Slashdot Mirror
Former Mozilla CTO: 'Chrome Won' (andreasgal.com)
Responding to Firefox marketing head Eric Petitt's blog post from earlier this week, Andreas Gal, former chief technology officer of Mozilla (who spent seven years at the company) offers his insights. Citing latest market share figures, Gal says "it's safe to say that Chrome is eating the browser market, and everyone else except Safari is getting obliterated." From his blog post (edited and condensed for length): With a CEO transition about 3 years ago there was a major strategic shift at Mozilla to re-focus efforts on Firefox and thus the Desktop. Prior to 2014 Mozilla heavily invested in building a Mobile OS to compete with Android: Firefox OS. I started the Firefox OS project and brought it to scale. While we made quite a splash and sold several million devices, in the end we were a bit too late and we didn't manage to catch up with Android's explosive growth. Mozilla's strategic rationale for building Firefox OS was often misunderstood. Mozilla's founding mission was to build the Web by building a browser. [...] Browsers are a commodity product. They all pretty much look the same and feel the same. All browsers work pretty well, and being slightly faster or using slightly less memory is unlikely to sway users. If even Eric -- who heads Mozilla's marketing team -- uses Chrome every day as he mentioned in the first sentence, it's not surprising that almost 65% of desktop users are doing the same. [...] I don't think there will be a new browser war where Firefox or some other competitor re-captures market share from Chrome. It's like launching a new and improved horse in the year 2017. We all drive cars now. Some people still use horses, and there is value to horses, but technology has moved on when it comes to transportation. Does this mean Google owns the Web if they own Chrome? No. Absolutely not. Browsers are what the Web looked like in the first decades of the Internet. Mobile disrupted the Web, but the Web embraced mobile and at the heart of most apps beats a lot of JavaScript and HTTPS and REST these days. The future Web will look yet again completely different. Much will survive, and some parts of it will get disrupted.
The other big three were slow by comparison. On speed alone, Chrome won.
Mozilla didn't help themselves by firing their employees for not being PC enough.
Maybe Chrome is winning because Mozilla/Firefox is basically chromified now. I use it basically for a combination of historical reasons and because it feels like I have more control more easily over the privacy and security settings, but I am very dissatisfied with a lot of things that have come into Firefox, including this rapid-versioning system that they adopted. It's friggin' stupid that they've been copying Chrome so much, and there's not a lot of reason to continue to using Firefox except that I'm used to it.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
I used to be all over Chrome a few years ago until its (lack of) resource management prevented me from using several tabs at once. Then I rediscovered Firefox and am still quite happy with it. No plans to go back or have another look anytime soon...
from 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
to 45 2F 6E 40 3C DF 10 71 4E 41 DF AA 25 7D 31 3F
Culling legitimately useful, unique features and attempting to emulate the user interface design of your competition... great plan. Written using Firefox 45 ESR, which will probably be my last normal-use Firefox version. It was nice while it lasted. Off to PaleMoon land for plugin support, I guess.
There is no XUL, only WebExtensions...
And Chrome slows down my fairly beefy machine when it loads and spawns off a half dozen processes that I have to kill manually at least once a week when performance gets really bad.
Firefox also runs out of control every 2-3 days and starts to thrash disk, cpu and memory but at least it's easy to kill. Lately, it screws up on youtube videos and they get stuttery but keep playing after it dies.
I'd like a browser that didn't impact performance so badly.
I prefer the noscript plugins on firefox. Does chrome have something similar to no-script? I hate intrusive and popup ads.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
What a genius. Ignore Firefox and focus on Firefox OS. Best CTO ever.
I used Chromium for a while on my (Lubuntu) laptop, only to notice that it had what appeared to be memory leaks in it -- gradually escalating RAM usage until it blew up the entire system, if I didn't kill the process once in a while and restart it.
Now I'm using Opera which doesn't do this, but seems just as fast.
It won because you became Chrome Junior with the "australis" interface. That and you cared more about adding video chat than stability or speed.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
How does he still have a job there?
Mozilla didn't help themselves by firing their employees for not being PC enough.
Maybe it's just me, but every time I see the current Mozilla make a decision, I'm so grateful they immediately ousted Brendan Eich (with his "proven technical and leadership background" bullshit) and appointed the former head of marketing as CEO instead.
I use chromium for most general purpose browsing, and I use Pale Moon for some selected websites, (Pale Moon is a fork of a much older Firefox version before it got bloated and slow. this image sums up what Firefox looks like, a once sleek Firefox just put on way to much weight and useless annoying features, sometimes a browser should just be kept as a simple but effective browser http://i.imgur.com/joooILc.jpg
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
Chrome is number one right now.
There was a point where
- Lynx was the most popular browser
- Then it was Netscape
- IE was the most popular browser for a while
- I believe Mozilla was the most popular browser for a year or so
- Now we have Chrome as the most used browser
What is the most popular browser going forwards hasn't been determined yet. Saying "Chrome has won" means that you've given up trying to compete.
Give us a reason to go to Firefox rather than Chrome and then you'll "win", for a while, at least.
Mimetics Inc. Twitter
I've used Chrome since version 4. At the time it was lightweight, fast and conformant to standards. Now, even on a brand new i7 laptop, it feels sluggish. I don't install many plugins, just adblock and ghostery, so I doubt that has any bearing on performance.
I tried the Vivaldi browser last week and I have to say that I am enjoying it more than Chrome. It's Blink based so it uses the same engine as Chrome as well as the same extensions. What I notice is that it starts faster and pages load faster. I've also wondered if Google spied on my web usage and by using Vivaldi I no longer worry about that.
As for Firefox, I still use it when I want to test my work against many browsers but I don't use it directly for anything more than that. It's a venerable browser but its day as passed.
Chrome had better under the hood technology, better written code, fewer memory leaks. Chrome had sandboxing long before Firefox did (it does not have it yet really). Firefox was too busy adding crap like Pocket than to care about the quality of the core product.
On the other hand, the chrome user interface is HORRIBLE. What Firefox should have done was keep its old UI and add sandboxing and fix the memory leaks and bugs. This would have differentiated itself in UI but would have matched Chrome in relaibility and security. Instead they ignored the need for sandboxing and copied what is bad about chrome, the UI,.
Some have switched to Firefox clones however these clones copy all of Firefox's underlying technical problems like lack of a sandboxing. Given what a mess the web is today and the danger of bugs in browser code, sandboxing is a MUST in any serious web browser. This means multiprocess so that the kernel attack surface can be reduced and customized for the browser sand box process. Another advantage of multiprocess is it can clear any memory leaks when a tab is closed without having to close other tabs. The memory usage is not really greater because of the use of shared libraries.
I'm dumb, this was a former CTO and moz is a non-profit
If Mozilla throws in the towel, all users lose.
Twinstiq, game news
Port support for current HTML and CSS standards, the current javascript engine, and any security fixes back to FF 3.4, leaving behind all of the added bullshit that has accumulated over the years that nobody wanted. Boom, Chrome market share will shrink.
After that, work on nothing but bugfixes, performance improvement and, most importantly, proper multi-process support and Chrome will soon become that quaint browser that ships with Chromebooks (before Crouton and Firefox are installed) and Android devices (before Firefox is installed).
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
When 10% of the population uses a product in a serious way, it is usually viable to support a substantial niche of demanding users.
When 90% of a population uses a product on a daily basis, in a myriad of subtle ways the ecosystem begins to pander to the careless and barely invested.
What needed to be discussed here was the collapse of Firefox's plug-in ecosystem. For one thing, it stopped being cool to start new projects, so it started to become a legacy ecosystem, and many of the original plug-in developers (most of whom started young) were getting older and moving on in life.
Plus there was a financial incentive for the Anarchy Syndicate to treat the entire plug-in ecosystem as a threat vector, the policing of which creates a permanent burden.
As Mozilla began to flee the policing burden, two things happened: it shifted a huge maintenance burden on their already tired plug-in developers to adapt to a succession of ever-more-restrictive APIs (more work, less reward), and its last important differentiation from Chrome starting spiralling down the drain pipe.
So Andreas Gal comes along and wants to put Firefox OS on his resume, and doesn't invest hardly a thought in their dangerously eroding extension ecology.
Or maybe he had a plan for Firefox OS to somehow make experimentation and customization sexy again?
If so, you certainly wouldn't know it from this lame essay.
Luis Miguel bails out of the Firefox WebExtensions scene — 29 January 2017
Luis deserved a better answer from Captain Capsize.
a lot of those useful features were culled to make way for the multi-process stuff that's required for them to compete with Chrome on performance. Not actual performance (FF is close enough in that it doesn't matter) but perceived. FF's single threaded model means small responsiveness delays in the UI.
Plugins make that worse by occasionally holding up the UI to do their stuff. It's all very minimal, but if you install 2, 3, 5+ plugins it quickly gets to be a problem.
Chrome handles this by preempting your plugin all the time. That means your plugin's written from the ground up to deal with that and it makes plugin development a real pain. FF is doing that now and just about anything more complicated than a theme is gonna need full re-writes to work. I've been putting off that re-write because work life kinda kicked me in the rear for a while but eventually I'll need to do it.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Does this mean Google owns the Web if they own Chrome? No. Absolutely not.
Google already owns the web to a large extent, and that was in the cards before Chrome came on the scene. As for Chrome, it's not designed to "own the web", it's designed as part of a strategy to "own the filters" that stand between Google and their produc... err, I mean their users.
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
Firefox gets proxying and name resolution right, vs. Chrome which has a security problem in that regard.
Firefox maintains it's own certificate store, which might be considered a "con", until you need it and then you're thankful.
Firefox about:config, uh... can you say VERY customizable unlike Chrome.
Firefox gets a 66% on CSS3, where latest Chrome still below 60%. Not that either is "great", and I disagree with some of Mozilla's direction and interpretation of CSS3 (btw, Edge only tries to handle 42% of CSS3).
When Chome first came out it touted its "security", but in many ways it's a lie. Mozilla was asleep, but woke up a couple of years ago and IMHO, seems to be much more active about making their browser better than Chrome (reminds me of builders that walk away from projects).
If this is a speed race, Edge is a lot faster. So... let's just say this isn't about speed.... ok? I could care less about a browser that is fast vs one that works right and is trying to keep up with new standards.
I mean, maybe we agree with Google Chrome and hates OCSP direct checking. But the answer isn't to pull the feature (what they did). Firefox does both OCSP stapling (configurable folks!!) and old school OCSP direct checking, again, configurable. Much better and more flexible than Chrome.
There are a lot more useful extensions for Firefox than Chrome. More themes, just more everything.
With regards to the original post, sounds like old sour grapes to me. Maybe I'm wrong and Firefox devs don't give a rip (which is sort of what he implies), but seems to me that Firefox is moving forward at a good pace, and Chrome is stuck the mud.
With regards to Safari. Use webkit, so 60% on CSS3, but what I really don't like is how Apple has locked down browsing in IOS devices. Sure you can download Chrome, but ultimately it's a wrapper around the webkit that comes with Safari. Ditto btw for Firefox on IOS (yep, Firefox is really more like Chome on IOS).
I have to use them all. And sometimes Chrome works better than Firefox, but more often, I find Firefox does a better job. The great thing about Chrome is that it eliminated (practically speaking) the bad standards that made people afraid to use Firefox.
To Chome's credit, it does a better job at HTML5 (html5test says 518/555 vs 471 for Firefox, 415 Safari, Safari-or-Chome-or-Firefox-on-IOS). Chrome does slightly better on Acid3 testing vs. Firefox (noting that the evil Safari gets a perfect Acid3 score... so maybe this isn't a great test).
Again, I have to use them all, but Firefox is my main browser, just for its flexibility and better understanding of security in some areas. It would be sad to see it go away.
Versions used: Chrome 58.0.3019.110, Firefox 53.0.3
FIrst they are missidentifying their target audiance.
1. They are competing with products that people use that don't even know what a web browser is. You can't Win against bundled browers. They need to cater to those who know what browers are and don't want what comes bundled.
2. Also, they are chasing features brought forth by their competators, which causes 2 problems. Some of those features are not wanted by their users. And why would someone leave chrome to have a chrome like experiance?
Yes, they had a lot of users for a while, and they lost a bunch. But what was it that got them users? It was a webbroser that was lean, secure, privacy, and enabled the user to be in control. And of course the Add-ons(which further gave control)
What are some of the most popular addons, or mroe importantly, what do the most popular addons do, that firefox should look to grab hold of? ... Well enablign security and privacy and control of the browser.
Ublock Orgin, Disconnect, and a host of others all blocking malicious content(and some adds), then Noscript, umatrix furthering that control. And of course add block and flash block stuff.
It's all about not letting random sites control their web experiance, browsers and PC.
* The multi threads/procceses, there is a need, but would have liked a see it by say window not per tab, or nearly random groups of tabs. Or how about the ability to see what's consuming the resources and be able to do something about it.
* There's no way I can have my family browse the web like I do(with noscript, etc) but Generic options for not loading untrusted 3rd party scripts(matching the cookies options) with say a choice of community "whitelists". There's still problems of popups/unders and other forms of hijacking a browser and this, or other ideas can go a long way to fix that. Or even intergrate what EFF Privacy Badger does. Not killing online adds, but force them to behave.
* How about options to make the PC look more generic, like Returning a more generic answers to fonts, window/screen, etc.
The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive
If Servo becomes the main engine, I could see firefox reclaiming the throne
At least try a different Mozilla-based browser. Seamonkey works well for me on both Mac and Win7. It's basically what became of the original Mozilla after Firefox forked away from it and then "forked up" by trying to become a Chrome clone.
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
Firefox was once far larger than Chrome, at one point they had a third of the market.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/w...
Than Firefox decided to get on a rapid release calendar. Users and businesses asked them to go back to a standard release cycle. People told Mozilla that the rapid release cycle made maintenance too cumbersome. Damn the torpedoes and full speed ahead! The switch to a rapid release cycle started in May of 2011.
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Rapid...
You can actually see the impact this decision had by looking at historical browser trends. The previous slow decline in browser share transitioned into a 1% loss in one month - their quickest loss ever. Within 6 months Chrome overtook Firefox in browser share and never looked back.
The result of the rapid release cycle was a disastrous impact, if you updated it you broke something, if you didn't update other things broke. Packaging, deploying, extensions, patching and testing became a nightmare for the enterprise. Requests for support for the enterprise were blown off by offering extended support release - which completely missed the point. The result was IT departments chose to use browsers that were willing to offer real enterprise support.
The cries of users fell on deaf ears - all that mattered was making developers happy. Chrome didn't win, Firefox committed suicide through hubris.
Monocultures are vulnerables and should be avoided. This is true for operating systems, browsers, desktop productivity suites, and banana as well.