Seth's Blog: Firefox is missing the point(sethgodin.typepad.com)
sethgodin.typepad.com
Seth's Blog: Firefox is missing the point
http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2008/09/firefox-is-miss.html
28 comments
Maybe it's just me and the people I know, but the real value of firefox - other than the obvious advantages over IE - is the plugin functionality.
So when Google Chrome came out, I immediately thought of it as a IE killer - not a Firefox killer. I'm almost scared for them to start providing plugin support/features/etc as it could just end up being Firefox.
Have you ever blogged about Halo's Law?
So when Google Chrome came out, I immediately thought of it as a IE killer - not a Firefox killer. I'm almost scared for them to start providing plugin support/features/etc as it could just end up being Firefox.
Have you ever blogged about Halo's Law?
This is off topic, but I'll bite.
Chrome isn't an IE killer, its a Firefox killer. Why? because Chrome (like IE) is a chosen browser. IE is a default.
Most Firefox users have chosen to use it. Downloaded it. Installed it. Tried it & use it. Most IE users have not.*
Once someone is making a choice, you can reach her. Say 'but wait there's more.' IE users aren't even going to know about Chrome. They won't ever be consciously deciding between browsers. If they are, resistance to change is a big factor. If Chrome becomes demonstrably better choice, it will be chosen. But only by those making a choice. Everyone else isn't listening.
So basically FF users make a choice & Chrome gets to make its pitch. IE users don't. Product similarity has nothing to do with it. Its market similarity that runs this show.
*Obviously some IE users made a choice. They're in the FF category.
Chrome isn't an IE killer, its a Firefox killer. Why? because Chrome (like IE) is a chosen browser. IE is a default.
Most Firefox users have chosen to use it. Downloaded it. Installed it. Tried it & use it. Most IE users have not.*
Once someone is making a choice, you can reach her. Say 'but wait there's more.' IE users aren't even going to know about Chrome. They won't ever be consciously deciding between browsers. If they are, resistance to change is a big factor. If Chrome becomes demonstrably better choice, it will be chosen. But only by those making a choice. Everyone else isn't listening.
So basically FF users make a choice & Chrome gets to make its pitch. IE users don't. Product similarity has nothing to do with it. Its market similarity that runs this show.
*Obviously some IE users made a choice. They're in the FF category.
Wow great points. I don't know this with any certainty (I'm not a Google insider or anything), but I'm willing to bet that Chrome is going to become more of a default browser. Google didn't market Firefox near as aggressively as they could of. And with Android coming out, Google will decide the default browser. There's a lot more mobile devices out there than PCs.
That's what I was thinking as I wrote it.
Same here - I only use FF b/c of the add-ins. After that, all browsers are equally suck in my book. Chrome was fast therefore I like it. It doesn't have add-ins so it loses to FF.
I've actually found myself using both or either depending on the task and the computer I have.
>Have you ever blogged about Halo's Law?
I don't have a blog - it's more of a recurring joke than anything else.
I don't have a blog - it's more of a recurring joke than anything else.
Actually I think that Seth misses the point as well. I don't care whether other people wear the same clothes as me. I recommend because I like.
Firefox's response to Chrome should be not adding new features but removing existing ones, or, at least, redesigning them to make the UI even easier.
Firefox's response to Chrome should be not adding new features but removing existing ones, or, at least, redesigning them to make the UI even easier.
Actually I think that Seth routinely misses the point.
He's a great marketeer, but he's not a product manager anymore than a usability specialist.
He's a great marketeer, but he's not a product manager anymore than a usability specialist.
Agreed. He's shown that he can take anything, even crap, and figure out how to sell it better. I think that this example WOULD sell Firefox, for instance. However, I find that a lot of his stuff IS crap, and marketing doesn't fix that. Squidoo, for instance, is terrible and pointless, even if it IS on the Alexa 500 (and I'll never know WHY it is, for that matter).
Frankly, I'd prefer Firefox NOT market itself and focus on making itself the best browser it can be. It's not good enough right now to create good marketing, so it shouldn't bother.
Frankly, I'd prefer Firefox NOT market itself and focus on making itself the best browser it can be. It's not good enough right now to create good marketing, so it shouldn't bother.
If you've ever looked at some of these 3rd string Internet marketers (the ones that mostly sell ebooks or talk about adsense arbitrage) you'll eventually see some non-expert talking about SEO and one of the first things they'll mention is Squidoo.
I think it is because Squidoo gives people a platform to put whatever contextual text they want in, with outbound links that provide link-juice to whatever site/affiliate link they want.
If you ask me, it feels more like a spam blog that has multiple authors that can sign up at anytime - but that is just my opinion.
I think it is because Squidoo gives people a platform to put whatever contextual text they want in, with outbound links that provide link-juice to whatever site/affiliate link they want.
If you ask me, it feels more like a spam blog that has multiple authors that can sign up at anytime - but that is just my opinion.
That's an opinion that I share. Squidoo really does have a skeevy feel to it. And after a year of reading Seth's blog, I had to unsubscribe because his writing had the same skeevy feel. I want to get users because I've got the best product out there, not because I'm marketing myself the best.
Well I've never met Seth so my opinion of him is based only what I've read, but I'm not entirely sure I can pin down what it is about him that perplexes me...
Sometimes he seems to have fairly interesting advice and insight on various topics and at other times I've considered that these are the ramblings of a delusional man. I really don't think I can make an apt judgement of him, so perhaps that is why I keep reading? Maybe he is a genius in disguise.
That being said, he reminds me of someone I know and if he is anything like this person, then I think we all have something to be worried about.
Sometimes he seems to have fairly interesting advice and insight on various topics and at other times I've considered that these are the ramblings of a delusional man. I really don't think I can make an apt judgement of him, so perhaps that is why I keep reading? Maybe he is a genius in disguise.
That being said, he reminds me of someone I know and if he is anything like this person, then I think we all have something to be worried about.
Nah. He's no genius. Genius is controversial and abrupt. Seth Godin is almost certainly bright, but that's about it.
He riffs & makes big statements. Unless you're superman that means your going to be wrong a lot (I think he is wrong here too). But the other consequence is that sometimes right in a very powerful way.
For example his baseline stuff, going back years about the advertising, marketing, & consumer-attention complex is right in a powerful way. It means big things: 'It will probably never be possible to create another Coca-Cola or Colgate in the same way again.'
For example his baseline stuff, going back years about the advertising, marketing, & consumer-attention complex is right in a powerful way. It means big things: 'It will probably never be possible to create another Coca-Cola or Colgate in the same way again.'
So, Firefox needs to add functionality that makes the surfing experience better for all users when more users use Firefox.
Totally. I have a couple ideas. One is to improve the Javascript library so that richer and more responsive applications can be written.
Another would be to pull the rendering components into their own processes so that I don't lose N tabs of state when one plugin decides to lose its mind. Getting a multiple-core performance boost would be gravy here, too.
Firefox got pretty good mileage out of being just a browser. URL in, rendered page out. Chrome stands to do the same thing to Firefox that Firefox did to IE, in that it represents a clean, simple, technically enhanced browser.
Google has come out and said "here is some stuff, please just copy it and put it in yours", and they'd be walking a really fine antitrust line for dubious benefit if they actually did have a large market share.
But the response to Chrome shouldn't be to launch new features.
I'm assuming this doesn't mean "add no features at all" because the rest of his article would make no sense in that context. I can only imagine that it means "the FF team's response to Chrome shouldn't be back end, technical features". (Sorry if I've built a straw man here, but I really can't figure out what else this could mean in this context.)
Why does nobody take the Chrome release and comic at face value? What causes this idiocy in the echo chamber saying GOOGLE is the NEW MICROSOFT, it's BROWSER WAR! Don't copy the FAST JAVASCRIPT it's a TRAP! Deploy TAG CLOUDS!
I'm completely mystified and would love to have someone explain this to me.
Totally. I have a couple ideas. One is to improve the Javascript library so that richer and more responsive applications can be written.
Another would be to pull the rendering components into their own processes so that I don't lose N tabs of state when one plugin decides to lose its mind. Getting a multiple-core performance boost would be gravy here, too.
Firefox got pretty good mileage out of being just a browser. URL in, rendered page out. Chrome stands to do the same thing to Firefox that Firefox did to IE, in that it represents a clean, simple, technically enhanced browser.
Google has come out and said "here is some stuff, please just copy it and put it in yours", and they'd be walking a really fine antitrust line for dubious benefit if they actually did have a large market share.
But the response to Chrome shouldn't be to launch new features.
I'm assuming this doesn't mean "add no features at all" because the rest of his article would make no sense in that context. I can only imagine that it means "the FF team's response to Chrome shouldn't be back end, technical features". (Sorry if I've built a straw man here, but I really can't figure out what else this could mean in this context.)
Why does nobody take the Chrome release and comic at face value? What causes this idiocy in the echo chamber saying GOOGLE is the NEW MICROSOFT, it's BROWSER WAR! Don't copy the FAST JAVASCRIPT it's a TRAP! Deploy TAG CLOUDS!
I'm completely mystified and would love to have someone explain this to me.
I think i missed his point. Maybe I'm retarded, but i didn't get what he was saying. Did he compare Firefox to fashion, religion, and an obsolete communication device?
Yes he did. That part of the post makes sense.
He's encouraging FF to have an in-built mechanism for giving users incentive to recommend something, anything. What he proposes is bad.
He's encouraging FF to have an in-built mechanism for giving users incentive to recommend something, anything. What he proposes is bad.
Godin's desire to boost Firefox is laudable but...
(1) Flock made a Firefox heavy on social features, which hasn't caught fire; and..
(2) Potential social network-effect features are better constructed as services or websites than browser functionality; and...
(3) Even if the functionality needs a browser-based component, to implement that in an "only with FF users" manner would be counter to the open mission of Mozilla.
(1) Flock made a Firefox heavy on social features, which hasn't caught fire; and..
(2) Potential social network-effect features are better constructed as services or websites than browser functionality; and...
(3) Even if the functionality needs a browser-based component, to implement that in an "only with FF users" manner would be counter to the open mission of Mozilla.
'I'm a devoted FF user, and have been forever.'
That's interesting, as according to Wikipedia version 1.0 of Firefox was released in February 2004. [1]
'But the response to Chrome shouldn't be to launch new features.'
Which new features are these?
'Here's the problem/challenge: when your friends switch to Firefox, your life doesn't get better.'
No, but when you switch to Firefox your life gets better. How many products or services are sold on the basis of making other people's lives better? Exactly one - charities.
'And the key to growing any piece of software (or just about any product or service, actually) is the opposite. People will recommend something if adoption improves their lives.'
Er, what?
'Fax machines?'
What machines? Fax machines? Oh, you mean version 2.0 of the telegraph?
'Life is better for me if you have one.'
The phrase you're looking for is 'network effect'. [2]
'Fashion? Life is better for me if I'm not the only one wearing this.'
Yes, everyone knows that a woman loves turning up to a party and seeing another woman wearing the same dress as her.
'Religious sect? Life is better for me if I'm not the only one in the building.'
Unless you're a hermit.
'So, Firefox needs to add functionality that makes the surfing experience better for all users when more users use Firefox.'
Say what?
'There are many ways to do this, and you can invent more than I ever could. Systems that allow for rating pages, or grouping them, or communicating (but only with FF users).'
Haven't you heard of the 'any browser' campaign? [3]
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Firefox#History
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect
[3] http://www.anybrowser.org/campaign/
That's interesting, as according to Wikipedia version 1.0 of Firefox was released in February 2004. [1]
'But the response to Chrome shouldn't be to launch new features.'
Which new features are these?
'Here's the problem/challenge: when your friends switch to Firefox, your life doesn't get better.'
No, but when you switch to Firefox your life gets better. How many products or services are sold on the basis of making other people's lives better? Exactly one - charities.
'And the key to growing any piece of software (or just about any product or service, actually) is the opposite. People will recommend something if adoption improves their lives.'
Er, what?
'Fax machines?'
What machines? Fax machines? Oh, you mean version 2.0 of the telegraph?
'Life is better for me if you have one.'
The phrase you're looking for is 'network effect'. [2]
'Fashion? Life is better for me if I'm not the only one wearing this.'
Yes, everyone knows that a woman loves turning up to a party and seeing another woman wearing the same dress as her.
'Religious sect? Life is better for me if I'm not the only one in the building.'
Unless you're a hermit.
'So, Firefox needs to add functionality that makes the surfing experience better for all users when more users use Firefox.'
Say what?
'There are many ways to do this, and you can invent more than I ever could. Systems that allow for rating pages, or grouping them, or communicating (but only with FF users).'
Haven't you heard of the 'any browser' campaign? [3]
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Firefox#History
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect
[3] http://www.anybrowser.org/campaign/
How many products or services are sold on the basis of making other people's lives better? Exactly one - charities
+Christmas, it's all about The Spirit of Consumerism... oops I mean giving - It's only 4 months til Christmas, make sure you've bought all those presents for everyone otherwise a magical fat man won't climb down your chimney and leave boxes full of non-biodegradable plastic wrapped in non-recyclable coloured paper under your tacky dead disco tree.
... I think the earlier it starts every year, the more of cynical I become.
+Christmas, it's all about The Spirit of Consumerism... oops I mean giving - It's only 4 months til Christmas, make sure you've bought all those presents for everyone otherwise a magical fat man won't climb down your chimney and leave boxes full of non-biodegradable plastic wrapped in non-recyclable coloured paper under your tacky dead disco tree.
... I think the earlier it starts every year, the more of cynical I become.
Wow... that's incredibly awful advice.
Maybe I missed the point, but this article doesn't explicitly say 'social features'. It simply says that the firefox community is bettered by more people using it. Granted social features are the first that come time mind, but I can imagine some others.
* A standard platform for whatever plugins you like * Aggregated usage data
* A standard platform for whatever plugins you like * Aggregated usage data
So his idea is to add a addon-like functionality to the browser itself? ...
I guess nobody clued this guy in on extensions. As Firefox gains more marketshare, it also gains more extension developers and users. It also allows the web to advance. That is the aggregated benefit of more marketshare for Firefox. The social features this guy recommends belong in extensions, and, incidentally, extensions with that functionality already exist.
I think the "social media" obsession has gone on long enough. I was so sick of "social [x]" for everything (social laundromat finder, wee!) more than a year ago, when's it going to wear out?
I think the "social media" obsession has gone on long enough. I was so sick of "social [x]" for everything (social laundromat finder, wee!) more than a year ago, when's it going to wear out?
Seth's Blog: If there's a point here, you will miss it.
Anyone care to explain what on hell he was arguing for?
Anyone care to explain what on hell he was arguing for?
I'm a devoted FF user, and have been forever. But the response to Chrome shouldn't be to launch new features.
So, Firefox needs to add functionality that makes the surfing experience better for all users when more users use Firefox.
There are many ways to do this
Ok, so checklist for all you budding developers out there. 1) No additional features allowed. 2) Add new functionality that doesn't exist yet. 3) Come up with several solutions to achieve this.
Got it? Good.
So, Firefox needs to add functionality that makes the surfing experience better for all users when more users use Firefox.
There are many ways to do this
Ok, so checklist for all you budding developers out there. 1) No additional features allowed. 2) Add new functionality that doesn't exist yet. 3) Come up with several solutions to achieve this.
Got it? Good.
Besides, this may mean I need to rewrite Halo's Law ("Every site expands until it becomes a social network, those that don't are replaced by those that do").