Browser battle? They're more alike than different

A panel discussion among browser executives Thursday shed a little light on the philosophical differences between four major browsers (Internet Explorer, Firefox, Chrome, and Opera), but more than anything showed how all these products are moving in the same direction.

Responding to an audience question at the end of the panel, the browser reps set their products apart from the others this way:

Browser fellows. Left to right: Moderator Stephen Wildstrom of BusinessWeek, Christen Krogh of Opera, Sundar Pichai of Google, Dean Hachamovitch of Microsoft, and Mike Shaver of Mozilla.

(Credit: Rafe Needleman / CBS Interactive)

Christen Krogh, Chief Development Officer, Opera: "Our claim to fame is that we can make a Web browser run on anything." He was referring to the numerous mobile and game platforms that Opera runs on.

Sundar Pichai, VP Product Management, Google: "Speed. We only have so many seconds before we die."

Dean Hachamovitch, General Manager Internet Explorer, Microsoft: "It's about how real people use the Web every day." This was the least satisfying response to this question.

Mike Shaver, VP Engineering, Mozilla: "We believe the internet is too important to have anyone excluded from it." That explains the numerous localized versions of Firefox. Shaver went on to explain that Mozilla is a nonprofit, "chartered to protect the Internet."

Other important browsers were not represented. Apple declined to send a representative for Safari. Reps from other browser companies (like Flock) were not invited.

To my mind, the standout product was Opera. It's the only one succeeding with a business model different from the others. Rather than put all its effort into a desktop product, Opera's success lies in its mobile versions.

After the panel, I asked Pichai of Google about a potential new mobile version for Chrome, now that Apple is opening up a bit and allowing alternative browsers on to the iPhone -- and with the knowledge that the Android team uses a mobile version of Chrome. But he said, "We're focused on the desktop right now." He did say Apple's move both surprised and pleased him, and he plans to work with people inside Google to figure out what to do about it. He said those conversations haven't started yet. I find that hard to believe.

One of the most interesting questions from moderator Stephen Wildstrom's was about the inherent conflict that each browser maker faces: How do you innovate when the core of the product must adhere to strict standards? Pichai said, "We wouldn't add another rendering engine to the world," which is why Google used the Webkit engine (which also powers Safari).

"It's a problem we haven't solved," said Shaver of Mozilla, "but we're getting better at knowing when to standardize and when to innovate."

[tm_anon]

Speaking as a Flock user, I'd like to know exactly why Flock was not invited. It has a larger market share than Chrome and is different enough from Firefox to warrant not only a different name, but also a different feel to the Internet. As new as Chrome is to the browser market, should it not also have been excluded? If Flock was excluded due to its use of the Gecko rendering engine, should Chrome not have been excluded due to its use of Webkit? After all, Safari uses Webkit and Apple was invited along with Chrome. Gecko is also community driven and Open Source meaning it's up for grabs, exactly as Webkit is up for grabs. Flock is a very innovative browser compared to these four, different enough to warrant inclusion rather than exclusion.

[iertry]

It is probably because chrome may have higher market share than flock. Flock only really caters for a niche market. Only a guess though, flock is a good browser.

[gregorytga]

Just a typo heads up:
"We believe the internet is too important to have anyone exclded from it." Excluded ;) Hey, happens to the best of us.

[rafe]

Fixing now, thanks.

[magusat999]

I'd like to second the Flock comment. It seems like every time a new browser has come out there has been a flood of media and news about it - except for Flock. It's a shame how an excellent browser like Flock is being ignored, especially in an ever more anemic tech market. Worse part about it is Flock performs just as well as Firefox - so give it some love!

[lmasanti]

quote:
"How do you innovate when the core of the product must adhere to strict standards?"

A "browser" does not must adhere to "strict standars." It is the "rendering engine" that must do that.
WebKit is the Apple's open sourced developed "rendering engine." It is used by Apple's Safari, Google's Chrome, Adobe's AIR, Palm's pre... Those are "brownsers": They innovate in user interface (anyone) and or security (the internal structure of Chrome).

[BigGuns149]

Great point. There are dozens of browsers that are based upon just a handful of rendering engines, but the user interfaces vary considerably dependent upon what the end users are interested in the UI looking like. At this point I think that creating a new rendering engine would be FAR more work than it would be worth.

[Thomas, David]

Seems like Microsoft only sent a sells representative. That quoted answer was extremely weak, and illustrated annoying use of vague, ambiguous, annoying, and meaningless answers designed to make the less informed imagine the answer.

I hate that tactic.

[spolastre]

Even if they have similar business models, the browsers are not the same. Some are faster, others have more plugins (or addons), etc. Additionally, they do not use the same application to develop the browser. I definitely think the best browsers for the PC are Firefox and Chrome. For the Mac, Safari and Firefox. For Linux, Opera.

[rafe]

Exactly right. The panelists made this point, but obliquely. I was expecting each of them to forcefully say what you just did.

[dragonbite]

Is their a podcast or transcript anywhere?

[gerrrg]

All browsers should be working towards the same goal: 100% W3C compliance.

[sting7k]

Apple didn't send a Safari rep and they expect Safari to be taken seriously? Crazy.