Mozilla and Firefox don't require a savior. With hundreds of millions of users, any search service would be happy to pay for Firefox's search traffic.
Ex. Opera has about 1/10th the usage of Firefox and it has a lucrative deal with Google (and Bing and others) that put about $50M in its coffers every year. Search traffic is valuable, both at small scales like Opera and at large scales like Firefox.
I wouldn't quite write Firefox off yet. They're iterating faster and making some good improvements to the browser. Personally I use Chrome & Safari, but my mom uses Firefox, and I've certainly noticed the speed improvements going from version 4 to 8. They've reduced the bloat too, we're on 2gb RAM, and the number of tabs we have open sometimes is astonishing, and it's always responsive these days. What do you guys experience?
Their accelerated release schedule is precisely why I've stopped installing Firefox on relatives machines. I'm tired of having to answer why Firefox just started up asking them if they wanted to search for updates for their addons, why some of them got disabled, and why some extensions just stopped working. I've also had the unfortunate experience of an update just not working at all. Basically, they're delivering nothing my family is looking for at the cost of stability. It's just not worth it.
You can install add-on compatibility checker add-on. I think almost all of the add-ons which work for FF4, work for rest of the versions as well. And almost all of the add-ons have been ported to FF4. So basically, everything works.
Well, it's that compatibility checker screen that throws my relatives off. They don't even know that they have add-ons for the most part. And they don't know that Firefox just updated on them. All they know is the next time they start it up they're greeted with a foreign window spouting off something about add-ons.
Agreed. Compatibility check hack is not so obvious. They need to fix it.
I was just suggesting that you can install it once and set to disable checking compatibility for once and all. Your relatives can ignore any warnings after that.
I have been using Firefox as my primary browser and Chromium as my secondary browser. Yes, Firefox has improved with respect to memory consumption a lot. And if I have 5-10 tabs open in each FF and Chromium, FF takes lesser memory.
Firefox has also gotten considerably faster. The javascript performance has improved and it is as fast if not faster than Chrome. In fact when I last heard, IE had the fastest JS engine with Chakra.
Firefox opens equally faster (cold start) with 0 or 10 tabs. This is really not a factor for me though, as I don't cold start a browser for weeks.
I love Firefox Awesomebar. I don't remember selecting a bookmark or opening history menu on FF. Also, I still don't find some equally good addons/extensions for Chromium e.g. mouse gestures. Addons are better integrated with FF compared to Chromium.
I prefer Chrome and Safari because I'm a Webkit fan. But I got my dad on Firefox and he loves it. Inertia will keep him there just like inertia kept him on IE until I pushed FF on him. Firefox is decently speedy and I even prefer it to Safari in terms of speed (though I haven't used Safari5 much at all so I cant really compare that version).
Chrome does a better job with lots of tabs. Firefox definitely slows down with each tab. I absolutely love the way each tab in Chrome is its own separate process. Why doesn't Firefox follow their lead?
> Chrome does a better job with lots of tabs. Firefox definitely slows down with each tab. I absolutely love the way each tab in Chrome is its own separate process. Why doesn't Firefox follow their lead?
Many people report the opposite, that Chrome does poorly with hundreds of tabs. The reason is that there is a tradeoff: Running tabs in separate processes as Chrome does takes more memory, but it does help with responsiveness. So whether Firefox or Chrome ends up 'faster' really depends on the number of tabs (and which web pages they are on), and how much memory you have. There is no perfect approach that is fast on everything.
You're very right. I suppose Chrome feels faster and that often counts more than facts. I still love the separate processes. Really cool idea, I think. Everyone's mileage will vary when it comes to this I suppose.
Why did Chrome supplant Firefox? It was/is faster. Most people (certainly people like "my mom" or "my grandfather" who are so often presented as examples in these discussions) don't need/won't ever use things such as: plugins, tabs, javascript consoles, CSS debuggers, etc. Strip ALL that out and make a solid, simple, FAST browser that is monetized by search/ad deals.
Make a "pro" or "developer" edition with the extra tools and features to keep the likes of us happy.
Is it truly faster? I don't know. I do know it feels faster and in this context feelings trump facts when it comes to most users.
I'd also add that a developer edition sounds good but I'm not sure if actually is a good idea. While its true the addons are what bogs down speed, having separate editions makes Mozilla's job harder and it will make the temptation to continually add new developer pet features greater which can only hurt in the long run. A better option might be to simply have one, stripped down edition with optional extensions just like how things pretty much are.
I don't see anything new here, the potential of a MS-Firefox partnership has been brought up many times, with the pros or cons for all parties.
Then there's some claims that Firefox and Chrome are bloated, to which I can only say: you are aware that current webpages are more complex than those of 5 years ago, are you? I strongly suspect both browsers have gotten significantly faster over the years in relevant benchmarks.
If the author had done some basic research, he could have avoided this:
But Marco is right, the real key going forward is mobile. And Mozilla is going to have a very hard time competing there simply because they do not control their own platform. Firefox Phone, anyone?
Then Firefox too became bloated. And it slowed down. I started using Mozilla’s Camino (their Mac-focused browser) as a result. Then Chrome arrived, in a similar way to the way that Firefox had. It was refreshingly fast…
This quote made me laugh, because Firefox was forked from Mozilla because Mozilla was too bloated. It just seems like a perpetual cycle.
Accusing Chrome of becoming bloated seems harsh, technologies like SPDY and V8 have improved the browsing experience and isn't it a main priority of the Chrome team to never increase the start-up time?
This doesn't change the fact that more and more features get tacked onto a browser which have nothing to do with browsers.
Chrome didn't have much useless features a year ago, but now Google is trying to make it into a platform.
Which non-browser features have been tacked onto Chrome?
That's a genuine question, the only thing I can think of is the 'Apps' dashboard with a link to the Chrome Web Store, apart from that Chrome seems to consist of just the essential elements of a browser.
Chrome native client, Flash plugin (built in), PDF browser.
The PDF browser is the only one useful to me, and it's been broken in Linux for the last 3 versions of Chrome...
Some of the newer WebKit features are getting bloated as well, and are built-in even if you don't need them - e.g. the new Javascript de-obsfucation feature in the developer tools.
Don't know about you but I prefer my plugins to be auto-updated to the latest, safest versions. Last I checked the non-bundled Flash still had to be manually updated from time to time by the user. The built in Flash/PDF is updated with Chrome. You might not think this is useful, but just wait till you click on a link and get pwned. Even if you don't, because you're on Linux, what about your parents?
The word 'bloated' can be overused, but let's ignore the choice of word the GP used. The fact is, Chrome downloads have been getting bigger and bigger (there was an article here on HN a while back with some numbers), which isn't surprising because a lot more is being included. For example,
* Flash
* PDF viewer
* Developer tools suite
* Chrome-specific technologies like NaCl
* Chrome Store support
* Proposed web standards like Web Audio API and WebSQL (which are significantly more complex and large in comparison to alternative proposed standards to them) and SPDY
Now, the significant increase in size might be justified in some people's opinion, it's debatable of course.
Until webkit introduce a better debugging tool than it currently has, i dont think any web developer is going to stop using firefox and firebug as their main development browser.
I hear this all the time, yet not one person can tell me precisely what Chrome is lacking when it comes to dev tools. What is it you're missing? Anyone?
I use Chrome and the built in dev tools. I think they're great. I also got this plugin that helps debug styles but that's about it. Firebug is the reason Firefox can be so slow at times. There's a decent sized exodus from FF and Firebug to Chrome and Chromium. I love Webkit, personally.
I remember Mozilla people saying something like this few years ago - "We put Google Search as default not because Google funds us, but because it's best for our users."
But now that Bing is equally good (kind of), I think they can really consider it if need be and still manage to not seen as selling out its users.
Firefox is too slow, and it is getting slower with every release.
Mozilla should stop using Gecko, and switch to WebKit ...... or should release a WebKit version.
I believe that there is still huge scope for a better browser. Chrome is Google's browser - and open community cant trust Big G.
Chromium has a big minus point: no auto-update. You need to download and install newer versions manually.
I want a fast browser (may be WebKit + V8) developed by any non-profit and reputed organization like Mozilla.
Switching to Webkit isn't going to speed Firefox up. Gecko is very fast, especially now. As is SpiderMonkey. Firefox's biggest enemy when it comes to speed is add-ons -- which ironically is one of its best features.
Also, Chrome does definitely auto-update. It does it better than Firefox does (and I'm saying that as a Mozilla employee).
Give Firefox 8 (or 9 or 10 or 11, if you're into betas or nightlies) another chance, with a clean profile. I think you'll find it to be incredibly fast.
yeah, I use nightly as my default browser. It is faster than the Fx8, but not as the Chrome - even without add-ons.
I agree that add-ons are slowing down Firefox. I expect Jetpacks to overcome this problem, but it seems that add-on devs are not much happy with jetpacks/addon sdk.
This isnt going to happen. Search is too important to Google to let go in Firefox. Remember, Google is not a browser maker (well, technically it is I guess), its focus is on search. Chrome is the unofficial child of Googlebot and the reason it exists is to help them dominate search. It wouldn't make sense for Google not to renew with Mozilla because that would be a gift to Miscrosoft's Bing.
As far as bloat goes, well addons account for a lot of bad performance and we have to remember that Firefox is old and there are people who have been using it for ages. Those people are carrying a lot of baggage in the form of old browser profiles, the user database, maybe even years worth of cookies and history. Setting up a totally fresh Firefox install would speed things up for many.
But I can't be a Mozilla apologist. I switched to Chrome but use FF for testing. I've found that FF is what I wouldn't exactly call "slow" but just "less fast" than Chrome.
It seems most software ends up bloated. Anyone who codes knows that code is never finished. There's always that temptation to add more and more to a project. Security updates and under the hood stuff is boring. New features are sexy! Sex sells. I recently created my own little web dev boilerplate and the first version was a nice starting point. Then I had this urge to add stuff until it was no longer a boilerplate but pretty much an entire website minus content. Ridiculous. It sucks but it's reality and we need to control that impulse to constantly add where no additions are needed.
> Chrome is the unofficial child of Googlebot and the reason it exists is to help them dominate search.
Technically Google is in the business of advertising. They don't really care how you see the ads, so long as advertisers remain happy. Search just happens to be a good way to present those ads.
Okay that's fair. I stand corrected. Even so, it's still to their benefit to make sure people are directed to where their ads are (google.com) and that means renewing with Firefox in the context of this discussion. They must be first in search for their ad network to be so lucrative.
Mozilla is in trouble if the PC and the entire "desktop computing" model continues to be sidelined in favor of mobile devices and natural UI's. Of the three mobile devices I own (phone, tablet, ipod) on none of them do I need to go to www.Google.com to find information, nor I do use any Firefox browser. What happens to Firefox when I no longer need a laptop or desktop computer of any kind? The quality of the browser and the team, the philosophy, and goodwill is meaningless if their product isn't on the devices I'm using.
I'm aware of Firefox mobile, but it isn't installed on my devices. How does Mozilla expect to gain users (and search revenue) on these platforms if they can't even convince power users like me? This time they're competing against built-in browsers that are as competent and secure as what they're offering.
I'm not sure if power users are the ones that need convincing. Mozilla's philosophy is that the web is for everyone. As far as "everyone" goes, us power users are in the minority. They need to convince the average computer user, not people like us.
Trying to convince home users of this used to be easy. Microsoft has a long history of making inferior and insecure products that are dangerous to use. I can't say the same thing of Safari on iOS or the Android browser. I'm a power user and wouldnot recommend ordinary users bother switching to Firefox purely because of philosophical reasons.
Mobile is huge but the desktop isn't going anywhere any time soon. That's apples and oranges. The dust will settle and desktop and mobile will find their place as tools and nothing more. A lot of people talk about the death of desktop computing and that's just bull. Furthermore, Firefox is on mobile already. They don't need their own platform to survive. Firefox stands for something that differentiates it from the other browser makers. There will always be a market for what Mozilla offers and it isn't going away any time soon. People that are concerned about privacy will ditch Chrome, people who enjoy a fast browser that renders pages as they were meant to be will ditch IE, and as for Safari... well I'm not sure if anyone really uses it all that much (it's a great browser but to me it just collects dust).
I disagree a bit, I think that the home desktop is in real danger of being largely replaced by mobile pad/tablet computers, which do everything most home users need and are easily used in the comfort of a recliner in the living room. They may not do everything as well as a desktop, but when the time comes and people are looking at another $1,000 or more for a new PC a number of them will look at their iPad and say "that's good enough."
The business desktop will be around for a long time, I agree, as its interfaces are much more practical for all-day use.
I still disagree. The home desktop will sharply decline and I agree that the way people use computers these days don't warrant the full desktop experience but we're overlooking a few things that mobile devices including tablets won't be able to replace for quite some time because of UI restrictions alone.
People will still need to do word processing at home. Yes, tablets do an awesome job, you can get wireless keyboards etc. but there will still be users who feel more comfortable with the desktop. That's an edge case so I'll go on.
Movie editing. I don't think the iPad can replace iMovie and won't for some time. I'm sure they can come close but then people still want to burn to DVD. Same with photo editing.
And there's a lot more I think we're overlooking. There's no doubt that desktops are on the decline but their not going the way of the mainframe. They'll find their place and that place won't be as prominent as it is but I really doubt it'll be obsolete for home users at least not in the next 5 years.
Ex. Opera has about 1/10th the usage of Firefox and it has a lucrative deal with Google (and Bing and others) that put about $50M in its coffers every year. Search traffic is valuable, both at small scales like Opera and at large scales like Firefox.