https://blog.mozilla.org/press/files/2013/11/nytimes-firefox...
This should be TFA, it's higher quality!
Firefox 1.0 New York Times ad (2004)
21–30 of 74 posts
Re: Firefox 1.0 New York Times ad (2004)
#22Earlier 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.
>Safari exists...
Only for Apple users.
Re: Firefox 1.0 New York Times ad (2004)
#23> Unlock full access (page 2) by uploading documents or with a 30 Day Free Trial
Scribd is the Pinterest of PDF files.
Re: Firefox 1.0 New York Times ad (2004)
#24same in the German Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ): https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Firefox-anzeige-faz.jpg
That ad is just ... oof. Either I don't get German advertising (though I speak German) or the ad is poor.
Re: Firefox 1.0 New York Times ad (2004)
#25same in the German Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ): https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Firefox-anzeige-faz.jpg
In Germany, Firefox was the most commonly used browser by a huge margin until 2016, when it was overtaken by Chrome[1] - it still has 11% market share (20% on the desktop) compared to the ~3% in the US or world-wide.
Those German ad campaigns were quite effective, apparently. :D
[1] https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share/all/germany/...
Re: Firefox 1.0 New York Times ad (2004)
#26They 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.
This argument is silly. Google buying the default search is currently being used as evidence in an antitrust case over Google search being a monopoly.
Chrome only exists to make more money for Google search, there's no way that Google would risk their (alleged) search monopoly just to prevent a browser monopoly. Google genuinely believes the money they pay Mozilla and Apple is worth it.
Re: Firefox 1.0 New York Times ad (2004)
#27They 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.
I've got to believe this is the phone call that saved Apple in the 90's too.
For all the different interpretations of history and motivations that happened at that time it was clear to everyone that Microsoft stepped in because of the anti-trust investigations already happening and couldn't afford to have them expand beyond Internet Explorer, which would have definitely happened if the Mac disappeared.
Google's in a much safer place with Chrome (its open-source and other browsers are actively using the engine in the market), but why risk it? It's cheap insurance.
Re: Firefox 1.0 New York Times ad (2004)
#28They 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.
Safari is a more meaningful competitor, and they hold significant market share on mobile.
Re: Firefox 1.0 New York Times ad (2004)
#29Earlier 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.
> Chrome will be undeniably a monopoly Isn't Safari by existing at whatever market share still a counterexample to Chrome being a monopoly?
I can't use Safari on my HP Linux laptop and on my Android phone. Apple doesn't make it for those OSes. That's a choice like any other one. What I don't like is that deny other companies to run their own browser engines on iOS. They have to reskin Safari. Luckily this is going to change soon at least in the EU.
Re: Firefox 1.0 New York Times ad (2004)
#30same in the German Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ): https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Firefox-anzeige-faz.jpg
That ad is just ... oof. Either I don't get German advertising (though I speak German) or the ad is poor.
Ads don't have to be hard blasting gangster rap, annoyingly shouting voiceover, and flashing lights. Some cultures prefer modesty and adult looks