Live data from Hacker News

Firefox 4, 5, 6 and 7 to be released before the end of 2011

downloadsquad.switched.com

101–110 of 115 posts

Re: Firefox 4, 5, 6 and 7 to be released before the end of 2011

#101
post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I doubt that the Chromium authors are concerned about trying to catch IE by having a larger version number. Their development calendar ( https://sites.google.com/a/chromium.org/dev/developers/calen... ) looks as though they have a rigid two-month schedule per version number. I myself am already running version 11 (screenshot: http://jhn.me/4RYO ) via their nightly builds.

I guess at this point version 9 looks OK. You have MSIE 9, Opera 10 etc and we've grown accustomed to those. It's up there at the same level and not particularly out of place. Now look back: the public stable release of Chrome 1 was on 11 December 2008. That's roughly 5 up per year. In another year it will be 15 and then 20. After a while it will start looking silly (like it did with MS Office) and I don't think the…

I disagree, the number is there to indicate a version, nothing more. The version number in Chrome is not exposed to users in a marketing way.

Google simple decided to go for big version numbers, because what does switching from 2.95 to 3.0 mean if you release new features constantly and major steps thus never happen? Sticking to decimal point version numbers makes no sense in this case.

Re: Firefox 4, 5, 6 and 7 to be released before the end of 2011

#102
post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can have a fast internal development cycle without devaluing the established concept of major version numbers. I don't appreciate this because I make money from software. To me, a new major version number is: a) an indication that there have been major changes. It's not something that increments every 12 weeks. b) something most people reasonably expect to pay for. I know Mozilla isn't first with this approach. I…

Arguably, the concept that ties major releases with major purchases is old and broken. It discourages companies from making major updates to software between such releases, as it will actually make it harder for them to make new revenue off the next major release. So you get point releases that are mostly minor bug fixes, and then a huge release every year or two that the maker hopes will squeeze you into opening you…

Sounds great but I am never going to pay a subscription for my IDE, or my FTP program or my Twitter client. Relationships require trust and effort from both parties and it's simply not a perfect model for every piece of software.

I don't want a relationship with a company. For most apps I want to buy and own a thing as it is now.

This "old and broken" model persists because it's something that customers get instantly and can commit to knowing in advance what their full investment will be.

Re: Firefox 4, 5, 6 and 7 to be released before the end of 2011

#103
post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can have a fast internal development cycle without devaluing the established concept of major version numbers. I don't appreciate this because I make money from software. To me, a new major version number is: a) an indication that there have been major changes. It's not something that increments every 12 weeks. b) something most people reasonably expect to pay for. I know Mozilla isn't first with this approach. I…

Arguably, the concept that ties major releases with major purchases is old and broken. It discourages companies from making major updates to software between such releases, as it will actually make it harder for them to make new revenue off the next major release. So you get point releases that are mostly minor bug fixes, and then a huge release every year or two that the maker hopes will squeeze you into opening you…

That assumes a series of minor improvements equals a major release, but that isn't always the case. Sometimes something might need a year's work because it is a change to the core of the programme(and old features have to be re-added in a different way for the new core and users are never happy about losing features) but with your system that gets completely disincentivised and minor improvements get prioritised. All the incentives point to bloatware, you create an expectation of constant releases that update or add features so you have to fulfil them, but you never have long enough to change the core and get back to where you started feature wise. That or they cheat and don't meet expectations of what version changes are and instead of point releases that are "mostly minor bug fixes" you get version changes that are so and then they need a new way of marketing that "huge release every year or two".

"...the maker hopes will squeeze you into opening your wallet, even if you're mostly happy with the last release." I don't understand, what is the problem with that? They can hope all they want, if you're happy with the last release you don't need to update in the "old fashioned" system, it's yours forever. In the "new" subscription system you could be perfectly happy with the product as it is but you are forced to keep paying for updates just to use it.

Re: Firefox 4, 5, 6 and 7 to be released before the end of 2011

#104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Arguably, the concept that ties major releases with major purchases is old and broken. It discourages companies from making major updates to software between such releases, as it will actually make it harder for them to make new revenue off the next major release. So you get point releases that are mostly minor bug fixes, and then a huge release every year or two that the maker hopes will squeeze you into opening you…

Sounds great but I am never going to pay a subscription for my IDE, or my FTP program or my Twitter client. Relationships require trust and effort from both parties and it's simply not a perfect model for every piece of software. I don't want a relationship with a company. For most apps I want to buy and own a thing as it is now. This "old and broken" model persists because it's something that customers get instantly…

With Android apps (and iPhone I presume), it seems that you pay once and automatically get any available updates. I'd guess that would work reasonably well for small utilities, so long as they continue to get new customers.

Re: Firefox 4, 5, 6 and 7 to be released before the end of 2011

#105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Arguably, the concept that ties major releases with major purchases is old and broken. It discourages companies from making major updates to software between such releases, as it will actually make it harder for them to make new revenue off the next major release. So you get point releases that are mostly minor bug fixes, and then a huge release every year or two that the maker hopes will squeeze you into opening you…

That assumes a series of minor improvements equals a major release, but that isn't always the case. Sometimes something might need a year's work because it is a change to the core of the programme(and old features have to be re-added in a different way for the new core and users are never happy about losing features) but with your system that gets completely disincentivised and minor improvements get prioritised. All…

"Changing the core" isn't generally any more encouraged by either system, if it doesn't result in marketable features.

The idea of the "complete overhaul" is something engineers love to dream about, business managers hate to do and end users generally just don't care that much about. That's why they happen so seldom - and usually only if the existing package is a pile of unmaintainable crap.

The shrink-wrap model encourages chasing adding more bullet points to the outside of the new box over actually improving the day-to-day user experience. The service model encourages making your actual customers happy with their product AFTER the purchase, so they keep buying.

The whole concept of a large, up-front fee is driven by traditional mass-media marketing strategy: spend a bunch of money making something sound really great to buy, sell it for a bunch of money up front so you can get a return on your advertising spend. Don't worry about what happens after that.

"I don't understand, what is the problem with that?"

The problem with that is if there is some small feature change that would really improve the current product (say supporting an additional new file format on import) there is little reason for the maker to add it to the old release. Instead, they lump it in with the new version and hope it forces you to buy a whole new license. So a feature that might only add a small marginal cost but would make current users happy for longer doesn't get released to them.

Re: Firefox 4, 5, 6 and 7 to be released before the end of 2011

#106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds great but I am never going to pay a subscription for my IDE, or my FTP program or my Twitter client. Relationships require trust and effort from both parties and it's simply not a perfect model for every piece of software. I don't want a relationship with a company. For most apps I want to buy and own a thing as it is now. This "old and broken" model persists because it's something that customers get instantly…

With Android apps (and iPhone I presume), it seems that you pay once and automatically get any available updates. I'd guess that would work reasonably well for small utilities, so long as they continue to get new customers.

That hasn't always held true for some of the major iPhone apps, at least - when there's a major version release, they sometimes require a new purchase.

Also, iPhone and Android apps have the potential for ongoing in-app purchases by users. So you buy the GPS app once for a very low price (or free) but you have to keep buying the data updates if you're using it. Or new levels for Angry Birds.

Re: Firefox 4, 5, 6 and 7 to be released before the end of 2011

#107
post #83
post #3

To be able to support this, they're going to need to do some major overhaul of how add-on versioning works. As a Add-On developer ( https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/font-finder/ ), I shudder at the thought of 10,000 different addons needing to keep having their support version incremented w/ each upcoming release.

Hi ecaron, I lead the add-ons team at Mozilla. Add-on compatibility was definitely a big consideration in our plans to switch to a faster release cycle, and we're working on proposing some changes to the way it works. As you mention, the current way of doing things won't work 4 times a year. These changes will probably include automatic compatibility with certain major versions. We'll have more to share soon on the a…

Personally, I think that the compatibility should be based on feature versions. If an addon says "I use version x of feature y", and that feature doesn't get touched for 20 versions, it would be automatically compatible.

Re: Firefox 4, 5, 6 and 7 to be released before the end of 2011

#108
post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Firefox is far from becoming "more and more irrelevant". Just because you've switched to an alternate browser doesn't mean the rest of the world has. Chrome may be incrementally gaining some share, but it's mostly at the expense of IE. Firefox has almost 25% of the market, while Chrome is 5%.

Chrome currently has 16.5 percent global usage share, IE has 45 percent. FF's share remains stable at 31 percent. Chrome gained ten percent points in the last year, while IE lost ten percent points. At its current growth rate, Chrome will pass FF in 15 months. http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser-ww-monthly-201002-201102

And just six short years after that it will eclipse 100% usage!

Re: Firefox 4, 5, 6 and 7 to be released before the end of 2011

#109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That assumes a series of minor improvements equals a major release, but that isn't always the case. Sometimes something might need a year's work because it is a change to the core of the programme(and old features have to be re-added in a different way for the new core and users are never happy about losing features) but with your system that gets completely disincentivised and minor improvements get prioritised. All…

"Changing the core" isn't generally any more encouraged by either system, if it doesn't result in marketable features. The idea of the "complete overhaul" is something engineers love to dream about, business managers hate to do and end users generally just don't care that much about. That's why they happen so seldom - and usually only if the existing package is a pile of unmaintainable crap. The shrink-wrap model enc…

Firstly I said nothing of "complete overhaul", core changes are for example, the internet moving to IPv6, OSes moving from 32-bit to 64-bit.

Anything that is constantly updated with anything more than bug-fixes will become "a pile of unmaintainable crap", or just obsolete if the core isn't changed. Core changes normally happen before that point though. That is if business managers' incentives aren't all wrong. An example of that fairly recently was twitteriffic for iOS, they felt it was heading towards being a pile of crap so they had to stop and go back to the core.(even though it meant unhappy current customers)

Users not caring about it unless it immediately comes with new features or at least all the old features is exactly my point! And if what the user is paying for is updates they are absolutely not going to accept losing any features(and not going to be happy with not updating since that is the whole reason that they are paying in your method). If the user owns a version and sees that the next version doesn't have features they need they'll stick with the old version until the new version has those features. In your model they have already paid for that update.

"So a feature that might only add a small marginal cost but would make current users happy" Prices aren't just based on costs, they are usually(in the IT sector) based on how much more they "make users happy", in some cases they are almost entirely based on that, clothes, shoes and apple products being the most obvious examples. Which to repeat in another way is the problem with core updates in your system, they are high "cost" but they only prevent the programme from going to shit so they don't "make current users happy"(just prevent future unhappiness).

That's not to say that your model doesn't work in some cases, anti-virus programmes need constant updates but very seldom core changes.(although oddly enough at least for norton it's much cheaper to buy the newer version in amazon or a shop and get continued subscription that way then to update a subscription) And you mentioned GPS apps the same applies to them, no core changes needed. Angry Birds on iOS is absolutely not a case of it though, you don't pay for new levels, new levels are free and are an example of the opposite of what you're saying happening, you pay upfront and they have continued adding levels way beyond a point where it would have been reasonable for them to make an Angry Birds 2 and putting the new levels in that. It is a special case but it is the traditional model just with a new attitude (on iOS, on android it's the ad revenue model which is different again).

Re: Firefox 4, 5, 6 and 7 to be released before the end of 2011

#110
post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(Disclosure: I work for Mozilla.) Anthony Laforge, the Google program manager in charge of Chrome releases, was kind enough to give a talk at Mozilla's all-hands meeting in December. He gave a version of this presentation: http://techcrunch.com/2011/01/11/google-chrome-release-cycle... Each Chrome release is in development for 12 weeks. There are always two 12-week cycles in progress at once, staggered by 6 weeks. So…

You can have a fast internal development cycle without devaluing the established concept of major version numbers. I don't appreciate this because I make money from software. To me, a new major version number is: a) an indication that there have been major changes. It's not something that increments every 12 weeks. b) something most people reasonably expect to pay for. I know Mozilla isn't first with this approach. I…

If the software is free, b) doesn't really apply. But I agree that a major version number should mean something - see http://semver.org/

Why not do fast development cycles that result in point releases? That, combined with background updates like Chrome does, would be great.

Post reply on HN