Notice that over the past several years, in each data set, that Firefox's usage has dropped off, or at best not grown.
People are leaving Firefox because it's not improving, and because it is actually getting worse in many ways for many people. If we're going to get the Chrome experience even when using Firefox, but done in an inferior fashion, we may as well just use Chrome.
I expect we'd see a similar, if not more severe, drop off in Thunderbird's usage numbers. I've personally moved to a different client within the past year, and I know several other people who have, too.
There's nothing compelling about FirefoxOS compared to Android, iOS, or the incumbents. Average people will not switch to it. Without these people, it won't gain traction, and Mozilla will still have limited to no influence in the mobile space.
And the same goes for Persona. It has been around for a few years now, but average people aren't using it, nor does it look like there's any reason they'd want to.
"Openness" may be a noble goal, but I think they had much more influence when they were producing software that people liked to use because it worked well. The move away from this has corresponded to a decrease in their influence, and much greater influence for Google, Apple, Microsoft and even Opera.
> "People are leaving Firefox because it's not
> improving, and because it is actually getting
> worse in many ways for many people"
If we're pointing to market share as a barometer of browser quality, then I guess Internet Explorer is the best browser in the world.
There is no doubt some people are leaving FF for Chrome because of real/perceived issues with the tech itself. A significant number of people are discovering Chrome directly or indirectly because of:
1. Google advertises Chrome to its users on its search portal and its other massively popular web properties.
2. Google's massive presence in the tech press
3. Google's advertising for Chromebook devices
4. Indirectly, though the absolutely massive multinational
ad campaign for Android devices
5. The hundreds of millions of people that use Chrome on
their Android devices
6. Chrome's integration with the rest of Google's ecosystem
7. Google's status as a household world at this point. ("Let's see, I've heard of Google. This software must be okay. I do not know what a 'Mozilla' is and my daughter told me not to install things from companies I've never heard of.")
All extremely significant factors in the browser market share shift, and all avenues that Mozilla cannot rely on.
Chrome was also bundled with Adobe Flash Player installer for Windows, I.e. you download Flash and, if you didn't uncheck the check box, Chrome is set as your default browser.
Thank you - I was just beginning to wonder if the other side was actually right, when you reminded me there are two games - market share and free speech.
You don't have to rule the world before fixing it.
Mozilla may have lost the current battle for influence in the developed world, but with Firefox OS and the accompanying partnerships with carriers, Mozilla is aiming to bring Web-centric mobile devices to the developing world. I can only hope that they haven't already lost this battle, and that the people they hope to reach with Firefox OS value their freedom over hot brands, trendy walled-garden social networks, and having all of the latest features that are exclusive to proprietary systems.
Nothing is wrong with competition. Their response to it, however, clearly isn't working in their favor. Their apparent lack of willingness to move away from this failed path is further hurting them.
If they don't provide quality software, then they won't have users. If they don't have users, then they won't have influence. If they don't have influence, they don't have any real power to assert their "open web" philosophy. The less power that Mozilla has, the more power their competitors will share, including those with a much different philosophy.
If they don't have influence, they don't have any real power to assert their "open web" philosophy
A philosophy does not assert itself by having power, it reveals its value (or lack thereof) to the honest thinker, and has that value regardless of the existence of such thinkers.
That kind of thinking is nice and all in the academic world, but in the real world a philosophy is absolutely useless unless some person or organization has the ability to put those ideas in to practice.
By losing market share, Mozilla is losing influence, which will inhibit their ability to introduce more "openness". Their philosophy will become far less useful, and its value will decrease, if it can't actually be implemented.
Why are you putting open into quotes? Anyway, the Nineteen-Eightyfour approach to what is true or right never did it for me.. utilitarian love for wisdom is not something that can actually exist.
> Mozilla's value and goal is pushing for open web. Not
> creating the best browser.
Then they have very stupid goal. Whatever that "open web is" (seriously, how do you close the web? by hanging lock on http and html?) but the main point is that the web is what browser vendors make of it. Some features of HTML 4 only lived in the spec, because no browser cared enough to implement them. HTML versions are if fact meaningless, because only features supported by browsers matter. Hence if you make a philosophically pure browser which nobody uses you will have zero influence on the web.
Nobody is saying that those influences don't exist. We're merely saying that it's pointless to try to combat them without market share. Products that nobody uses will have essentially no impact, even if they're more "open" than the more popular products.
Mozilla had some influence a few years ago, but they've been making decisions and taking actions that appear to be eroding that influence. If the current trends continue, their influence will continue to diminish. If they're striving for an "open" web, they're going to need influence to have any real impact.
>We're merely saying that it's pointless to try to combat them without market share. Products that nobody uses will have essentially no impact, even if they're more "open" than the more popular products.
The history of BSD and Linux should call that assertion into question.
They started relatively unpopular, but their openess earned them a core niche of technically capable innovators and early adopters, who over time improved their quality enough for them to nearly dominate in servers and mobile.
We do need another mobile OS because current ones do not respect our freedom. Even if they are technically sufficient, user friendly and usable.
So I dont care if Mozilla is copying Chrome or not. I just wish they stay in the same path AND be strong and influencial as they currently are.