

Why Internet Explorer will survive and Firefox won't - shimi
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/bott/why-internet-explorer-will-survive-and-firefox-wont/3064?tag=nl.e539

======
skymt
This reads like linkbait to me. The author doesn't really have a coherent
argument: he spends the first half of the article talking about Firefox's
relatively slow* release cycle, but never bothers to explain why that's a
death sentence.

Instead, he jumps to another argument entirely in the second half: Firefox's
lack of an "app ecosystem". This is truly delusional. Firefox has just as much
of an app ecosystem as IE: it runs code on websites you go to. It's true that
it lacks Chrome's app store (which right now amounts to little more than a
glorified link directory and alternate bookmark system), but if that's a
disadvantage it applies equally to IE.

* Relatively slow only with sufficient handwaving: call IE's platform previews equivalent to Chrome's full releases, then dismiss without justification Mozilla's new accelerated schedule for Firefox.

~~~
Timmy_C
Chrome apps get downloaded to your machine. They are not links.

~~~
skymt
In my experience, most apps on the Chrome store are what Google calls "Hosted
Apps": a link plus metadata and an icon [0]. They also provide "Packaged Apps"
[1], which are downloaded and run locally as you describe, but this style
appears to be much less popular with developers.

0:
[http://code.google.com/chrome/apps/docs/developers_guide.htm...](http://code.google.com/chrome/apps/docs/developers_guide.html)

1: <http://code.google.com/chrome/extensions/apps.html>

~~~
MatthewPhillips
Being hosted doesn't make them just links. Hosted apps still have access to
many APIs not available in normal web pages. Such as cross-domain XHR,
background pages (apps can run in the background even when the tab is closed),
a licensing API that allows Google to handle the registration burden, etc.

~~~
skymt
Do many web apps use those features yet? (Besides payment, that is; see my
reply to your other comment for my view on that.)

~~~
MatthewPhillips
I don't know; how is that relevant? The article argues about the future, of
which Chrome and IE have app ecosystems and Mozilla does not.

~~~
skymt
I think I see the source of our disagreement. You seem to say that Chrome's
impressive infrastructure for web apps gives it a potential advantage. I
certainly agree with that, but the capabilities of Chrome apps aren't widely
used _right now_ , so the actual strength of the system is still unknown. The
Chrome Web Store could still end up like WebOS: great platform, few
developers.

~~~
MatthewPhillips
I don't agree with the article that Firefox is in trouble, but I'm a Chrome
Store dev and I've grown tired of reading people online saying things like
"they're just bookmarks", so I apologize if I came across as attacking. I
think the advantages that Chrome (and to a lesser extent IE) has will
eventually be rolled into the spec, and will be negated, however I don't think
Mozilla is doing enough to push their alternative as viable. Their spec, to
me, reads as web app best practices and the only original thing they're
providing is an install button api.

------
bittermang
I believe if Firefox dies, it will be because it did not learn from the
Netscape Navigator it was born from.

I switched from Netscape to IE when I realized the application had become
bloated beyond recognition. I didn't need an email client inside of Netscape,
I didn't need a news reader inside of Netscape, I didn't need all of these
things.

I'm seeing shades of this in Firefox. Specifically, Firefox Sync.

It's a great idea, for some people. However in my scenario my tabs and
bookmarks in one location are completely different from my tabs and bookmarks
in another. I don't need the ability to bridge them. It would be a neat add
on, but I don't need it built into the core.

That is what made Firefox great in the first place. Add ons. That's why I've
stuck with Firefox. Add ons. Features like Sync are cool, but in my opinion
they should be optional add ons.

------
bediger
What's the backstory here? You usually only see this style of contrariness in
old timers, and it's usually reserved for IBM.

Did Ed Bott have some skin in IE6, and he's upset that Firefox blew a hole in
the side of Microsoft's lack of maintenance on IE6?

------
Timmy_C
This article argues that apps are the only future for browsers and by virtue
of the fact that Firefox doesn't have a dedicated "app ecosystem" it will be
extinct.

I don't follow the reasoning since I don't really see why I have to use
Internet Explorer to use a Microsoft web app just as I don't have to use
Chrome in order to get my Gmail.

~~~
th0ma5
I would say if it doesn't make any sense, or is making some kind of broad
logic leap like this, then it is probably MS purchased FUD.

~~~
bittermang
It is incredible how consistently throughout the years ZD Net has been a
mouthpiece for MS FUD.

------
marckremers
I simply beg to differ. <http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp>

~~~
Timmy_C
These are just the browser stats for this site and I see your point. However,
the article is implying that there is going to be a trend toward browser apps
in the future and Firefox does not have a built-in browser app platform.

------
js4all
Fact is: Firefox had 4.6 Million downloads in the first 24 hours after its
launch, IE9 had 2.3 Million downloads in the same period. The previous IE
versions have continuously lost ground.

I expect better researched articles from ZDNet.

~~~
matthewn
> I expect better researched articles from ZDNet.

I cannot think of a single good reason why you would.

~~~
js4all
touché

------
bryanlarsen
There are a couple of good arguments in the incoherent linkbait. Luckilly,
Mozilla knows this and has answers for both.

1) A continued slow release cycle will kill Firefox. Very true. Which is why
Mozilla is switching to a 3 month cycle.

2) An app story is required. I'm not sure if I buy it, but Mozilla also has an
answer to that: <https://apps.mozillalabs.com/>

------
bilban
Quite exciting this IE resurgence. It's a good reminder that you can't sit on
your laurels - you have to keep innovating - and/or push yourself ahead of the
pack.

To the average Joe - what makes the new Firefox any different to the last
version?

Javascript and rendering performance tweaks are great - but the UI still
sucks.

