Mozilla Exec Claims Apple is Hunting OSS Browsers 539
Rob writes with a link to a Computer Business Review article on the negative impact Mozilla COO John Lilly sees Apple is having on Open Source. Lilly claims that Jobs' recent discussion of Safari on Windows is an attempt to create a duopoly of browsers (IE and Safari), with Firefox and the rest on the outside looking in. "The graph 'betrays the way that Apple, so often looks at the world,' Lilly said. 'But make no mistake: this wasn't a careless presentation, or an accidental omission of all the other browsers out there, or even a crummy marketing trick,' he said. 'Lots of words describe Steve and his Stevenotes, but 'careless' and 'accidental' do not. This is, essentially, the way they're thinking about the problem, and shows the users they want to pick up.'" We discussed an analyst's opinion on this subject this past Friday.
Um... what? (Score:1, Insightful)
Apple on Windows (Score:4, Insightful)
On not being #3 (Score:4, Insightful)
In computing, you can be successful as #2, but the #3 player usually loses out and disappears. (Remember Amiga? Commodore? DEC? Ask Jeeves?) If Apple wants their browser to have any commercial significance, they have to pass Firefox.
Nothing to Worry About... (Score:4, Insightful)
Not about market share (Score:5, Insightful)
RTFA. They don't want the market share. They want to keep the web open, as stated in the Mozilla Manifesto [mozilla.org].
Anyway, they do have the market share. Apple releasing Safari for Windows will increase consumer choice and the competition will help all browsers improve. It will also help web developers realize they can't develop for only one or two browsers, but instead should develop according to standards unless they want to turn away significant fractions of visitors. I see only good coming out of the release, regardless of what Jobs' intentions are.
Who gives a shit? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Pie Chart is all about marketing (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think it was even that - it was more like trying to show the relative market shares of the two browsers, without complicating the chart by introducing other elements (Opera, Firefox, IceWeasel, Konq, Lynx, Links, etc ...).
In other words, this is a tempest in a teacup.
Bah! (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember: more competition is always a good thing.
By the way, Safari isn't even the best browser on OS X (that honour goes to Camino) so I really can't see how it will have much impact on Windows.
Well this should be fun (Score:3, Insightful)
If the Linux and Microsoft fanboys want to join me in the Asbestos Lounge, the popcorn and beer are on me.
It's the simplicity, stupid! (Score:5, Insightful)
TFS/TFA make a critical logical error. They state that nothing Jobs does in these presentations is accidental, because we all know how meticulously planned they are. Therefore, if nothing is accidental, then the omission must be a sign of Apple's malevolence toward open source. QED!
Bullshit. The graph doesn't necessarily 'betray the way Apple looks at the world', it betrays they way apple wants the shareholders, newspapermen and fans to look at the world. Their ongoing conceit (diff than deceit) has always (From the late 90's on) been, we are competing against this giant monopoly, here we are, the valiant underdogs. True or not, this is the image (RDF) that has been provided. Apple's recent success may cause people to forget this, to assume that the marketing message is different now. An assumtpion like that would have to come butressed with facts, not shoddy logic.
Does this mean that Apples wants to make nie with open source, or acknowledge the contributions of open source, etc? Of course not. But that doesn't mean that a graph is really a coded browser battle plan to get rid of FF. Apple would be perfectly happy competing for a plurality in browser market share, especially if it meant that users would/could be intimately familiar w/ the iphone interface out of the gate.
Negative? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's like a decade of free positive publicity.
Mozilla can take the competition. If it can't it shouldn't be in the game.
Are we supposed to feel bad for Mozilla? (Score:5, Insightful)
Firefox has managed to get a 25% marketshare against Microsoft, on their own OS. Hell, I'm typing this from Firefox on a Mac right now, because I like the addons. If Safari is trying to "edge out" Firefox, they just need to make sure Firefox is a significantly better browser. If it's not, well, you can hardly blame Apple for making a better product.
Re:Not about market share (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't have the exact numbers, but I'm reasonably certain that there are more Firefox users on Windows than there are Apple OSX users, period. That's not meant as a slam against Apple, but I don't think Firefox has too much to worry about. I think Safari on Windows will likely be used mainly by developers looking who want to be able to test web pages on Safari without using a Mac...
Re:Um... what? (Score:3, Insightful)
As Microsoft's shown, best way to introduce a user to a new program is to force it on them...
Um (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple's main target by releasing Safari on Windows is Internet Explorer; they want to basically get newbies who have tried iTunes or have iPods and liked it, and might be willing to try other Apple stuff. They aren't going after Firefox users, so a comparison of Safari v IE v Firefox makes no sense. Hell, why not include Opera as well, and OmniWeb, and Lynx! It'll be one confusing motherfucker of a pie chart, but by god Norwegians, both the people using OmniWeb and text-mode fetishists need representation too!
To me, this smacks of "Yoo hoo! Over here! Firefox still exists! Yes! Wooooo! Give us publicity too!". And he's somehow extrapolated a simple omission from a pie chart into a hatred of open source software in general. Very nice.
(Not that I think Safari for Windows is there yet, it's nice but not wonderful. I still use Firefox if I'm use Windows, but prefer Safari under OSX.)
They are going somewhere else (Score:5, Insightful)
Then what are they crying about? (Score:4, Insightful)
Safari rigorously follows the standards, helping keep the web open for all standards-based browsers. Mozilla should be thanking them.
Sorry, didn't know FireFox was ONLY competing w/IE (Score:5, Insightful)
The more competition, the better, I say! May the best man win, and all that. I didn't realize Firefox was being strictly worked on as a project with a goal of defeating IE, and no other players were ever supposed to "interfere" with that mission!?
This isn't even a scenario that's real comparable to iTunes - despite that getting thrown around as a comparison. With iTunes, Apple was releasing it as a vehicle to sell music on their store. In that regard, the whole thing was a commercial venture - and it simply made sense to allow the vast number of Windows users a "front end" to be able to purchase Apple's music, instead of keeping it just for the 5-7% of the marketplace that uses Macs.
With Safari, on the other hand, it may become useful or required as a development tool aiding in building apps for the iPhone
Re:I have a MBP... (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps you meant Mail(.app). In that case, I'd have to rate your opinion-making skills as "weak". Mail is way better than Thunderbird. It has everything T-bird has, but with polish and proper system integration. And a handy "bounce message" function that essentially tells automated spam systems to sod off. Thunderbird still has a ways to go before it's at the level of flexibility and polish of Firefox, and only then does it have a chance to be better than Mail.
Your opinion of Safari at least has merit. It would be nice to have plugins (Developer Toolbar and AdBlock are wonderful) in Safari. It's lacking in that area. But Safari (for Mac) is still a damned good browser. Safari for Windows is crap, though. (And, no, they're not the same.)
who cares? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's called competition. (Score:4, Insightful)
I use OSS because I like the way it works. If it doesn't work well enough, I use something else. Firefox isn't going to stay my browser of choice if there is something out there that does the job better.
Now I'm not really fond of Safari, but if it runs fast, loads fast, doesn't hog system memory, I'm going to start using it. End of fricking story.
The Geek Came First (Score:3, Insightful)
Geeks spawned the Firefox movement and they will support it as long as it is the best.
Re:Pie Chart is all about marketing (Score:5, Insightful)
What Apple sells is a particular computing experience. To have people develop web apps for the iPhone they need the browser platform it runs on: Safari. So Safari on Windows lets non-Mac users develop iPhone applications (similar to OS X's Dashboard).
Apple does not care if only developers use Safari on Windows. As long as there's a lot of iPhone apps to download. Having people browse the web with Safari on Windows does nothing for Apple's bottom line. But as a development platform it's critical to their latest product.
Re:Apple on Windows (Score:4, Insightful)
Same base reason why DRM sucks really. A company starts out and thinks up 5-10 ways that people are "allowed" to use something and shuts everything else off. Then they wonder what the hell is wrong when the masses start complaining that it's not doing what they need it to.
Re:Imminent Death of FireFox Predicted. JPGs at 11 (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Imminent Death of FireFox Predicted. JPGs at 11 (Score:3, Insightful)
Okay nobody seems to have picked up on the obvious flaw with this statistic - the w3school's site (from which the data on which this prediction was based) is a (poor imho) web developer's resource. Naturally with an audience that has an intrinsic interest in browsers and standards Firefox (and other alternative browsers) it will show up in statistics generated disproportionately to it's actual usage in the general public, it also explains the adoption rate of IE7 being very high. These statistics are useless and that prediction is completely invalid outside of that specific site.
Darwinism (Score:4, Insightful)
But the good news is, Mozilla can survive, and it will, if it is good enough to compete against Safari and IE and Opera (and whoever else wants to toss their hat into the ring.) And presently, it is that good. I don't foresee that changing anytime soon. And if and when it does, I'll gladly adopt whatever the best browser is on that day, just as I've ditched Netscape 1.x through 4.7, IE 3 through 6, and all the rest I've tried over the years. Right now I like Firefox.
Re:Apple on Windows (Score:4, Insightful)
So, you have an older PowerMac, then right? Scully was more your cup of tea?
I've never seen this itunes error, and I use fast user switching all the time. On OSX it just simply works.
Re:Not about market share (Score:5, Insightful)
Not if Safari doesn't improve *significantly*. Right now, Safari has been widely reviewed as crap-ola on Windows. Just releasing a browser doesn't mean that it's going to become a standard. If nobody ends up using it, then Safari won't have any impact at all.
Oh come off it! (Score:5, Insightful)
That's it. There's no story. Safari on Windows doesn't hurt anyone except maybe Microsoft. Just because Jobs didn't take time out of his keynote to stroke the collective Firefox ego does not mean Apple is "hunting" Mozilla.
The exec also highlighted Mozilla's attitude about market share: "We've never ever at Mozilla said that we care about Firefox market share at the expense of our more important goal: to keep the web open and a public resource," he said.
The subtext being that Apple somehow is contrary to this. As if releasing a browser (based on an open source rendering engine) which actually has better adherence to standards than Mozilla browsers is going to make the web less open and public. Sorry folks, but that is a dead end.
Good. (Score:3, Insightful)
What Apple brings to the table is competition. Opera gave up on Windows and is busy in the embedded market. Konqueror is great, going nowhere in the Windows world. IE 7 showed the world that the IE team still have their heads up their butts, so without another great browser on Windows there's no serious competition for the Firefox team, and thus nothing to keep them from going the way of Mozilla. Now that Firefox actually has a decent browser with a big name behind it to compete with, maybe we'll see Firefox development focus on fixing bugs quickly, becoming Acid2 compliant, etc.
Re:who cares? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:They are going somewhere else (Score:2, Insightful)
This is the point. To build new Safari-apps which will run on the iPhone, web developers need to test the web pages in Safari. By releasing a Windows version of Safari, web developers running Windows can test out their new web pages. Web developers won't run out and buy macs just to test web pages, and now they don't have to.
If it results in actual browser share, or more webpage/webapp compatibility across all browsers, that's an added bonus.
Re:Not about market share (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Apple on Windows (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Um... what? (Score:5, Insightful)
I specifically downloaded Quicktime *without* iTunes, because quite frankly, I don't want iTunes. When there's an update for Quicktime, the updater pre-checks iTunes for download and installation. The same thing happened when I updated Safari.
I suspect that in the future, any updates for iTunes or Quicktime for Windows users will also contain the pre-checked box for Safari as well.
It's just a checkbox, but the default action of most users is to just keep clicking next until the funny little window is gone.
To me, it's underhanded.
Really very good catch ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not about market share (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Um... what? (Score:2, Insightful)
Clearly Jobs wants to take some market share away from IE, but if he made a pie chart of Safari FF and IE, he'd be flamed for being too overconfident against IE, or too pessimistic for only taking a sliver from IE. Instead, he moved the FF part of the pie, instead of saying his browser is 3rd place. Jobs touts open source a lot, and I strongly doubt he wants to kill firefox, like the FF fanboys are screaming about.
OSS (Score:4, Insightful)
Anyway - how is Safari-the-WebKit-engine worse than Firefox-the-Gecko-engine? If anything I'd like to see more standards compatible browsers and then there's a chance we can defeat evil MSIE. Gecko-is-the-standard did not play well last time when Netscape gone under and Microsoft won the first browser war, right?
It's NOT about domination! (Score:3, Insightful)
By releasing Safari for Windows, Apple is investing in Safari's relevance. The smart Windows users have it easy: run FF most of the time, until you come across a really dumb or poorly-authored website, then just use IE when you really need to load that page. Mac users don't really have that option. If it doesn't render properly in Camino/Firefox, try it in Safari - if that doesn't work, maybe try OmniWeb, but chances are you just aren't gonna view that site on a Mac.
Apple doesn't make money from Safari. It was developed for OS X because its then-default browser, IE, sucked. And they based Safari on KHTML, an open-source engine totally separate from Mozilla's. This is great stuff! Two separate OSS teams coding for standards-compliant browsing!
But back to my original point about relevance: I still have the Tiger version of Safari, but I mainly use Camino because it seems to generally be a bit zippier, and it works with the new Yahoo! mail UI while Safari doesn't.
--- what??? you heard me right - a major web player like Yahoo! is developing web apps and putting more priority on Gecko than OS X's, and iPhone's, default browser. Sure, Firefox has more marketshare than Safari, but for iPhone users who can't change their browser, and for OS X users who are not inclined to change their browser, this is a huge problem that undermines the value of Apple's products.
Apple's strategy: push Safari out to everybody who might be downloading iTunes. Include it on CD with every iPod sold. Make it install on Windows by default unless the user unchecks a box. Suddenly, Safari is in the hands of zillions of Windows users, and companies like Yahoo! take notice: "We'd better make our apps work with Safari!"
Mozilla should not feel threatened, excepting that Firefox will now have to compete on its merits, instead of just being "the alternative browser". Users who have installed Firefox on Windows already know how to choose their own browser, and they won't go to Safari without a reason.
Lilly's comments are ABSOLUTELY sour grapes, because he doesn't want to compete with another free (as in beer) product. When he sayd that the web is owned by people and not companies, he fails to mention that Safari's web rendering component is standards-compliant and open-source.
So, to summarize:
- Apple NEEDS Safari to be recognized as a major browser.
- Safari will likely continue what Firefox has been doing: chipping away at IE's dominance.
- Those who have switched from IE will choose between Safari/Firefox (and KHTML/Gecko) based on product merits. Plus some people will just use Safari because iTunes told them to.
Re:Apple on Windows (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Apple on Windows (Score:3, Insightful)
Or perhaps Apple could use something designed for multiple accesses and updates by different programs... like a database.
Seriously, everything's in a giant XML file? +1 to readability, but -5 to scalability.
Re:Pie Chart is all about marketing (Score:5, Insightful)
What do you mean by extreme? It's always seemed fairly sedate and understated to me, with the exception of the raucous iPod ads. Remember the Mac ads when Jobs came back? They were all elegant, and barely even dared to "sell" the products - they were mostly just sparse shots of the product on a white background, with little elaboration.
I think the marketing of Microsoft and Dell are much more extreme. The Windows Vista ad is ridiculous - as if people actually say "Wow!" at a new version of Windows. Or there's the Microsoft ads that talk about how they empower people to conquer the universe. Or the Dell ads, with their SUPER COOL!! CHEAP!! BUY NOW!!! AMAZING FEATURES!!!!
All of those examples seem much more extreme that the comparatively quiet and friendly Apple advertising.
Why should it matter? I use Apple products because they work well. Should I use something different just because Jobs occassionally puts his foot in his mouth? I don't understand why anyone would choose a computer or software based on the personality of the CEO, rather than the usefulness of the hardware and software.
Geeee, that's all a fabrication. It's not like Dell or Microsoft have ever acted antagonistically towards Apple, or "declared war" on them. Oh wait, they have. The other players have just as much, or more, of a problem with this mentality than Apple. Just look at all the big-noting over companies trying to create an "iPod killer," for example. If anything, Apple is happy surviving alongside the other players, where the likes of Microsoft and Dell aren't happy until they crush all the competition. To them, being in second place means losing. Apple's definition of victory is totally different.
Re:You are dead wrong. (Score:3, Insightful)
Why is ease of use only for computer illiterate people? Power users want ease-of-use too, so they can be more productive, and get more work done.
Anyway, how do you explain the vast proportion of Mac users who have been using their machines professionally in cutting-edge industries for years? Heck, for a long time, it was one of the few serious machines for digital imaging and publishing, because only Macs had Photoshop and coulor management. They are also popular in the scientific computing field. These are users who are so demanding of their machines that they don't have time to screw around.
Also, how do you explain the vast number of computer illiterate Windows users? You don't seem to have much experience of the Mac world, you are just making assumptions based on marketing. In my long experience of both sides, the proportion of technically knowledgeable Mac users is higher. That's probably because it's usually an informed decision, to choose a "different" option. Wheras someone who knows nothing about computers will usually just accept what the salesman pushes, or what is used at work - which is a Windows machine 99% of the time. They literally put no thought into their purchase.
Another thing I'vbe noticed with Windows users, is that they are generally much more confused about technology and terminology. For example, they think that Internet Explorer is the internet. Wheras most Mac users, even the biggest newbies, understand that a browser is just an application used to access the internet. There also seems to be a better understanding of the filesystem. Windows users often say "I saved the file in Word" - thinking that Word is where the files are stored, where a newbie Mac user is likely to understand it's on a disk, or in a folder separate to the application.
Anyway, enough of the explanation. I do find it amazing that you honestly believed what you said, because it is so contrary to how the Mac world actually is. Maybe you should go out and look at how it actually is, rather than just projecting your stereotypes onto a group you know nothing about?
Re:You are dead wrong. (Score:3, Insightful)
P.S:
This also shows some ignorance. Not only is Firefox very popular on the Mac, the market for shareware and independent applications is much healthier on the Mac than on Windows. If anything, Mac users are much more avid downloaders of new and different software than the average Windows user. You can ask some software developers who started developing for the Mac after years of Windows development to testify to this. They usually find that their downloads of demos and trial versions skyrocket when they port their product to Mac, and they find an enthusiastic user base.
In contrast, the average Windows user rarely ventures outside the standard Microsoft applications, except perhaps in the case of games. I wouldn't be surprised is Firefox actually had greater marketshare on the Mac platform than on Windows - because Windows users are so habituated to IE. There is also a thriving market of alternative text editors, word processors, and page layout apps on the Mac, which doesn't really exist for Windows, because everybody just uses Word.
Re:Um... what? (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't agree that Apple are lacking in their support for open source - Apple run their projects as open source when available (you can't open source company secrets and as a result they don't open those older projects to the community). They also use open source throughout their operating system. (http://www.apple.com/opensource/) details some of their open source efforts in osx. Whether directed by apple or otherwise. Apple have also been disproportionately light on litigious affairs with open source vendors. Particularly important when you consider that the expose feature in OS X is actually patented by Apple. (Despite this many enjoy it in ubuntu and other xgl implementations.)
Turning a blind eye and only engaging in litigation where contracts with partners (usually the music industry) require them to do so is an often unrecognised merit to the company's management.
http://www.macosforge.org/ lists many of the bigger apple led open source projects.
Also including all the standards compliant browsers on the slide isn't a good idea for a whole world of obvious reasons. (It's not got much to do with a need for being in the limelight.. it was an apple developer conference, apple -is- in the limelight there.)
Re:Um... what? (Score:3, Insightful)
Nonsense. Apple can open source any of their own IP they want to. They just don't want to.