandon it though. I say try to make the best browser and if they fail, c'est la vie.

Ygg2 13y ago
> I love it when companies compete simply on being better. It's probably more controversial, but I appreciate Apple for the same reason. . They don't use "crutches" like corporate support, lock-ins or cheap prices. These sentences kinda don't add together. You're telling me that Apple with their walled garden was without lock-in and that they won on quality? What you're describing are large leaps. Large leaps can't happen constantly. I feel there is quite literally a hard limit to what leaps you can make, in one domain (basically low hanging versus high hanging fruits). Compare Chrome to Firefox to when it was when it came out, and compare it now. The difference has evaporated. On the other hand Chrome has steadily gained user base at a very high rate. It's delusional to thing it was only made on basis of having a good product. Eich was right, winning against net super powers will be THE TEST for Mozilla. Anyway, I think Mozilla is working towards that goal, but Mozilla can't make make that leap if we don't support it now.
- netcan 13y ago
  Apple has lot of products and subsequent strategies, hence controversy. :) I didn't mean it in a very wide sense. I'm not sure how the walled gardens fit into my story/observation. I don't like walled gardens, but I think it is tangental. I mean it in the context of a person buying a gadget (ipods and/or ipads make a good example) The other hardware companies will tweak a product to be have the biggest screen, RAM or HDD (whatever feature retailers are highlighting ) at some price-point and they'll do it at the expense of the battery or some feature shoppers are not looking at as closely right now. They'll create a product just tailored to buying managers' checklists. Apple don't do this. They won't compete on price or checklist features. I don't want to idealize them too much, but I think Apple do a lot less of the above than most. They generally win by making some something people will want enough to pay for with their own money at a price that gives Apple their fat profit margin. Sometimes it's by "inventing" a category like the last big string of big wins. But, for a long time people have been buying Apple laptops at a premium price. No major category invention just consistently good quality of software and hardware. I hope I'm not drinking kool-aid. I'm not even mush of an Apple consumer (more of a windows avoider) but I think they do keep and artistic integrity like a Jazz band that chooses not to make a trendy pop record. Mot people prefer (by definition) poppier music. But, from a certain perspective there is a greeter victory in making a popular Jazz song than a popular pop song, if you're a jazz band. I'm not sure if that's the optimal strategy for being successful (though it obviously serves Apple) but I think that's the kind of competition that improves a market. Back to FF. I really appreciate them. They won by being awesome and making using the web better. Faster, prettier. They had tabs. They had awesome plugins like firebug that helped developers and helped a lot of non developers understand how the web worked. They had lots of plugins that showed people they could customize their web experience. They proved that OSS could be awesome for users. My perspective is that of a fan. From that perspective, I'd like to see FF succeed or fail by trying to be the best browser. If that conflicts with being a more popular browser or more profitable one, I'd like them to choose "best browser." If they are handicapped because Chrome has better access to users, I still want them to compete on being the best. I would rather see them die trying then surviving because they figured out a way to get more ad revenue at the expense of user experience. That's obviously different to the investor/owner/employee perspective. As for support, I don't think they can raise the kind of money from donations they can make in advertising. I like the PrivatefFox crowdsourcing idea.

by netcan 13y ago

Ygg2 13y ago

> I love it when companies compete simply on being better. It's probably more controversial, but I appreciate Apple for the same reason. . They don't use "crutches" like corporate support, lock-ins or cheap prices. These sentences kinda don't add together. You're telling me that Apple with their walled garden was without lock-in and that they won on quality? What you're describing are large leaps. Large leaps can't happen constantly. I feel there is quite literally a hard limit to what leaps you can make, in one domain (basically low hanging versus high hanging fruits). Compare Chrome to Firefox to when it was when it came out, and compare it now. The difference has evaporated. On the other hand Chrome has steadily gained user base at a very high rate. It's delusional to thing it was only made on basis of having a good product. Eich was right, winning against net super powers will be THE TEST for Mozilla. Anyway, I think Mozilla is working towards that goal, but Mozilla can't make make that leap if we don't support it now.

netcan 13y ago
Apple has lot of products and subsequent strategies, hence controversy. :) I didn't mean it in a very wide sense. I'm not sure how the walled gardens fit into my story/observation. I don't like walled gardens, but I think it is tangental. I mean it in the context of a person buying a gadget (ipods and/or ipads make a good example) The other hardware companies will tweak a product to be have the biggest screen, RAM or HDD (whatever feature retailers are highlighting ) at some price-point and they'll do it at the expense of the battery or some feature shoppers are not looking at as closely right now. They'll create a product just tailored to buying managers' checklists. Apple don't do this. They won't compete on price or checklist features. I don't want to idealize them too much, but I think Apple do a lot less of the above than most. They generally win by making some something people will want enough to pay for with their own money at a price that gives Apple their fat profit margin. Sometimes it's by "inventing" a category like the last big string of big wins. But, for a long time people have been buying Apple laptops at a premium price. No major category invention just consistently good quality of software and hardware. I hope I'm not drinking kool-aid. I'm not even mush of an Apple consumer (more of a windows avoider) but I think they do keep and artistic integrity like a Jazz band that chooses not to make a trendy pop record. Mot people prefer (by definition) poppier music. But, from a certain perspective there is a greeter victory in making a popular Jazz song than a popular pop song, if you're a jazz band. I'm not sure if that's the optimal strategy for being successful (though it obviously serves Apple) but I think that's the kind of competition that improves a market. Back to FF. I really appreciate them. They won by being awesome and making using the web better. Faster, prettier. They had tabs. They had awesome plugins like firebug that helped developers and helped a lot of non developers understand how the web worked. They had lots of plugins that showed people they could customize their web experience. They proved that OSS could be awesome for users. My perspective is that of a fan. From that perspective, I'd like to see FF succeed or fail by trying to be the best browser. If that conflicts with being a more popular browser or more profitable one, I'd like them to choose "best browser." If they are handicapped because Chrome has better access to users, I still want them to compete on being the best. I would rather see them die trying then surviving because they figured out a way to get more ad revenue at the expense of user experience. That's obviously different to the investor/owner/employee perspective. As for support, I don't think they can raise the kind of money from donations they can make in advertising. I like the PrivatefFox crowdsourcing idea.