Besides, this may mean I need to rewrite Halo's Law ("Every site expands until it becomes a social network, those that don't are replaced by those that do").
So when Google Chrome came out, I immediately thought of it as a IE killer - not a Firefox killer. I'm almost scared for them to start providing plugin support/features/etc as it could just end up being Firefox.
Have you ever blogged about Halo's Law?
Chrome isn't an IE killer, its a Firefox killer. Why? because Chrome (like IE) is a chosen browser. IE is a default.
Most Firefox users have chosen to use it. Downloaded it. Installed it. Tried it & use it. Most IE users have not.*
Once someone is making a choice, you can reach her. Say 'but wait there's more.' IE users aren't even going to know about Chrome. They won't ever be consciously deciding between browsers. If they are, resistance to change is a big factor. If Chrome becomes demonstrably better choice, it will be chosen. But only by those making a choice. Everyone else isn't listening.
So basically FF users make a choice & Chrome gets to make its pitch. IE users don't. Product similarity has nothing to do with it. Its market similarity that runs this show.
*Obviously some IE users made a choice. They're in the FF category.
I don't have a blog - it's more of a recurring joke than anything else.
Firefox's response to Chrome should be not adding new features but removing existing ones, or, at least, redesigning them to make the UI even easier.
He's a great marketeer, but he's not a product manager anymore than a usability specialist.
Frankly, I'd prefer Firefox NOT market itself and focus on making itself the best browser it can be. It's not good enough right now to create good marketing, so it shouldn't bother.
For example his baseline stuff, going back years about the advertising, marketing, & consumer-attention complex is right in a powerful way. It means big things: 'It will probably never be possible to create another Coca-Cola or Colgate in the same way again.'
He's encouraging FF to have an in-built mechanism for giving users incentive to recommend something, anything. What he proposes is bad.
That's interesting, as according to Wikipedia version 1.0 of Firefox was released in February 2004. [1]
'But the response to Chrome shouldn't be to launch new features.'
Which new features are these?
'Here's the problem/challenge: when your friends switch to Firefox, your life doesn't get better.'
No, but when you switch to Firefox your life gets better. How many products or services are sold on the basis of making other people's lives better? Exactly one - charities.
'And the key to growing any piece of software (or just about any product or service, actually) is the opposite. People will recommend something if adoption improves their lives.'
Er, what?
'Fax machines?'
What machines? Fax machines? Oh, you mean version 2.0 of the telegraph?
'Life is better for me if you have one.'
The phrase you're looking for is 'network effect'. [2]
'Fashion? Life is better for me if I'm not the only one wearing this.'
Yes, everyone knows that a woman loves turning up to a party and seeing another woman wearing the same dress as her.
'Religious sect? Life is better for me if I'm not the only one in the building.'
Unless you're a hermit.
'So, Firefox needs to add functionality that makes the surfing experience better for all users when more users use Firefox.'
Say what?
'There are many ways to do this, and you can invent more than I ever could. Systems that allow for rating pages, or grouping them, or communicating (but only with FF users).'
Haven't you heard of the 'any browser' campaign? [3]
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Firefox#History
+Christmas, it's all about The Spirit of Consumerism... oops I mean giving - It's only 4 months til Christmas, make sure you've bought all those presents for everyone otherwise a magical fat man won't climb down your chimney and leave boxes full of non-biodegradable plastic wrapped in non-recyclable coloured paper under your tacky dead disco tree.
... I think the earlier it starts every year, the more of cynical I become.
Anyone care to explain what on hell he was arguing for?
So, Firefox needs to add functionality that makes the surfing experience better for all users when more users use Firefox.
There are many ways to do this
Ok, so checklist for all you budding developers out there. 1) No additional features allowed. 2) Add new functionality that doesn't exist yet. 3) Come up with several solutions to achieve this.
Got it? Good.
Totally. I have a couple ideas. One is to improve the Javascript library so that richer and more responsive applications can be written.
Another would be to pull the rendering components into their own processes so that I don't lose N tabs of state when one plugin decides to lose its mind. Getting a multiple-core performance boost would be gravy here, too.
Firefox got pretty good mileage out of being just a browser. URL in, rendered page out. Chrome stands to do the same thing to Firefox that Firefox did to IE, in that it represents a clean, simple, technically enhanced browser.
Google has come out and said "here is some stuff, please just copy it and put it in yours", and they'd be walking a really fine antitrust line for dubious benefit if they actually did have a large market share.
But the response to Chrome shouldn't be to launch new features.
I'm assuming this doesn't mean "add no features at all" because the rest of his article would make no sense in that context. I can only imagine that it means "the FF team's response to Chrome shouldn't be back end, technical features". (Sorry if I've built a straw man here, but I really can't figure out what else this could mean in this context.)
Why does nobody take the Chrome release and comic at face value? What causes this idiocy in the echo chamber saying GOOGLE is the NEW MICROSOFT, it's BROWSER WAR! Don't copy the FAST JAVASCRIPT it's a TRAP! Deploy TAG CLOUDS!
I'm completely mystified and would love to have someone explain this to me.
(1) Flock made a Firefox heavy on social features, which hasn't caught fire; and..
(2) Potential social network-effect features are better constructed as services or websites than browser functionality; and...
(3) Even if the functionality needs a browser-based component, to implement that in an "only with FF users" manner would be counter to the open mission of Mozilla.
* A standard platform for whatever plugins you like * Aggregated usage data
I think the "social media" obsession has gone on long enough. I was so sick of "social [x]" for everything (social laundromat finder, wee!) more than a year ago, when's it going to wear out?
