Why Did Google Abandon Firefox?
gigaom.com
gigaom.com
Here we have an entire article discussing Google's strategic motivation for selecting one open-source project over another for a given task. And there's not a single mention of the possibility that the Google engineers sat down to design a stripped-down Browser of the Future, took a good look at the Firefox source, took a good look at the Webkit source, took a look at each other, and said "Webkit".
In Pundit World the amount of work required to turn one buzzword into another buzzword is always O(1).
Do people NOT get the fact that Chrome is open-source JUST LIKE firefox, and to the extent that Adblock Plus is NOT A DEFAULT EXTENSION on firefox, the same will carry forward for Chrome, no matter what the distribution mechanism?
- Open source maintainers / hosts have significant control over the direction of their projects.
- Adblock Plus and CustomizeGoogle may well become default extensions or even core Firefox features in the future. It is my belief that Google's influence over the Firefox project has thus far prevented that from happening, even though Firefox users would have appreciated it. Now that Google is promoting a Firefox competitor, their influence over Firefox may wane (although their re-upping of the default search deal may forestall that). I doubt your claim that Chrome and Firefox will evolve in lockstep on this issue has any basis in fact.
- There is currently no extension mechanism and no way to block ads (Adblock Plus) or prevent profile tracking (CustomizeGoogle) in Chrome. Rather, Chrome goes in the opposite direction, sending every one of your keystrokes in the search/location bar back to the mothership. So the two browsers are not "JUST LIKE" one another at all.
-Citation needed. CustomizeGoogle makes Google ugly. I see no reason why Firefox would do that. And AdBlock is a big deal, but at the same time, it's a bulky implementation and Firefox needs, more than anything, to slim down. Meanwhile, Google and Firefox programmers have similar motives and a similar system to work from. Firefox will copy Chrome, Chrome will get plug-ins, and then it's likely they'll stay as much in tandem as all the big compliant browsers are now.
-Most people don't CARE about profile tracking, first-off. Google, meanwhile, has announced that they'll be making a system for plug-ins, by which we assume they mean extensions, and one of the first ones that always gets made is an AdBlocker. Your Chrome argument is stupid: you can choose NOT to send data to Google if you choose, and if you do then you're totally off the loop. Like Google Toolbar for, what's the name again, Firefox.
Bonus comment:
-I understand that Ashu made a relevant comment that happened to knock yours back, but if somebody argues with you, don't get snipy. It pisses us third-party viewers off. Just argue back with your points and with minimum arrogance, and hopefully people will upvote you if what you're saying is relevant at all. In your case, though, you're arguing a fairly moot case and you're doing it in a pretty factless way, so you'd do best to reassemble your argument if anything.
Of course developers can modify open source. My point was that as the project sponsor and checkin-approver, if Google wants to make Chrome friendly to their business model, they will be able to. Sure, rebellious developers could fork and start a new browser project, but it would be very difficult for them to compete with Chrome given Google's technical and marketing backing.
Citation needed.
Like you and ashu, I am speculating about the future of Firefox and Chrome, hence my use of the word "may." Do all HN speculations now require citations? Where are your citations?
CustomizeGoogle makes Google ugly.
If seeing clean, ad-free versions of Gmail, Google Search, and all the other Google webapps is "ugly" to you, then I can only assume that you like to look at web ads. If that's the case, then I can see why you wouldn't like CustomizeGoogle or AdBlock Plus.
Bonus comment
Thanks for letting me in on your secrets for how to win friends and influence people. You're a regular Dale Carnegie.
- I attempt to make logical assumptions about what's going on. You're spreading FUD. There's a difference.
- CustomizeGoogle doesn't merely remove things. It adds other options. And it doesn't do it particularly nicely. What would Mozilla benefit, furthermore, from blocking ads on Google, when they make 80% of their profit from Google? You're not thinking logically. You're being ridiculous.
- I didn't say what I did to help you get friends. I told you to stop bitching because you being a bitch is irritating and unnecessary. But you're still going at it, so I'll assume there's no help for you. My sympathies.
Not many people out side of the tech community use ad-blockers and those that do probably aren't the ones clicking on ads anyway.
And no, I have no evidence or special insight into what high-level strategic discussions are taking place at Google or Microsoft. I'm just going out on a limb and guessing that those discussions are not about Webkit.
Well, yeah. But they could, and that would be nuclear for google. I'm amazed that the people in this thread honestly believe that the HTML rendering code is anything but a side-issue at google. Management probably just said to the engs, "Okay, use whatever's best" and that was that.
Almost every dollar google makes comes through IE and Firefox. It's like...if Fedex only had two drivers, one of whom was a UPS shareholder, and the other a revolutionary socialist. I don't know how google could not view this as a strategic problem. Msft could say "to hell with google", set live.com as the default search on IE and give firefox a billion dollars to do the same. R.I.P. google.
You know, I was going to be snotty and disagree, but I just did a search for myself and my book on Live, and the results were FAR more ordered and accurate. Thanks for the tip-off!
Clearly they wanted to do something else - they wanted a new tool for the job - something they felt they couldn't or didn't want to do with Mozilla. Page refers to some reasons (which you may or may not agree with).
I think that's what the article is trying to get at.
But even the question "why Chrome?" isn't answered well. Here's the Larry Page answer that you refer to:
Page said that the monetary benefits Google will gain from Chrome will come from the better and cheaper-to-develop web apps that its engineers can build using a better browser, as well as increased user loyalty and freed-up user time so they can search more.
The meat of that response is the part about "a better browser" -- it's certainly the only part of the sentence that relates to the "why not Firefox?" question, since Google is more than capable of releasing a Google-cobranded Firefox. But what does "a better browser" mean? To answer that requires getting into details like "here's how the codebases are different", or "here's how the project management and release scheduling is different", or "here's how the overall goals of each project are different", or maybe even "here's the real political situation with Firefox vis-a-vis Chrome". But we don't get any discussion of such things. We get some warmed-over press conferences and PR-quality quotes from Larry Page.
Google really want access to more of your data (to give you better data it's true) - and they need to control the experience to do that... I can't imagine any other reason for Google's moves at the moment.
I've spent 2 years of my working life with the Mozilla codebase. Also, 3 very close friends work at Google, and I must know at least 25 people who work there.
My take is that mechanical_fish is completely correct. There was no secret strategic reason for doing this. Some engineers at Google simply wanted to make a better browser, and decided that the Mozilla codebase was too huge and crufty to deal with.
Not a day went by working with the Mozilla codebase that I didn't think I could make a better browser from scratch, if only I had enough time and all my smart hacker friends wanted to pitch in and help me out.
Google is probably still the most "bottom up" out of any of the huge firms out there, and they have "20% time" and all the personnel needed to make this happen. Once the guys got somewhere on their skunkworks version, the higher-ups probably thought "oh cool... another browser, we should put that out there. And hey, as a bonus maybe we don't have to keep dealing with the Mozilla foundation"
Personally, I'm jealous because they basically implemented everything I thought sucked in Firefox. I had no idea Google had this up their sleeve (very impressed that my Google friends kept this a secret from me; yes, they knew about it), so until September 2 I had a minor dream that maybe someday I could spearhead the next killer browser. Unfortunately I spend too much time at my day job and on hacker news. Execution is everything folks, get to work!
Of course I could be wrong and this started out as a sinister plot to own all your data and give the finger to the Mozilla foundation, but I really doubt it.
I don't find Google's moves sinister - they want to provide a better user experience in order to be a better (and more successful) business. Google's strategy has always been one that works symbiotically... If they think more of my data is going to help them do that, well, then they might be right... and they might be right that most people will be happy with this.
I don't buy that this is a skunkworks project though - there are a lot of key individuals contributing to this.
Putting out a browser like this is a pretty serious undertaking. It'll take a lot of resources to maintain, and carries the Google brand in an extremely public way. So whilst the origins might be up for argument, I think this is a very deliberate and strategic move on Google's part.
Isn't that the same thing the Safari team did, back when Webkit's granddaddy was called KHTML?
Um, really? Most of my friends who use Firefox quite like it. Those who use Macs use Safari, for the most part. Basically no one has heard of Opera. But I don't know of a single non-technical user who "hates" any of those brands.
For many people IE == internet
I think you give far too little credit to most Internet users. Even among older users, the vast majority are aware of the difference between a client application and a website.
That was equality, not identity! It's a terminology thing. Yes, they know the difference between the internet and their browser certainly, but I know people who more or less refer to IE as "the internet." It's part of the name, after all. I think they generally call the net itself either "the web" or "online." Obviously I'm pulling from a small data set, but nonetheless, IE does give the impression on the outside that it's the authoritative browser, much as Google's homepage does for search.