
Seth's Blog: Firefox is missing the point - pbnaidu
http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2008/09/firefox-is-miss.html
======
halo
No. That's missing the point. It's got to stop. Social features are great for
some things. Social features are not great if you shoe-horn them in a totally
inappropriate way that doesn't add value. Life is better for me and the vast
majority of its users if FireFox doesn't add pointless social features that I
won't use anyway. I don't want to see people's ratings for sites, see grouped
recommendations or communicate with other FireFox users. The people who do
want this functionality can install extensions, and those extensions largely
already exist.

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").

~~~
fallentimes
Maybe it's just me and the people I know, but the real value of firefox -
other than the obvious advantages over IE - is the plugin functionality.

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?

~~~
netcan
This is off topic, but I'll bite.

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.

~~~
fallentimes
Wow great points. I don't know this with any certainty (I'm not a Google
insider or anything), but I'm willing to bet that Chrome is going to become
more of a default browser. Google didn't market Firefox near as aggressively
as they could of. And with Android coming out, Google will decide the default
browser. There's a lot more mobile devices out there than PCs.

~~~
netcan
That's what I was thinking as I wrote it.

------
maurycy
Actually I think that Seth misses the point as well. I don't care whether
other people wear the same clothes as me. I recommend because I like.

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.

~~~
iuguy
Actually I think that Seth _routinely_ misses the point.

He's a great marketeer, but he's not a product manager anymore than a
usability specialist.

~~~
unalone
Agreed. He's shown that he can take anything, even crap, and figure out how to
sell it better. I think that this example WOULD sell Firefox, for instance.
However, I find that a lot of his stuff IS crap, and marketing doesn't fix
that. Squidoo, for instance, is terrible and pointless, even if it IS on the
Alexa 500 (and I'll never know WHY it is, for that matter).

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.

~~~
froo
If you've ever looked at some of these 3rd string Internet marketers (the ones
that mostly sell ebooks or talk about adsense arbitrage) you'll eventually see
some non-expert talking about SEO and one of the first things they'll mention
is Squidoo.

I think it is because Squidoo gives people a platform to put whatever
contextual text they want in, with outbound links that provide link-juice to
whatever site/affiliate link they want.

If you ask me, it feels more like a spam blog that has multiple authors that
can sign up at anytime - but that is just my opinion.

~~~
unalone
That's an opinion that I share. Squidoo really does have a skeevy feel to it.
And after a year of reading Seth's blog, I had to unsubscribe because his
writing had the same skeevy feel. I want to get users because I've got the
best product out there, not because I'm marketing myself the best.

~~~
froo
Well I've never met Seth so my opinion of him is based only what I've read,
but I'm not entirely sure I can pin down what it is about him that perplexes
me...

Sometimes he seems to have fairly interesting advice and insight on various
topics and at other times I've considered that these are the ramblings of a
delusional man. I really don't think I can make an apt judgement of him, so
perhaps that is why I keep reading? Maybe he is a genius in disguise.

That being said, he reminds me of someone I know and if he is anything like
this person, then I think we all have something to be worried about.

~~~
unalone
Nah. He's no genius. Genius is controversial and abrupt. Seth Godin is almost
certainly bright, but that's about it.

------
iigs
_So, Firefox needs to add functionality that makes the surfing experience
better for all users when more users use Firefox._

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.

------
pavelludiq
I think i missed his point. Maybe I'm retarded, but i didn't get what he was
saying. Did he compare Firefox to fashion, religion, and an obsolete
communication device?

~~~
netcan
Yes he did. That part of the post makes sense.

He's encouraging FF to have an in-built mechanism for giving users incentive
to recommend something, anything. What he proposes is bad.

------
baha_man
'I'm a devoted FF user, and have been forever.'

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>

[2] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect>

[3] <http://www.anybrowser.org/campaign/>

~~~
froo
_How many products or services are sold on the basis of making other people's
lives better? Exactly one - charities_

+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.

------
gojomo
Godin's desire to boost Firefox is laudable but...

(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.

------
jhickner
Wow... that's incredibly awful advice.

------
JeremyChase
Maybe I missed the point, but this article doesn't explicitly say 'social
features'. It simply says that the firefox community is bettered by more
people using it. Granted social features are the first that come time mind,
but I can imagine some others.

* A standard platform for whatever plugins you like * Aggregated usage data

------
iamah
So his idea is to add a addon-like functionality to the browser itself? ...

------
cookiecaper
I guess nobody clued this guy in on extensions. As Firefox gains more
marketshare, it also gains more extension developers and users. It also allows
the web to advance. That is the aggregated benefit of more marketshare for
Firefox. The social features this guy recommends belong in extensions, and,
incidentally, extensions with that functionality already exist.

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?

------
trezor
Seth's Blog: If there's a point here, you _will_ miss it.

Anyone care to explain what on hell he was arguing for?

~~~
froo
_I'm a devoted FF user, and have been forever. But the response to Chrome
shouldn't be to launch new features._

 _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.

