Firefox 1.0 New York Times ad (2004) • Hacker News Board

Re: Firefox 1.0 New York Times ad (2004)

#71

Post by highwaylights » Mon, Aug 28, 2023, 8:17 AM UTC

_emacsomancer_ wrote: post #54

highwaylights wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Chrome isn't open source; Chromium is. (But perhaps they're not ineffective at blurring such things in people's minds.)

I get that and probably should’ve clarified. What I mean is they can hold up Chromium and say “we made it so that literally anyone can take what we made and make their own copy without our branding and talking to our services, for free”. That’s an incredibly strong defence against being a monopoly.

Re: Firefox 1.0 New York Times ad (2004)

#72

Post by PurpleRamen » Tue, Aug 29, 2023, 10:57 AM UTC

johnnyworker wrote: post #46

pmontra wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

> It had tabs I discovered Opera in 2000 and it always drove me nuts how Firefox was praised for being the first browser with tabs.

Because Opera had no tabs, it had MDI with a window-bar. This was Tab-like, but not real tabs.

Re: Firefox 1.0 New York Times ad (2004)

#73

Post by rc00 » Wed, Aug 30, 2023, 1:41 AM UTC

lstamour wrote: post #68

rc00 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I recall correctly, getfirefox.com was the de-facto site because an individual blogger had owned and been using firefox.com. Mozilla was finally able to acquire the firefox.com domain and for a time, offered a free redirect to the original blog. I also tried to find a link to corroborate the history but was unable to do so, just the WHOIS data below. Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. WHOIS data for fire…

You might be right. I remember a domain handover, but maybe it was firefox.com rather than getfirefox.com … I vaguely recall the opposite though, that somebody ended up redirecting to the Mozilla site pre-acquisition as a way of promoting Firefox. I vaguely recall knowing that the ownsership transfer took place because suddenly the URL that the domain redirected you to had some extra tracking query parameters added t…

The blurb at the bottom! That was it! (I'm weirdly excited by this. :D)

> Thanks for the Domain Name, Kevin!

https://web.archive.org/web/20030805180640/http://www.firefo...

It's a shame that all of the other domains are offline now.

Re: Firefox 1.0 New York Times ad (2004)

#74

Post by osirisgothra_ » Fri, Sep 01, 2023, 1:22 PM UTC

boomboomsubban wrote: post #26

not_your_vase wrote: post #15

Earlier 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.

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.

It is all for show. Everything companies do is for show. They will always do what makes them look best and make sure to do all the needed covering-their-butt tactics at the same time as to ensure no problems. Nothing anyone does or says is going to change things much. Even if the company were to break up, I doubt that would hinder them much. Look at other big companies that had to break up, they aren't sweating it out.