Can anyone who was kinda close tell a story about Netscape and Firefox? I was just a kid back then and it would be nice to hear a story from the olden days about the before of Navigator and the after of Firefox
Firefox 1.0 New York Times ad (2004)
11–20 of 74 posts
Re: Firefox 1.0 New York Times ad (2004)
#12Hey, I'm on there
Re: Firefox 1.0 New York Times ad (2004)
#13Re: Firefox 1.0 New York Times ad (2004)
#14New York Times runs Firefox ad https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/new-york-tim...
> The first page of the two-page ad--which is twice as large as originally planned--features the Firefox symbol superimposed over the names of the 10,000 donors
My name is somewhere in that mix. I lost the physical newspaper copy at some point in the last 19 years. but it's cool the PDF is still around.
Surprised the getfirefox.com domain from the ad still works!
In the Battle of the Browsers '04, Firefox Aims at Microsoft https://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/15/technology/in-the-battle-...
> the early enthusiasm for the preview version of Firefox is a big reason that Internet Explorer's market share has slipped more than 2.5 percentage points in the last five months, to 92.9 percent at the end of October, its first decline since 1999
Re: Firefox 1.0 New York Times ad (2004)
#15They should really start putting out a few more of these, https://stackdiary.com/mozilla-usage-decline-from-2022-to-20... 30% of users lost in the last 4+ years and very little work being done on things like the latest CSS properties. Makes me wonder if Google uses this as a means to pay them less. The last contract was in 2020 to this year I think? https://www.zdnet.com/article/sources-mozilla-extends-its-go...
Re: Firefox 1.0 New York Times ad (2004)
#16They should really start putting out a few more of these, https://stackdiary.com/mozilla-usage-decline-from-2022-to-20... 30% of users lost in the last 4+ years and very little work being done on things like the latest CSS properties. Makes me wonder if Google uses this as a means to pay them less. The last contract was in 2020 to this year I think? https://www.zdnet.com/article/sources-mozilla-extends-its-go...
Google does not want to pay Mozilla less. They don't care about Firefox's market share, it's virtually 0. But in the moment Firefox disappears, Chrome will be undeniably a monopoly. As long as Firefox exists, Google can easily deflect such monopoly claims - they even "encourage and foster" competition on the browser market.
Isn't Safari by existing at whatever market share still a counterexample to Chrome being a monopoly?
Re: Firefox 1.0 New York Times ad (2004)
#17They should really start putting out a few more of these, https://stackdiary.com/mozilla-usage-decline-from-2022-to-20... 30% of users lost in the last 4+ years and very little work being done on things like the latest CSS properties. Makes me wonder if Google uses this as a means to pay them less. The last contract was in 2020 to this year I think? https://www.zdnet.com/article/sources-mozilla-extends-its-go...
Google does not want to pay Mozilla less. They don't care about Firefox's market share, it's virtually 0. But in the moment Firefox disappears, Chrome will be undeniably a monopoly. As long as Firefox exists, Google can easily deflect such monopoly claims - they even "encourage and foster" competition on the browser market.
Re: Firefox 1.0 New York Times ad (2004)
#18Mozilla Foundation places two-page advocacy ad in The New York Times https://blog.mozilla.org/press/2004/12/mozilla-foundation-pl... New York Times runs Firefox ad https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/new-york-tim... > The first page of the two-page ad--which is twice as large as originally planned--features the Firefox symbol superimposed over the names of the 10,000 donors My name is somewhere in that mi…
Re third party sites, it’s likely getfirefox was actually always Mozilla’s (they would have known about the name first, of course) so maybe I’m thinking of “getfirebird.com” or something else like that. It’s even possible that I just assumed it was third-party because it redirected to the main Mozilla site for the longest time. And it really probably doesn’t matter anyway, just a digression. :)
Re: Firefox 1.0 New York Times ad (2004)
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google does not want to pay Mozilla less. They don't care about Firefox's market share, it's virtually 0. But in the moment Firefox disappears, Chrome will be undeniably a monopoly. As long as Firefox exists, Google can easily deflect such monopoly claims - they even "encourage and foster" competition on the browser market.
Safari exists... plus a browser engine alone doesn't constitue a monopoly, you'd have a hard case arguing that.
Re: Firefox 1.0 New York Times ad (2004)
#20Mozilla Foundation places two-page advocacy ad in The New York Times https://blog.mozilla.org/press/2004/12/mozilla-foundation-pl... New York Times runs Firefox ad https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/new-york-tim... > The first page of the two-page ad--which is twice as large as originally planned--features the Firefox symbol superimposed over the names of the 10,000 donors My name is somewhere in that mi…
You mentioned getfirefox.com and while that was and is the official site, I remember a time (maybe?) when that was registered to a third-party fan of Firefox to promote it who handed it over to Mozilla. That said… I cannot find any evidence to back up this claim after a small bit of Google searching, so I might be wrong. I definitely remember a time after the rebranding was announced but before the full 1.0 launch wh…
I remember this too. Could have been a rumor but I definitely thought about this when I saw the domain.