Live data from Hacker News

Firefox 1.0 New York Times ad (2004)

scribd.com

31–40 of 74 posts

Re: Firefox 1.0 New York Times ad (2004)

#31
post #5

They 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...

I commuted by train between 2010 and 2011 in England, and there were big billboard ads of Google Chrome.

Not sure what effect these have, but I wonder how many people don't know about Firefox at all.

Re: Firefox 1.0 New York Times ad (2004)

#32
post #5

They 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...

[deleted]

Re: Firefox 1.0 New York Times ad (2004)

#34
post #31
post #5

They 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...

I commuted by train between 2010 and 2011 in England, and there were big billboard ads of Google Chrome. Not sure what effect these have, but I wonder how many people don't know about Firefox at all.

Yeah, they have the eff you money to throw around. They sponsor the McLaren F1 team as one of the primary sponsors,

https://www.mclaren.com/racing/partners/chrome/

And F1 gets hundreds of millions of viewers each year.

Re: Firefox 1.0 New York Times ad (2004)

#35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

That doesn't mean it's automatically a good ad, even for the German culture. It could still be a bad ad.

Re: Firefox 1.0 New York Times ad (2004)

#36

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

Out of my memory: we were using a number of different browsers in the early 90s, mainly Mosaic. All of them basically shared a little problem: their HTTP call were blocking. So they first downloaded the HTML code, then one image per time (no CSS, no JS back then). And nothing appeared on screen until they finished to download everything.

Netscape Navigator started to render the text of the page and add images when they became available. That was an instant success and everybody was using Netscape in a few days. I don't remember if it also made parallel requests or if that came with a later release.

Netscape also had a bundled email client, which I used as my main client (is Brave doing something like that now? Opera did have one), and a Usenet news reader. Version 2 added the first version of JavaScript.

Then Microsoft started to put some effort into Internet Explorer but it took them at least version 4.0 to reach feature parity. I remember a Microsoft evangelist wondering at an event why everybody was still using Netscape when IE was so good. They didn't say that about IE 3.0. Version 5 was definitely better than Netscape and won't the browser wars. All of that with the help of the behaviors that were subject of the anti trusts trial in the late 90s.

They didn't know it yet but IE 5 made the history because it introduced XMLHttpRequest, that is Ajax calls. That transformed the web more than anything else.

Then IE 6 came, an improvement over IE 5 and nothing happened for a while. Feature wise it was stagnation as Microsoft probably had no competitors to fend off anymore.

Then the early versions of Firefox were released between 2002 and 2003. It had tabs and it was so much faster than IE 6 that whoever could switch, did switch. Corporate users often had to stick to IE 6 because of certifications of web apps, impossibility to install software except what mandated by their IT support, etc, so IE 6 made it through at least another 10 years well, despite new versions from Microsoft.

Mozilla was created by Netscape before selling to AOL so in a way it's a successor of Netscape but I doubt there was some shared code. They extracted Netscape's email client to a different program, Thunderbird.

Then Google Chrome happened and it was faster than Firefox, especially for large JavaScript sites. Not that Firefox was so slow not to be able to use those sites (I kept using Firefox for all those years) but it was faster, it was advertised on Google's search results page so people switched in mass. As a result we had a few years of huge improvements in the speed of JavaScript engines, Chrome, Firefox and every other browser.

I think you know what happened next.

Re: Firefox 1.0 New York Times ad (2004)

#38
post #31
post #5

They 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...

I commuted by train between 2010 and 2011 in England, and there were big billboard ads of Google Chrome. Not sure what effect these have, but I wonder how many people don't know about Firefox at all.

I remember reading, at that time, that the ad budget for Chrome in London alone was more than the entire budget of Mozilla.

Re: Firefox 1.0 New York Times ad (2004)

#39
post #2

https://blog.mozilla.org/press/files/2013/11/nytimes-firefox...

Why are some of the names underlined?

And why do I only get � when I try to copy names in that PDF? It's like it's not real text, makes it impossible to search for names I think should be there.

Re: Firefox 1.0 New York Times ad (2004)

#40
post #13

same 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.

You have to consider the target audience. People who read the FAZ are fine with lots of text and probably prefer that style over something flashy. (But I also don't think it is a perfect ad)
Post reply on HN