Comments on: Mozilla burns to prove Firefox worthy

With debut of browser preview and community marketing site, questions arise over Firefox's long-term potential.

[Gerald Quaglia]

We'll see

<<"I don't expect Firefox to gain significant market share
against Internet Explorer," Rubin said. "It's a nice browser, but I
don't think it offers a compelling enough alternative for most
users to switch."<<

Ask most user and they would look at you like you had 3 heads
if you mentioned Firefox. Very few except for the computer savy
even know there are other browsers out there.

<<Instead, Rubin said he expected Firefox to continue to do
well with niche markets, including among developers supporting
cross-platform applications.<<

We'll see in 2 years when IE 6 is still not updated and the only
way to update will be to shell out $200+ for foghorn and
another $800 for a new computer that will be need to run it. M$
is having problems getting people to switch to XP with many still
running 98.

[bmukund]

Definitely a trend

There is definitely, however, a change I have seen recently regarding the number of customers requesting software companies to test and support firefox as an alternate browser.

What firefox and browsers in general need is a (second, after the web) "killer app" which can cause users to switch. We can only hope...

[treego]

Firefox and IE both are boring

If someone would take a realistic and unbiased look at all browsers available, I think that person would recognize that Opera has the best thing going.

It's small, fully-featured (far more than Firefox AND IE), and is actually a brilliant piece of software.

I'm amazed that Firefox gets all this press while Opera is simply the best---Opera, if given the same level of exposure, as IE or even Firefox would stake its claim as the #1 software for the Internet, I believe. Even PC World recognized that this year by selecting it as the 2004 Browser of the Year.

http://www.opera.com/features/
http://tntluoma.com/opera/lover/7/
http://nontroppo.org/wiki/WhyOpera

The problem with opera...

is that it's not open source. To a lot of the people who really
like firefox, that's a big part of the reason that they like it so
much. In addition, because it's open source, the greater the
marketshare firefox has, the more attention it will attract from
others who will help put resources, be it money or otherwise,
into the development of it. Finally, firefox will never have the
security issues of IE simply because it's not "integrated" into
windows the way IE is. Sure, SP2 is supposed to help
dramatically with security issues, but when was the last time
microsoft followed through on its promises as far as software
quality goes? I think that the effectiveness of the security
enhancements in SP2 will be the determining effect on just how
much market-share firefox gains. As good as it may be, Opera
is not open-source and I don't know of anybody who is willing to
pay for their web browser.

[Gerald Quaglia]

$$$

Most would not switch from free IE if they have to pay. I wish there was a window version of Safari.

[Peter Reaper]

Why are Festa's articles so Negative

This guys's writing style just turns me off. It is filled with negative implications and assertions that are often not even true.

I wonder why CNET continues to employ him. I don't enjoy reading his articles, and they are usually not even very informative.

I must admit, I've mostly only read his articles about Mozilla. Is he always like this, or does he have some (hidden) agenda against Mozilla? Either way, his "journalism" is sub par, and I hope CNET considers educating him or firing him.

Examples of negativity/bias:
- Mozilla first lagged for 32 nail-biting months before releasing a browser based on its open-source development model. That release bombed. [http://Netscape 6.0 bombed, NOT Mozilla 1.0|http://Netscape 6.0 bombed, NOT Mozilla 1.0]

- Multiple links to negative issues (which emphasize them): "bombed", "naming dispute", "cost mozilla the Apple accont", "security problems", etc. OK, there are a LOT of other (frequently neutral) links, but there seem too many negative, and too few positive ones.

- Negative (HUGE) callout text: "It's a nice browser, but I don't think it offers a compelling enough alternative for most users to switch."

- "Bottom line" suggests only 8mainly) fans are downloading Firefox.

- too many more to mention. :-(

PS. Before spending even more time reading biased articles, I suggest you try Firefox for yourself. It's only a 4.6 MB download, and you will be glad you did: http://www.getfirefox.com/

Festa is Bias or Ignorant

I have to agree with a previous post this article is very negative.
It only points at the possibility that firefox will have the same
secuity issues as IE "if" it becomes popular. It offers no reason to
believe this statement. It offers no insight into what Firefox
truely offers a web user, supporting the argument that Festa is
bias or just plain ignorant. He quotes Rubin as saying "It's a nice
browser, but I don't think it offers a compelling enough
alternative for most users to switch"

Well that nice.

1) It has a familar look to make transition easy.
2) installation is easy and is not dependant on an OS
3) SUPPORTS STANDARDS!!!! a web page actually displays the
way it was designed to be.
4) It is not just a browser, its an environment. XPCOM

there are multiple sites that have lists over 100 item longs of
things that Firefox/Mozilla offer that IE simply does not.

Finally, why should I use a product that for all intent and
purposes has been dead and will remain dead, no further
development is planned for IE6. Microsoft wants you to buy an
OS.

I am not saying microsoft is bad, but we must hold software
vendors responsible to develop quality products in this case IE is
inferior. Don't be afraid of a little learning curve like this author
is, after all its this complacency that has left us with our current
president

Festa replies

To address just a few of the points raised by Peter and Nathan--

Thanks first for acknowledging that the links within the story point to both positive and negative developments leading up to Firefox's preview release. The story itself stresses the browser's current successes while pointing out potentially imminent pitfalls and larger dynamics beyond Mozilla's control that could slow its growth. The story notes that Firefox "is attracting new users at a breakneck pace" and already surpassing its PR1 download goals; it mentions Mozilla's success in attracting corporate interest and investment by the likes of HP and Nokia; and it asserts that Firefox won its popularity in party by offering things like tabs and pop-up blockers that are quickly becoming standard for browsers.

I also note that Mozilla has acted proactively to preserve its advantage where events beyond its control are acting to erode it, that is, by starting up the bug bounty program again and creating the marketing site.

The story does have a cautionary tone, which I think the facts and opinions it gathers together support. Given all of the above, however, I would venture to say that there's less support for the idea that I have "some (hidden) agenda against Mozilla." (I'm tempted to put you in touch with the folks who write me about my Internet Explorer stories, who are apparently under the impression that I'm a Mozilla partisan.)

Peter raises a valid point of fact, which is that Netscape rather than Mozilla.org released that first browser based on the open source project. Thanks to this discussion, that's been fixed in the story.

[Yuzer_Nayme]

We will see

Won't we.