Firefox should use Bing as default search engine is required to survive
So if Firefox switch to Bing will be competition, but now Google has monopol
How browsers make money, or why Google needs Firefox
11–20 of 33 posts
Re: How browsers make money, or why Google needs Firefox
#12The bi(n)g assumption the article makes is:
Firefox switches to Bing from Google and still continues to be equally popular in the medium/long run.
There are multiple possible scenarios -
Post such a shift FFs market share erodes quickly and Microsoft basically bought a Lemon. Chrome becomes even more powerful.
Post such a Shift FFs market share is simlar to that it enjoys today - Microsoft bought some traffic but a a large majority of FF users switch the search engine back to Google. Microsoft bought a sort of Lemon
Post a shift - FF market share stable/increases and lots of people do not change default search - Microsoft bought a winner and Article makes sense.
I do not see #3 as the most likely outcome.
Re: How browsers make money, or why Google needs Firefox
#13Could Firefox change their default search engine to Bing? Without losing users and causing a huge flame war? I doubt it. Google should stop paying just to see that flamewar, would be fun. 'Losing' firefox wouldn't be a massive blow, people who use firefox know how to change the default search engine. All that will happen is that they'll be a massive amount of hate directed at firefox for trying to force bing down the…
I'm sure "Microsoft was willing to fund Firefox development and Google wasn't" would play just fine.
Some people would switch their default to Google and some wouldn't, but I don't see Firefox losing a significant number of users regardless.
Re: How browsers make money, or why Google needs Firefox
#14Google shouldn't make Firefox their enemy anyway. Together with Firefox they can actually "not care" if Microsoft agrees with new standards or not (like say, WebGL). Together they can push a lot more stuff out there and transform them into standards.
This one is quite tricky. Google shares Webkit with Apple, so they sure can ram new stuff through that way. Together they control the majority of the mobile market. The Amazon Kindle reader was a nice example of that, working on Chrome and Safari, but not Firefox, due to competing web-database standards being implemented. H.264 vs WebM is another one. Google made a lot of noise about dropping H.264 for WebM, Firefox…
I'm sure Google realizes the strategic and technical value of a second open-source browser implementation.
Just because they're using WebKit today doesn't mean they will forever (or for everything). Gecko is valuable as an alternative and as a way to "keep web standards honest". A WebKit monoculture would eventually bake in too many hidden assumptions.
Re: How browsers make money, or why Google needs Firefox
#15Firefox existing helps Chrome become a better browser, both by providing new tech and methods which Chrome can borrow from and also to further motivate the Chrome team to continue pushing to be the best browser. We have all seen which way innovation goes when the browser market is dominated by one player.
Re: How browsers make money, or why Google needs Firefox
#16I wonder what would happen if somehow duckduckgo managed to be the default firefox search engine. Their results compared to google aren't bad at all.
Re: How browsers make money, or why Google needs Firefox
#17The bi(n)g assumption the article makes is: Firefox switches to Bing from Google and still continues to be equally popular in the medium/long run. There are multiple possible scenarios - Post such a shift FFs market share erodes quickly and Microsoft basically bought a Lemon. Chrome becomes even more powerful. Post such a Shift FFs market share is simlar to that it enjoys today - Microsoft bought some traffic but a a…
I think in any of your 3 cases, if Microsoft pays 85 million then they are already ahead.
I'll be willing to bet that winning 1% of the search market cost much more than 85 million, and they'll get a much larger share of the market than 1%, even under your most pessimistic scenario.
Re: How browsers make money, or why Google needs Firefox
#18Google shouldn't make Firefox their enemy anyway. Together with Firefox they can actually "not care" if Microsoft agrees with new standards or not (like say, WebGL). Together they can push a lot more stuff out there and transform them into standards.
This one is quite tricky. Google shares Webkit with Apple, so they sure can ram new stuff through that way. Together they control the majority of the mobile market. The Amazon Kindle reader was a nice example of that, working on Chrome and Safari, but not Firefox, due to competing web-database standards being implemented. H.264 vs WebM is another one. Google made a lot of noise about dropping H.264 for WebM, Firefox…
I have to disagree. Yes, Kindle reader came out using Web SQL DB, but that spec is dead and for good reasons. I don't know how far along IE is at supporting IndexedDB, but it won't be long before Firefox, Chrome and IE all support IndexedDB and then it will make plenty of sense for Amazon to build Kindle Reader on top of that. From what I read, iOS 5 doesn't support IndexedDB, sadly. But it will in time.
I'm still surprised that no one has written an IndexedDB shim on top of Web SQL DB.
Re: How browsers make money, or why Google needs Firefox
#19The bi(n)g assumption the article makes is: Firefox switches to Bing from Google and still continues to be equally popular in the medium/long run. There are multiple possible scenarios - Post such a shift FFs market share erodes quickly and Microsoft basically bought a Lemon. Chrome becomes even more powerful. Post such a Shift FFs market share is simlar to that it enjoys today - Microsoft bought some traffic but a a…
I really do not see #3 as being so unlikely. How many people actually change their default search engines? We are talking about Normals, not just tech-savvy people.
Re: How browsers make money, or why Google needs Firefox
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
This one is quite tricky. Google shares Webkit with Apple, so they sure can ram new stuff through that way. Together they control the majority of the mobile market. The Amazon Kindle reader was a nice example of that, working on Chrome and Safari, but not Firefox, due to competing web-database standards being implemented. H.264 vs WebM is another one. Google made a lot of noise about dropping H.264 for WebM, Firefox…
I have to disagree. Yes, Kindle reader came out using Web SQL DB, but that spec is dead and for good reasons. I don't know how far along IE is at supporting IndexedDB, but it won't be long before Firefox, Chrome and IE all support IndexedDB and then it will make plenty of sense for Amazon to build Kindle Reader on top of that. From what I read, iOS 5 doesn't support IndexedDB, sadly. But it will in time. I'm still su…
But with what do you disagree? That WebSQL and IndexedDB are competing standards? From the point of view of a web developer, they must be, or we wouldn't have gotten into this situation in the first place.