

Why Did Google Abandon Firefox?  - geirfreysson
http://gigaom.com/2008/09/02/why-did-google-abandon-firefox/

======
mechanical_fish
Sometimes reading the tech business press is like listening to fish talk about
bicycling.

Here we have an entire article discussing Google's strategic motivation for
selecting one open-source project over another for a given task. And there's
not a single mention of the possibility that the Google engineers sat down to
design a stripped-down Browser of the Future, took a good look at the Firefox
source, took a good look at the Webkit source, took a look at each other, and
said "Webkit".

In Pundit World the amount of work required to turn one buzzword into another
buzzword is always O(1).

~~~
jwilliams
I somewhat agree with you - but the question is, why did the Google Engineers
sit down to make the Browser of Future? - especially when they already have
well-forged relationships with Mozilla and Opera?

Clearly they wanted to do something else - they wanted a new tool for the job
- something they felt they couldn't or didn't want to do with Mozilla. Page
refers to some reasons (which you may or may not agree with).

I think that's what the article is trying to get at.

~~~
menloparkbum
_why did the Google Engineers sit down to make the Browser of Future?_

I've spent 2 years of my working life with the Mozilla codebase. Also, 3 very
close friends work at Google, and I must know at least 25 people who work
there.

My take is that mechanical_fish is completely correct. There was no secret
strategic reason for doing this. Some engineers at Google simply wanted to
make a better browser, and decided that the Mozilla codebase was too huge and
crufty to deal with.

Not a day went by working with the Mozilla codebase that I didn't think I
could make a better browser from scratch, if only I had enough time and all my
smart hacker friends wanted to pitch in and help me out.

Google is probably still the most "bottom up" out of any of the huge firms out
there, and they have "20% time" and all the personnel needed to make this
happen. Once the guys got somewhere on their skunkworks version, the higher-
ups probably thought "oh cool... another browser, we should put that out
there. And hey, as a bonus maybe we don't have to keep dealing with the
Mozilla foundation"

Personally, I'm jealous because they basically implemented everything I
thought sucked in Firefox. I had no idea Google had this up their sleeve (very
impressed that my Google friends kept this a secret from me; yes, they knew
about it), so until September 2 I had a minor dream that maybe someday I could
spearhead the next killer browser. Unfortunately I spend too much time at my
day job and on hacker news. Execution is everything folks, get to work!

Of course I could be wrong and this started out as a sinister plot to own all
your data and give the finger to the Mozilla foundation, but I really doubt
it.

~~~
jwilliams
I don't have the experience you have, so I have to side with you on that basis
alone.

I don't find Google's moves sinister - they want to provide a better user
experience in order to be a better (and more successful) business. Google's
strategy has always been one that works symbiotically... If they think more of
my data is going to help them do that, well, then they might be right... and
they might be right that most people will be happy with this.

I don't buy that this is a skunkworks project though - there are a lot of key
individuals contributing to this.

Putting out a browser like this is a pretty serious undertaking. It'll take a
lot of resources to maintain, and carries the Google brand in an extremely
public way. So whilst the origins might be up for argument, I think this is a
very deliberate and strategic move on Google's part.

------
stcredzero
No abandonment here. If the Google Gears, fast Javascript, super secure
browser of the future is Firefox and IE8 is dragged halfway along to that,
then Google will have won!

------
maxwell
The technology is secondary. Firefox, Safari, and Opera are horrible brands
that non-technical people hate. For many people IE == internet, and the only
brand in the world that can compete is Google. They "abandoned" Firefox so
that our parents will abandon IE.

~~~
neilc
_Firefox, Safari, and Opera are horrible brands that non-technical people
hate._

Um, really? Most of my friends who use Firefox quite like it. Those who use
Macs use Safari, for the most part. Basically no one has heard of Opera. But I
don't know of a single non-technical user who "hates" any of those brands.

 _For many people IE == internet_

I think you give far too little credit to most Internet users. Even among
older users, the vast majority are aware of the difference between a client
application and a website.

~~~
maxwell
_I think you give far too little credit to most Internet users. Even among
older users, the vast majority are aware of the difference between a client
application and a website._

That was equality, not identity! It's a terminology thing. Yes, they know the
difference between the internet and their browser certainly, but I know people
who more or less _refer_ to IE as "the internet." It's part of the name, after
all. I think they generally call the net itself either "the web" or "online."
Obviously I'm pulling from a small data set, but nonetheless, IE does give the
impression on the outside that it's the authoritative browser, much as
Google's homepage does for search.

------
known
Well everyone wants to rule the world.

------
Fuca
Adblock

