Forum Moderators: open
a worldwide survey in late November. The survey shows that Internet Explorer's share dropped to less than 89 percent, 5 percentage points less than in May. FireFox now has almost 5 percent of the market, and it is growing.
Microsoft had a vision of the future that included very complex online applications and a near seamlessness between the individual's computer and the Internet. That vision has proven not to be practical.
As the bugs and vulnerabilities are found how fast will they get verified and fixed compared to MS?
It's hard to imagine anyone would be slower.
That vision has proven not to be practical.
... under M's development cycle.
When the driving force is market share and money, insignificant things like security play a secondary role.
It's hard to imagine anyone would be slower
Perhaps you should look at Bugzilla. Some of the threads go on and on. Bug raised... Dependant on bug so-and-so... Raise priority... etc... etc... And still not fixed...
The problem with opensource is no one wants to work on the less glamorous side of development. Everyone wants to add bells and whistles, not fix problems. Yeah, we get tabbed windows, but no one has fixed the long-standing problem with bookmarks. Compared to IE they are still crap. But fixing bookmarks is hardly glamorous, is it?
If Firefox ever becomes a major competitor (which I doubt) it will be targetted by the same individuals who target IE and then we will be able to draw real comparisons.
CritterNYC: Actually, I'm seeing good Firefox penetration in small businesses already. Accounting firms, law firms and events management firms specifically (what my colleagues and I support/work for) have been quite willing to switch. Excited, even, as they see support costs drop. Some mid-size businesses are making the switch as well for similar reasons.
I am not surprised firms that had never had to make a choise of "browser compatibility" (i.e. your typical small business) to choose FireFox. It is mid- to large businesses that have browser-based applications, that are written by numerous folks who used client-side VBscript, ActiveX, some DHTML and such that will not allow their users to switch, as these internal apps will bomb, and redesign costs will be significant.
This is a chance for M$ not to loose a shirt, but to come up with a conceptually better browser model with their next release - and I would bet it will at minimum include better security concept, Tabs and integration with MS Search (well, if they don't, they might as well give the keys to Mozilla).
And as folks mentioned earlier, an open-source community is not the best model for building bug-free applications.
You are going to see large corporations encouraging
their staff to use IE only on the intranet, which should be safe, and use Firefox on the outside.
These people are fanatics, like so many Macintosh users we all know, and care deeply about the software they are providing.
Brendan Eich, of the Mozilla Foundation says, "We're not out to hurt Microsoft so much as to help the web."
Now THAT's refreshing.
I had a conversation with an NT admin, the other day, where the topic was "What if Microsoft cared about the people it served instead of its bank account?" This included a tangental "What if Apple was the market leader? How would the web look, then?"
It's the M's corporate philosophy that hurts the most. Slash and burn, baby.
(Disclaimer: I haven't been a Mac user for over 12 years, instead preferring to be a Linux wolf in a MS sheep corral.)
I am not surprised firms that had never had to make a choise of "browser compatibility" (i.e. your typical small business) to choose FireFox. It is mid- to large businesses that have browser-based applications, that are written by numerous folks who used client-side VBscript, ActiveX, some DHTML and such that will not allow their users to switch, as these internal apps will bomb, and redesign costs will be significant.
I started working on web apps in 1997... when many people were building stuff that was "best viewed with..." and I had the same advice then as now. Designing a web application for only one browser is just a *dumb* move... even internally... even if you can dictate which browser everyone has on their desktops. Anyone who paid attention to history knew that people that started doing that did it first for Netscape when it was king and then were stuck when the world moved to IE. Some people never learn from history.
I remember giving presentations to company higher-ups about the joys of cross-browser design techniques. I was quite proud of my splitscreen slide that showed IE3, IE4, Netscape 3 and Netscape 4 all with screen shots of my web app, all looking the same. This was a client-facing app, so cross-browser was more important, of course.
I just don't understand how someone could make that mistake...
These people are fanatics, like so many Macintosh users we all know, and care deeply about the software they are providing.
Sounds about right. I suspect that FireFox penetration will be very similar to Macintosh penetration. Those who want something better will use it, but they still only represent a single-digit piece of the market.
I would be absolutely floored if 8 more months from now FireFox takes another 5% from IE. As pointed out previously, it will just grow enough to make web design somewhat more of a hassle.
MQ
[edited by: mquarles at 5:51 pm (utc) on Dec. 23, 2004]
Somehow the numbers don't seem to add up to me.10 million copies of FireFox downloaded, and some percentage of those are duplicates or not being used.
FireFox = 5% market share.
This means less than 200 million computers being used on the Internet.
Something doesn't add up. What am I missing?
Firefox has been downloaded WAY more than 10 million times. It's just been downloaded 10 million times from mozilla's network of servers. It's available on nearly every download site and P2P network in existance. And there are torrents of it. As well as specialized versions and portable packages of it all over the place. The only thing counted by Mozilla, though, is downloads from them. That's the disadvantage with open source software as it's nearly impossible to tell how many people are using it. I have the same issue with a specialized package of Firefox I made. I really don't know how many people use it because there are so many places besides mine that make it available. I can kinda guess based on my downloads numbers and the mentions I see of it online... but that isn't the same as knowing.
The exception is with web stats like the 5% number. If you have a network of sites that reasonably represent the general web population, you can tell what % of the web browsing population uses which browser and which OS.
CritterNYC: just don't understand how someone could make that mistake...
During my consulting experience I've seen all sorts of stuff. Outsite of NYC, Boston or Silicone Valley it is very, very often one big viewed-in-IE-only mess.
And besides, who'd managers rather listen to: a wiesely M$ contact who (s)he has business relations for many thousands of dollars per year, or one out of many consultants? ;)
Back to FF, I also see some 6% number on my stats. But how many of these are myself and other fellow web pros, college students and techno-yuppies, as well as regular site followers? If they can login, check stats and OMG :) post in the forum - those are your "advanced" web users.
I have a neighbor who sells stuff on eBay. He knows FF. I also have an accountant, a construction worker, a chemist, a sales rep and a few others. I did a survey of my neighbors, none of them know what FF is, but all of them know IE. Granted, not very scientific, but you get the picture. FF has a way to go.
Those are the ones I spent ten seconds thinking of. I'm sure there are other reasons, too! ;)
Also, Opera is paid, equals less users, equals more support, equals more security... Oh, and I love the SSR!
-Easier to use
How so? Browsers are extremely simple apps. Sure you can throw a few extra bells and whistles in there but in the end, a browser doesn't need to do that much. Anything extra might be nice for some advanced users, but in the big picture it doesn't matter. If I can type in a URL, hit back and forward, and save a favorite thats all I need.
-Tabs
I've used Opera a few times and thought this would come in very handy. However, it ended up being no different than just clicking on the appropriate browser window on the start bar. Actually, in Opera I often found myself hitting the "close" button to close one page and closing every window I had open.
Extensions
-Extensions for what?
-Themes
The fact that you can make a browser "silver" or "star treck" style doesn't make it good. IMO this detracts from its usablitity
-More customizing options
Such as?
-Faster browsing
It's not so much rendering and downloading tweaks that make Firefox faster to use in my experience. For example, when I used IE I'd scroll through a page of links, right clicking and 'Open in new window'ing on ones I wanted to see. In Fx I just middle-click, and they're at the top of the screen in the background. Seeing as this is a major part of my browsing time it ends up being much faster. Also, find-as-you-type is pretty much invaluable to me. I browse a lot with the keyboard and being able to just hit slash then start typing to get to a specific part of the page speeds up my browsing no end. Those are the two biggies for me.
-Easier to use
Easier to use? Maybe not. Easier to maintain? Definitely.
-Tabs
I didn't really get the point of tabs either when I first started using Fx. But there's two things that swung me. Number one - the point I mentioned in the first para about being able to middle click on every link and have it open as background tabs. Number two - being able to group sets of windows. For example, at work I might have a window with five tabs relating to one website build, another window with seven tabs relating to a second build, and a third window open with WebmasterWorld and other information points open as tabs. It's this grouping of information that lets me get stuff done more efficiently.
-Extensions
Well, I might as well list what extensions I'm using that I've found helpful:
Webdeveloper - an invaluable toolbar that gives a whole host of options for use in debugging and development.
LiveHTTPHeaders - shows the direct HTTP requests in a sidepanel as you browse. I find myself using this for debugging broken content types among other things.
BugMeNot - lets you automatically sign in to places using a generalised username/password provided by BugMeNot.
Fangs - trys to parse a page into the structure that Jaws (the screenreader) would read out. Really good for quick accessibility checks.
-Themes
One practical benefit of themes that I can see for you is the theme that makes Firefox look like IE :)
-More customizing options
Besides the fact that extension system is very powerful and pretty easy to write for, there's a whole load of options in about:config that you can change that maybe aren't accessible through the standard menu system.For example, I set middlemouse.scrollbarPosition to true, which lets me middle click anywhere on the scrollbar to jump directly to that position in the page. Useful to me, maybe not to a lot of people. But the option's there.
The vey high figures for Firefox mentioned in this thread (did i hear twenty-something?) tells me that the sample is not representative, neither for the general population, nor for business use.
I have access to such figures(1) - not some odd stats from a skewed network of sites, but total traffic for the 20 largest websites(2) of this country (Denmark, Europe). To the best of my knowledge, this sample equals 99-point-nine-nine-something percent of the general web population of this country (as well as foreigners visiting those sites).
Sidenote: As for demographichs, this population has a very high income (and high taxes), very solid standards of living, very good educational level, 80-90% internet users, "more than half" on broadband - so, they're a very web savvy bunch.
The November figures would most likely (3) be around 2-3% for all Firefox versions combined (including Firebird). Netscape 4 would be around the same level.
I'll let you know when the figures are official of course, as i'm not always 100% right ;)
---
(1) Not that i'm all that special - the Internet Industry Association publishes those figures. The figures (currently published only for week 44-2004) can be found here [fdim.dk].
(2) If google.dk indicates a Danish website, then that is the only one in top 20 we're missing. All the major sites are there.
(3) These figures are a bit higher than those published, as, well, let's just say that i'm a wee bit special after all (feel free to interpret that in any direction you like).
I will maintain that their sample of "50,000 websites in 100 countries" could be skewed in some direction or other. I don't know about that, so i could be wrong, but there's not always safety in numbers.
-Faster browsing
I agree Firefox may render some sites quicker than IE. But we are talking about milliseconds. Over a 10 year period, you might save 5 minutes using FireFox. Not really worth the hassle IMO
First, what hassle? Second, it's not really the time you save that makes FireFox's speed so valuable, it's the increased productivity due to one's train of thought not being interrupted so long. I've noticed about a 50% increase in browsing speed since switching to FireFox.
-Easier to use
How so? Browsers are extremely simple apps. Sure you can throw a few extra bells and whistles in there but in the end, a browser doesn't need to do that much. Anything extra might be nice for some advanced users, but in the big picture it doesn't matter. If I can type in a URL, hit back and forward, and save a favorite thats all I need.
Mouse gestures, tabs, and a ton of little tweaks to enhance productivity make FireFox easier to use. Some of these are built in, others can be added through extensions, and still others can be tweaked in about:config.
-Tabs
I've used Opera a few times and thought this would come in very handy. However, it ended up being no different than just clicking on the appropriate browser window on the start bar. Actually, in Opera I often found myself hitting the "close" button to close one page and closing every window I had open.
Why use several instances of the same program when you could use only one? I, for one, normally have so many programs open that, even at 1280x1024 resolution, my start-bar gets crowded. Putting the fifteen webpages I need to view into tabs instead of individual start-bar entries saves me from a lot of digging around to find what I really need. And Opera's tabbed browsing is quite a bit different from FireFox's, not any better or worse in my opinion, but different (and not as useful for my needs).
Extensions
-Extensions for what?
Mouse gestures, managing bookmarks, taking notes, etc. All kinds of things that can legitimately fit within the context of browsing and are really convenient. I've enjoyed All In One Gestures, the Google Related Sidebar, the Web Developer Toolbar, Sage RSS Reader, Grep Sidebar, Document Outline, and, perhaps one of the most useful, ScrapBook. Ever had a webpage with valuable information on it suddenly disappear or change? ScrapBook eliminates that problem, and provides full-text search of the pages you've saved besides.
-Themes
The fact that you can make a browser "silver" or "star treck" style doesn't make it good. IMO this detracts from its usablitity
Depends on how you use your browser. I use mine constantly for my job. As such, I like to use a theme that is small, unobtrusive, and laid-back, but that has easily-distinguished buttons and enough rollover effects to make it instantly clear where the mouse pointer is. Thus the ability to theme a browser can boost productivity (and enjoyment, if it comes to that).
-More customizing options
Such as?
userChrome.css, user.js, about:config, theme and extension combinations, etc.
In short, FireFox is best for power-users and web developers because it simply has capabilities that other browsers don't have. And for the average user, who won't use all those capabilities, FireFox is still noticably safer and faster (doesn't matter how much time it might save; it just "seems" faster which makes a big difference).
[edited by: brendan3eb at 10:58 pm (utc) on Dec. 24, 2004]
Sure is. You can even have another browser available as well if you want/need
Anyone who paid attention to history knew that people that started doing that did it first for Netscape when it was king and then were stuck when the world moved to IE. Some people never learn from history.
I was amazed that I had to read through so many posts before someone made this point.
Designing sites for only one device is like opening a gas station and only selling fuel that works in one make of car. And designing for IE only is like selling only leaded fuel.
I think a "standards compatible" approach would be fine in an ideal world... But if one player has a 90% market share (and isn't compliant to any particular standard), it makes sense for niche-browser designers to comply with IE display and code execution functionality rather than arbitrary standards that actually have little real market support.
the fact is that IE6 has several css rendering bugs that have not been fixed, I design it right (w3c specs) and then spend 10-20% extra time making it work in versions of IE.
I have a feeling that they will easily weather this storm and come back strong with whatever browser they ship with Longhorn.
you can download that now, it's called IE6. fixing stuff to make developers happy isn't one of their priorities, from reading the channel9 stuff.
simply put: Everyone uses IE. most haven't even HEARD of FF or others.
even if they did...it wouldn't matter.
For example, I loved firefox at first, but HAD to stop once I started browsing Korean and Chinese sites because everything is coded for IE there (and I assume Japanese too). sites kept breaking, not working or were rendered weird and coming out all messed up etc.
(these HUGE and influential markets...more so in the years to come, imo)
There is almost no impetus that I saw for development for these markets... if there is its a long time coming before its useful to me.
by then Longhorn will be in effect and it another memory for MSN haters to pipe on about.
Few extensions are localized into anything other than English. This will hamper FF adoption in Asia. Although the extensions still work on non-English FF versions, it's tough for the local users to get up to speed. (Just think if all the FF extensions were only developed in Chinese, and you only understood English.)
I could see where a lot of the Korean sites you might encounter would need IE still. It's still tough to get people here to convert for the exact reasons you point out; FF makes sites look different from IE and the functionality just isn't there for people who are used to sites just plain working.
Despite all this I'm seeing Japanese webmasters promoting FireFox on their sites and in their forums. They've not reached the fever pitch you see on places like WebmasterWorld, but it's beginning.
I could see the Chinese market being very open to something like FF. They are always looking for a way not to use Microsoft products. We may see the Chinese market leading the way in Asia for FF adoption. The mainland China market is a lot less sophisticated than the Japanese or Korean markets, so it may be easier for them to make headway simply by playing the open source card.
I'm not running into too many IE only sites that I haven't been able to trick using the User Agent Switcher extension. However, I tend to stay away from a lot of the more interactive ActiveX dependent sites anyway.
that's also the point... the "average" user (here) won't go through that much effort. I don't even want to and I'm much more into such things.
Few extensions are localized into anything other than English. This will hamper FF adoption in Asia. Although the extensions still work on non-English FF versions, it's tough for the local users to get up to speed. (Just think if all the FF extensions were only developed in Chinese, and you only understood English.)
yup yup.
FF makes sites look different from IE and the functionality just isn't there for people who are used to sites just plain working.
Exactly. FF does weird things with some of the most popular sites here too (like cyworld, daum planet etc). I started looking for other solutions (like maxthon, which was the best balance for me). Security advantages took a HUGE backseat...to WORKING.
Further,
1. ActiveX seems (to me) more prevalent in sites here. I gave up trying to avoid it. Many of the most comment ecommerse site paymentgate systems use ActiveX elements as well.
2. I even know how to deal with activeX stuff and trick the agent...but stopped just cause I was getting so annoyed at having to do so. And I'm MUCH more tolerate than most here for such things.
Despite all this I'm seeing Japanese webmasters promoting FireFox on their sites and in their forums.
I have yet to see this. +_+ but that could easily just be me.
I could see the Chinese market being very open to something like FF. They are always looking for a way not to use Microsoft products. We may see the Chinese market leading the way in Asia for FF adoption. The mainland China market is a lot less sophisticated than the Japanese or Korean markets, so it may be easier for them to make headway simply by playing the open source card.
Interesting..... don't know the market enough to know, but it sounds reasonable. I'd personally welcome such a movement. However, I don't get (or see) much (if ANY) feeling of an anti-MS movement here (again, that could easily be me).
Not my area, so I can only speculate...but, if longhorn does integrate all the wonderful featured we love FF for...I suspect any FF movement until then would be stopped dead when it is released (in Korea).
bottomline:
FF has a LOOOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNNNNGGGGGGG(horn^^) way to go to being any real threat out here.
I do not know anyone personally who has ever heard of firefox, I have not even tried it myself!
As to the point of us making our sites compliant for FF surely if they want to be taken seriously then it is up to FF to make sure their software works with all accepted industry standards?
FF has a LOOOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNNNNGGGGGGG(horn^^) way to go to being any real threat out here.
This is probably true, but as far as I can tell, this:
FF makes sites look different from IE and the functionality just isn't there for people who are used to sites just plain working.Exactly. FF does weird things with some of the most popular sites here too (like cyworld, daum planet etc). I started looking for other solutions (like maxthon, which was the best balance for me). Security advantages took a HUGE backseat...to WORKING.
...isn't. Daum [daum.net] and Cyworld [cyworld.nate.com] at least render identically in FF and IE on my machines... Maybe there is some difference with Asian versions of Windows etc?
As to the point of us making our sites compliant for FF surely if they want to be taken seriously then it is up to FF to make sure their software works with all accepted industry standards?
Well yes, you're right. The problem is that the only published html/css standards (and thus the only standards that are in any way standard) are W3C standards. Some people argue that MS-style html is a de-facto standard, but as long as the details of it remain secret (or at least unpublished) and subject to whatever (also unpublished) market-driven or merely whimsical changes Microsoft decides to make internally, I wouldn't call it a 'standard'.
-B
...isn't. Daum and Cyworld at least render identically in FF and IE on my machines... Maybe there is some difference with Asian versions of Windows etc?
sorry, lemee clarify.
much of the site does....certainly the index page.
I'm talking about when you are actually get into the cyworld mini-homepys, and the many functionalities of the sites/portals (which most people are here).
again, whether FF itself is up-to-par doesn't address the question of the different language versions of the extensions lagging way behind...which is a significant,if not greater problem then FF versions itself.
don't get me wrong... I'm still rooting for FF. Just saying what my experience is out here in Korea.
I wonder what the breakdown of who the "worldwide" survey includes in brett's original post.
>> The November figures would most likely (3) be around 2-3% for all Firefox versions combined
>> I'll let you know when the figures are official
The official browser figures for the Danish market(*) have arrived. The November stats were never published, in stead the December stats are [fdim.dk].
FF 1.0: 1.99 %
FF 0.1: 0.30 %
FF 0.9: 0.12 %
FF Grand total: 2.41 %The FF shares fluctuate a lot depending on site audience, but the above can safely be considered "the general internet population". Some niche sites do have higher FF shares, eg. the Danish edition of ComputerWorld reports a Mozilla share (ie. "Mozilla or FF") around 17%
---
(*) Browser shares are measured for the total traffic among the 20 largest Danish sites
