ie8 fix
madison

Networking

Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols

Firefox hits the jackpot with almost billion dollar Google deal

By | December 22, 2011, 1:04pm PST

Summary: We counted Mozilla out of the running too early. With $300-million a year in revenue from Google, Firefox is going to stay a major Web browser player. The big loser? Microsoft.

Mozilla s Firefoxes are winning with new Google deal

Mozilla's Firefoxes are winning with the new Google deal

Well, Mozilla certainly fooled us. Just when we were counting Firefox out as a major Web browser player in the years ahead. Sure, Mozilla signed a new deal with Google, but by itself though many of us didn’t think the deal meant much. I assumed, along with many others, that Google could support Firefox with its pocket change while devoting all its real attention to its own Web browser: Chrome. Boy, were we wrong!

We now know that Google will pay just under $300 million per year to be Firefox’s default search engine choice. That’s almost three-times as much as Mozilla made in its previous deal with Google. In 2010, 84% of Mozilla’s $123 million in revenue came from its Google search deal.

This is great for Mozilla. As Jay Lyman, senior open-source analyst for 451 Research, said this is “certainly good news for Mozilla and Firefox and it buys them more time to find other sources of revenue beyond Google’s search advertising. However, that has long been and continues to be a challenge. At the same time, Firefox and Mozilla are facing intense competition on all fronts, particularly from Google with Chrome. Mozilla’s wise moves toward mobile computing may be intensified or expedited, but the organization faces significant competitors there too.”

For now though, it’s all good for Mozilla. We don’t know how the details of how Mozilla almost tripled its income were hammered out yet, but we do know that Mozilla played Google off against both Microsoft and Yahoo. While both search giants will still be listed as options for Firefox, the all important default search engine will remain Google.

So why did Google spend this much on a “rival?” We don’t know that either. But, if Google can, with Firefox’s help, push Microsoft’s Internet Explorer out of the top Web browser spot, they wouldn’t cry. What’s more important to Google’s bottom line is that by making sure that Google is the number one choice on two of the big three Web browsers it helps to ensure that Bing and Yahoo stay in a distant second place in the search engine market race.

Which of the big five Web Browsers is the Best? (Review)

Now the question is: What will Mozilla do with its new-found riches? A good guess, to borrow Microsoft’s Steve Ballmer’s favorite phrase, is: “Developers! Developers! Developers!”

In the last three years, Mozilla has ratcheted up its software development spending enormously. The Software Development line in Mozilla’s financials reads:

  • 2008: $31.3 million
  • 2009: $40.2 million
  • 2010: $62.8 million

But where exactly will this money go? Mozilla has declined to answer my queries, but given their recent work, it’s not too hard to guess where their money will go.

First, Mozilla has been pushing out Firefox releases at a dizzying pace. And, as the emergency bug fix release of Firefox 9.01 just showed, sometimes Mozilla has been releasing their flagship Web browser too fast for its users own good. With more resources, Mozilla can, and should, do a better job of quality assurance.

At the same time, Mozilla has recently redesigned its Firefox Web browser for Android. With the rise of smartphones and tablets, it makes perfect sense for Mozilla to spend even more resources on delivering a first rate Web browser performance on Android and Apple’s iOS.

So, what I expect to see is stronger Web browsers on the PC and additional innovation for the growing smartphone and tablet market. I see Mozilla and Google both winning from this deal. For what still amounts to little money for Google, the search giant put more pressure on Microsoft and Mozilla gets more money than the company has ever seen before. Microsoft is the big loser, but Yahoo and all the smaller Web browser companies can’t be happy either.

Firefoxes image by redpandasrule, , CC 2.0.

Related Stories:

Google paying Mozilla $300 million per year for search deal

Mozilla pushes out Firefox 9.0.1

Mozilla goes after Android tablets with new Firefox experience

Mozilla: We’re more than just Firefox, you know

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols, aka sjvn, has been writing about technology and the business of technology since CP/M-80 was the cutting edge, PC operating system

Disclosure

Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols

Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols is a freelance writer. He does not own stocks or other investments in any technology company.

Biography

Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols

Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols, aka sjvn, has been writing about technology and the business of technology since CP/M-80 was the cutting edge, PC operating system; 300bps was a fast Internet connection; WordStar was the state of the art word processor; and we liked it.

His work has been published in everything from highly technical publications (IEEE Computer, ACM NetWorker, Byte) to business publications (eWEEK, InformationWeek, ZDNet) to popular technology (Computer Shopper, PC Magazine, PC World) to the mainstream press (Washington Post, San Francisco Chronicle, BusinessWeek).

Related Discussions on TechRepublic

Did you know you can take part in these discussions with your ZDNet membership?
74
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

AH HA!
janitorman Updated - 1st Jan
I KNEW IT! Google is paying Mozilla a billion dollars (an inconceivable number, anyway) to junk its FireFox browser in favor of Chrome. I once went to Mozilla's download page to get Firefox, and ABOVE the Firefox download button, where most users would EXPECT its download button to be, was the download button for CHROME.
I actually posted this accusation on the mozilla boards and they banned me from the boards, so it must be true. The rapid release cycle for Firefox suits NO ONE except Google, and Chrome users.
Chrome can do as it likes.
For everyone else, simply install Firefox 3.6, and update to the latest in that series.. currently (December 2011) 3.6.24, which contains all the security fixes necessary without breaking the browser!
Better yet, install a Portable version and use it. DON'T download from Mozilla, they have bugs in their code, bugs that multiply daily and with each new release!
I refuse to use IE, even on my XP machines, which can't update to IE9 anyway, and I can't use them on my Linux boxes (Why use a virtual box like Wine to run your browser, when you're trying to GET away from Microsoft products to start with, and Linux has perfectly good browsers available to start with, including better Firefox versions than Mozilla can come up with?)
0 Votes
+ -
This is great for Mozilla.
Dietrich T. Schmitz * Your Linux Advocate 22nd Dec
Paging Ed Bott.
0 Votes
+ -
Now, now
klumper 22nd Dec
@Dietrich T. Schmitz * Your Linux Advocate

Behave yourself DTS. There's enough good news here to spread the joy around. wink
0 Votes
+ -
... to fix FireFox' perennial mysterious crashes finally?
0 Votes
+ -
Not always that simple
klumper Updated - 22nd Dec
@LBiege
Would it help Mozilla to hire some quality developers to fix FireFox' perennial mysterious crashes finally?

I've probably seen Internet Explorer crash and/or choke more than any other over the years. Of course IE is also the most widespread browser so this notion isn't necessarily cast in stone. But I do handle a greater variety of units than most.

All browsers can crash or lock up at times. Conflicts often arise while interfacing with third-party software -- anti-virus, firewall and DLM progs, extensions, applets and plug-ins (Java, Flash, etc.) and of course malware if it's resident on the system. User profiles can also get corrupted. Other systems may lack sufficient memory.

No easy answers here, but it's definitely not a Firefox exclusive issue. That I can tell you, this time cast in chrome, er, stone.
0 Votes
+ -
Hey Joe, we get the fact that
William Farrel 23rd Dec
@Joe.Smetona
you're paid to turn every article into an anti-MS "rant", but come on, how childish can you be to think that people actually fall for your make believe?

But then again,200 linux problems (actuall way more have been documented) are linux problems since there's no MS software that runs on Linux.

I know, we aren't suppost to say anything. Sorry to ruin your day! wink
  • Flagged
@William Farrel

Have you not heard of wine?
0 Votes
+ -
@W.F. ... You obviously are referring to the many times I brought up the TDL-4 botnet and it's variants here, asking why ZDNet hasn't addressed it while 4.5 million Windows users became infected in the first three months of 2011. MS, ZDNet, you and your shill buddies had no problem completely ignoring the issue and there certainly was no article. It's called "propaganda by omission" and you were a star player, trying to diffuse any mention of it.
0 Votes
+ -
Re: Will Farrell.
Joe.Smetona Updated - 23rd Dec
Unlike Microsoft, Linux doesn't have a budget for people to blog about it in a positive manner and provide damage control. Amazing how a handful of Linux posters have more empathy for the 4.5 million infected Windows users that are thrown under the bus by you and your buddies. It's not a concern for MS or ZD because the botnet infection is not disruptive and masks it's browser usage. The vast majority don't even know their computer is sending out 8,000-10,000 spam emails a day. In the eyes of MS and it's appendages, they are expendable.
@W.F ... The official Linux Mint website declares users don't have to use Anti-Virus or Anti-Spyware. If you want to have some accountability for your statements, show me the same declaration on the Microsoft website.

"It's safe and reliable. Thanks to a conservative approach to software updates, a unique Update Manager and the robustness of its Linux architecture, Linux Mint requires very little maintenance (no regressions, no antivirus, no anti-spyware...etc)."
0 Votes
+ -
Will Farrell - Microsoft programs for Linux.
Joe.Smetona Updated - 23rd Dec
@W.F. ... Also, I run a $6,000 enterprise CAD program (MicroStation) with 3D rendering in Wine for Linux. The program is written for Windows. It runs better in Linux.
@Joe.Smetona
There is a false sense of security on the part of linux users. Windows is much more attacked for the simple reason that approximately 93% of computers worldwide are running any version of Windows. There are no reasons for cybercriminals to spend time building exploits for operating systems that make up less than 1% of the desktops on the planet. The cybercriminals are living in the real world, they would have to be with serious mental disorders to waste your time making exploits to an operating system like Linux Mint whose market share is infinitesimal.
@Bafoo

There is no false sense of security for Linux users, windows is attacked because its easy to get a windows system infected and to have that infection spread to other windows PC's.

Cybercriminals are much more likely to attack servers because they run websites like Paypal, your bank etc... websites that store hundreds of thousands of credit card numbers, and you know Linux is very popular in those areas.
0 Votes
+ -
Reply to Bafoo.
Joe.Smetona Updated - 24th Dec
@Reply to Bafoo.
If one OS is secure and another is not, market share doesn't make a difference. I'm assuming you haven't tried Linux, that's the best thing you can do, see for yourself. Can you use Windows for 9 years without any protection like anti-virus and not get infected? Android destroyed the Linux-market share argument. What market share does Microsoft have in the smartphones and why is Android-Linux doing so well?

From the Linuxmint website:
"It's safe and reliable. Thanks to a conservative approach to software updates, a unique Update Manager and the robustness of its Linux architecture, Linux Mint requires very little maintenance (no regressions, no antivirus, no anti-spyware...etc)."

When's the last time you saw the Microsoft website telling users they didn't have to use AV or Anti-Spyware protection?

I installed Linux Mint for 2 schools, did not install any AV, and did not give any special security precautions. That was in April and I haven't received any problem calls. Linux ( and I don't care who is using it ) is not going to get infected. The only way for you to accept this is to try it.

Incorrect information posted here over the years has depicted Linux as a rogue, unfinished type of OS, completely unfamiliar to someone who uses Windows.

Nothing can be further from the truth. Browsing with Firefox and using any web or Java application is identical to Windows. Typically I install 64-bit Google Chrome, Chromium and Opera. Again, these provide exactly the same experience as browsing in Windows.

My programs such as Filezilla, Google Earth, Google Picasa, Truecrypt, LibreOffice, Scribus and others operate in exactly the same manner as Windows.
@Joe.Smetona and @guzz46
Android is the proof that "market share make the difference", Android destroyed the Linux security argument. There are a lot of malwares for Android, there are not malwares for WP7, WP7 market share is infinitesimal. Windows 7 was affected since its launch by 168 vulnerabilities (80 advisories - 61% exploitable from remote), Linux Kernel 2.6.x since its release was affected by 699 vulnerabilities (283 advisories - 71% exploitable from remote), the numbers from Secunia (one of the best provider of Vulnerability Intelligence) show clearly who is the system more vulnerable and insecure. The targets are the most used, Windows in Desktop, Android in smartphones, Apple in tablets.
0 Votes
+ -
@bafoo
also OSX is the proof that "market share dont make the difference"; deal with it. 10 years using it: no antivirus needed. You can spin whatever way you want, Windows need a myriad of antivirus software provided by the only category where there is action in the windows ecosystem. Despite that, they get infected & they try to hide the fact that MILLIONS of windows machines are owned by botnets, like the problem dont exist.
Open your eyes, buddy, denial wont help.
@Bafoo

No it isn't, you see Android malware isn't an OS vulnerability, you don't get infected by clicking on something in Android like you do in windows, you have to install an application and accept the terms... usually from a third party repo, but sometimes from the official repo, so its either the users fault for installing from an untrusted source or Google's fault for letting that malware app into the marketplace.
If your using one of the major desktop Linux distro's and you stick to your distro's repos you won't have any malware problems at all.

An OS vulnerability is like that recent one found in WP7 that can reboot your phone and disable the messing app just upon receiving a sms.

And the Linux Kernel version 2.6.x had a life span of about 6 and a half years, where windows 7 has only been out for just over 2 years.
With Secunia you need to look at a specific Linux distro not just the kernel, even then its not a fair comparison because Linux distros release patches for every piece of software in their repos (which in some distro's is well over 30,000) software like Firefox, Thunderbird, Pidgin etc... so they will have a high vulnerability count.
But microsoft only release patches for microsoft software.

But the most important thing to note is that according to Secunia windows 7 has 5 unpatched vulnerabilities, the worst being rated as highly critical.
Now lets look at Debian 5.0 which has been out longer than windows 7 and is still supported... according to Secunia it has 0 unpatched vulnerabilities.
0 Votes
+ -
Re: Bafoo, where you are trying to go with this.
Joe.Smetona Updated - 24th Dec
@Bafoo... "What happens when anyone can develop and publish an application to the Android Market? These days, it seems all you need is a developer account, that is relatively easy to anonymize, pay $25 and you can post your applications."

What you are trying to do is equate "ability to resist infections" with people writing actual applications with "non-desired instructions" and selling them to Android buyers. The resultant "non-desired" actions you are calling malware infections.

You are completely wrong. Why, because the act of the owner installing the program, with the unknown, undesired actions, cannot be distinguished from the program instructions.

When I install for my Linux (or possibly Android), using a trusted repository would eliminate the problem. My repository for Linux Mint as over 33,000 free applications for download - none of which cause problems, so i trust downloading from it. I also download and Install directly from the Google, Filezilla, TrueCrypt, Mozilla, Opera and LibreOffice websites, which are also trusted.

Linus Torvalds (founder of Linux) described security as a "network of trust".

I have read many times here where posters boast about how important it is for them to "unlock" their phone so they can install non-Google apps. If you are going to install rogue apps, nothing is going to save you on any OS.

Unfortunately, you are falling into the propaganda trap ZDNet has been using for a long while. If you are using trusted apps, and your computer becomes infected from external sources, the OS needs attention. if you install a bad app and are experiencing problems (a trojan, or unwanted secondary program), nothing you do to the OS is going to prevent problems.

If you buy a program to print out only even numbers, you install it and run it, and it prints out odd numbers and you are furious, are you going to blame the OS? How does the OS know to print the even and not odd numbers if the programmer coded it to print only odd? This is a great example because the even and odd don't matter to the computer. Any "malware" would be instructions that the computer is able to do in "normal" operations, it doesn't (or shouldn't know) the difference. It's just a matter of keeping to trusted sources.

No one should blame any OS if they install un-trusted applications. Blame the user because the computer has no way to tell the difference if the programmer codes in unwanted actions. If you wanted to "fix" the problem, you should completely take away the ability to install programs, and not many people want that. Or, in the case of my example above, you would need to modify the OS not to recognize odd numbers.

Linux isn't going to be any different for Android than it is for me, but I don't install rogue apps and Linux does not get infected from external sources like Windows does.

When you install a program, you are installing "ALL" of the program, even the secret parts you don't want.
I certainly didn't want to see them fade out and the rest of us being stuck with the likes of a bundled proprietary tool like IE or spyware like Chrome. That would not be good.
0 Votes
+ -
If you think Chrome has spyware...
Joe.Smetona Updated - 24th Dec
@ScorpioBlue ... Try Chromium, it's the open source base of Chrome with no Google.

I can't tell the difference, they operate exactly the same.
0 Votes
+ -
No need
ScorpioBlue 23rd Dec
I'm happy with Firefox.
You dismissed Mozilla, we didn't. I always knew the ports Firefox was dead were ridiculous.

Don't forget Mozilla is also working on a mobile operating system. Mozilla have said Firefox isn't coming to iOS. The platform is to restrictive.
So why did Google spend this much on a ???rival????

Maybe for the same reason that Apple buys a crapload of parts from Samsung while simultaneously suing them into oblivion? It's just good business. Search is still Google's biggest product. Fact of the matter is, Firefox Google search is a big chunk of marketshare.

Also, I can't believe you're giving Firefox flak for pushing out a bug fix so quickly (or rather, removing a faulty one). For the record, Firefox 9.0 works fine. It only caused crashes due to third party toolbars.
$300 million and Mozilla can't find a way to fix their browser? I love Firefox, but I would love to see the browser rebuilt from the base up. Something has to give if they are going to compete anymore. They could at least resolve the issue of broken addons each upgrade cycle.
0 Votes
+ -
LOL!
William Farrel 22nd Dec
The big loser - Microsoft

You should try telling it like it really is, SJVN - Actually, Google and Mozilla just bought themselves some breathing room, as Microsoft doesn't make their bread and butter from search like Google does, and Mozilla, they just get to stay alive.

Why would Google feel the need to pay Mozilla 300 million dollars a year to have them use Google as their search provider, unless Google was feeling a little desparate of late? And MS will just create an plugin to replace Google for those that don't want to deal with Google.

I heard of "making lemonaid from a lemon", but you're trying to make lemonaide from a rotted tomato. happy
@William Farrel
"lemonaide"? You must be using IE!
@kirovs@...

And he wants everybody else to. A nostalgic return to the 'good' ole days of having only IE6 around to serve all your browsing needs.
  • Flagged
0 Votes
+ -
OK. lemonade
William Farrel 23rd Dec
@kirovs@...
And I was using Firefox
  • Flagged
0 Votes
+ -
Spell checker? Spell checker?
ScorpioBlue 23rd Dec
@William Farrel, you do know how to turn it on, don't you?

shocked
@William Farrel

The Firefox deal doesn't stop you from using other search engines. That's the kind of tactic Microsoft would employ (you know, the convicted anti-trust company).

So you can still get your results in Bing.

After it's searched Google for them that is.
@Chipesh (you know, the convicted anti-trust company)

You mean like Google, the company being investigated for anti-trust, and soon to be convicted of anti-trust? You mean Google, the company that's been sued left and right all over the world, for stolen ip.
0 Votes
+ -
They already do
ScorpioBlue 23rd Dec
The Firefox deal doesn't stop you from using other search engines. That's the kind of tactic Microsoft would employ (you know, the convicted anti-trust company).

They already do. Try deleting the Bing search plug-in in IE8. It won't let you.

You can add & delete the others but not Bing.
0 Votes
+ -
Funny....
daftkey 23rd Dec
@Chipesh

"The Firefox deal doesn't stop you from using other search engines. That's the kind of tactic Microsoft would employ (you know, the convicted anti-trust company)."

That so? Which version of Internet Explorer (or any other Microsoft browser, for that matter) did you ever see restrict your choice of search engine?

Oh you mean that they really *didn't* ever do this?
0 Votes
+ -
Deleting search providers...
daftkey 23rd Dec
@ScorpioBlue

"Try deleting the Bing search plug-in in IE8. It won't let you....You can add & delete the others but not Bing. "

Ummm.. not true...? I only have Google on my copy of IE - deleted Bing a long time ago. No problems there..

Now, of course, I can't delete Google because it is set as my default. Maybe that's what you mean. Because, well, it would make sense not to allow a user to delete the default search provider without first picking a new one.

But then again, you use Linux. The idea of using a mouse to configure your system must be a bit.. backwards... to you..
0 Votes
+ -
How daft
ScorpioBlue Updated - 23rd Dec
Ummm.. not true...? I only have Google on my copy of IE - deleted Bing a long time ago. No problems there..

No dude, it's true. I just confirmed it with IE9 as well. Go to Tools - Manage add-ons and then click on Search Providers on the left. Bing is there and when you highlight the Bing search extension add-on, the "Remove" button is greyed out.

Now, of course, I can't delete Google because it is set as my default. Maybe that's what you mean. Because, well, it would make sense not to allow a user to delete the default search provider without first picking a new one.

No that should be my choice whether to use a search provider or not. Not Microsoft's. What if I don't want to use a search extension PERIOD? I still can't remove it and the "Remove" button is greyed out.

On the other hand with Firefox, I can delete all the search providers if I want to. I don't have to leave one enabled or left behind at all. My choice.

But then again, you use Linux. The idea of using a mouse to configure your system must be a bit.. backwards... to you..

Not at all since I use a laptop with a track-pad built into it.

You on the other hand are silly enough to carry a mouse around with you since you have difficulty with a track-pad and lack the hand/eye coordination to use one. wink
@ScorpioBlue
"No dude, it's true. I just confirmed it with IE9 as well. Go to Tools - Manage add-ons and then click on Search Providers on the left. Bing is there and when you highlight the Bing search extension add-on, the "Remove" button is greyed out."

That is because you have Bing as the default search provider. Select another search provider as the default and you can delete Bing.

Edit - And I just saw someone addressed this in another post...oops.
@aretaksonic
Go back and re-read my post again. Down towards the middle. You'll see what I'm getting at.
0 Votes
+ -
The Great Search Mystery.
Joe.Smetona Updated - 25th Dec
I tend to agree with the Scorpion, regardless of the ability to delete or not delete the search tools.

It falls into the realm of Propaganda, where something has an effect, but can also be somehow justified (if needed).

Think about it. Microsoft makes an OS and sets it to use Bing from the factory. It is set to work automatically with the browser. People are using it. This methodology fits what Microsoft has been doing all along. If someone wants another search engine, they have to add it and then they have to select it. Now (initially) Bing is default and cannot be deleted, insuring it's use.

Someone has to consciously add another search engine, select it and then delete Bing.

Why not have an initial dialog box appear when the browser is first started displaying all common search engines, requesting the user to select one. [ no initial preference there ] It's done that way with other browsers. Microsoft can claim deniablility, but they are really taking the low road here. So the next time someone complains about Google data gathering, Microsoft is no prince, they really need people to use their search tools and browser to supply them with user data for advertising. Browsers and search tools are important.

Bing is losing $1B a month. I never use it but I've seen people that are heavily invested in Microsoft that seem to have it always appear like a hungry kitten. There seems to be a tremendous amount of "installing vectors" from various Microsoft sites.

In fact, it seems to me Microsoft has taken the OS attributes to install Bing and made them more offensive in nature than was present at the time of the original EU browser litigation. I've kind of had to fight Windows NOT to use Bing.
"We counted Mozilla out of the running too early."

Maybe now ZDnet could revisit their stance on 'desktops'?
"I assumed, along with many others"

You know what they say about assumptions . . .

. . . does everything really have to be about market share and money? Really?

If that's all you think about when analyzing Mozilla, of course you'll keep drawing blanks about the deal.
Saw the headline, thought SJVN, click and VOILA! 'Nuff said.
0 Votes
+ -
Nod...
daftkey 22nd Dec
@crazieglued

..and you know what - probably pretty much knew more or less everything that the article was going to say without even reading it..

1) Non-MS company gets a cash injection from other non-MS company
2) Somehow the fact that this means a non-MS company will survive will hurt MS.
3) Somehow screwing MS is the one and only useful result of said deal.
4) Yay MS is going to die.. someday soon.. you just watch!

Rinse.. repeat.. yawn...
0 Votes
+ -
@daftkey ... http://www . youtube . com/watch?v=NKkvPxYNh9A
@crazieglued

Yeah, honestly, while I do like MS alot, I like open source stuff too and when he's not writing articles like this, I find SJVN's writing enjoyable.
That with ever dwindling market share Mozilla could extract $900M from them just by dangling the threat of making Bing their new default. As for Mozilla this will allow them threes years to do something else besides a browser if they have the smarts to do it. They're going to be irrelevent on mobile. Can't get on WP, cant get on ios, will be crushed by chrome on android.
0 Votes
+ -
ditto
thx-1138_@... Updated - 22nd Dec
@Johnny Vegas ... i think MS are not a loser (per se) because of this new, improved financial deal between Google and Mozilla, but MS did lose the opportunity (or rather, it was removed by Mozilla and Google) to increase Bing's stake in the Search Engine game.

These are truly interesting times in the browser space.
0 Votes
+ -
... About Bing.
Joe.Smetona Updated - 23rd Dec
@thx-1138_@... Bing is losing $1B a month. I never use it but I've seen people that are heavily invested in Microsoft that seem to have it always appear like a hungry kitten. There seems to be a tremendous amount of "installing vectors" from various Microsoft sites.

In fact, it seems to me Microsoft has taken the OS attributes to install Bing and made them more offensive in nature than was present at the time of the original EU browser litigation. I've kind of had to fight Windows NOT to use Bing.
@Johnny Vegas I don't know how accurate that 30% number is for real-world use. I've seen referral statistics for a number of different websites and Bing/Yahoo numbers combined don't ever seem to come close to 30%. 15 - 20% seems more accurate. Maybe it's just a big coincidence that I'm only viewing statistics on sites that don't get Bing referrals.

Separately, I think the lack of browser alternatives in WP will likely be more to Microsoft's detriment than Mozilla's. People want choice, especially with mobile browsers, where the standards are changing from day-to-day. Android will continue to have the most choices, and Firefox will be a solid browser on that OS (already is).
@K B This post shows how clueless you are. Bing's share is 30%, I don't care what lies you make up. Secondly, there are tons of browsers choices in Windows Phone. The notion that you can only use IE9 mobile is a laugh riot.

As for Firefox not being on Windows Phone, welcome to yesterday. Firefox isn't on any smartphones. That's because Mozilla has been a giant failure in mobile. They just recently got on Android tablets. If that browser crashes as often as Firefox for Windows does, then it's market share will continue to decline.
@jhammackHTH No lies here, just personal experience. What I've noticed looking at organic search results for a number of websites (all U.S.-based, some larger sites, some smaller sites) I don't see a Bing/Yahoo combination close to 30% in referrals. My hypothesis would be that the ~30% share that I've seen written-about in a number of places may not show real-world usage. Or maybe I'm just looking and Google-centric sites by some coincidence.

Regarding alternative browsers on WP, do any have their own rendering engine, or are they just using IE's?

I've used Firefox on a tablet and like it ok. Opera mobile (not mini) is my browser of choice on my phones and tablets, but I like the fact the Firefox can have add-ons. I'm expecting it to continue to get better on Android.
0 Votes
+ -
Reply to JHammeackHTH. Firefox crashing.
Joe.Smetona Updated - 24th Dec
@... You shouldn't follow the ZDNet propaganda lead and isolate Firefox from the OS. Firefox or Chrome doesn't crash on Linux. Android is Linux, so I would not expect it to crash there. This has been a ZDNet propaganda point for years and a lot of people fall for propaganda here.

People don't even consider that the operation of the browser with the OS may implicate the design of the OS if there are crashes. Perhaps something that was innocently changed by Microsoft happy

http://www.zdnet.com/tb/1-111569?tag=talkback-river;1_111569_2268321#1_111569_2268321
0 Votes
+ -
AH HA!
janitorman Updated - 1st Jan
I KNEW IT! Google is paying Mozilla a billion dollars (an inconceivable number, anyway) to junk its FireFox browser in favor of Chrome. I once went to Mozilla's download page to get Firefox, and ABOVE the Firefox download button, where most users would EXPECT its download button to be, was the download button for CHROME.
I actually posted this accusation on the mozilla boards and they banned me from the boards, so it must be true. The rapid release cycle for Firefox suits NO ONE except Google, and Chrome users.
Chrome can do as it likes.
For everyone else, simply install Firefox 3.6, and update to the latest in that series.. currently (December 2011) 3.6.24, which contains all the security fixes necessary without breaking the browser!
Better yet, install a Portable version and use it. DON'T download from Mozilla, they have bugs in their code, bugs that multiply daily and with each new release!
I refuse to use IE, even on my XP machines, which can't update to IE9 anyway, and I can't use them on my Linux boxes (Why use a virtual box like Wine to run your browser, when you're trying to GET away from Microsoft products to start with, and Linux has perfectly good browsers available to start with, including better Firefox versions than Mozilla can come up with?)

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix
Click Here
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix
ie8 fix