SuperSite Blog

Wait, I thought Firefox was an add-on hosting package for AdBlock Plus.

:-)

Let's see:

No corporate management?

No auto-updating mechanism?

No support of corporate intranets running custom web apps?

And they wonder why marketshare is still very low?

I should also mention that Firefox has no stable schedule on updates or technology adoption, which makes corporate adoption a complete mess.

@Waethorn and mikegalos - Add to your lists the facts that it is not a Microsoft product. That is seemingly the number 1 reason that you both dismiss it so readily!

--tayme

The times I've used Firefox I've noticed that it takes a while for the browser to launch, but I might give 3.5 a spin. I'm still hoping IE (either 8.x or 9) will get better in a near future release or Chrome gets some nice features and extension support.

I still don't like that Mozilla is trying to cram its browser down my throat. Google is doing the same thing but I like Chrome. There's something about Firefox that I don't like :-s

Using it right now and it seems more stable than bevfore but definitely faster and safer than the other competitors'.

tayme

Actually, I was making fun of virtually EVERY review or comment about pretty much every browser that seems to contain something like "I personally use FF because of the excellent Ad Block plugin. If it were available for <insert reviewed browser name> I'd probably switch since Firefox has been going down hill."

Now if there IS anything I dislike about the Mozilla Foundation it's the deception of claiming to be community driven volunteer organization while actually being a commercial corporate entity highly subsidized by Google. (Kind of like what has also been true of other "community successes" such as Apache and MySQL which actually live of ABM corporate funding.)

I'm fine with either model (corporate or volunteer) but pretending to be one while actually being the other is deceptive at best and perhaps fraudulent. Perhaps we need some sort of certification for "community" developement groups the way we do for "non-profits" to avoid the name being made meaningless by hidden corporate ties.

A little FYI followup, Mozilla gets over $50,000,000 per year in ad revenue from Google which they claim as tax exempt income tied to their non-profit, charitable foundation status. (Note: I am NOT a lawyer so the legality of this is better left to others)

A few points:

1) Firefox 3.5 is DEFINITELY the fastest release they've had, although I'd switch their numbers around... at least 10 times faster than 3.0 and twice as fast as 2.5... 3.0 was a horrible release.

2) I've been deploying it on my corporate machines for 4 years now, and I've never had an issue with keeping it up-to-date. It *does* have auto-updating for security releases, and whole-version when a given version is about to be retired.

3) I'm among the biggest Microsoft supporters out there, and I actually *LIKE* IE (any version, up-to-and-including IE8), but I prefer Firefox purely for the AdBlock plugin, and I also really like the way it does RSS feeds better, especially with the Feed Sidebar plugin.

4) As for "cramming it" down our throats, I am not sure I understand what you're referring to. In fact, I think you have confused Mozilla for Opera Software............

What is "ABM corporate funding"?

>>they wonder why marketshare is still very low?<<

They do?  I perceive them to be rather happy with where they are right now.  And I'd say mission accomplished (see below).

Q: How many Firefox users are there?

   A: We estimate there are currently more than 300 million Firefox users worldwide.

Q: What is Firefox’s market share?

   A: While we don’t track this information ourselves, there are many groups that do. Overall, we estimate Firefox market share is about 22% worldwide based on numbers from a variety of sources. We monitor these numbers and then see how they track to our growth of daily active users of Firefox. While we can’t confirm the specific market share percentages they offer however we do see correlating trends.

About Mozilla

   * Mozilla is a public benefit, non-profit organization with fewer than 250 employees

   * We are supported by a global community of thousands dedicated to helping us build a better Internet

   * Our mission is to keep the Internet open and free by supporting choice, innovation and opportunity online

www.mozilla.com/.../mozilla-2009-06-30-faq.html

www.mozilla.com/.../ataglance.html

>>the deception of claiming to be community driven volunteer organization while actually being a commercial corporate entity highly subsidized by Google.<<

On the page I linked to above it clearly says:

*Firefox is free and open source software, with approximately 40% of its code written by volunteers*

*Almost every non-English version of Firefox is localized by community volunteers.*

There's no deception that they're paying for the rest of the development.

Are you saying that their mission of 'keeping the Internet open and free' really means being 'ABM'?  

More:

>>we use a highly transparent, extremely collaborative process that brings together thousands of dedicated volunteers around the world with our small staff of employees to coordinate the creation of products like the Firefox web browser. This process is supported by the Mozilla Corporation, which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the non-profit Mozilla Foundation.<<

And here's everything you'd want to know about the mozilla foundation.

www.mozilla.org/.../about.html

Pingback from  Firefox 3.5 | The Software Nook

mikegalos@msn.com said:

A little FYI followup, Mozilla gets over $50,000,000 per year in ad revenue from Google which they claim as tax exempt income tied to their non-profit, charitable foundation status. (Note: I am NOT a lawyer so the legality of this is better left to others)

------------

If you're not a lawyer, then what's the point of bringing it up? I think, perhaps, you should examine the definition of non-profit organization. It doesn't mean they don't make money at all... it means that they spend the money they make on their expenses (employees, marketing, bills ... bandwidth and hardware/software aren't cheap), and also investments in development.

Is it not good enough to simply say that the software doesn't suit your needs and you choose to use something as a result? Because honestly, your total hatred of anything that doesn't suit your opinion pretty much makes YOU the one forcing/cramming it down OUR throats.

Not trying to jump on the attack bandwagon against you, but I have been reading the comments you and others make and you really egg them on-- whether intentional or not.

I downloaded it a took it for a spin... Still not as fast as IE 8. Keep chugging away little FireFox (and Chrome and Opera)... Maybe one day you'll be the browser that Internet Explorer is... (though i doubt it ;)

BTW... 'Ocean' needs to log off the internet for about a year and go outside and interact with human beings.

Goodthings2Life, the thing about Firefox being easy to update because it is essentially automatic (I like that, so I didn't verify the 3.5 still provides for turning it off) is seen as a problem in many enterprise environments (such as where Wae works).

If Mary's machine is critical to the company's function, and an unfortunately-broken Firefox update takes her machine down for a period of time because it sneaked in before IT could test, that is at best an emergency and it worst a CIO looking for a job.

Hence things like AppLocker, which keep things off machines. Hence the enterprise practice of carefully testing Microsoft's updates before deploying them. And Microsoft providing blockers (such as the current XP Sp3 blocker) that IT departments can use.

Sometimes the testing backfires, as with Conficker, which initially mostly succeeded with corporate machines where the needed out-of-cycle patch was being tested past the time when it was urgently needed. The typical consumer (in the developed world, anyhow) had applied that patch in plenty of time (only to pick up Conficker from flash drives brought home from work in some cases).

@waethorn

www.frontmotion.com/.../index.htm

We use this and can do anything about:config can do with a GPO.  We even have FF on our terminal servers, and its totally locked down via GPO's.

"No support of corporate intranets running custom web apps?"  ??????

Oh you must mean with old versions WSS, like 2.0 that comes with SBS 2003 that you have sold to everyone.  SP2 for WSS 3.0 added full support for FF and Safari.  Exchange 2010 will finally support FF and Safari with full features in OWA vs that basic crap you get now.  Microsoft only added this support because of the growing market share among NON-IE browsers.

"is seen as a problem in many enterprise environments (such as where Wae works)."

hahahahha yeah an enterprise in his own mind.  

However you are correct that you want to control updates.  One bad update automatically applied to say 10,000 servers or say 100,000 workstations would quickly overwhelm your support staff and possibly make your "enterprise" loose money.  As in hundreds of thousands of dollars a minute if you are large enough and involved with finance.

All that said this blog site is focused on consumer Windows and Apple hatred for the most part.  I mean Paul dishing the use of Outlook shows how much he does NOT know about corporate IT.

Ocean

The $50,000,000 that Mozilla Foundation gets each year isn't a question. It's their biggest source of revenue. That you think of them as a small, charitable group of volunteers volunteering their time for the common good reinforces my charge that they're being deceptive about their status.

They're a corporation that's effectively a captive division of Google.

GoodThings2Life

That they get $50,000,000 in revenue annually from Google isn't in question. That they're survival is tied to their Google contract isn't in question (think they could survive without that $200,000 per employee "contribution" that they get from Google? Think they're independent when most of their income ties in to one corporation's good will?)

The only thing in question that I'd tie to whether you're a lawyer is whether they qualify in paying NO taxes on that $50,000,000 corporate income. And that IS being debated between lawyers and has been for a few years now.

"Still not as fast as IE 8."  That is the laugh of the day!!!!!!!!!!

service.futuremark.com/.../browserStatistics.action

news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-272792.html

www.techradar.com/.../tested-chrome-vs-ie8-vs-firefox-3-1-vs-safari-4-582159

In my use, chrome on Windows and Safari 4 on OS X are flat out the fastest at rending 90% of all content.

Or, putting it another way...

When Google provides between 85% and 92% of Mozilla Foundation's annual income for many years in a row, saying Mozilla is not a subsidiary of Google is a technicality at best.

As I've said. I have NO problem with Mozilla as a division of Google. It's pretending that they are an independant group of people working for the betterment of all that's pretty insulting to anybody who is asked to buy that hokum. (Or as a taxpayer expected to subsidize them as a non-profit charity rather than treat them as an unprofitable division of a very rich corporation)

Mike, the problem with your argument is that 99% of people don't care whatsoever about what you're talking about.  Their source of income, whether it's taxed or not, etc., has absolutely no impact on whether people like using the browser, it's performance, it's customizability, or anything else.  It's just a reason for you to bring up something bad about Firefox.

That's like me saying, my problem with IE is that Microsoft was once convicted of monopolistic practices.  In other words, your "dislike for the mozilla foundation" has nothing to do with the new release of Firefox.

You're being no different than those people out there that hate any Microsoft product because it's made by Microsoft.  You're just the opposite, you hate every other product because it's not by Microsoft, and I think virtually everyone on these boards will agree.  Now do we all agree because we're all just out to get you, or is that because that is genuinely the vibe that you put out?

>>That you think of them as a small, charitable group of volunteers volunteering their time for the common good<<

With only paid 250 employees, yes, I do.

>>Think they're independent when most of their income ties in to one corporation's good will?<<

Yes.  It's all laid out in the links I posted.

SandmanX82

And I didn't post it as a comment on Firefox. I posted it as a reply about what I dislike about the company as a specific reply to the accusation that I only dislike them because they compete with Microsoft.

It has little to do with FIrefox itself. (Other than that Firefox will NOT be released with features that piss off Google badly enough to cost them the $50-65M annual "contract"). Firefox is certainly an acceptable, if mediocre browser.

What bothers me is the "we're just a little group of innocents out here in the big mean world, donate to us!" attitude of what is, in effect, a division of one of the most powerful corporations in the world. (And one with a horrible history of privacy practices that I DO have huge issues with)

Oh, and just a note, using "convicted monopolist" is a total nonsequitor and makes it look like you don't know what you're talking about. You can't be convicted of something that's not a crime. Being a monopolist is no more a crime than being a "small business owner" or being a startup entrepeneur. It's just a measurement of your company's influence in a specific market. And you can be any or all of the above at the same time. If you opened up a barber shop in a small town that had no other place to get haircuts then as of the day you opened you'd be a startup entrepeneur, a small business owner and a monopolist in the market for haircuts in that town all at the same time.

Ocean

Wow. Are YOU naieve.

@SandmanX82

Umm... I care. I care a lot. I mean, I am glad that there is a strong competitor out there, but very unhappy that their relationship with Google isn't examined and assessed in the larger context in which it quite obviously, exists.

Here's another perspective that is even more troubling in the same sense, Google is able to record and report this as a charge - receiving a tax benefit, yet Google most definately receives a material benefit from FF/Moz. Google is the default search engine and the two are joined at the hip/brain/heart in very important contexts (their competition with MS, for one).

I think in no small measure, Google took an internally developed Webkit based browser and pushed Chrome out the door - in part to avoid what would have become a real legal issue for them opposite how their "donation" to FF/Moz is/has been reported to the IRS. The AdBlock plugin being contrary to Google's interests, served as another reason Google released Chrome. (and trust me on this one... no business makes decisions based upon one consideration where there are many in play - if an action is selected, it generally has several positive effects and related goals/objectives).

I reason that the financial relationship is most inappropriate and neither party is reporting as they should. Of course, so long as each may define "evil" as they wish, precious few will act - right up until the present administration takes a card from the EU playbook and fines the loving pond-water out of rich corporations... remember, the Govt. is out of money and they will stop at nothing to get more. While most of it will come from business owners in multiple ways, they'll suck the eyes out of successful corps., too.

"Firefox is certainly an acceptable, if mediocre browser."

And it's better than Internet Explorer, which says a lot about what a POS Explorer is.

@lotsamystuff

Internet Explorer's Protected Mode, uses Securable Objects and the UIPI, a brokering agent, to make it the most secure browser available for Windows Vista and soon Windows 7, users.

If it is such a POS, why did Google, just as any developer may, use Securable Objects and the UIPI to make Chrome more secure?

Google and winners of the PWN2OWN browser contest stressed clearly and often, that Chrome used nothing unqiue to itself and that they leveraged technologies "in" the OS (Vista) and available to all developers. If Internet Explorer is such a "POS" as you say, then why did Google make use of these features?

What I find to be sad is that online pundits and reviewers at what were once credible magazines, like MaximumPC, surpressed the truth and it took weeks before the facts were made known. It's disgusting and most especially troubling, as more and more nonsense is distributed as fact. It's no wonder at all that young people like RobertsJoe have such a distorted understanding of our industry.

For those interested in making secure online/offline applications, please reference:

(Windows Vista's Integrity Mechanism )

msdn.microsoft.com/.../aa379557(VS.85).aspx and

msdn.microsoft.com/.../bb250462(VS.85).aspx

UIPI and send message function use - e.g., how do I escalate properly, msdn.microsoft.com/.../ms644950(VS.85).aspx

iketchum,

It should be no surprise to you. If it's a Microsoft product, you know that lotsa's gonna bash it. Yet lotsa defends Safari. Even after it was hacked two years in a row at PWN2OWN at CanSec West.

I really do feel bad for Microsoft. As much as they've come up to fix and improve things, you've got people to bash Microsoft just because. No rhyme or reason is given.

I'll give Lindy credit. There are performance reasons to consider Chrome and Safari. However, the relationship with Mozilla and Google needs to be examined further. There could be legal issues here that could end up harming competition in the future.

I for one see all the browser work as a good thing. However, I've still not seen a truely compelling issue to switch from IE 8. The few seconds of speed isn't really compelling enough. Plus users are still reporting of other issues with Firefox, that still makes it not compelling enough.

Mike,

First of all, I don't give a s*** whether I sound to you as if I know what I'm talking about.  Take your semantics argument to someone who cares.

Explain this to me...you bring up why you don't like Mozilla.  You bring up why you don't like Apple.  You bring up why you don't like company X or company Y, regardless of the product they come out with.  Actually, that's perfectly fine with me, because surely you'll agree that no company is perfect and there is always something to criticize.  However, when Microsoft released IE8 and Paul posted about it, I don't recall seeing your reply out of the blue as to why you didn't like Microsoft or what was wrong with them.

So I'll pose the question to you again that you'll most likely ignore...Almost every single person on this board will say that when faced between a non-Microsoft product in which there is also a Microsoft equivalent, you will always hate the non-Microsoft product (or at least greatly prefer the Microsoft product).  So again..."Now do we all agree because we're all just out to get you, or is that because that is genuinely the vibe that you put out?"

lketchum

The other point of Google developing for WebKit is that they now have significant control of the direction of two of the three major browser engines.

I like Firefox and have it on my computer, but like subzero, I can't see a reason to switch completely. IE8 tabs take a couple of seconds longer to open. Big deal. I can live with that.

SandmanX

Actually, I provide reasons for my choices. Odd how the "others on this board" don't bother to provide facts but expect their opinions to be accepted with no factual justification whatsoever.

Now, if you'll discuss facts I'll happily do so. I love a reasoned discussion and factual, reasonable discussions are a rare thing here as they are anywhere that people confuse their personal preferences and beliefs for factual data or think that the plural of anecdote is data.

If you only want to say "I know lots of people who think you're wrong so you must be" then I'll skip that ludicrous discussion. It is, after all, the same one used to justify the most inane anti-science political discussions as well. Perhaps you'd prefer if get people to vote pi equal to 3 so it would make math easier as well?

@subzerohitman721,

Quite right, Sir - the truth is that "overall" real-world browser performance, (not just practically (e.g., in prudent/practical terms) useless synthetic and specifically focused tests for even more specific classes of javascript, which favor Webkit), reflects that Internet Explorer provides a faster, more consistent and perceptibly better browsing experience.

The tell of the tape, the file, that which the human eye experiences, reveals the truth - that opposite the most popular sites on the web, that Internet Explorer 8 provides either the fastest browsing experience, or is slower by less than a couple of hundredths of a second - differences so meaningless, one would have to record the session in slow motion and play it back frame by frame to note the difference.

Now... given how meaningless specifically crafted synthetic benchmarks are, IE 8's better/best security and greater native features (read, we don't need no stinking plugins that degrade performance, or expose our systems), matter a great deal more. Add in the ability to manage IE fully (even on simple to use Small Business Server) and patch it consistently and just as easily, and it becomes far easier to see why businesses of all sizes, and increasingly "regular people" favor IE 8.

Please see the films here,

www.microsoft.com/.../videos.aspx

Then read this, www.microsoft.com/.../mythbusting.aspx

@mikegalos

You have made some interesting points regarding the amount of money Mozilla gets from Google. As for 'donate to us' sheeesh!!!! Internet Explorer has improved markedely since the release of IE8.

I use a combination of Firefox3.5\IE8\Chrome. I certainly don't believe is disparaging anybody's choice of browser, each to their own and there is plenty of good competition out there.

@mikegalos

Indeed, yes, and it goes beyond that significant influence. Nearly every company with a website queues up to "pay" the Google tax. We've been building managed systems, networks and software for a long time and within six inches of small and medium sized business owners and there is real fear of Google. Businesses marvel at their success, for sure, but they do not respect, or trust them. Very often they complain of having to doll out large sums of money to pay "The Google."

The single most common remark I hear in this context: "I have no idea what I am getting in return!"

Google seeks not only to influence what browser is used, but far more disturbingly, how browsers interact with the web in general. Where the PC was/is about individual choices to run whatever hardware and software they wish made it much more "open" than it is given credit for being, Google and its agents are seeking to do the reverse and Paul, so very oddly, cheers them on?!?!???? ??

@iketchum: It seems like Google is the new Microsoft. In an effort to end the MS dominance, companies seem to have placed their bets on Google sticking to its "don't be evil" motto. Even 60+ years after it was published, "The Animal Farm" is still as relevant as ever.

BTW, at this point, I think it's a bigger problem that most browsers (except for IE) ship with Google as the default search engine. Mozilla receives money from Google for it. Apple has  a couple of Googlers on its board. NY Times has claimed that because Google's products are usually free, they don't pose an anti-trust issue. Sure!

Awesome. Just upgraded to 3.5 and, so far, it's looking good.

To everyone bitching about Google: the reason why they are ahead in is because they have been doing awesome searching  since day one, under the same name.Everyone knows them. They're a verb in the dictionary now (and they didn't set out to become that ... like MS has been doing with Bing and "squirting" with the Zune).

Remember MSN search ... oh wait; Live.com ... oh wait; Bing (which live.com now redirects to).

Besides, who else is going to give Firefox money? Microsoft? (considering FF is Internet Explorers only real competitor) Or is MS going to allow Google to be the default search in IE? (considering Steve Ballmer throws chairs at people when he hears the word "Google" spoken in his vicinity ).

Ugh whatever.

"Internet Explorer's Protected Mode, uses Securable Objects and the UIPI, a brokering agent, to make it the most secure browser available for Windows Vista and soon Windows 7, users."

So tell me how that benefits me on XP, specifically on the netbook that I bought just a few days ago? The first thing I did after booting the system was download Firefox. That was (and will be) the extent of my use of Explorer on that computer, period.

"If it's a Microsoft product, you know that lotsa's gonna bash it. Yet lotsa defends Safari."

Wrong, a$$hat. I've spoken highly of Microsoft's keyboards and mice (I own several), and as I just pointed out, I bought a netbook with XP that I'm quite happy with. I use a great deal of Microsoft software on both the Mac and PC, including the ubiquitous Office and the Microsoft-licensed Flip4Mac components for QuickTime. Microsoft makes a lot of good stuff and, yes, a lot that I consider to be decidedly average or uninspired glop (PowerPoint quickly comes to mind). But I don't blindly bash them just because they're Microsoft. I'm not the mirror version of MS fanboi "Mikegalos", or the epitome of the "Ugly Canadian" Waethorn.

And show me where I "defended" Safari. Please. I'd love to see that. I'm not sure what I would "defend" it against, unless it was some ridiculous statement "Waethorn" might make (such as "SAFARI IS THE SUXXOR"). I rarely use Safari on either platform, so I certainly don't consider myself an advocate for it. Those who use it regularly can "defend" it (whatever that means).

Of course, that doesn't stop you from throwing around ridiculous accusations, does it? Jerk.

@shark47,

You are right about the applicability of the messages in "The Animal Farm" generally, but the case of Google separates them from Microsoft in many contexts.

Google, as originally designed, provided for the best answer, which was not necessarily "the most popular" answer and therefore, the least commercially viable.

Google, as it is today, does not necessarily provide "the best answer" or "the right answer' - being a commercial modification of the original design and by intent, shaped by its elevation of "the most popular" answers.

This is what has Google in a fit over Bing. Bing accepts that it isn't likely to ever be the most popular source of the most popular answers - it instead focuses on the most relevant and helpful of answers opposite the information people seek to use practically - e.g., that which provides for better decisions.

Ironically, by centering its focus on relevance to actual decisions, Bing is surfacing not only the best answers, but those that present the greatest value to people.

To un-do what they have created, Google will have to hit their own earnings and even the way they make deals with buyers - their core earnings and model. They're in a hole and have to keep digging (for now), or lose it all as fast as they gained it. The second WS analysts realize this "change" you'll see Google's stock drop like a fraCing rock. And it will happen - which explains Ballmer's reaction and response opposite their "single" business. Wisely, he’s not tipping his hand.

Worse…

and candidly, FF/Moz won't dare use securable objects and the UIPI - where by the way.. UAC simply makes it easy for a user to manage "restricted" to standard user space and escalations out of it.... to do so would be to admit that IE 7/8 are more secure - and Windows itself is more secure. They. can't. admit. that. ever! Google can't afford to NOT use PM and the UIPI opposite default standard users (UAC). The irony is profound. One can’t and their parent must. I am certain more than a few softies smile themselves to sleep at night reflecting on that one.

and Paul suggests it’s time for Microsoft to "give it up" and use Webkit? This is what happens when bloggers only talk to other bloggers and they believe their own "stuff" in a grand glad-handing match where they line up with those believing enough of their "stuff" to get along and score enough hits to pay the bills. It’s good theater, but not for the reasons many think.

In the meantime... Microsoft, ever the great race car driver, finds their own line (largely) and presses onward using really big themes to shape strategic direction - e.g., "A PC on every desk and in every home" and now: "What's ours is yours!" (our cloud, your cloud, their cloud... all clouds at once... and the browser will be dead in five years time... as irrelevant as the local only profile.... "Your computer, my computer, their computer... they are all 'our' computers." Google has no such vision and never did and breaking a great design by subordinating the best answer to the most popular answer was a decision they and their customers will regret (another lesson from the farm... 'regret' is the worst of human emotions).

Now… let that be a gentle warning… how many very young and expectedly naïve tech enthusiasts will avoid the regret their own actions may one day visit upon them?

"Being a monopolist is no more a crime than being a "small business owner" or being a startup entrepeneur."

You're right. It's how you use your status as a monopolist that matters. I know you hate wikipedia (Not Invented By Microsoft), but its wording is instructive here: "Holding a dominant position or a monopoly in the market is not illegal in itself, however certain categories of behaviour can, when a business is dominant, be considered abusive and therefore be met with legal sanctions."

You're making a ridiculous semantic argument, Mikey. Microsoft was convicted of abusing its monopoly status in the market. Call it what you will, they acted contrary to the law, and they got slapped for it. I know it still stings your face; maybe you grew the beard to cover the handprint it left on your tender cheek.

I have the same issue as techfan. I can launch IE8 and FF3 at the same time. FF will still be loading and unresponsive, I can have 3 or 4 tabs loaded in IE before FF is ready to go. Once it loads its pretty fast, but that take forever, and detracts from its being the best browser out there.

lketchum

Bingo. And add to that the problem of a wildly divergent ecosystem of products all subsidized by a single profit center and you see why Google's been so desperate to either get a second trick for their pony or to buy a second one-trick pony as a backup.

People talk about Apple fanboys, but @mikegalos is worse than all of them.

"Or is MS going to allow Google to be the default search in IE?"

What are you smoking, man? Microsoft does allow Google to be the default search in IE. It's another thing that bing is now better for some of my searches, so I use Google as a backup. For most end users, it is probably the default. The Google toolbar for IE might have been installed with Adobe Flash or some other software.

Sandman is EXACTLY right in his post.  Less than 1% of 1% dont even know how FF/Mozilla gets its funding or care.  He is EXACTLY right about Mike and if its anything but a Microsoft product he will find fault in it.

Mike if you dont like FF and dont use it dont post.  

Google is doing nothing Microsoft has not done.  Just get one of the true MS haters on this board to post some emails they have posted before from MS showing how they took a wrench to the knee's of competitors in very nasty ways over the years to take them out.  You and others that claim foul against Mozilla/Google had no problem when IE was at 95%.  Only now that its at 68% or less and almost every other browser blows the doors off of IE do you start to cry foul.

@Shark the default search provider for IE is or was Live.  Its probably Bing now.  Sure you can change it with 3-4 clicks of the mouse.

OT I love the Bing ads, very well done.

"@Shark the default search provider for IE is or was Live.  Its probably Bing now.  Sure you can change it with 3-4 clicks of the mouse."

Less than that. It's easier to manage search in IE8 than in any other browser. Safari is the biggest pain in the butt. We don't hear RTE complaining about that, do we? One of the reasons I prefer IE8 to FF is how easy it makes it to switch between search providers. Microsoft has done a great job of managing search in IE8.

"...almost every other browser blows the doors off of IE ..."

...until you decide to use IE8 and realize that it's about the same as the other browsers. Benchmarks are bogus at this point, because a couple of microseconds doesn't matter to most people. If you hate MS, you're going to find fault with IE, irrespective of how good it actually is (and vice versa).

Waethorn  said:

And they wonder why marketshare is still very low?

***********************

BZZZZZZZ wrong answer. As Ocean noted, 22%. For my company we see about 26% of our customers using Firefox and 10% of all computers using OSX...

Time to batten down the hatches to the basement and have helper cat reinforce the barricades.

"One of the reasons I prefer IE8 to FF is how easy it makes it to switch between search providers. Microsoft has done a great job of managing search in IE8."

Call me crazy, but with IE, I use that function onece per new install of an OS.  I switch it to Google and I am done.  New installs of IE keep my settings, as in going from IE7 to IE8.  Only when I install the OS clean do I get reset to Microsoft search engines.

Sure its easy in IE, but to judge the value of a browser on a function that most people never change or change one time is kind of lame.

IE8 is fast enough for work, and plays well or better than others when hitting Microsoft web offerings, Sharepoint, OWA, etc.  It is slower than the rest for non-work related web sites, most of the time.  Enough that its noticible to me.

oh my....

Those pesky facts...

I think Mike G suffers from having been around for a good long while and a deep understanding of the facts and history as it applies to the topics addressed here. As a result, context is shaped by an evolved understanding that requires that populist memes be dismissed under the weight of even a few of them.

A lot of the anti-MS/IE industry press does not benefit from the same and it does not take much examination to cause the "hey, wait a minute" flag from being thrown. When you write enterprise browser based applications, which we do, it is not hard to see what ground truth is from that perspective. From small businesses with 2 to 5 engineers interacting with 20 to 40 sub-contractors to national medical research organizations with hundreds of thousands of internal and external users, the tell of the tape reflects a different reality - 99.99% IE 7 and 8 use, where there is no requirement to use IE, or for that matter, Windows.

As we say, "it is what it is" and while many people may have FF/Moz, or Safari installed on their machines, few use these browsers full time. Again, based upon what we see day to day (professionals across nearly all verticals - healthcare, engineering, architecture, legal and specialized finance and accounting firms). These are well read, well heeled people with direct influence over what they use, with a great many having in these past few years, funded Mac purchases for kids (of which many complain that it is an Apple that took a bite out of them and a computer that is a lot more fragile and prone to failure than they would have thought...)

Shark47 is dead on - real-world, practical browser performance renders (ha) most arguments moot - once running, they are all pretty decent and very similar in this limited context. It comes down to security, features, and the ability to manage the browser for one's self and others. IE 8 shines across all variables as compared to alternatives.

While perhaps not stone cold facts, they are realities and as I said, Mike's experience won't let him ignore them. They are the same realities that drive the decisions of every woman and man responsible for signing the "FRONT" side of most every check out there.

We can snipe at such people all we want, but please do so with at least a touch of prudence and realization that most often, practical considerations attend decisions and therefore, seasoned opinions. Sooner or later, we all become "marinated" by time. Happy to see in Mike's case, the process of turning skin to leather has not, as it often does, diminshed the passion requried to keep plugging.

Lindy

"Mike if you dont like FF and dont use it dont post. "

Actually, I use all the major browsers since I need to check compatibility once in a while.

But, if you think people should only post about products they like or use there are a whole lot of Mac zealots here you can go after. Some of them don't like anything with a Microsoft copyright and pretty obviously don't use the Microsoft products they post about.

While I disagree with your criterion for discussion, I'd be fine with you holding to that for your posts.

Lindy: "Mike if you dont like FF and dont use it dont post. "

Mike: "But, if you think people should only post about products they like or use there are a whole lot of Mac zealots here you can go after. ... While I disagree with your criterion for discussion, I'd be fine with you holding to that for your posts."

There goes Mike Galos again, having his way with "well articulated arguments" and "logic". We can't have that Lindy, Lotsa, et al !! Let's resort to personal attacks on Mike before it's too late.

Mike,

You may have a point about google's subsidy of FF. However, I don't really mind since a competitive marketplace in browsers is extremely important. Of course,

Microsoft subsidizes IE development through sales of Office and Operating System products. In fact, EVERY Microsoft product (nearly) is subsidized by those two legacy cash cows.

If we're going to object to google subsidizing a browser, then let's look at the revenue from each major MS operating division and see which ones pay for themselves and which are subsidized operations to keep other businesses from succeeding. This is one of the principle means that Microsoft uses to stifle competition.

I don't know the exact, recent numbers, but every time I've seen numbers posted the conclusion is always the same: The OS and Office sales make money, and to a very good approximation, nothing else MS does makes a profit. There are probably minor exceptions (mice, keyboards), but the basic conclusion remains.

So, google should stop subsidizing Firefox if and only if Microsoft stops subsidizing IE and everything else it sells other than OS and Office products.

Chuck

You're missing two pretty key differences

1) There's no question that Microsoft pays for the development of Microsoft products. It's in no possible way equally obvious that Google Corporation is the one actually paying for Mozilla Foundation's Firefox.

2) Microsoft's groups that aren't profitable don't list themselves as independent non-profit organizations working for the common good while ask for charitable contributions. For that matter, neither do most of Google's other unprofitable projects.

Skipping those two differences is pretty much at the "Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?" level of ignoring the elephant in the room.

chuckb

"In fact, EVERY Microsoft product (nearly) is subsidized by those two legacy cash cows."

Nope. While Office and Windows bring in lots of money, most Microsoft groups are profitable on their own and don't need a "subsidy".

So far, I have seen a lot of discussion about Google funding Firefox...with no supporting documentation...and the new discussion about all Micosoft gorups being self sufficient...again wiht no supporting documentation. Whats up with that?

--tayme

Wow...its a holiday week...my fingers are already on vacation! Typos galore.

Browsers are really no different than OS's or other software packages...use what meets your need...or the needs of the company that you work for. There is no 1 size fits all...as much as the ultra-fanboys on all sides would like to believe that their browser of choice is exactly that. Right now, at least for me, IE 8 is what is meeting my needs on Windows, and Firefox on OS X.

--tayme

What sycophants like Mike don’t seem to understand or perhaps simply ignore is without FF we would still be using IE6.  Paul has repeatedly said “there are a lot of smart people at Microsoft.”  I believe that!  However, it does not change the ‘do not rock the boat’ apathy of any large bureaucracy. Microsoft has demonstrated time over time that without outside pressures, whether it is a browser or media players, Microsoft needs to be encouraged to innovate.  

As far as slow start times: on any modern dual core chip accompanied by 7200rpm  SATA HHD – all programs fire up quickly.

Separately, Paul, Mike, et al, continue to disparage the EU for apparent gross unfairness towards Microsoft business practices.  A cursory reading of charges clearly shows monopolists, predatory bullying to maintain worldwide dominance over operating systems {and browsers} with the very largest OEMs.

______________________________

"Real men don't use backups, they post their stuff on a public ftp server and let the rest of the world make copies."  - Linus Torvalds

Mike,

Hmm. I know the Xbox division (whatever it is called) had losses >$1B in some years and, time averaged, has yet to make a net profit. The profit/loss numbers and Xbox sales rates strongly suggest that the Xbox never will make a net profit, but that isn't a sure thing, just the probable outcome.

Beyond that, I would have to go look carefully, rather more than the usual 30 seconds of research, but I have seen such analysis posted many times, and the conclusions are always the same: The great bulk of Microsoft's profits are just from Office and OS products.

Other Microsoft products make make small "profits", but the profit margin that Microsoft enjoys overall is entirely due to Ofifce and OS products. I think. If you have links to the contrary, I'm all attention.

This should be just a matter of numbers, but having done a few budgets in my time, this is also a matter of labeling and can get complex and subjective.

However, there is no disputing that IE is subsidized by Microsoft for the simple reason that they don't charge for it! So, whoever "subsidized' FF, it's fine by me, and should be okay from your standpoint, since it is just the same thing that Microsoft does with its browser.

If Google subsidizes FF, it is hardly a surprise. They are developing Chrome, and they have an obvious strong interest in browsers that deliver their web-based products effectively.

Given the long, well-documented and ruthless Microsoft business tactics in the past, would you expect Google to rely on the good wishes of Microsoft for a stable browser platform that will deliver Google products that increasingly compete with Microsoft?

Example: Sharepoint 'works" with Safari on a Mac, but it works a whole lot better with IE on Windows. What Sharepoint does is largely/entirely duplicated by 3rd party open source products, but in the business world, Sharepoint is what gets used. Microsoft skirts the edge of making the Sharepoint product "compatible" with other browsers, but it works "best" with IE. Business tactic to push IE/Windows or just trying to create the best possible product leveraging their existing technologies? That's a question of intent that you and I will probably answer differently.

All this said, if Google and Apple are pushing browsers that compete with IE, Microsoft should just say "Bring it" and let the best browser win. They should NOT try to created unequal playing fields (Sharepoint, etc) to give IE an artificial and undeserved victory.

Err.. Chuck! Whatever happened to Google's public proclamation that they developed Chrome to provide the best experience with Google owned Web properties like Docs, Maps, etc.? Whatever happened to Apple's slight of hand in foisting unoptimized abomination like iTunes and/or Quicktime on Windows users, while they somehow magically provide better experience on a Mac.

Of course, ONLY Microsoft should not be allowed to optimize THEIR products [IE, SharePoint, OWA, etc.] to work better with products THEY develop and can control the fate of.

Google 'does no evil' and 'can do no evil.', while all is fruity with Apple. Right!

chuck

You're, once again, skipping the main point. There's no problem with Google funding Chrome. The problem is with Google providing the overwhelming majority of the "Mozilla Foundation" budget while Mozilla pretends they're an independent charity. And that problem isn't with Google buying yet another company, it's with Mozilla "Foundation" allowing themselves to be owned while pretending they're not.

As for Microsoft divisions, the question you raised was "In fact, EVERY Microsoft product (nearly) is subsidized by those two legacy cash cows." as a response to Firefox being subsidized. Now that you've looked at it you're changing the statement to "a few Microsoft groups aren't profitable and most don't make as much money as Office and Windows" which is a VERY different statement.

And, again, you are missing the two actual issues:

1) There's no question that Microsoft pays for the development of Microsoft products. It's in no possible way equally obvious that Google Corporation is the one actually paying for Mozilla Foundation's Firefox.

2) Microsoft's groups that aren't profitable don't list themselves as independent non-profit organizations working for the common good while ask for charitable contributions. For that matter, neither do most of Google's other unprofitable projects.

tayme

"So far, I have seen a lot of discussion about Google funding Firefox...with no supporting documentation..."

I'd suggest you Bing (or use Google if you prefer) the phrase

Google AND "Mozilla Foundation"

and you'll find plenty of documentation from a wide enough range of sources and years to make it likely you'll find some you trust. It's both common knowledge and not disputed that most of Mozilla Foundation's budget has come from their Google contracts for years.

@mikegalos - Since you continue to use the word "charity" to describe the Mozilla Foundation, I assume that you do not realize the difference between a charity and a non-profit corporation. You should Google the terms (or use Bing if you prefer; personally I prefer to use Yahoo).

--tayme

tayme

Yes, I understand the difference. Now, the question is why you think Mozilla Foundation is not pretending to be a charity when their own site lists their goals as charitable in nature and they are registered as a CHARITABLE TRUST.

For example, see their goals list at: www.mozilla.org/foundation

Or, to be VERY specific, see their "California registration by the Mozilla Foundation as a charitable trust" at www.mozilla.org/foundationdocuments/mf-ca-ct-registration.pdf (Warning: PDF file link)

"Call me crazy, but with IE, I use that function onece per new install of an OS.  I switch it to Google and I am done. "

Well, I don't. I don't want to Google (or Bing) something and then go to the Wikipedia page from there, when I can do it so easily from IE itself (without having wiki as my default search).  

Sheesh... it ain't hard...

Server and tools is and has been a profit center for some time.

Exchange alone joined the Billion dollar club on its own some time ago.

SharePoint is in the same club as is SQL Server.

These are all "servers" not Office and or Client, or even server OSes.

The company, as it must, reports a clear breakdown of its profits and where they apply, losses.

Xbox is profitable and enjoys the highest attach rate the industry has ever seen and as it expands into more and more factes, the revenue will only increase.

For the record, too, MS reports their client division apart from their business division (office) and these are apart from the server and tools div, which I pointed out above. As it stands now, all but online generate profits, and online was impacted most by larger investments hitting that operating unit's P&L - for example, the aQuantive buy resulted in a chare of 6 billion and yet that div only lost ~280 mil as compared to after tax profits of more than 4.2 billion.

The differences between MS and Google/FF/Moz are clear and huge.

MS operates divisions made up of operating units - each with a P&L contributing to their consolidated accounting and reporting model/requirements. So long as they report accurately, they are free to invest as they see fit.

Google "donates" between 50 abd 65 million a year to FF/Moz and receives a tax credit and FF/Moz gets to operate as a not for profit charity. It's a Myth and Google benefits most directly from the relationship it is paying for. Frankly, FF/Moz are underpaid - given search defaults and FF's presence in global markets. It makes me wonder what non-cash contributions make their way over to the "Foundation" and how they are reported. I am sure the information is out there, just as it is for Microsoft. I am not sure our press has any interest in looking into it - they're too busy riding the same ad supported train. That will end and quiker than you might think.

Shark:

Are you referring to the feature to select 'Wikipedia' as the search engine from the browser search option drop box, and then specifying your search query? If so, that is supported in both IE8 as well as Firefox 3.x, right? You don't need to set Wikipedia as your default search engine, or use Google first and then go to the Wikipedia link returned in the results.

Am I missing something?

The real questions is does anyone (especially the public) care who funds Mozilla? <insert sounds of crickets and or apathetic public here>, oh that's right Google is evil and MS good, if that works for ya run with it I guess.

Balthazar has hit the nail squarely on the head, IE6 anyone? Because if Firefox did not come along when it did that is what we would be stuck with.

Next, why the harping on Ad-Block? Suffice to say it makes browsing the web that much better. I have yet to see why Ad Block is bad. Maybe because it wont/can't (what have you) be released for IE? I'm guess that if it was available for IE it would be the best plug-in ever..

Try IE8? Turn and look in the mirror as to why there is no longer IE on the Mac. Last I looked MS canceled it in a huff because Apple developed Safari, how dare they???? Of course its probably because Apple's market share is so small not matter??? Which is interesting if they are so small not to matter, so non-innovative then why bother calling them out?

Lastly, the desktop browser war is one of a long slow retreat, every quarter that goes by IE slips while others gain. The browser space is a completely different animal and one that is anyone's game to win and one that is fairly level in terms of the playing field. Lets see who wins, the consumer has already spoken in the DAP market, lets see what they say in smartphones.

Either way it will be interesting to watch as  will be the commentary that is sure to ensue.

lketchum  said:

"Xbox is profitable"

************

Really? Please provide documentation as to this statement. Because last anyone knew only the Wii was making a profit on the hardware side.

"Are you referring to the feature to select 'Wikipedia' as the search engine from the browser search option drop box, and then specifying your search query? If so, that is supported in both IE8 as well as Firefox 3.x, right?"

Yes, but I like the way IE8 handles it. I search for, say, "Michael Jackson" and Google is my default engine. It shows suggestions in the dropdown and an option to change the search provider. When I click on Wikipedia, it shows suggestions pertinent to Wiki. Clicking on one of the links it brings up takes me right to the page. I am probably not explaining it all that well, but I love the feature.

"Google "donates" between 50 abd 65 million a year to FF/Moz and receives a tax credit and FF/Moz gets to operate as a not for profit charity."

Does that really happen? Because that sounds extremely shady.

@mikegalos - By goals list do you mean the following:

"We are helping make the Internet a place...

where you and your neighbors build the world you want.

that generates not only economic value, but also civic and social value.

that is optimized for multiple languages and locales.

that is trustworthy and has minimal risk for users."

If so, I do not see anything that makes them a charity...As for your other link...it is not working, the formatting did not copy/past correctly into you post and it appears that part of the URL is missing, as I get a 404 if I copy/paste it into IE.

--tayme

@mikegalos - I placed your missing "/" in and found the document from 2003. You are right and I am wrong about the use of the term "Charitable Trust". Not being a lawyer, it appears to me that they meet the requirements to use the terms that they use. It is your state, in their infinite and liberal wisdom that approved the formation of the Charitable Trust.

--tayme

Pingback from  4sysops -   Why Firefox 3.5 doesn&#8217;t rock, and about the childish obsession with browser performance