Firefox's crossroads: Cutting-edge or mainstream?
MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif.--John Lilly wants it both ways.
Working at Mozilla Corporation since 2005 and as chief executive since early 2008, he helped oversee a remarkable achievement. Mozilla has built the Firefox browser from a largely unsuccessful remnant of the Netscape era of the 1990s into the browser that nearly a quarter of people on the Web use. Now the challenges are different.
Mozilla Corp. CEO John Lilly
(Credit: Stephen Shankland/CNET)First, for new growth, Mozilla must make its open-source browser appeal to an even more mainstream crowd, one that's more interested in working and playing online than in sticking it to Microsoft or being part of a cause. Second, it's got to keep the loyalty of the technically savvy early adopters and Web developers that Google now has been courting with its Chrome browser.
"We have to do both," Lilly said in an interview at Mozilla headquarters here. "We have to be a better browser for your standard everyday user of the Web who uses IE now, but I think we have to redouble our efforts to be good for Web developers."
The world changed for Mozilla when Chrome burst onto the scene in 2008. Mozilla didn't see itself as complacent, but Chrome was a wake-up call that "clarified some of our priorities," Lilly said, including snappy performance.
"It made some things real crisp," Lilly said.
Indeed, in the months after Chrome's arrival, these priorities appeared in Mozilla's Firefox planning: "Observable improvements in user-perceptible performance metrics such as start-up, time to open a new tab, and responsiveness when interacting with the user interface. Common user tasks should feel faster and more responsive." And future versions of Firefox likely will look more like Chrome embracing some of its less obtrusive framing of Web content and applications.
'Web-native' Google
Mozilla's biggest rivals before, Microsoft's Internet Explorer and Apple's
Safari, came from companies firmly rooted in the era of desktop computers and operating systems. Not so Google, which not only has Web-based applications such as Google Docs and Gmail to support, but also a browser-based operating system called Chrome OS.
"Competing was hard but at some level simple. Google is much more Web-native," Lilly said.
Google is an unusual rival. Even as Google and Mozilla vie for popularity, they're tight allies in the "Open Web" movement to augment Web standards to today's static pages into tomorrow's applications. And Google almost singlehandedly funds Mozilla by sending back a portion of search-ad revenue that originates from Google searches within Firefox.
In 2007, the last year for which Mozilla has released figures, Google supplied 89 percent of Mozilla's $75 million in revenue. Although the Mozilla-Google revenue-sharing deal is set to expire in 2011, realistically, it's probably safe.
For one thing, Firefox sends a large amount of search traffic to Google--traffic it could easily send to another search engine with the flip of a default setting switch. Second, Google's browser enemy is Internet Explorer, especially the slow and limited IE 6 that's still in widespread use eight years after its release. If Google wanted to cripple Mozilla, the time to do it would have been 2008, when the search-ad deal was up for renewal, but Google renewed it.
New standards
One big part of Mozilla's effort to remain in the vanguard is support for new Web standards.
Mozilla is among those trying to renovate Hypertext Markup Language (HTML) to make it a richer, more capable foundation for programming as well as display. And its significant if not dominant share of usage makes it a major force bringing those "Open Web" technologies to fruition.
"There are still a lot people who think the Web is done--there's this big mission accomplished banner. It's not true," Lilly said. "There are many proprietary technologies, many walled gardens with respect to video and offline technology. There is still is a lot of the Open Web fight to fight," Lilly said. "Getting to Firefox--a quarter of the Web--shows these technologies are real."
One thorny one is Web-based video. Today most online video is sent using Adobe Systems' Flash browser plug-in, which is free; video is encoded with the H.264 standard, which must be licensed. But fees could increase in 2011 with the possibility of new royalties for streaming H.264 video over the Internet.
Mozilla headquarters in Mountain View, Calif.
(Credit: Stephen Shankland/CNET)Perhaps not coincidentally, Google announced plans to acquire On2 Technologies, which has other video encoding and decoding software--or codec--including a new version under development called VP8.
"If VP8 is an open codec and unencumbered (by patent licensing considerations), it's something we'd implement. That changes the whole landscape," Lilly said.
The first update in a decade to the HTML standard used to describe Web pages is under way, and one major feature is a video tag that builds video directly into the Web rather than relying on a plug-in such as Flash, Microsoft's Silverlight, or Apple's QuickTime. Though Mozilla, Google, Apple, and Opera all like the tag, they don't see eye to eye about what format video should be encoded in, which complicates how well the technology works in practice.
Mozilla and Opera urge use of the Ogg Theora video format, which may be implemented in open-source software without licensing complications, and Firefox has had Ogg support since version 3.5 of the browser arrived earlier this year.
But Apple's Safari has H.264 support built in. Google's Chrome supports both standards, but YouTube supports only H.264. Microsoft hasn't said what it plans to do. So for now, video plug-ins appear unthreatened.
Microsoft in the wings
At the other end of the competitive spectrum is the incumbent. Although Microsoft's browser development crept nearly to a standstill after IE won the first browser wars of the 1990s, there's evidence the sleeping giant is awakening.
IE 8, released earlier this year, attempts to conform to existing Web standards rather than setting its own. And though IE still doesn't support many of the latest technologies to make the Web into an application foundation, Microsoft now is actively engaged in discussions over those technologies and their standardization. Finally, Microsoft is working on Web applications of its own in the form of an online version of Office 2010, giving the company a strong new incentive to improve its technology.
So far, though, Microsoft's effect is more theoretical than actual.
"They've given notice they will engage. We haven't seen them influence it a lot," said Mike Shaver, Mozilla's vice president of engineering. He's eager about the possibility that Microsoft will embrace new Web standards. "They represent a large user base--some by choice, some not. Those technologies mean a lot more when they make it to more people."
Something of a wild card factor in today's browser wars is Apple, which has released a Windows version of its browser. The company rarely ventures out of its home turf of Mac OS X unless there's a strong incentive--releasing iTunes for Windows to boost the iPod business, for example--but evidently deemed Safari for Windows a high enough priority to fund development and support efforts if not much in the way of marketing.
Going mobile
Apple, though, has a big head start when it comes to the new era of mobile browsing that's just beginning to mature with high-powered devices such as the iPhone. Like it, Palm's Pre handset and Google's Android operating system for mobile phones use a browser based on the open-source WebKit project.
Firefox is moving more slowly into mobile, though. Its mobile browser project, called Fennec, is slated to emerge later this year under the Firefox brand name for Nokia's Maemo mobile operating system, and Lilly has said Firefox will be available for Google's Android operating system as well.
"I do more browsing than ever in mobile. The boundaries between desktop and mobile are going to blur," Lilly said. "We will release (Fennec) as a product called Firefox later this year."
Lilly likes to look at the bright side of this fluid landscape. "In most ways the world as a Web user is better than it's ever been. There's real choice, not just from Apple and Microsoft but from Google and Opera," he said.
"We're a unique organization. Compared to open-source projects, we look rather wealthy. Compared to the people we're competing with--Apple, Microsoft, Google--$50 million, $60 million, $100 million in revenue that to them isn't really meaningful," Lilly said. "We're competing in a low-expense, scrappy way."
Stephen Shankland writes about a wide range of technology and products, but has a particular focus on browsers and digital photography. He joined CNET News in 1998 and since then also has covered Google, Yahoo, servers, supercomputing, Linux and open-source software, and science. E-mail Stephen, or follow him on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/stshank. 
I connect to German ISPs quite a bit, but I've never seen Firefox change its language to German.
Also, Firefox goes to 'Google.com' if you tell it to search Google.com..... it does NOT change it to say... Google.de for Denmark, if there is even such a thing.
If 25% of market share is not mainstream, I dont know what is. Firefox is already mainstream, as far as enthusiasts is concerned, a browser that is only limited to one Operating system is really not "enthusiasts". Every one is curious to check out google chrome at it is still the fanboys who have chrome, Firefox is more practical and prevelant on many Operating systems.
.de is Germany (as in, "Deutschland") - .dk is what you were likely looking for. ;)
@ tyshockner: Parent was referring to the browser UI language (or didn't communicate his point effectively). The site localization behavior (which Google does) can be changed here: http://www.google.com/support/websearch/bin/answer.py?answer=873&topic=8995
If I go to www.google.com I WANT WWW.GOOGLE.COM Even if I'm in Mexico. If I wanted google.MX then I WOULD TYPE THAT IN. But nooooo... Google has to be all "cute" and auto redirect you.
It's not just google that does it. Tons of other sites move you from their .com to their .xx (country code) depending on where you are connecting from. Damn that pisses me off just thinking about it :)
Go into the Firefox preferences/options and select the Content tab. At the bottom, you can click on "preferred language" and select languages in the order you want them to be shown to you. If the web site doesn't have English available, you won't see English obviously.
Why can't windows do that?
I don't think that Mozilla was ever out to 'stick it to Microsoft' - they seemed always more interested in producing a better browser, and so far have continued to do so.
The secret of success isn't to 'stick it' to anyone, but to produce the best damned product you can, one that does the job easier and better than anyone else.
Windows: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=471090
Mac:https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=468509
Linux https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=512489
The open source, great applications, cross platform programming is what makes it the most used browser presently.
Chrome is just simple, clean, and fast, which is why I use it.
It doesn't use more memory than IE, IE hides its bloat by integrating into the OS.
Microsoft allows developers to embed mshtml into any application. This is not recompiling code and taking what's necessary. It's using a pre-packaged component w/o branding. This embedding helps keep MSIE entrenched on the desktop.
WebKit has been small and fast enough to be re-used as the core for a number of desktop and mobile browsers that are gaining strength. Where is FF mobile? Oh yeah... coming any day soon. Why didn't phone vendors use FF as the core of their mobile offerings? Either because its very bloated or monolithic.
Be it either to contribute to the overall development or writing helpful extensions.
To summarize, they kick ass. :P
What can the crowd here recommend as a future-proof browser for work?
Requirements are simple: no bells, no whistles, adblock, flashblock, tabs working in intuitive fashion (not like in Chrome), no redundant drag-n-drop all over the place (only where it is really needed) and of course good keyboard shortcut support. Last but not least are auto-updates (not like the Opera 10's reinstall on every update, but like FireFox's one click+restart.)
Oh, and no malware please (that unfortunately excludes IE).
Is there any browser actually left for people who use the it for work??? Opera comes close, but has pile of little nagging usability problems all over the place.
Its an opinion which things are necessary or not, so you should probably state which bells and whistles you dislike.
IE8 if you want a big fat slow browser that you know is going to work with everything
Chrome if you want a small fast sleek good looking browser that will work with ALMOST everything.
I use Chrome 90% of the time, and IE when a site requires it.
FF is just as big and ugly as IE. I don't see why people get all geeked about it.
Firefox is my default, with SeaMonkey in the wings.
Safari 4.0 is exactly what Firefox use to be and, I believe, claimed to be: a simple browser. Safari for Windows works very well. There are no themes or add-ons, extensions to speak of.
If Firefox is to grow now any more than incrementally, Mozilla Corp id going to need to go after the corporate/industrial/financial area(s). To do this, they need to provide the proverbial "neck to wring", a support group to handle problems for these kinds of companies.
>>RSM
Netscape then responded by open sourcing the browser and it took them too long to come to market with a decent product. Had Netscape responded quicker, I don't think it would have made much difference at the time as people back then were less IT savvy on the whole and went with the default.
Funny thing though, Firefox was a stripped down version of Netscape.
So in a way, Netscape didn't really die. It came back with a vengeance.
It just has a new name.
Now I wish Mozilla would address the ancient Thunderbird, which is at 2.x but needed to be at 3.x yesterday!
It freezes in XP and Vista. Haven't tested it on Windows 7.
The other browsers seem faster as well.
I use to use IE as my backup browser after Firefox but I am to wary of opening it now.
The problem is that as Web developer, my code may be standard compliant, but that is no guarantee that it will render correctly with IE. Sometimes I will check out a web site on another computer using IE and find that it looks bad.
Can't win when it comes to Microsoft. I wish their browser share was zero. Would make life much easier.
http://www.cusser.net/extensions/tabhomepage/
I never liked Chrome!
FF is my thing, quick,Win 2000 looking like, and safe (unlike chrome).
- by FF2009 October 21, 2009 3:04 PM PDT
- Love my Fox. Cant wait for version 4. :)
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (66 Comments)