After 5 years, Firefox faces new challenges
Five years ago, Mozilla made it clear that the browser wars weren't over after all.
In the 1990s, Netscape had lost its dominance in the browser market to Microsoft's Internet Explorer, and the Netscape-spawned open-source project called Mozilla had sunk into obscurity. Even a federal antitrust suit accusing Microsoft of anticompetitive practices with its browser and Windows was not enough to turn the tide.
But on November 9, 2004, Firefox 1.0 emerged to fight back again.
The project, originally named Phoenix to symbolize rebirth from Netscape's ashes, has now clawed its way back to account for nearly a quarter of the browser usage today. Microsoft may not be on the run, but it's on the defensive, gradually building its browser development effort back up into fighting form.
Firefox eyewitness
It's a history that Mike Shaver, currently Mozilla's vice president of engineering, saw firsthand since joining Netscape in 1997.
Then, he was a young programmer whose work with Linux gave him open-source inclinations. He'd been advocating an open-source release of the engine within Netscape Communicator that ran Web-based JavaScript programs, but was surprised in 1998 when Netscape announced the entire software package would become open-source software.
"For me it was confluence of being at the right place at the right time and having a lot of contacts," Shaver recounted. He jumped into thorny issues of making a large commercial project into an open, cooperatively developed project: licensing, trademarks, patch reviews, schedules, governance.
Mike Shaver, VP of engineering, Mozilla
(Credit: Stephen Shankland/CNET)The open-source move was intended to counter Microsoft's growing browser clout. Initially, it failed, but the open-source move ultimately planted the seeds for Firefox's success. That's because the open-source ethos--which lets anyone see, modify, and distribute a program's underlying source code--is what enabled programmers to build something lean and mean out of what some saw as the bloated and uncompetitive Mozilla product.
Microsoft helped out in its own way by letting Internet Explorer languish and become a preferred channel for computer attacks, but Firefox features such as speed, a tabbed interface, the ability to accept add-on customizations, and pop-up ad blocking helped, too. Firefox 1.0 arrived was downloaded 10 million times in the first month.
"When we got to Firefox, in some ways it was overnight success. Our initial growth was more than we'd ever hoped for," Shaver said. "From where we started this undertaking--the strategic context within Netscape--to being the single biggest force behind the rebirth of the browser as an interesting software category...It's a pretty amazing end point."
Overall, the browser market has become more vigorous than ever. Even Microsoft is getting involved in Web standards and is building a Web-based version of Microsoft Office. And even as Firefox's leaders must grapple with the old rival, there's a new Firefox challenger in the form of Google Chrome.
Phoenix from the ashes
In Shaver's view, Mozilla has gone through two trials by fire. First was the transformation of the Netscape effort and the initial release of the Mozilla software as an open-source project.
"The first big test for us was around release of Netscape 6. Between that and Mozilla 1.0, we were opens-source's greatest failure," Shaver said.
Phoenix 0.1, released in 2002, was the first incarnation of the browser that would become Firefox.
(Credit: Mozilla)Second was the decision in 2003 to abandon that effort and throw the Mozilla weight behind what became Firefox.
"Getting the community aligned around that product change was our second big test around the health of the project," he said. "It was a touch-and-go period."
And though there was plenty of positive feedback from the outside world about Firefox, it took a long time before everybody was on board. "It was not until Firefox 2," which arrived in October 2006. "It took quite awhile for the core developers to prefer to work on Firefox than the suite."
But there were meaty challenges for programmers, and Microsoft's complacency left abundant opportunities. "You could look at the dominant browser at the time, pick any dimension and exceed them," Shaver said.
Firefox also gradually won the support of Web developers. Supporting another browser besides IE meant work, but Firefox's eventual widespread use made it worth the trouble. And Mozilla's effort to support Web standards lowered the difficulties for others to introduce browsers, too.
Google's helping hand
The seeds for Mozilla's financial success--measured on the basis of an open-source project if not, say, Microsoft--were sown early in Firefox. The software's start page was a rebranded window to Google's search engine, and a separate search box in the upper right drives more queries to the site. Mozilla gets a cut of the resulting search-advertising revenue; in 2007, the last year for which Mozilla has released figures, Google supplied 89 percent of Mozilla's $75 million in revenue.
Google co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin took a personal hand in boosting Mozilla, Shaver said.
"Google's founders Sergey and Larry were very supportive. They wanted to find a way to help," Shaver said. "They wanted to see what we could do about the traffic we were sending there...They had a lot of stuff to take care of, but for a long time they were Google's reps to us."
And Google contributed code, too--spell-checking, network stack software.
Among Google programmers who helped were Ben Goodger, a Firefox programmer, and Aaron Boodman, who came up with the Greasemonkey software for customizing Firefox's interface.
"It was certainly helpful," Shaver said. "It was always very independent from the revenue relationship," and Google to its credit didn't use its search-engine deal to exert pressure on the browser's development direction, he said.
Hello, Chrome
For all Google's enthusiasm for Firefox, it evidently wanted more. In September 2008, it released its first beta of the Chrome Web browser. It employed some of Firefox's values--performance, security, open source. But it also brought some Google-y values: a fast foundation for Web applications and a rapid release cycle.
Suddenly, a major Web-focused company with a lot of spare money was also trying to free the world from the 2001-era Internet Explorer 6.
"It was a little disruptive," Shaver said, mostly in that Mozilla had to answer numerous questions about how Chrome would affect its future.
But engineering has been affected, too.
Since the arrival of Chrome, Mozilla has put a new focus on Firefox performance, has moved to a faster release cycle, and is working to minimize the area of browser to make more room for Web content. Ahead is an aggressive roadmap for Firefox 3.6, 3.7, and 4.0. And it's trying to shake off the "bloatware" label some attach to Firefox.
Mostly the relationship appears genial, and indeed Chrome and Firefox developers are allied in the effort to improve the HTML underpinnings of the Web.
"Google gets the Web on another level than Microsoft does. It's another level of competition there," Shaver said. "But I don't think it's a Chrome goal to be harming Firefox. They wanted their own channel to control."
Overall, though, Shaver believes Firefox's position is strong. He cites as evidence the continuing growth rate--an estimated 160 million users of Firefox 3.0 exploding to about twice that now with the current Firefox 3.5.
"Pretty much all our distribution comes from people going to our Web site and downloading it. There's an act of volition there we really cherish," Shaver said. "There might be 350 million users. At that scale, there's a real mainstream reach. We're affecting the lives of people who don't think about their software. And the growth doesn't show any signs of growth of slowing down."
Correction 12:10 p.m. PST: This story was updated to clarify that Google didn't use its search-ad deal to exert pressure on Mozilla's development directions.
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. 
they took away the Bookmarks Organizer in it's original form and messed with it so much it's almost as bad as IE?? and it's favorites... why would they do that... craziness... the ease of use for any power users out there in the Bookmarks Organizer( manager) or whatever they want to call it took a big step backwards.. even the old Netscape 1.1 is a lot better with it's Bookmarks
what a shame... disappointed
its not being a fanboy.
firefox is the best browser available right now .
opera is good and i tested it for 2 months ..its fast but no add-ons, fails to render too many pages and its interface is so complicated .
IE is a dead dog..enough said.
Chrome is a maleware in a browser shape, even tho its fast , but its been out for over a year and still no addons or even master password .
so its Firefox that gives you all you want , themes, personas, addons..
have you tried FireGestures ? if you get used to that then its almost impossible to switch to any other browser..only browser that offer gestures by defult is Opera but again Fire Gestures is much better .
and i am working on an add-on that i belive w'll give a new functionality to Firefox.. i alwyas think , Master password Key is really great but since i love FireGestures, how it'd be if you can insert your Master password just by moving the mouse ? i mean insted of using a real password that you have to type i want it to be like a shape that you can draw by moving your mouse..
see my point ? Firefox is the only browser that gives you all you want and if what you want isnt yet supported you can make it or ask someone who can code to make it for you .
Opera is fast but incompatible.
Chrome is fast only if you are using a single tab. Also it lacks of... well almost anything. Chrome is some sort of Dummy-browser.
Safari is meh.
Yes , i have been working on a project for a few weeks "using Jetpack framework" , not a serious project tho but for the sake of learning and testing..
and i can say its really awesome , it feels like coding a webpage and anyone can use it with a little knowledge of HTML, CSS and Javascript and if needed the code could be improved and tested on Dreamweaver .
i also belive its going to open a new gate for extensions coders , i know how to code windows gadgets and i belive the same code used to build and extension with the help of Jetpack can also be used to make gadgets.. so coding an extentsion for Firefox that could import images of your opend tabs and show them on the desktop is going to be easy and fast .. or an extension that can open you inbox and deliver the new messages on a gadget on the desktop .. as i said it'll open a new gate for coders to get a new ideas .
so in short :D yes i love it
FireGestures is a great start, but I really need the mouse gestures to work over all parts of the screen, and for them to allow flicking through tabs in recently used order.
I'm glad people are getting into the mouse shortcuts though - I remember using Opera back in 2001 when mouse gestures came out. Everyone else was using IE and didn't see the big deal with mouse gestures and tabs. They thought I was lazy, haha.
i agree.
Opera is fast but incompatible.
Chrome is fast only if you are using a single tab. Also it lacks of... well almost anything. Chrome is some sort of Dummy-browser.
Safari is meh.
______________________________________________
That diss on Chrome got me doing a big fat "HUH!" I use multiple tabs in Chrome a lot, and it is faster than Firefox when using multiple tabs. As to being a 'dummy browser'... no, it's a MINIMALIST browser, and really from what I have seen... most people don't need more than is included in Chrome. I personally don't 99% of the time, with the one exception being when I am downloading batches of pictures from websites online and going to 'iffy websites'. Then, Firefox w/ Noscript gets the nod.
As to Safari being 'Meh'... got to agree with that. Tried it, didn't like it, went back to Firefox awhile ago.
Opera..... honestly never tried it Have heard of it, seen things online touting it, but never saw any necessities in it that I couldn't 'do without'.
have you tried Ctrl-Tab ? this addon lets you cycle through your tabs in most-recently used order .
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/5244
"Chrome is a maleware in a browser shape"
I think you meant "malware", though I would agree with the "male-ware" comment more. If you are referring to Chrome's ability to automatically download and install updates, the simple truth is that it makes the browser safer, especially when it comes to an average user (99%) who just wants a browser that works.
@Lerianis3
"Chrome is fast only if you are using a single tab"
I have been using Chrome for the last six months or so, and I have never experienced any performance problems with multiple tabs open, and I usually keep at least 5 or 6 of those.
Don't get me wrong, I love FF, and I have it installed too, it is just that for me (Win XP 64-bit, Linux Ubuntu) Chrome works much faster.
a) Many people start buying new 64-bit computers (the keywords... buy a new computer)
b) Adobe makes a 64-bit version of Flash (which is available in Linux, but isn't very stable - I have been testing it for a while, and most of the positioning of different elements is off)
I personally am looking forward to when Mozilla, Apple, Google, etc. look at 64-bit as a way to move forward and improve performance even more.
IE isn't really that slow. If you use IE all the time its cached; and the other browsers seem slow to open. and visa versa.
Now i'm not sayings its the fastest best full stop; but from a user's point of view whatever you use often loads quickest.
Also try IEPro addon. Might change your mind for certain scenarios.
@wirelesscaller
There is a 64bit IE browser. However its the plugins that are a problem. Last time i checked; Flash didn't have a 64 bit version.
Personally, I only use Firefox for 'iffy websites' that I don't know if I can trust them or not, so I use NoScript on them.
Integrated authentication support would be nice.
However you'd have to see that linked multi-zoned security settings so you didn't send your hash to public websites.
Gee its sounding more and more like IE?
The only thing I love about FF is NoScript and Adblock Plus (so maybe 2 reasons). I don't see that coming to Chrome since Ads is the bread and butter for Google and Safari I don't really cares. Even on my Mac FF is the only browser I use.
I work in the web development industry so browser usage is something we pay close attention to. Here's what's real - Firefox and Chrome are definitely gaining ground on IE, but IE still has more than 60% of all visits on sites that I monitor stats for. It's frustrating and amazing to me that the slowest, worst browser still has the majority of users.
For the web sites my company manages, we monitor the google analytics profiles of many customers, and the trend is similar across the board. Some industrial oriented sites have IE usership at higher levels (70 to 80% range), and more trendy sites or web 2.0 type sites have IE users at a much lower range but still in the 60 to 70% range.
A couple of things I think most people would agree with:
- People generally don't like change
- The majority of computer users just use whatever browser is already on their system, which is why IE has a higher ratio.
Most of the friends and family who ask me about this type of stuff are happy to change to Firefox when I recommend it - and they are always glad they did after the fact. However, it seems that until someone they know and trust can explain WHY firefox is better - in a way they understand, they are content with the status quo. "If it ain't broke, why fix it"? IE isn't broke, but it just isn't as good as the others.
I think many Microsoft products survive, and thrive off of this fact.
As a developer, there is nothing I hate more than trying to figure out where my javascript code is broken from the enigmatic, useless error messages IE gives you. And they're always attributed to the wrong line number (what's up with that, anyway?) And the situation hasn't gotten any better with the last two versions. Firebug and the growing number of extensions to it (like pixelPerfect) are absolutely indispensable.
rapier1 is right... If you don't tinker with pages, it doesn't really matter much, but then there's...
AdBlock Plus: Sorry to sites (like this one) that make their money from banner ads but it's a harsh reminder of how things used to be whenever I have to use IE or any of the others and wait, and sometimes refresh, to content I want to see only to have my eyes assaulted and have to close pop-unders.
Mouse gestures: So ingrained in my muscle memory I can't help but make them when I'm in another browser.
XMarks: All my bookmarks and passwords automatically synced between computers
I could go on and on but the rest are esoteric like Firebug. There's also the self-satisfaction of using a browser that's open-source and built and supported by fellow users. It makes me feel smug like a hybrid owner ;)
:-P
From the developers chair my primary browser is FF "love all the tools", but even that has had issues lately. Chrome is great for the speed, but it wants to cache everything "very bad when developing" and has no tools.
As to it 'loading slow'.... yeah, on Windows 7 lately it does, and I keep on asking myself and Firefox why it's doing this.... the 3.5.5 update seems to have fixed this issue for the time being.
As for using IE. Never again. MS lost me forever for May 7, 2003 when they announced that IE would no longer be distributed IE sep from the OS. I don't care how damn hard they backpedaled after that. That was BS and showed exactly what happens when the OS provider is providing the browser as well. Google Chrome and Firefox can't have that problem since they don't have an OS...well Mozilla doesn't, Google is about to. I will never use IE again for that reason alone.
Chrome comes out of the box with UI organized the way I want it (except the missing Home button -which takes about 10 seconds to put on UI)- so I don't miss at all various other customization options because the broser is already set right for me.
For other browsers users - if you like your browser - that's fine. I don't actually preach you to switch to Chrome. You might need something Chrome does not provide. I don't want any browser "killers" or "browser battles" - I think it is perfectly fine for all those browsers to live together so users have choice to pick the one they like.
Sincerely, Yours Karel Syrovy
- by macman1138 November 9, 2009 12:04 PM PST
- So what? It's still Safari for me!
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- by rapier1 November 9, 2009 1:41 PM PST
- So I use safari a lot. I can't say enough bad things about it. Crashy little memory pig that it is. Maybe its better under windows but on my Mac it sucks donkey dong.
- Like this
-
Showing 1 of 3 pages (93 Comments)