Slashdot Mirror
Chrome Complicates Mozilla/Google Love-In
Barence writes "Mozilla CEO John Lilly has admitted the Firefox maker's relationship with Google has become 'more complicated' since the company launched its own browser. Mozilla is dependent on Google for the vast majority of its revenue and has previously worked closely with the search king's engineers on the development of Firefox. But that relationship appears to have cooled since Google released Chrome in the summer. 'We have a fine and reasonable relationship, but I'd be lying if I said that things weren't more complicated than they used to be.'"
Chrome is the next IE and Google is now Microsoft. Stick with Linux and stay away from Google.
I think we're about to see if Google really isn't evil.
Maybe Google thought they were "on a break"...
In the land of the blind, the one eyed man still has no depth perception.
It's not like Mozilla has some trade secrets to hide from their partner. All the secrets of making a browser seem to be released regularly as source code.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
All I'm saying is, we should start seeing other people. Just to make sure things between us are right.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Things are going pretty good. You're scooping some flavors, having some fun, and earning some money. The boss is pretty cool, but one day he brings in his son and tells you he's going to start working there, too. At first you're training the kid, showing him the ropes, and things are going pretty well. But then, before you know it, he's the assistant manager and you're still just a scoop jockey. Yup, that's life.
While Chrome may "complicate" their relationship, ideally there should be as many browsers on the market as possible. Microsoft's monopoly over the web produced a sort of tunnel-vision toward website development. Having a variety of browsers available has been changing that. The more browsers available, the more pressure will be placed upon companies to support standards compliance.
So while Mozilla and Google may compete, doing so is in both their interests. In addition, competition is in the consumer's interest because it keeps pushing the browser market forward and gaining us great features like HTML5 compliance, process isolation, privacy modes*, malware protection, etc.
* I've found this to be an excellent way to use an admin login on a site where I also have regular user credentials.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
I don't use the Google Browser because I don't want all my browsing history and everything else put in their databases. I think they are overstepping their welcome. Common Google, how about the security of what we post, look at and search for? Are you the FBI? NSA? CIA?
Firefox currently has over 20% of the market share and growing - if it continues to gain share then I can't see Google pulling out of an agreement where they're the default search offering for over 20% of people on the web.
Having said this, it's going to be difficult for Mozilla to find a revenue stream that even comes close to that from Google. If they want independence, they'll have a hard time finding it. Somehow I can't see Microsoft stepping in with a bid if Google were to eventually pull out...
That's what a red-headed step-child says, when his mom and Gary decide to have a child together. Firefox: prepare your ass for a serious beating! And don't go crying to your real daddy, Marc Andreessen. He doesn't want anything to do with you, either.
Wow, that's a lot of emotion over a browser. Do you need a hug? We can talk, it'll be OK.
I tried Chrome, and while I find it's a refreshing innovation in GUI design for a browser, it has a *long* way to go to match Firefox's features.
Also, it's not yet-cross platform, and from what I understand, it'll take some doing before there's even a Mac version.
There's no browser for me that comes close to Firefox in terms of features. Many will argue that Opera does, and this may be true, but I find the interface a little too alien for my preference.
Also, there's the question of privacy, which Google has a poor track record on. Will Firefox users start to trust Google? I'm not so sure.
This space left intentionally blank.
If Google felt that a browser with Chrome's security / capability needed to exist, then they should have opened a dialog with Mozilla to discuss how FireFox could be enhanced to that end. Google could have provided funding or coders to help make that possible.
Internet Explorer has lost ground, but that is primarily because there has been a single, well-defined alternative - Firefox. Segmentation of the alternative-to-IE market at this point could be disastrous. The sleeping giant has already been awakened, and Microsoft has turned IE from a piece of crap that had languished for years into a modern, legitimate browser. Microsoft won't make the same mistake twice, and they are aggressively working to regain their browser market share.
I can only think of three logical explanations for Google to release their own browser:
It is really just an experiment, and Google will just pull the plug on it out of the blue. They've done this before with other experimental projects.
They want Chrome to replace Firefox as the alternative to IE, so they will have complete control over the market. This makes sense, because the web browser is the total point of interface to their multi-billion dollar industry. It is logical that they would want direct control over that component.
They did try to get Mozilla to make changes to Firefox, but their requests were ignored.
Better known as 318230.
Chromium is poisonous and "Mozilla" is imaginary, like Jesus and Santa Claus. So get over it! Everyone should explore the Internet Explorer in their own way and I love them anyhow! Everybody should hug me now!!!!!! -- Steve Balmer
Fixed it for you
Of course it complicates things. Perhaps this should serve as a wake-up call to the Mozilla folks, seeing at this is now makes the developer (after AOL and Apple) to, having initially showed strong support for Mozilla's projects, ultimately reject Gecko when the time came to make its own browser.
The only common thread between these three companies (among others) and their rejection of Gecko is Gecko itself: they've embraced a wide variety of other engines, they stand in opposition to Microsoft to varying degrees (including, in some cases, none at all), and the browsers they ultimately produced tend to follow many different paradigms and philosophies. Yet all of them agree, in the end, that Gecko was not going to get the job done. Something is very wrong with that picture, and it bothers me how the Mozilla team seems to take it so nonchalantly.
I say all of this as a Firefox fan who is nonetheless worried about the future of the engine that made standards-compliance important on the Web again. I have a few guesses as to what mistakes might have been made, but I don't claim to know for certain. What I do claim to know is that something needs to be done, even if the first step is just to figure out exactly what that is.
Maybe so but here are some possible numbers for when Firefox starts to incorporate some of the good things from Chrome, like threaded browsing.
Internet Explorer 66.11% Mozilla Firefox 25.06% Safari 6.62% Opera 0.75% Netscape 0.46% Google Chrome 0.74%) Other (0.24%)
Comment removed based on user account deletion
1) Embrace
2) Extend
3) ????
4) Profit
It's a shame, really, Mozilla offers such great products like Firefox, Thunderbird and Sunbird, but Google only offers Chrome, a browser, no email, no cale... oh wait!
Mozilla will have Google's support as long as FF marketshare stays big and that google search textbox keeps bringing google several hits.
The community is not something you should rely on to help your business... The community does not magically embrace things for your benefit... The community is not here to serve your commercial interest...
The community serves the community, and if you business plan involves having millions of volunteer developers work on your products, then you deserve to get your fingers burned.
Only after 2 days of using Chrome I set it to my default browser. What do I really miss from Firefox? Off the top of my head, the most important one is Adblock Plus and Flashblock. The other is IEtab which I've found myself have not used for months.
Chrome is quite good, at least much better than Safari on Windows. Safari on Windows was slow, buggy and bloat and support nothing but English.
Let's face it, there are still small problems with Firefox such as font rendering, fonts are clipped on some page. Hidden configurations - it is still troublesome to set the disk-cache directory, which Firefox habitually delete the cached content upon closing. Now I use the Java SmartCache instead of the heavy-weight Squid. Bookmarking is still a dog to manipulate, sorting them take ages and frozen the entire program. It would be much nicer to move or copy bookmarks in a folder/file hierarchy like IE favorites. Load a page with Java or something heavy cause the whole program to freeze for 20 seconds, which Chrome doesn't do that. Java support never seems to work nicely with Firefox, it is either freezing for half a minute or completely frozen. These problems are not critical, but need to be addressed. I am sure Mozilla developers has much higher priority for other things like TraceMonkey and small problems like I mentioned only get drowned to the bottom of bugtrack. That is exactly why Chrome is good for Firefox: healthy competition.
If you looking at a company you might want to invest in, always look at where their income comes from. If most of it comes from a single location, that is a DAMN risky investment.
If a majority of Mozilla's incoming comes from Google, then Mozilla isn't financially sound. They should have started looking for other revenue streams long ago.
How is it this common sense shit gets on the front page?
Corp A and Corp B are in bed over Browser G
Corp A created, Corp B bought it (through Rev Gen on advertising)
Corp B said Fuck Corp A, we can have our OWN browser, and have our OWN flunkies creating it.
PROFIT!!!!
Corp A now dries up and does nothing, going back to F/OSS roots since Corp B figured out light at end of tunnel.
Opera starting to look better and better (I run Opera).
--Toll_Free
Also the saying "Stick with Linux and stay away from Google" has no meaning because Google's products are not dependent on any desktop OS; they are internet based. "Stick with Linux and avoid Microsoft" would make more sense, but it would also be way off topic.
I hate to see people compare Apple or Google to Microsoft because it is a false comparison. Just because a company has grown very large very quickly doesn't mean that it is a Microsoft. That's just an ignorant thing to say.
Duh Mozilla be duh Opun Sarse, so itd be duh bettar.
Bud... duh Googel iz teh dunt be teh evel. Dat wy dey maek duh brozar four duh NSA datumine.
Because they don't control the plug-in written by third parties for their browser.
Like adopting WebKit? If you had followed the conversations, you would have known that that wasn't up for discussion. And knowing the attitudes of most of the Firefox developers, the other radical features that Chrome has might never have gotten started either. And even if they would have wanted to help, it would still have essentially meant a browser redesign, for which their previous expertise may not have been ideal; maybe Google felt their developers were more up to the task. The 'if you want something done, do it yourself' argument. It's all very understandable, and I don't think Google deserves any flak over this.
I wondered why they had changed their relationship status to "It's complicated."
Google doesn't care if Chrome succeeds or dies because other browsers step up to the plate and incorporated Chrome's features. I see Chrome doing several things:
* It puts more pressure on the other browsers to adopt WebKit as their rendering engine. WebKit is quickly becoming the default browser on the "Internet Device" market thanks to Google and Apple, and this will put more pressure on FireFox and Opera to adopt it. Or at least emulate it better. Apple and Google would love to see FireFox and Opera become WebKit based. For Apple, it means that the Internet is towards an open standard that makes devices like the iPhone and iPod Touch more desirable. For Google, it means they don't have to worry which browser their AJAX browser services work on.
Microsoft is already feeling the pressure which is why IE 8 is trying so hard to comply with the various Acid tests. I already know a few non-geeks who downloaded Safari or FireFox because IE is unable to render particular websites.
* It puts pressure on other browsers to incorporate the needed security and performance needed for AJAX web applications. Hey, Chrome is open source. Beg, borrow or steal what you want from the source code and put it in your own browser. Google doesn't care. Their money is in web services and not selling browsers.
So, there is no real issue with Google's support of the FireFox project. Google would be happy if Firefox becomes the #1 browser on the market and makes Chrome a historic footnote. That is, as long as Firefox incorporates the features Google plans on exploiting: Better security, better JavaScript, better performance.
Because web browsers are the window through which users view the Web, and as geeks, most of us have jobs that are directly or indirectly involved in dealing with those users?
Learn about Photography Basics.
As the article title states, it IS complicated.
Yes having many browsers is good for the web, as it helps to keep it standards complaint. (All browsers generally follow the standards, as opposed to Internet Explorer).
But, there is the issue, that goes deeper, than just a Browser. Google was build using Open Source. Firefox was saved, by the Open Source 'movement'. Firefox is/was the very SYMBOL that showed Open Source does work and IS a viable alternative to evil Microsoft, and Google was there to help Firefox, knowing that it (google) too used the same software dev model. Now google comes out and delivers their OWN browser? This in effect is a DIRECT COMPETITIVE move AGAINST the interests of Firefox and Mozilla. Mozilla's only real product is Firefox.
Point being, when a company gets too large, they start to get massive pressure from their STOCK SHAREHOLDERS, which in my opinion, makes businesses extra cut throat, in order to continue to GROW PROFITS and the stock. Google, it appears WANTS CONTROL over the web, due to the fact, without a browser, Google is NOTHING. However, Firefox has done NOTHING to harm Google, and now Google slaps mozilla in the face with a product to DIRECTLY COMPETE with an Open Source Icon (firefox)?
This my friends, makes the beginning of the end of the Google Goodness and a new era into slowly, but surely, google becoming 'evil'.
odd thought but if moz was to jump on the selling of netbooks deal, they might turn a penny or two. And if they were to say put out the call for ideas and developers to help with the design if the thing, so it actually worked well out of the box, hardware and software, especially if the host OS was announced to be linuxey, they wouldn't be forced to be tied so much to either microsoft or google, at least they would be in a stronger bargaining position.
Slashdot posters have been telling us for years that you can make a profit with FOSS, so I'm sure Mozilla won't have any financial problems. Firefox T-shirts anyone?
I don't understand why folks are calling this "evil." I see the biggest difference from everything I have read, is that WebKit is better suited for low resource (memory, CPU, power) utilization than Gecko is. Given that the mobile computing is the next "fertile" ground for marketing and capitalization, releasing Chrome as a desktop equivalent of whatever Google plans to do in the mobile arena (maybe in Android) seems like a really "good" idea; particularly if Firefox isn't as ideal for specific environments and platforms they are targeting for their products.
.NET or Rails) alone were not up to par to bring the same functionality that a full executable would.
I get that people like Firefox, but I don't understand the mentality that Firefox has some fundamental right to exist and anyone who does anything differently, in competition or cooperation that leads to a decrease in adoption is "evil." Even if Google is being "evil" that is pretty objective, where the legal reality is that Google has a duty to its investors; a legal duty, and if Chromium gets them closer to meeting their goals, then as much as one might not like it, they are doing what is the "least evil" in the eyes of those whose pocketbooks are proping Google up, and the government who has decreed that public companies have this duty. What Google does not have, is a bona fide responsibility to do anything for or against an independent third party, no matter how novel or great anyone or group of people think that 3rd party is.
If Firefox really is as great as many seem to think it is, it should flourish in the open market. I mean, it is already free-as-in-beer which is pretty difficult to compete with.
I don't care what anyone says and I'm willing to deal with being modded down, but a larger part (that most are willing to admit) of what made IE the dominant browser today is that IE4 "was better" in user experience and provided a better platform for developers than Netscape 4.x-n did. I'm not saying Microsoft's underhanded tactics weren't a big part of it... but IE4, for as often as it is bemoanded for ActiveX, made a "good enough" platform for the time, to bring "fat binary applications" to the web/intranet when Javascript/HTML (before flash, before AJAX, before frameworks like
This drove a lot of places I've worked to *require* IE for internal applications, because cross-platform didn't matter because everyone was on PCs or could Citrix into a Terminal server if it was important enough for the few Mac departments.
It could easily be said "no, it was because IE was there and IT didn't want to install Netscape on all those computers", but I have to say, if it provided any functionality IE didn't, the cost would have been negligible if it made our employees more efficient.
If Firefox is better, it will survive whatever is trown at it, and if it can't, then the market has deturmined that it "shouldn't."
Forgive my spelling from time to time. I'm often posting during short breaks.
Maybe Mozilla should consider getting into the search business. They have 20% of the browser market, so that would be a good start.
FAQs are evil.
Even a $10 donation by every FF user will save the project. I did my part, here is the link
http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/donate.html
is meant for people who beat pregnant women to death, or who torture animals and laugh about it, who rapes children before killing them, etc.
Shinra? Very unlikeable. Evil? Ehh...
Microsoft isn't evil. Google isn't evil. Bad-intentioned? Unlikeable? Greedy? They can be all these things and not be evil (unless you're Catholic).
.
Mozilla has had a 'microsoft monopoly' over the years and it's strategy has been divide and conquer, same a MS. I find this good as it puts two FOSS titans against each other to figure out what is FOSS in the business and mobile environments. We all know the benefits of FOSS on the home desktop.
Google-Chrome basically took the FOSS concept and used it to their advantage: competition doesn't go away and now Mozilla has 4 fronts to fight (Safari, Chrome, IE, and in most cases Opera).
This is the way FOSS works and if Mozilla doesn't get their butt in listening to non-firefox users and creating a high quality product, then they'll just have an extension framework (i.e. what everyone shouts as an advantage of Firefox over IE/Chrome/etc...) and that's pretty much it (in the end, do the IE users really care?)
.
FOSS isn't about 'good' vs 'evil', nor 'right' vs. 'wrong'. It's about choice and innovation. I welcome the Google competition. Push the limits.
I've used Opera for a number of years now. I tried Firefox, but Opera was still faster and smoother. I've tried the updated versions, and I still end up uninstalling them and returning to Opera. I gave Chrome about 15 minutes, disliked it more than Firefox and returned to Opera. The only other browser I use is IE, and that's strictly for MS updates. My Ubuntu box has Opera.
I hate it when Mommy and Daddy fight!
Virtual PC is a free download from MS... and has been for YEARS.
It's even been updated several times, and forms the core of several great new MS products. If one actually knows what's going on in MS-land... they can speak authoritatively about what MS products can and cannot do. But as usual, every FOSSie incorrectly considers themself an expert on what MS can't do (when it actually can). Ignorance gets you modded up on Slashdot... so kudos, I guess.
>Using a dollar sign shows you're either 12, or a fucking retard.
Or Twitter.
It doesnt matter:
1) what they want;
2) what they do;
3) what their business model is;
4) what the mainstream thinks.
the browser has wings and will eventually fly off their "advertisic" hands to glide over the greener pastures of Freiland. if people have been able to fork the hell outta Debian, then repeat the process at each new fork ad infinitum, people sure can break Chrome free from Google's cage once it becomes inconveniently tight.
I do not think that it is actually about competition. The issue for Google is that they are banking a lot on their online office applications (and other?) that will compete against the MS Word and MS Excel's of the world.
They need a reliable browser platform to support their applications and it is probably safer for them to launch Chrome than to arm wrestle with Mozilla or try to control its development path. Furthermore, it will be much easier to prioritize bells and whistles that support their apps in Chrome than it would be in Mozilla (not to mention the endless trolling they would get for it).
It would be like if GM was worried about the US road system so they would invest in some pothole repair service to keep the roads safe and people buying cars. Errr, make that Toyota...
Hunger is the best sauce.
One of the reasons why Google came out with a Browser is to support Webkit. A platform that they consider is crucial for Mobile Devices. By increasing the mindshare of webkit, Google is able to push the Mobile Web in a direction that they want. Safari made a nice dent in the Market share, and the iPhone went further. Nokia is running a browser based on Webkit. So trying to speed up adoption of this makes a lot of sense. Right now sales of mobile far outweigh the sales of Desktops, but the browsers that run on them still leave much room for improvement. This where webkit comes in and makes mobile web apps more appealing and powerful. The browser for Google is a medium for them to push Ads through. Trying to gain first hand knowledge of Browers, and of web application developments on these browers is importnat for Google. As an example, Gtalk for Gmail offers more features than the Desktop version (which now includes Video). Since this is the medium where they can push Ads on they are more focused on making that version a priority. I doubt that these features really came from the 20% time. Push the Web, understand the Web and Extend it. Kill the Desktop. That's their mantra.
Chrome first has to clean up their browser (bugwise) and actually be competetive before they start having any real political issues with mozilla, etc.
--
My Resume