Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Maintaining an Independent Browser Is Expensive

robert.ocallahan.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 310 posts

Re: Maintaining an Independent Browser Is Expensive

#51

Post by Sylos »

moz23 wrote: post #39
rtpg wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I'm a heavy Firefox for Android user and I _really_ want to use it but the performance is really rough. I wish I had the sort of skills to help contribute to performance, but the whole thing is so huge I wouldn't even know where to begin. At this point if Chrome implemented the "open tab in background" feature (when I click on a link in an e-mail I don't want to switch directly to the browser) I would probably…

Mozilla don't really care about mobile. The (too) small mobile teams do care, but the company as a whole doesn't - which mostly explains why it's so rough.

And you take this wisdom from where? They tried to build an entire mobile operating system before. Clearly they do care.

Re: Maintaining an Independent Browser Is Expensive

#52

Post by roca »

rlv-dan wrote: post #40

This begs the question: Is it healthy that one of the most important technologies today (web) is also very complicated (=expensive) and thus effectively limiting number of players.

It's not healthy, but unfortunately maintaining compatibility and staying abreast of modern platform features (so that apps and content don't fully migrate to the single-vendor platforms) just mandates a lot of complexity.

Re: Maintaining an Independent Browser Is Expensive

#53

Post by Sylos »

rlv-dan wrote: post #40

This begs the question: Is it healthy that one of the most important technologies today (web) is also very complicated (=expensive) and thus effectively limiting number of players.

Of course, it's not always healthy, but what are you gonna do about it?

Re: Maintaining an Independent Browser Is Expensive

#55

Post by jstewartmobile »

Vinnl wrote: post #50
jstewartmobile wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is no secret that for at least the past decade, the majority of Mozilla's revenue has been from search partnerships. In what bizzaro world can you derive the majority of your revenue from a thing while simultaneously declaring independence from it?

Apparently, this one, as they were doing it. What helps think about it is that the 'dependence' was a business transaction: Google paid Mozilla, and got something in return. Much like a startup being dependent on a single large customer yet still wanting to diversify.

Until they have actually diversified, they are by definition dependent on whichever search engine they are currently contracted to.

Re: Maintaining an Independent Browser Is Expensive

#57

Post by roca »

jstewartmobile wrote: post #36
Jaepa wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you rather have people in standards groups to act more like competitors instead of coworkers? Cause that seems like a really bad idea. As for: > For anyone who believes money to be some kind of motivating thing, it isn't hard to come to the conclusion that Mozilla is Google-by-proxy > edit: And apparently I have to have "hits" to my name to state that getting 85% of your revenue from Google puts your independen…

If they paired up with a search provider other than Google, does that make them any more independent? If they only get 70%, or 50%, of their income from a search engine, does that make them independent? A non-profit that has a taxable subsidiary and receives the bulk of its funding from the search industry does not strike me as being particularly independent.

What are you claiming now?

Are you claiming Mozilla was the tool of Google, switched to being the tool of Microsoft or Yahoo, and then back to being the tool of Google?

Or are you claiming that Mozilla is the tool of the "search industry" which is some amorphous group containing all of the above?

Google (and other companies in some countries) pay Mozilla to be the default search in Firefox. It's a business transaction and adequately explains why Mozilla gets paid. Conspiracy-theorizing claims that secret terms bind Mozilla to some hidden agenda should not be believed in the absence of evidence, and I haven't seen any. (And I'm a former Mozilla Distinguished Engineer.)

Re: Maintaining an Independent Browser Is Expensive

#59

Post by staunch »

Mozilla does not need 1200 people to make Firefox.

Mozilla has 1200 people because they blow all of their money irresponsibly, and that's apparently how many people you can hire with the bribes/revenue from Google it pays to maintain its monopoly.

The chairwoman takes over $1M year? Why would an open source project need anyone who would be so unethical? This is like a city councilperson paying themselves $1M/year. It's not surprising these same "leaders" spend all the organization's money on one failed project after another.

Firefox should be spun off into its own focused organization. It should do nothing but the browser and only employ people working directly on the browser.

The other 800 people working at Mozilla should be working on important projects like Firefox, not wasting time at a dysfunctional organization.

Re: Maintaining an Independent Browser Is Expensive

#60

Post by chungy »

Sylos wrote: post #49
kitsunesoba wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The iOS version is a WebKit wrapper by necessity (Apple mandates that all alternative browsers use the system-bundled WebKit for user experience reasons), and while it’s possible they’ve ported Edge’s engine to Android I’d bet that Edge for Android either wraps WebKit or Blink/Chromium. The primary value proposition for Edge on mobile is syncing of tabs/bookmarks/history/etc, not its engine.

Yes, the Android-version is also just a Blink wrapper. It's almost impossible for Microsoft to port Trident/EdgeHTML to other operating systems, because it's so deeply integrated into Windows.

Way back when, there were versions of IE 4, 5, and 6 for non-Windows OSes such as HP-UX, AIX, Solaris, and Mac OS (Classic and X both). It is not unreasonable that they could do it again.
Post reply on HN