Google and Apple should join the Firefox party

In the past two years, Microsoft's Internet Explorer has bled 12 percentage points in market share, from 78.28 percent to 66.82 percent, according to data from Net Applications, while the open-source Mozilla Firefox browser has leaped nearly 7 percentage points, from 15.49 percent to 22.05 percent. Meanwhile, Apple's Safari has nearly doubled its market share, to 8.23 percent, and Google's Chrome has grown to 1.23 percent.

Microsoft can't be happy.

As I wrote last week, the more browser market share Microsoft loses, the easier it becomes for it to also lose operating-system market share. Indeed, over the same two-year period, Microsoft Windows has lost five percentage points in market share while Apple's Mac OS X has gained more than three percentage points and Linux has more than doubled its share.

The browser, quite simply, makes the operating system much less relevant to the computing experience. This is why Apple and Google continue to invest heavily in their respective browser initiatives: the browser is the key to operating-system disruption.

For this same reason, however, both would do better to invest in Firefox, the "Linux of browsers." In some ways, the browser efforts of Apple and Google are much like the Unix efforts of IBM, Hewlett-Packard, and Sun Microsystems: they threaten to splinter the browser counterattack on Microsoft rather than solidify it.

Common investment in Firefox, however, would leave the industry better off, just as common investment in Linux has. Firefox, for its part, is thriving on its own. IE lacks the community flair that makes Firefox so appealing. Just imagine what it could do with the resources of Apple and Google behind it.

Microsoft probably has had, and still has, nightmares about that scenario.

Follow me on Twitter @mjasay.

[MacSmiley]

Firefox with Apple or Google behind it wouldn't be Firefox.

I actually disagree. (Who'd a thunk it?) To a point, the more good, solid browsers competing out there on the market, the more web designers need to code to open standards and the fewer IE- only websites there will be. The Firefox/Safari/Chrome combo is a good thing for the world, and a bad thing for MSFT.

[Matt Asay]

Firefox already has some corporate backers behind it: I think it can digest corporate involvement without becoming corporate. Maybe it's as simple as Apple making its own fork/branch, but keeping it as part of the core Firefox project?

[rfelgueiras]

totally agree

[pentest]

Doesn't Google already invest heavily in Mozilla, but more as a silent partner?

It is true that MS stands to lose its only 2 cash cows, which hide countless money sink projects, but I doubt more support from either Goolag, or Apple is going to boost the fortunes of Firefox any faster. A huge reason for the success of Firefox is the community, and contrary to whatever you think, corporations hinder community not help it along.

Besides, the last thing Firefox needs is suspicion that Goolag has its claws in Firefox and is using it as any piece of Goolag spyware. That is what Chrome, Docs, Desktop, Earth and its search is for.

I think Firefox should drop Gecko as their rendering engine and use WebKit, which is easier to maintain. Firefox, Chrome and Safari can retain their own UI philosophies but have the fastest and most standard-compliant rendering engine.

[forever4now]

I agree. Imagine how quickly WebKit (& Firefox) would evolve, if Mozilla was also contributing to WebKit, instead of utilizing resources for the maintenance & evolution of Gecko.

Microsoft should also consider using WebKit, although they seem to have a vested interest in dragging their feet, when it comes to complying to open web standards.

[mathiastck]

As amusing as the PC browser wars are, I'm more interested in mobile browsers, where Webkit is dominating (Iphone, Nokia S60, Android, etc.) and Firefox is a no show. It's just too heavy.

There is little chance of webkit going away any time soon.

[dcis_steve]

I agree with MacSmiley. It's this competition in the browser market that makes it what it is today. Otherwise, there would be less incentive to innovate and improve.

[t8]

I think multiple browsers is the best strategy to take more market share of Microsoft.
When it is a 2 horse race, then IE is one of two (albeit a forced one). But 5 browsers means that IE is only one among many. And if they are all compliant (minus IE of course) then that gives more strength to Web standards too and Microsoft will be forced to be standard compliant in order to compete.

Eventually the browser will be the OS and if they all render web pages and web apps in a standard way, then that is great for the Web platform.

[jpmays]

"When it is a 2 horse race, then IE is one of two (albeit a forced one)."

I get so sick and tired of the argument that Internet Explorer is forced upon an individual! It is not forced upon anybody... it is simply integrated into the operating system as a convenience factor.

Riddle me this Batman... let's say you just got a brand new computer... and it has the Windows operating system preinstalled. Your browser of choice is say, Safari, in order for you to be able to use it, you must download it first. How do you plan on doing this if you do not have a Web browser and/or FTP client already preinstalled?

The answer is... you can't, unless you already have software on a CD or some other type of portable media. The idea that Internet Explorer is forced upon one is getting old, and also lame!

Get a new argument!

/jp/

[Grumpypaul]

IE IS forced upon us whenever we go to an IE only read site. I run into the problem periodically and since there's no viable Mac compatible IE any longer I am left out in the cold.

Long live Firefox AND Apple!

[pentest]

Convenience? That is why it is part of the OS?

No, because of lock-in back in the days when it was netscape or IE.

It also is the root cause of thousands of security issues.

[t8]

@ jpmays

Bundling is actually illegal.
In order to not bundle exclusively and force your product onto the masses, the OS should give the user a choice. It should come with multiple browsers and then the end user can choose which one he wants, either by ticking a tick box in a list or by choosing which one at installation.

What some people forget is that the browser is not Microsoft's invention and yet Microsoft is almost able to monopolize that market too by utilizing their original monopoly in the Desktop OS. This behaviour is illegal. But had Microsoft invented the browser, then they would be free to make it part of the OS and bundle it exclusively.

[fiman16]

@t8

bundling is not illegal. neither is claiming that you invented the browser, because its not like they have a patent on it. they are not forcing you to use their internet browser either. when you finally get your precious firefox, you never have to open up IE again.

@ GrumpyPaul
this is 1999, i havn't seen an IE-only website for a decade. if you happen to find one, go ahead and tell them to crawl out of the stone age.

i agree with jpmays because it REALLY is a tired excuse to blame microsoft for integrating a browser that they spend money developing. its stupid to think that the entire population somehow NEEDS to use all of these extraneous plug-ins to help do this or that when the majority of people go online to either check their email or their facebook. lastly, cnet should stop (lauding) firefox's just because they find firefox to be slightly more convenient than internet explorer...
[CNET editor's note: Offensive language and personal attack deleted.]

[oassaf]

Actually i will have to agree that there are some websites that are IE only for some benign reason. The ones that come to mind are sites running corporate web-apps or something like that. I had that problem with a former employer wher ewe had to go online to enter in certain expenses and timesheets and the system would only work on IE. It made no sense.

I can understand why you would think this fact is a farce. It is just simply ridiculous that there are websites that are only IE compatible. Which is also why FireFox has an IE emulator for this exact purpose. Yet it s still oddly not available for macs

[danielwsmithee]

I agree Firefox should drop Gecko and pick up WebKit. WebKit has proven to be superior in nearly every way, rendering (Acid 3 results), speed, and maintainability. Firefox can then continue to focus on the only thing they have an advantage in ... customization (plugins/themes).

[tm_anon]

plugins/themes/addons all use the FF base to connect to, this is why Flock can use 99% of Firefox addons. If FF switches this base then Chrome and Safari should in theory be much more compatible with those same addons.

While I'm not against FF using Webkit, the big advantage will be a moot point.

[asdf26]

I disagree. First of all, any argument against competition needs to be taken skeptically. I understand the author is arguing the best way to unseat Microsoft's monopoly but even consilidation twards firefox wouldn't be the best way to do this.

Honestly firefox doesn't need a larger share. With it's 20% it's already forced almost all websites to support it, even safari with 8 is extremely widely supported. We need fragmentation of the browser market to force a move towards standards and away from custom tailored websites and incompatible browsers. Fragmentation and competition amount 3+ browsers is the only way this is going to happen.

[sgirard]

We need a monoculture of browsers as much as we need an operating system monopoly (we don't need either).

Choice in browsers is good. A choice of standards-compliant browsers is even better.

[HieronymusN]

I have to agree with MacSmiley - this is not a zero sum situation where MS must be defeated at all costs. The goal of all browsers should be standards compliance in their HTML/CSS/JS engines first, and then all the nice extras second. This will only make it easier to build rich applications.

Users could then choose which browser had better integration with their chosen OS and/or a better feature set.

The fact that IE *still* can't get it's act together regards to standards only strengthens the argument for more competition - wether thats from FireFox, Safari, etc.

[He_And_Him_Studios]

There are some sites that don't work correctly on IE7 and below, such as Bricks In Motion.com. I use both usually. I am posting this from ie 7 at school. I have IE8 and Firefox at home.

[cb3431]

There are equally as many sites that don't work in Firefox.

I use both, too.

[gopnick]

I think it's all been said; the goal shouldn't be to unseat MS but rather to bring competition to the market.

[ModerateVoice]

I completely disagree that we need more backers behind fewer browsers. All of the changes made in the tech arena were driven by someone actually stepping up and competing. Companies will compete if they have to, and the more competitors there are in the marketplace the more quickly they'll all have to move and make new advancements to get ahead of the pack, which benefits us all. Where would Intel be if AMD and Cyrix weren't around nipping at their heels in the 80s/90s? Would we have had a space program if the Russians didn't have one too? Where would Microsft Windows be if Apple had fallen down early on? What makes every marketplace work is the diversity of the products being offered and the competition between those products. This isn't about bringing MSFT down, it's about making things better for the user. If you bring MSFT down with only one alternative product then you just replaced one monopoly with another. I think that having a number of viable alternatives is the best for everyone. Without competition, there is no incentive for anyone make improvements, since the only product on the market is defaulted to the "best product" on the market, and everyone suffers.

[aMUSICsite]

More choice is always better.

[togamoos]

I don't think that the comparison of Chrome and Safari to the failed Unix operating systems of the past is very apt. Whereas installing more than one operating system on a computer is beyond the technical ability of most users, just about anyone can easily install a new browser and try it out. This means that there's incentive for Apple and Google to stay in the browser game, because if one of them manages to release a browser that's head-and-shoulders above the rest, the field can shift very quickly (remember the record downloads for Firefox 3?).

If I'm Microsoft, I'm much more afraid of three hungry, innovative competitors than I am of one well-funded opponent.

[manuelhe]

What about Microsoft buying Firefox?

[meh100]

That's the beauty of it- they can't. The Mozilla Foundation is non-profit, so Microsoft can't buy them up. I think that Mozilla could sell Firefox to Microsoft, but because it's available under the GPL, there's no way Microsoft can stop the current developers from forking the code and continuing to build it themselves.

[pentest]

Firefox is open source, but not GPL.

[the Otter]

If Safari goes away, I, for one, will be very disappointed. Safari is generally faster than Firefox, is *much* better looking, and its RSS implementation doesn?t look like it was hacked together by the IE team after one too many beers. Furthermore, Safari is greatly enhanced by Saft, which makes it *tremendously* useful (despite Firefox?s own well-intended add-ons).

I agree that Firefox has its place, and if you?re among the growing throng that likes it, more power to you. But I?ve got to say: I download Firefox every time a new, stable build is released, but I?ve never lasted more than a few hours. It just doesn?t have the features that Safari has, and IMHO that?s all that matters.

[saltylaker]

More competition is better. I think it is too soon to declare all the Unix's dead now that Linux has arrived. Have you used OpenSolaris lately? Linux has been the best possible thing for Solaris innovation.

[psybert]

I was a long time Firefox user (since pre 1.0), but have since dropped it for the minimalistic Google Chrome.

The point of multiple browsers is to provide an alternative for the consumer and to standardize web compatibility so developers and designers can code once and have the sites work and look the same across all of them. If there were only two (or one), each browser could essentially do whatever it likes, appealing to it's own customers. Stop trying to turn this into some sort of mass scheme to take down and overthrow Microsoft's browser or OS share. The anti-Microsoft sentiment on the web is ridiculous. They are here to stay and, despite what the web 2.0 crowd thinks, they do release some decent software.

I own PC's with windows and Linux as well as two Macs, but I prefer windows. For what it's worth, the Mac's (both purchased this year, running Leopard) crash and hang far more than my windows PC ever does.

[camdef]

And what exactly is the purpose, simply defeating IE? and then what? replacing one monopoly with another? Surely, you have some nobler aim than that. And for avoiding monopolies you really need competition. If you can't avoid monopolies, then you need, ahem, regulation.

[shootthecops]

firefox is open source and standards compliant, it cant lock you in like IE does.

[sroussey]

No, MS should instead use WebKit.

[meh100]

Amen to that. In the year since Acid 3 came out, Microsoft went from a 14 to a 20. Webkit went from a 60 to an 87 within the first month.