Why Internet Explorer will survive and Firefox won't | Hacker News Reader

Why Internet Explorer will survive and Firefox won't

zdnet.com

10 pointsshimi25 comments

This reads like linkbait to me. The author doesn't really have a coherent argument: he spends the first half of the article talking about Firefox's relatively slow* release cycle, but never bothers to explain why that's a death sentence.

Instead, he jumps to another argument entirely in the second half: Firefox's lack of an "app ecosystem". This is truly delusional. Firefox has just as much of an app ecosystem as IE: it runs code on websites you go to. It's true that it lacks Chrome's app store (which right now amounts to little more than a glorified link directory and alternate bookmark system), but if that's a disadvantage it applies equally to IE.

* Relatively slow only with sufficient handwaving: call IE's platform previews equivalent to Chrome's full releases, then dismiss without justification Mozilla's new accelerated schedule for Firefox.

Chrome Web Store is not a link directory, that's as much FUD as you accuse them of spreading about Firefox release cycle (which I agree with).

The Chrome store could be more than a link directory, and if that happens it'll be for the same reason Apple's App Store took off: centralized payment. A sane payment system for web apps could be revolutionary, but before that happens we'll need to change the Web's culture. Right now people simply don't pay for web content.

The ability for the Chrome store to deliver local apps, which I suspect you were referring to, is mostly unused and irrelevant. HTML5's offline features can duplicate that functionality on any browser that supports them.

Packaged apps is just one of the many (and growing) features of being a Chrome apps. But packaged apps don't have anything to do with offline storage. There could be a packaged app spec in HTML in the future, but there isn't today. Nor is there a spec for background pages, cross-domain XHR.

Chrome apps get downloaded to your machine. They are not links.

In my experience, most apps on the Chrome store are what Google calls "Hosted Apps": a link plus metadata and an icon [0]. They also provide "Packaged Apps" [1], which are downloaded and run locally as you describe, but this style appears to be much less popular with developers.

0: http://code.google.com/chrome/apps/docs/developers_guide.htm...

1: http://code.google.com/chrome/extensions/apps.html

Being hosted doesn't make them just links. Hosted apps still have access to many APIs not available in normal web pages. Such as cross-domain XHR, background pages (apps can run in the background even when the tab is closed), a licensing API that allows Google to handle the registration burden, etc.

Do many web apps use those features yet? (Besides payment, that is; see my reply to your other comment for my view on that.)

I don't know; how is that relevant? The article argues about the future, of which Chrome and IE have app ecosystems and Mozilla does not.

I think I see the source of our disagreement. You seem to say that Chrome's impressive infrastructure for web apps gives it a potential advantage. I certainly agree with that, but the capabilities of Chrome apps aren't widely used right now, so the actual strength of the system is still unknown. The Chrome Web Store could still end up like WebOS: great platform, few developers.

I don't agree with the article that Firefox is in trouble, but I'm a Chrome Store dev and I've grown tired of reading people online saying things like "they're just bookmarks", so I apologize if I came across as attacking. I think the advantages that Chrome (and to a lesser extent IE) has will eventually be rolled into the spec, and will be negated, however I don't think Mozilla is doing enough to push their alternative as viable. Their spec, to me, reads as web app best practices and the only original thing they're providing is an install button api.

I believe if Firefox dies, it will be because it did not learn from the Netscape Navigator it was born from.

I switched from Netscape to IE when I realized the application had become bloated beyond recognition. I didn't need an email client inside of Netscape, I didn't need a news reader inside of Netscape, I didn't need all of these things.

I'm seeing shades of this in Firefox. Specifically, Firefox Sync.

It's a great idea, for some people. However in my scenario my tabs and bookmarks in one location are completely different from my tabs and bookmarks in another. I don't need the ability to bridge them. It would be a neat add on, but I don't need it built into the core.

That is what made Firefox great in the first place. Add ons. That's why I've stuck with Firefox. Add ons. Features like Sync are cool, but in my opinion they should be optional add ons.

What's the backstory here? You usually only see this style of contrariness in old timers, and it's usually reserved for IBM.

Did Ed Bott have some skin in IE6, and he's upset that Firefox blew a hole in the side of Microsoft's lack of maintenance on IE6?

This article argues that apps are the only future for browsers and by virtue of the fact that Firefox doesn't have a dedicated "app ecosystem" it will be extinct.

I don't follow the reasoning since I don't really see why I have to use Internet Explorer to use a Microsoft web app just as I don't have to use Chrome in order to get my Gmail.

I would say if it doesn't make any sense, or is making some kind of broad logic leap like this, then it is probably MS purchased FUD.

It is incredible how consistently throughout the years ZD Net has been a mouthpiece for MS FUD.

The Chrome apps he's talking about get downloaded to your machine then run in the browser as if they were a webpage on the net. I'm guessing that Internet Explorer 9 has a similar feature but Firefox doesn't have anything like this on the roadmap.

Actually this was the only part of the article that makes sense. Both Chrome and IE have APIs that add special features not part of the general html spec. For example, Chrome apps can run in the background even when a tab is not open. Firefox can't do that. IE apps can integrate with Windows 7 and be pinned directly to the taskbar and have access to jump list commands. Firefox can't do that.

Now I don't think that's enough to hurt Mozilla in any significant way, and these types of features will probably be standardized down the line, but it is true that these other 2 browsers have some special capabilities.

I simply beg to differ. http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp

These are just the browser stats for this site and I see your point. However, the article is implying that there is going to be a trend toward browser apps in the future and Firefox does not have a built-in browser app platform.

Fact is: Firefox had 4.6 Million downloads in the first 24 hours after its launch, IE9 had 2.3 Million downloads in the same period. The previous IE versions have continuously lost ground.

I expect better researched articles from ZDNet.

> I expect better researched articles from ZDNet.

I cannot think of a single good reason why you would.

touché

There are a couple of good arguments in the incoherent linkbait. Luckilly, Mozilla knows this and has answers for both.

1) A continued slow release cycle will kill Firefox. Very true. Which is why Mozilla is switching to a 3 month cycle.

2) An app story is required. I'm not sure if I buy it, but Mozilla also has an answer to that: https://apps.mozillalabs.com/

Quite exciting this IE resurgence. It's a good reminder that you can't sit on your laurels - you have to keep innovating - and/or push yourself ahead of the pack.

To the average Joe - what makes the new Firefox any different to the last version?

Javascript and rendering performance tweaks are great - but the UI still sucks.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com