Comments on: Google and Apple should join the Firefox party

The Mozilla browser's rising market share should induce Google and Apple to pool resources to focus on Microsoft, rather than creating their own "Unix"-like browsers.

[jzsaxpc]

The reason that IE sucks is because it had no competition. Have a million different browsers breeds innovation... which drives the web community. Besides, Chrome ISN'T firefox. Their purposes are different as well as their mission statements. Firefox's goal was to make a simple, super browser. Chrome is supposed to be the next step, and its going to be flashy, and do all kinds of bizarre stuff (check out chromexpariments.com). That being said... even if Google and apple got behind firefox, the outcome would be the same, all three of the browsers do basically the same stuff. Its not like what would happen if apple and Microsoft decided to make an OS together.

[coryschulz]

I do not care for Firefox. And I never use IE. For me it's either Safari or Chrome. I use a Mac and right now I'm using the Safari 4 Beta and it has been a great experience. Once Chrome becomes available for the Mac I might try that out for a while to see how smooth the experience is. When I did use Firefox, before I had a Mac, I didn't use any of the plugins, so that's not a big deal to me. I like that Firefox is there, so that people have an alternative, but I would never use it. In my world Microsoft doesn't even exist. They're not even a consideration.

[Hunnter2k3]

If anything, Mozilla should be beaten down a bit.
They already put me off using 2.x and 3.x versions, 1.5 were the only good versions.
I'd rather use Chrome / Safari / Opera over Firefox. To hell with Mozilla now, they ruined Firefox.

If you want me to explain, go look through my comments, i'd rather not have to reiterate why i hate them now.
But to save you time:
+ Still sluggish
+ Still a memory hog.
+ Adding features that should NOT be there, leave them to the plugins! They should have just improved on the plugins system to make it more seamless, instead of adding in even more bloat. I don't care about browsers RSS, for example.
+ Thinking they have any say in what sites i visited. (the whole SSL refusal thing in FF3)

[Donny_V]

Google actually is providing like 60 plus percent of Firefox's funds. So Google is and has been involved for a while. I believe they did this to get experience for there own browser. Once Google feels Chrome is mature they will probably pull most if not all funds from Firefox.

There are rumors going around about IE dropping there rendering engine and using WebKit as the bases for a new engine.

[mitrich]

Firefox is my default browser. That said, I question the wisdom and principles of people who want to bash Microsoft. To the greatest extent of user base, all of the other browsers except Safari ride on Windows.

[nf2]

The Open Road often strips the open source argument of all nuance. Arriving at the conclusion of 'bad for msft' = 'good for the consumer'. In certain cases, this assumption may hold some water.

But at the end of the day, competition is what makes good products, not open sourcing. The open source community just helps foster this competition.

To abandon all competition just so everyone uses FF doesn't make much sense. Over the past year, I've watched FF become exactly what it aimed to destroy, a bloated browser. I'm glad to see Google step up with a lightweight browser that will (hopefully) reinvigorate competition.

I think we need to evaluate these kind of scenarios a little more carefully before jumping to silly conclusions that are more aimed at screwing msft than providing the consumer with a good product

[mouseclick]

The browser is the key to OS sales? Did I understand that correctly??? I did not decide to purchase my last OS based on the browser it came with and I cannot imagine any other consumer or even enterprise folk thinking that way. The browser choice comes after you already have an OS... IE is from Microsoft. Strike 1: There are so many Microsoft haters out there it seems almost organized. It is silly how people like to hate on things for the sake of it. Strike 2: in the case of IE, haters at least have good reason. I've used IE consistently over the past few years (pretty much since Netscape) and until this year have not had to switch. I now have added Chrome and Firefox (in my opinion, Chrome is better) because IE crashes so much it is quite ridiculous. Strike 3. Truth is, hate all you want - history has proven it is difficult to take market leadership away from a company and the Juggernaut that Microsoft is, they'd have to do it to themselves.... True, they have made some strides toward this recently but, it also requires someone else making a product that soundly out-dates the existing leader and no matter how much you claim another browser or OS is better, there is hardly an absolutely clear alternative out-dating Vista or IE...

[etandrib]

Hahaha. I think Firefox has had it's limelight (I paid my bit for the advertisement in the NYTimes years back when it launched 1.0) but in today's market I foresee Chrome making serious inroads into Microsoft and Mozilla's browser market-share. Extensions being added to Chrome will only speed Chromes adoption. People use Google so if Google advertises Chrome they can reach more people than Firefox can/will.

Personally I use Safari because I'm not dependent on any "extensions" and I'm just a little too old for the whole "pimp my browser" phase.

[bricox1]

I agree that if Apple and Google were to back Firefox exclusively then that would "solidify" the attach against Microsoft's IE browser. However, I'm not convinced that would be the most effective way to gain market share. Part of the reason that Microsoft's IE browser is loosing market share is because the recent competition between browsers has heated up. Most of this was caused because Apple and Google are making great strides with their browsers, which in turn has caused Firefox to make improvements (especially in regards to Javascript performance). No, I think in the short term we will all benefit if Apple and Google continue to push the envelope with their own browsers.

[kcotham]

How about the Mozilla group getting behind WebKit?

[Angmarr]

Please STOP connecting our Firefox community to ****** Apple. Just because IE SUCKS most of us DONT like APPLE!

Firefox = freedom, Customization, Configuration

Apple = boring looks, stupid friendly, TOTAL CONTROL - non customizable

It's Firefox Party ... not Apple, or Google for that matter!

[Angmarr]

Did you know that VISTA still KICKS MAC ass

http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=11&qpcustom=Windows+Vista

http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=9&qpcustom=Mac

[Quinn Taylor]

Your posts make it pretty obvious that you're trolling, but one should make a distinction that Safari != WebKit. Regardless of what you think of Safari's appearance, features, and cusomizability, your generalizations are downright false when applied to WebKit. The rendering engine is open source, derived from KHTML, and vastly improved by the community. Although the Gecko engine may have certain advantages, it's a heck of a lot more brittle than WebKit's architecture from a maintenance standpoint. (As a test, just see how much work it would take to write one's own browser using Gecko versus Webkit.) Nobody said that Firefox has to be an Apple fanboi, and many Mac users don't really want anything to do with Firefox, either. Live and let live. The important thing is web standards. Speaking of which, the Facebook login for comments doesn't work in Safari. Seriously....

[shtole]

I would trade your Firefox for my Chrome any day.

[The Mitch]

Firefox using Webkit as rendering engine: I don't agree. While it's true that Webkit is a terrific engine for rendering, it is LESS complete than Gecko.
Gecko understands MathML completely and has proper support for XHTML; Webkit still treats XHTML as malformed HTML (which is incorrect)
Current branches of Gecko score 94/100 on Acid3; missing tests are essentially in SVG animation support.
Firefox uses Gecko not only to render web pages, but also to render the user interface. Dropping Gecko for Webkit would require a COMPLETE rewrite of Firefox. No go.
Several Gecko developers participate in Webkit testing, and vice versa; this creates a synergy where 2 different implementations of the same standards must produce similar results. This allows better engineering of the standards (actually, this alone forced 4 tests in Acid3 to be rewritten, and several points of the CSS specs to be clarified, completed or corrected).

So, Go Firefox! Go Chrome! Go Safari!

[gstein67]

Matt -- you need to do a bit more research before posting something like this.

In the past, and even today, Google *does* support Mozilla. In fact, Google was giving them *so* much money, that the Foundation could not accept it and keep its 501 status. Thus, Mozilla Corporation was created to take in that money.

And then? Mozilla just kind of ambled along. Iterating on the browser, rather than fixing its core problems around performance, security, and usability. Even worse: Mozilla is not a very open community. Google was unable to contribute its changes into the codebase, as Mozilla employees were acting as the sole gatekeepers.

Chrome was started to "route around" the bureaucracy at Mozilla that was hindering *revolution* in the browser space. I think it is fantastic to have another option, and one that starts with clean, modern concepts.

[ArtInvent]

There is a lot of criticism of Firefox recently like they're missing the boat somehow, and I for one just don't get it. I think they are doing a fantastic job and the new 3.5 release looks like it will put them ahead of the curve again. Not sure why so many people are critical that FF doesn't use Webkit. They have refined Gecko so well and are adding the Tracemonkey javascript engine - FF 3.5 will be as fast or faster than Chrome or Safari or any other browser. As for Chrome being nice and minimal - FF can be configured to look a lot like Chrome, but Chrome can't use all the awesome plugins that really make FF shine. (Try Ubiquity if you really want to see some innovation.)

In short, I have to agree with Matt. Firefox has all the correct ingredients for continued success and innovation. Speed, community, plugins, development innertia, flexibility, ports and support for all platforms - the others have some good parts but not the whole enchilada, and moreover, aren't likely to get it. And a rising FF will raise a lot of other cool ships.

[SocialMediaGuru]

I completely agree. If the companies that everyone loves (Apple, Google) would support the browser that everyone loves (Firefox), it would be the end of Internet Explorer as we know it. Imagining all three of their logos on the same TV advertisement gives me a fleeting sense of nostalgia. Mmmm, web standards...

[scubajp]

Hey, I actually ran into a IE only web site the other day. A friend banks with Merrill Lynch. Would not allow us to communicate with my Linux and Firefox! Said "you have an unrecognizable browser"! Good Grief!

[pjdkrunkt]

The great thing about open source is that some of the same guys who are developing Firefox are also developing Chrome. The idea of merging Chrome and Safari into Firefox ignores the plain and simple fact that each browser has different strengths. Firefox's biggest strength is it's plugins. And one of my favorite plugins for Firefox is CustomizeGoogle... I would hate to loose that! Chrome's strength is apparently rendering Java applications, although FF3.5 will probably be coming close.

As far as IE not being pushed down our throats... are you KIDDING?? Microsoft integrated the stupid thing into the File Explorer back in 98! On top of that, they also integrated MSN messenger and Windows Media Player together with IE. This creates huge problems in terms of users being forced to upgrade all three programs to versions that may or may not even work on their operating system just because MSN has been updated. I went through that mess in 2005 running a Win 2000 machine and shortly after switched to Firefox and have been an avid convert ever since.

The truth is that having several very very good web browsers available that take customers away from IE is a very very good thing for the industry. Back in 2006, Microsoft was only worried about Firefox... and that's not a very big deal right? But today, their old nemesis Mac has reared it's head with Safari and the megacorporation Google has Chrome. The fact the Mozilla can remain competitive even with the best efforts of two MUCH larger companies means that they are doing something right. Maybe in 5 years Google will own Mozilla, but I don't think so... I think Mozilla is doing just fine and new products like Fennec will continue to set them apart as you said, the Linux of web-browsers.

[bob_the_gorilla]

I can't help but feel you've missed the whole point of WebKit. It's not an IE-seeking browser missile; it's simply a rendering engine designed to be the best it can be, in myriad places within multiple operating systems on many platforms.

I'd also like to reiterate the points made by many others here. Firstly, Firefox isn't portable enough to do some of the things WebKit does. Secondly, competition drives the browser space forwards ? Firefox has forced the IE team out of their timeless slumber, and WebKit trounced Firefox so conclusively in speed and CSS3 adoption that the FF guys have overhauled their engine in quite remarkable fashion.

Status quo might not be perfect, but we gain far more from it than we would through this short-sighted proposal. (It's a serious proposal, right, not just trolling for page views?)

[JulesLt]

I like the friendly competition that exists between Firefox, the WebKit browsers, and Opera, towards things like passing the Acid 3 test, or leap-frogging each other on JavaScript implementation.

Nor should we forget that we also benefit from competition on the Unix side too - Solaris, Apple's OS X and it's BSD foundation all offer valid alternatives to Linux - and even on Linux we have different desktop layers (KDE, Gnome, Enlightenment, Étoile) rather than everyone backing a single horse.

While this seems wasteful, it is how competition works.