Mozilla jumps the shark

When a company like Opera complains about Microsoft, I sort of get it. No one uses this browser on PCs, and no one ever will. (Indeed, Opera was the last "major" browser maker to stop trying to charge for its product, despite the fact that every single OS has come with a free Web browser preinstalled by default for well over a decade.) (And, please, dear God, please. Don't try to argue that Opera's share is low because the browser reports itself as a different browser. No one uses Opera. No one. There are more Safari users, for crying out loud.)

When the European Union complains about Microsoft's bundling of IE, I don't get it. The US has already curbed Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior quite nicely, thank you very much, and as noted above, every single OS sold or given away today comes with a free Web browser. Asking Microsoft to remove theirs is anti-competitive, pure and simple. People are sophisticated enough to download a new browser if they want one. Let's just be honest about that.

But when Mozilla--the one company that has made very serious market share gains against Microsoft recently--agrees with the EU and with Opera that Microsoft's Web browser abuses of 1995-2000 are still very real and ongoing, and that they will help the EU in their case against the software giant, I think it's time to drag out an increasingly tired statement: Mozilla has jumped the shark.

This saddens me. I use and recommend Mozilla Firefox and feel that it is the best browser out there.

It's free, by the way. And it jumped from 18 percent usage share in May 2008 to 21 percent by the end of last year. This despite the "bundling" of IE with Windows. (And, presumably, the "bundling" of Safari with Mac OS X. Oh, and did I mention that Firefox is "bundled" with virtually every Linux distribution there is?) In other words, the usage share for Firefox in the Web browser market is over double what the usage share is for the Mac is (in the US) in the PC market. And no one ever gets tired of talking up Apple's successes. Firefox is over twice as successful as the Mac (from a usage share perspective). And it took less than half the time.

So. Looking ahead, I need to think things through. Will IE 8 be good enough that I can simply abandon a product that is made by a corporation I simply cannot support? Perhaps. Is this issue big enough to force me to actually make a stand? It just may be.

Discuss this Article 116

RaaJ
on Feb 10, 2009
I am sick and tired of this horse*hit. I will be bailing on Firefox as soon as I can. And I will never ever use Opera. It's time the losers concentrate on making a better product that everyone wants to use, than use lobbying tactics to one-up the competition.
tayme
on Feb 10, 2009
Is Mozilla and the EU complaining about the bundling of IE or the integration of IE in the OS? There is a difference. Either way, I think that this is a farce of a suit and demonstrates, again, that it is cool to bash on Microsoft...no matter if there is merit or not. By the way...I notice that Sharky keeps getting jumped on Paul's site...are you going to stand for that? --tayme
richardfrisch
on Feb 10, 2009
I believe that the 21% penetration figure for Firefox understates its real share. Many business installations are locked down so that nothing gets installed. As a sometimes Sysadmin I can understand why. If we assume that locked down machines represent half of all Windows PCs then Firefox's share where people have a choice is starting to approach 40-50%.
richardfrisch
on Feb 10, 2009
I will not be giving up Firefox just because they have an agenda in the EU antitrust arena. Should I give up using Windows because Microsoft has often lied and spread half-truths about Linux? I think not.
rtkachuk@shaw.ca
on Feb 10, 2009
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/246913/firefox-exec-we-dont-want-to-be-bundl... "Connor also attacked Opera's claims that bundling harms competition. "Opera's asserting something that's provably false," Connor said, referring to Firefox's ever improving market share, which now stands at just over 20% worldwide. "It's asserting that bundling leads to market share. I don't know how you can make the claim with a straight face," he said."
CompactDstrxion
on Feb 10, 2009
Paul I feel you are missing the crucial difference. You can remove Firefox from a Linux installation. You cannot uninstall Internet Explorer from Windows. You're forced to have it there even if you don't want it.
nutts
on Feb 10, 2009
Firstly: You can remove Safari from Macs. You can remove Firefox from Linux. You can't remove IE from Windows. "Firefox is over twice as successful as the Mac (from a usage share perspective)" You do realise that Firefox can be installed on Macs too right? Tssk.
johnbaxter
on Feb 10, 2009
In our early days as an ISP (we go back to late 1993), we used Opera as the browser with which to get Windows users connected to the web. (And NCSA Mosaic for the Mac, nearly half our base then.) I haven't seen much point in Opera since then (and won't have it on a machine as long as it includes a bitTorrent client).
subzerohitman721
on Feb 10, 2009
Paul, I have to agree with the sentiment on here. Every version of Internet Explorer has been removeable from Windows until we got to Internet Explorer 7. Then for some completely stupid reason, they were locking Internet Explorer into Windows. WHY? IE is not an essential element of Windows. You can download a browser using a USB thumb drive. That goes for Firefox, Safari, Opera, and Chrome. Microsoft is adding to their anti-trust problems by doing this lockin strategy with IE 7 and 8. My solution is to keep pushing Microsoft to un-bundle IE 8 and add it to the Windows Live Essentials suite along with Windows Media Player. Instead of a browser, why not include a download manager with a limited browsing component to download applications directly to Windows? That way users can download Firefox without having to untangle IE 8. Also, this could also be accomplish during the installation as long as you have Internet access. This accomplishes two things. First, it pretty much kills Opera's argument cold. Nothing bundled in Windows and the option for folks to download Opera, FireFox, Chrome, or Safari first. You could then have Microsoft tab that gives you access to Windows Live Essentials with IE 8 and WMP. Second, it adds a download manager into Windows. Make it deleteable too. Then if you don't like the MIcrosoft provided manager, you can delete it and replace it if you wish. That way if the internet connection is broken, you don't have to start completely over. If MIcrosoft is going to end this nonsense in Europe, they've go to suck it up and deal. This part of removing IE is negociable, if Opera is willing to allow a limited browsing component download manager. I think this is a sensible solution to this situation. Windows 95 didn't have a browser when it was first launched and everything went okay then. We managed to get IE on the OS. If anything, Microsoft can hand out USB thumb drives with IE for those who want it. If not, this EU nonsense will go on for year after year. This is one concession that might do Windows a lot of good.
scottbakertemp
on Feb 10, 2009
MS should make a Windows 7 version called Windows 7 Nothing and only make it available in Europe (no ones going to buy it anyway). Have NO apps on it all so when you hit the start menu you only see utilities like control panel. No browser, nothing, not even notepad. Give everyone in the EU a free copy and tell them to shut up.
tayme
on Feb 10, 2009
@subzero - I agree with most of your thoughts...although, what is then to stop Opera, Mozilla, the EU and the rest of them from b%#&ching about the download manager? And you know that they would do it...like I sad, it is cool to bash Microsoft. Remember all of those floppies and CDs with AOL and then Netscape that you could pick up at Walmart, BestBuy, Frys, etc? That is what the thumb drives would end up being... --tayme
johnbaxter
on Feb 10, 2009
Nutts, you can remove Safari from Macs. But I don't believe you can remove WebKit (at least not without crippling many of both Apple and non-Apple programs). At this point in the evolution of the business, I don't see the integration of the rendering part of IE into Windows as a problem. I think Microsoft might be wise to let one hide the GUI part of IE. Once the US Justice Department wimped out on the antitrust case, I believed that MS's big problem going forward would be the EU. (I didn't expect Korea also to be a problem--I missed that.) I also felt that MS would have been better off broken up (carefully, not necessarily by a judge). Would the sum of the parts be priced under $20 today (and under $30 for a long time now)? I don't think so. But I'm happy, living within mortar range of Redmond, since the behemoth is good for the economy around here, and at least one of the parts would not have stayed (Austin was one likely target).
RaaJ
on Feb 10, 2009
You can remove Safari from Macs. You cannot remove Webkit framework from the Macs. You can remove the IE executable from Windows. You cannot remove the base framework and DLLs that constitute the web-browsing and HTML rendering functionality in Windows, without destabilizing application performance.
Ocean
on Feb 10, 2009
Posts like this make me think MS has hired Paul as part of its PR arm.
Ocean
on Feb 10, 2009
Oh, and Paul needs to learn what 'jump the shark' means.
x3haloed
on Feb 10, 2009
I agree completely, Paul.
Ocean
on Feb 10, 2009
>>I will not be giving up Firefox just because they have an agenda in the EU antitrust arena. Should I give up using Windows because Microsoft has often lied and spread half-truths about Linux?<< Well said. Paul is just trying to start some kind of 'movement'.
yipcanjo
on Feb 10, 2009
I've been a Firefox user for several years now, but I'm ready to ditch it. It's annoying me more and more each day I use it. What keeps me using Firefox today? AdBlock Plus. That's all. If I could find a product as good as AdBlock Plus on IE, I would switch back in a heartbeat. Firefox just ain't that great anymore.
subzerohitman721
on Feb 10, 2009
@tayme, My idea is essentially a plea bargan. Removing IE 8 but with the concession of a download manager. You have to have something to interact with the web, until you get a full fledged browser. If Opera wants IE out so badly, a harmless download manager isn't going to be considered anti-competitive. At least folks would have a free thumb drive they could delete and use for other things. If its on Microsoft's dime, that really wouldn't be a bad thing at all. On the otherhand, what's to stop me complaining about Opera's crappy and useless browser? How much marketshare does Opera have? 0.70 percent. At some point, Opera has to really consider if its product is really viable against Firefox, Safari, or Chrome. At least Chrome has over 1 percent of a user base.
shark47
on Feb 10, 2009
Subzero thinks the EC saga will end wen IE is unbundled from Windows. Well, it won't. It started with WMP. Now it's IE. It might be something else next. This is going to be a never ending saga if someone doesn't stop the EC. It's not Microsoft's job to bundle competing browsers in Windows. It's the OEM's job. And for the right price, I'm sure OEM's will be more than willing to help out. Regarding unbundling IE from Windows, is that such a big deal? Will it really make that much of a difference to your computing experience? Google has to really be careful with this one. When the EC has milked MS dry, Google just might end up being the next target. "By the way...I notice that Sharky keeps getting jumped on Paul's site...are you going to stand for that?" :-) Paul doesn't seem to care.
shark47
on Feb 10, 2009
I think Chrome is a much bigger threat to Firefox at the moment than IE is. Mozilla is probably using Edwards' strategy during last year's Democratic primaries, where he tried to gang up with Obama against Hillary and get her out of the race after Iowa, so that he could worry about Obama later.
WebGuy3000
on Feb 10, 2009
I think to really understand this, you have to look a few moves ahead. From what I've read, I suspect that what Opera is after (and a possible outcome of this EU action) is that Microsoft (or its OEMs) be required at first run to give the user the option of selecting their default browser from a list of pre-installed options. As in: Select Default Browser: * Internet Explorer * Opera I further suspect that Mozilla sees this as a possibility, and doesn't want to be left out of that equation. Which could be why they signed on to this case. Makes sense to me.
shark47
on Feb 10, 2009
@WebGuy: OEMs are already free to install Opera or any other browser as a default for users, just like they can install other media players. Microsoft can't stop OEMs from installing "crapware". Of course, OEMs usually get paid for it. I think Opera wants that free of cost and the EC wants some money to help it during this recession.
chuckb84
on Feb 10, 2009
Uh, oh, another faux outrage alert. Remember, Paul makes money from Microsoft, not Mozilla, Linux or Apple, hence the faux outrage. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it." Upton Sinclair
MrDiSante
on Feb 10, 2009
I have to agree with Shark: it is not Microsoft's job to include every possible browser as an option during installation. If the OEM's feel like installing Firefox, Chrome, Opera, Safari or any other browser they manage to find, that is their prerogative, however it is not something that should be forced upon Microsoft. You must realize that you can change the default browser and you shouldn't be allowed to remove the HTML rendering engine because so many programs rely on it being part of Windows. If I were to say that .Net is harmful to competition and must be removed from Windows, that would cause quite a ruckus in the software developer community because having at least .Net 2.0 has become an expectation: the same goes for this situation, everyone expects the operating system has the necessary DLL's to render HTML. Finally, if Microsoft were to bundle other browsers with their operating system they would then be responsible for ensuring that these browsers are secure. Imagine if Opera were to go out of business, could no longer provide patches and had some extremely exploitable hole in their code. That would be quite the source of problems for Windows users, would it not? Letting Microsoft continue the sorts of tactics that it employed in the 90's would've been destructive to the market, however you can't go to extremes: what the EU is doing now is damaging the market as well.
planetarian
on Feb 10, 2009
@subzerohitman721: I don't believe such a solution would EVER work. Most people don't care what browser they use; they simply expect to have a web browser available, and for many people that means 'clicking the little blue "e"'. An OS without a browser is useless. How is Joe User supposed to get a web browser if all he has is a download manager? What use is a download manager without a browser with which to find links? Not to mention, as said here already, it would be highly unrealistic for Microsoft to remove IE from windows. Doing so would break many existing applications which rely on its framework and rendering engine to display content. The best they could really do would be to remove the client interface binaries and leave the necessary framework files, but then what's the point? you may as well just delete your shortcuts and get rid of iexplore.exe, since that's about all they could really do anyway.
Waethorn
on Feb 10, 2009
"MS should make a Windows 7 version called Windows 7 Nothing and only make it available in Europe (no ones going to buy it anyway). Have NO apps on it all so when you hit the start menu you only see utilities like control panel. No browser, nothing, not even notepad." They should just release the NT kernel without a shell. Cuz, you know, that's all that Linux is after all.
Waethorn
on Feb 10, 2009
As a side note about Mac's: You also can't remove the Quicktime API's and Adobe PDF components from OS X. What about the shell? Apple has a monopoly on the shell of OS X. It's BSD Unix, but why can't they unbungle Aqua from it?
dalezjc
on Feb 10, 2009
As someone else has already mentioned, Paul needs to research what "jump the shark" really means. Obviously, if Mozilla feels there some anti-trust issues that need to be deatl with, then they must be on to something. Threatening to stop using Firefox "based on principle" because someone is picking on Microsoft doesn't do much for your credibility and debunks your objectivity when reporting on Microsoft issues. I've always enjoyed this column (though sometimes you sip the Kook-aid a bit much) and you can be fairly objective at times when it comes to criticizing Microsoft, but even if you stop using Firefox, who wins? Who cares? IE has closed the gap on Firefox, but it will perpetually be in Firefox's shadow and I think Mozilla has no problem living with that.
techfan
on Feb 10, 2009
I have downloaded Firefox, Safari, Chrome, and just recently Opera. I have gone back to using IE. I use IE because I like using the browser, not because it's the default browser in Windows. People can download and use other browsers. I think those that complain about MS and IE fail to see that there are people like me, that know of other browsers but choose to use IE. It sounds to me that what Mozill and Opera are complaining about -- Microsoft cramming its browser don't people's throat, is something that Mozilla and Opera want to do themselves.
richardfrisch
on Feb 10, 2009
@chuckb84 "Remember, Paul makes money from Microsoft, not Mozilla, Linux or Apple, hence the faux outrage." I think Paul has integrity and this post was not motivated by anything other than his being upset by Mozilla's statements and actions. I suspect that upon reflection Paul will soften his stance and not give up on Firefox. After all, where else can one find thousands of addons? No other browser has anything like that ecosystem.
Atlantean
on Feb 10, 2009
I'm using Opera, Paul. Am I no one?
Master3
on Feb 10, 2009
"chuckb84 said: Remember, Paul makes money from Microsoft, not Mozilla, Linux or Apple, hence the faux outrage." Really? So you have the photo of Ballmer handing Paul a check, right? Or something that constitute proof to people who are not morons? Yeah, didnt think so.
Ocean
on Feb 10, 2009
I could understand Pauls stance if Googles actions threatened the existence of MS...but they don't. The Browser stuff is a blip on MS' radar. This is fanboyism at its worst.
Waethorn
on Feb 10, 2009
@RobertC, if he's watching: Re: Telstra 42Mbps is considered HSPA+. According to their own press releases, they were only set to launch 21Mbps service by the end of 2008. I highly doubt their entire network is able to carry that though. In urban areas, it's altogether possible, but very doubtful they have towers capable of that in rural areas. From their press release: "Trials of the 21Mbps mobile broadband modem will begin in December with a full commercial launch to follow early next year." http://www.telstra.com.au/abouttelstra/media/announcements_article.cfm?O... Also: "Peak network downlink speeds on the Next G™ network will have evolved from 3.6Mbps to 21Mbps in just over two years, providing extra speed, flexibility and productivity in the network footprint covering more than two million square kilometres and 99 per cent of the Australian populations." --dated November 2008 - so that means they don't expect to hit peak downlink speeds until early 2011.
Master3
on Feb 10, 2009
"I could understand Pauls stance if Googles actions threatened the existence of MS...but they don't. The Browser stuff is a blip on MS' radar. This is fanboyism at its worst." Reallly, Ocean. Reallly???? And who exactly are YOU to point this out to anyone? I mean, dont you have some more MS sucks links to posts, Mr. I take no sides on nothing, ever! Tell us more about how Paul is soooooooo E-VILE. Soooooo disgusting, and soooooooooooooo pathetic! And how you re here to save us from that SOB and his Prop-O-ganda! It's not like you've got anything else to do.
DRWAM
on Feb 10, 2009
What ever happened to 'if you don't want to use it, then don't use it"? People have plenty of unused BS apps on their computers. I do note that you can change the default browser in Windows to what you want, so what's the big deal?
Ocean
on Feb 10, 2009
Bing DRWAM. And posted away from the blog, Paul has this to say about yesterdays news: >>This is, I feel, unbelievably dangerous for Microsoft....By licensing ActiveSync to Google, Microsoft has in effect handed over the keys to the kingdom, allowing Google to give away what Microsoft once provided only for a heady fee. Google doesn't even use ActiveSync with Exchange, as is the case with most ActiveSync licensees.<< I must say it works great. But if you don't like it, don't use it.
Ocean
on Feb 10, 2009
Oh, and Paul calls for this too: >>as far as Office on the Mac goes, I say we're well past the time where Microsoft can justify the existence of its MacBU. It's time to cut the cord and let Apple compete on an even playing field, not one where the number one Mac application is created by its most hated competitor.<< No business justification...just fanboism.
Waethorn
on Feb 10, 2009
"No business justification..." Sure there is. People buy Mac's....for whatever reason that might be.... People want Office. That's a given considering that Office is the top-selling Mac program out there - it isn't iWork, that's for sure! If Microsoft pulled Office for the Mac, those same people would need Windows. That means more Windows copies sold. -or- The other side to that is that those same people would consider not buying a Mac. Microsoft gets rid of a competing company that offers an alternate operating system. They buy a PC running Windows anyway. In either case, Microsoft wins. It makes perfect business sense.
scottbakertemp
on Feb 10, 2009
I seriously doubt you can remove all code used for safari from OSX (for the normal user anyway). I uninstalled itunes on my wife's pc and it's still there - you just don't see a shortcut for it.
Waethorn
on Feb 10, 2009
"Google doesn't even use ActiveSync with Exchange" Is Microsoft charging to license ActiveSync? If so, it's still money in pocket for them.
scottbakertemp
on Feb 10, 2009
Come to think of it - Can anyone name 1 application that completly removes every registery entry, every file, and every bit of code that it uses?
DRWAM
on Feb 10, 2009
Scott, practically every program that have have ever ran an uninstaller in Windows still leaves remnant files. You can remove every iTunes file from your Mac and it would not even blink. Of course, we're talkin browsers anyway. My MIMvista software make CD's of patient's studies. They will not display for anything but IE. But if you have FF installed, it usually becomes the default. So, when doctors try to open/view/display the CD files, FF opens it and they get nothing but a window that tells them they need IE. If they are too stupid...I mean not savvy enough to know how to change the default browser, then they are screwed, thanks to FF. So am I [screwed] since they get pissed off at me!
shark47
on Feb 10, 2009
Where are all these "fanboyism" comments when Paul criticizes Microsoft? Paul has been very critical of certain aspects of Windows 7 lately. He even lashed out at Microsoft for their handling of the UAC issue.
Ocean
on Feb 10, 2009
>>If Microsoft pulled Office for the Mac, those same people would need Windows. That means more Windows copies sold.<< That would be illegal use of its Monopoly status.
Ocean
on Feb 10, 2009
Killing the MacBU is dead on arrival proposition: >>currently employing more than 180 people and having an estimated yearly revenue of $350 million.<< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macintosh_Business_Unit
Dipsh t Admin
on Feb 10, 2009
I can understand why Mozilla might want to go down this route, but they have gotten so far on the quality of the application, why spend time in the legal arena? It's a low class response that we've come to expect from Opera, but not from Mozilla. I can see where Paul is coming from. However, I'm certainly not going to stop using the browser just because of this issue, even though I think it's a dumb move, and they're just trying to get on the MS money train. Removing a web browser from the OS is just plain dumb. What do you want to bet that the same people that are calling for this will be the first to deride MS for not including a necessary feature? A computer without a web browser is like dry *****, useless (I'll leave it to everyone to figure that one out).
tayme
on Feb 10, 2009
@Ocean - "Killing the MacBU is dead on arrival proposition" Tell that to the thousands that have been laid off in many industries that felt that they were secure where they were? You can never say never right now. "That would be illegal use of its Monopoly status." Only if it could be shown that they were killing the BU off in order to increase marketshare of Windows. In these economic times, there are a lot of business units and companies that are closing the doors. --tayme
whiplash55
on Feb 10, 2009
I agree with most of you, I just transfered my bookmarks and feeds to IE8 using Foxmarks. I don't understand why Mozilla would go this route considering their success the last couple of years. I understand why the whiners at Opera did it. They are pathetic and weak, but Firefox just alienated me and many others that previously respected them. IE8 works great and manages my feeds fine, the reasons I used Firefox are moot now so screw em!

Please or Register to post comments.

IT/Dev Connections

Las Vegas
September 30th - October 4th

Paul ThurottYou'll have the opportunity to experience:
• 120 Technical
Sessions
• Networking with Peers
• Expert Speakers


Come See Paul Thurrott & Mary Jo Foley in Person!

Register Now

Office 365 InfoCenter

Get the latest insight and info from Paul

Read Now!

What I Use