Mozilla tries social media to get its Firefox mojo back
Summary: Mozilla used to have a scrappy underdog personality and a passionate community that evangelized for Firefox enthusiastically. Lately, though, most of what I've seen about Firefox is negative. Mozilla is responding with an increased presence in social media sites. Can a Twitter/Facebook army really undo negative perceptions?
Update 3-April: A new tweet from @FirefoxCares announces that the Twitter experiment ends later today: "Dearest users, make your questions: we are closing temporarily the experiment this evening,to decide and evaluate our future in Twitter ^RM"
Update 26-March: Mozilla's David Tenser adds some interesting comments in the Talkback section.
I heard some grumbling about Firefox this morning. In the space of a few minutes via Twitter, I saw tweets from two people who had begun experiencing a sudden uptick in Firefox crashes. Falling back on my old J-school training ("Two is a coincidence, three is a story") I asked if anyone else was having problems. In response came a small number of additional problem reports mixed in with a lot of all-clears. One tweet that stood out from the rest came from @FirefoxCares and read:
Can you get me a report ID, enter about:crashes in Firefox and DM or tweet the results? ^TM
I was initially skeptical. That's a response I would expect from an official support alias like @ComcastCares. But I didn't know Firefox had anything except community support. More red flags about the account: it only had 13 followers and appeared to have been created today. The Twitter profile page contained a link to the parent Twitter page, a social endless loop, and nothing more. Was the person behind this account legit? After a few messages back and forth, @FirefoxCares sent me this link to the Support/Social Media page at the Mozilla Wiki. According to the notes at the bottom, the goal of this experiment is to "be present on social networks to help users with their Firefox problems or prevent bad ratings from going viral, if help is not directly possible, and extract useful information for SUMO." (SUMO is the Support Mozilla project.)
"Prevent bad ratings from going viral"? That sounds like something one definitely wants to avoid. More detail from the Background section of the page:
Sites like Facebook or Twitter have hundreds of millions of users. […] Social networks make it very easy for issues to become viral. That changes the perception of Firefox in a disproportionate way.
Indeed, it seems like the people working on this program are reacting to a trend that's been under way for some time. Mozilla used to have a scrappy underdog personality and a passionate community that evangelized for Firefox enthusiastically. Lately, though, most of what I've seen about Firefox, on Twitter and elsewhere, is negative. The shiny new browser is Google Chrome, and most of the discussion about Firefox is about problems with security or stability. Earlier this month the German government officially advised against using Firefox because of an critical security vulnerability (since patched). And among the people I follow I've seen lots more complaints lately about Firefox performance.
The Mozilla Wiki page lists three objectives for this experiment:
- Reach out to users who need help, using little snippets that could solve their problems. Long-term, we want to reach close to 100% of all users.
- Get a better understanding of the current perception of Firefox and the biggest problems users experience, and act upon that information.
- On one hand prevent issues from becoming viral by intercepting and channeling to SUMO if help is not possible in social network. On the other hand use viral effect to our advantage: people retweeting our help messages.
It's an interesting experiment, but those are incredibly ambitious goals. How many Firefox users are there, and how many potential problem reports are they talking about on Facebook alone? Is it a failure of the free, open model that no one at Mozilla seems to have a good understanding of how its flagship product is perceived by its users? And even if this support effort can scale, I wonder whether it can keep Firefox from plateauing or even beginning a slow gradual decline. On my personal list of browsers, Firefox used to share the top spot with IE. Now it's fallen to third behind IE8 and Chrome, and judging by my latest web metrics I think I have lots of company.
That once-impressive Firefox growth curve is being dragged down by the shiny new thing, Google Chrome, which has stolen all the attention (and positive buzz) of the early adopters. It's being blocked on the other side by a resurgent Internet Explorer, which crossed the "good enough" threshold with IE8 and is getting grudging acceptance and even some positive buzz of its own for the IE9 preview Microsoft released at MIX10. It's hard being number two in any market. In the case of Firefox, which is still run by a "public benefit corporation" wholly owned by a nonprofit foundation, it's even tougher to be sandwiched between two of the wealthiest corporations in the world.
Firefox seems to have lost whatever momentum it once had.
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
And down goes FF.
Chrome has what people want
- Clean, simple and straight forward UI with no unneeded stuff.
- Tab and plugin isolation.
- Great security because it uses the underlying operating systems
security features.
- Fast, stable and reliable.
- Conforms to some of the latest and greatest standards so that
developers can deliver great services using standards based technology
without needing to use bloated, buggy and unreliable plugins like Flash.
It also pings Google-Analytics
If you don't mind giving up some privacy and have them tracking you all over the place, then Chrome is right for you.
But I don't trust them anymore than I trust M$.
Firefox's interface...
Anyway, compared to IE8, Firefox's interface strikes me as being really clunky and old fashioned.
Firefox Interface Is Great!
Firefox Interface Is Great!
Clunky & old fashioned?
Have you tried using the multitudes of alternate skins that are out there?
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/browse/type:2/cat:all?sort=popular
Firefox complains aren't a new thing ...
Now the fanboys have a new toy to play with, Firefox is going to have to work hard to keep not only its market share but its evangalists.
Like you said, being squeezed between two multi-billion dollar corporations is not a good place to be.
I Have Not Had A Firefox Crash In Ages
RE: Mozilla tries social media to get its Firefox mojo back
IE 8 crashed and locked up just as often...
IE had it's updates last week, but I don't use it as much anymore, so I can't really rate any issues now.
I do really like how Cool Iris integrates with FireFox and makes using FaceBook much more intertaining. Cool Iris puts Mozilla even with IE 8 in high-def page images! I used to switch to IE for that, but don't have to now.
If it weren't for FF's plugins, it couldn't keep up. Sometimes I can't get pages to render properly with IE 8 and sometimes it is FireFox, so I do trade browsers to see what works. This as been an issue since 3.5, and the big Microsoft updates a few weeks ago. I have no idea which is causing what. I haven't looked at my event monitor.
I'm still using Fire Fox; I like it.
Time for Firefox to kill some sacred cows.
what constitutes "good enough" is largely
opinion. But, enough of that, my primary rant
is aimed at Firefox itself.
Firefox lost its momentum in more ways than one
- it turns out that [i]any[/i] project that
gets sufficiently large, be it open or closed
source, is gonna get large and unwieldy in its
development.
I think there's also a large "sacred cow"
effect - a lot of the top maintainers get used
to the program working in a certain way, and
don't want to change it.
Whatever the explanation - Chrome beat Firefox
in so many ways. One of the most noticeable
(especially on multi-core CPUs) is that Chrome
uses multiple processes. That means that
slowdowns and lockups only affect a part of
chrome (usually one tab), and don't bring down
the whole browser. It also means that even
under a heavy load, it's still generally fast
and responsive.
Chrome + modern OS + multiple cores = crazy
fast.
But, for whatever reason, Mozilla has continued
to be afraid to kill some sort of "sacred cow"
and add thread or process isolation to Firefox.
Hence, it continues, even with the most recent
updates, to lock up the whole browser when
something misbehaves.
. . . and with Chrome now supporting
extensions, and with many of the top Firefox
extensions now being available in Chrome - I'm
on Chrome as my primary browser.
. . . and if there are any Firefox devs around
here:
[b]Kill the sacred cow, get over whatever
concerns you have, and implement thread/process
isolation.[/b] I'm sick and tired of Firefox
locking up the whole thing when something
happens.
Actually, process isolation is coming with the next update, 3.6.3
process and it will just be the starting point
for their isolation ambitions.
I don't think it's a matter of Mozilla being
afraid to do anything. Instead, I think the real
issue is that they have to preserve the
stability and usability of the browser as they
make these drastic changes, and it won't be easy
to do, given the amount of code that Firefox
already has. Chrome's in a different boat,
because it doesn't have as much code as Firefox
and they built the new security features into
the very basic browser before they started to
add usability feature. That has allowed their
developers to work much faster. I think all
those who are complaining should take some time
to find out what Mozilla actually has planned in
the pipeline. I did, and that's why I'm sticking
with Firefox.
Nonsense
Frankly, in my book, all browser vendors should focus all their work on the following priorities:
1) Security
2) Security
3) Security
4) Usability
5) Standards support
6) Performance
7) Future proposed standards support
Alas, it appears that everyone other than Microsoft is focussing on this list in reverse order.
Chrome is in a different boat because it's a MUCH younger code-base which was architected from the outset to use process-isolated, sandboxed pages, as was IE7.
Firefox should NOT have been focussing so much time and effort making their browser run javascript a little bit faster when most sites don't use enough javascript to make any noticeable difference. In the meantime, firefox users continue to suffer crashes, hangs and intrusions from flaky/malicious add-ins and vulnerability exploits.
It's time all browser vendors cooled their heels on implementing proposed standards features for a while and really harden their browsers against the malicious b@stards out there who make the internet a dangerous place for most users to be hanging out.
not fast enough . . .
the time to wait for stuff, especially in an
environment where work needs to be done. Doesn't
matter if they will eventually - I need my browser
to be responsive now, not in another year.
Firefox Still Better Than IE anything
Not for nothing
There may be some tiny JavaScript performance advantage in Chrome, but FireFox still offers the best overall experience.
In addition, people have to recognize that FireFox is run by a company who's purpose is to do good on the Internet. Chrome is backed by a company who's purpose is, as far as I can tell, to do what companies do, which is make money. Being open source in no way mitigates that fact.
If Google wanted to do good, they would have used FireFox as the basis for Chrome, and helped Mozilla do tab threading and improve their JavaScript performance, not taken control of the browser all for themselves. But Google looks out for Google, while Mozilla looks out for us.
thoughts
FireFox is run by a company who's purpose is to
do good on the Internet."
The road to heck is paved with good intentions
. . .
. . . and like all open source projects - it's
not just run by the company, there's
significant contributions by a lot of people.
We actually don't know what everybody's
intentions are.
"Chrome is backed by a company who's purpose
is, as far as I can tell, to do what companies
do, which is make money."
Interestingly enough - the browser probably
doesn't do much for them there. Most of their
revenue is from the advertising in their search
engine.
"If Google wanted to do good, they would have
used FireFox as the basis for Chrome, and
helped Mozilla do tab threading and improve
their JavaScript performance, not taken control
of the browser all for themselves."
. . . and it would take another several years
for Google to accomplish what they wanted to
accomplish, and they'd have to deal with a lot
of legacy code.
I though it was the other way around...
Is it the other way around?
"chrome"
browser that aren't part of the web page. The
tabs, the URL bar, the toolbars, the buttons, the
menus, the status bar, etc are all "chrome."
Not to be confused with Google Chrome, the
browser.