Do We Need a Firefox OS?
July 8, 2009 – 11:49 pmGoogle Chrome has achieved striking success considering that it has yet to celebrate its first birthday. Mike Arrington at TechCrunch claims that the browser now has 30 million users (citing Google as a source). [Update: The Google OS post mentions this in the second sentence so I'm not sure why I blamed Mike.] Market share figures vary wildly depending on who you ask, but it seems likely that Chrome now has at least 3-4% of the browser market. It is firmly ensconced in fourth place, behind Internet Explorer, Safari and Firefox. The latter, in second place, is a phenomenon in its own right, while the others are bundled with the two most popular operating systems and piggyback on their success.
Perhaps even more impressive is how effortlessly Chrome has carved out a recognizable niche for itself in a crowded, mature market with strong incumbents. All of its proponents that I’ve spoken to praise its small footprint (both in terms of screen real estate and system resources) and speed. Some may not agree that the browser should strive to be as minimalistic as possible, but it’s a defensible idea (and very smart positioning).
And now Google has taken the logical next step, announcing the Chrome Operating System. From their blog post this sounds like the minimum required to tie Linux (universally accepted as the open source kernel of choice) to the browser. The goal is to “re-think what operating systems should be”, adapting them to a new era where apps will run on the web exclusively.
This leaves Mozilla as the only major browser vendor which doesn’t have an operating system. Does it need to address the threat by coming out with an OS of its own?
One counterargument is well expressed by Mozilla CEO John Lilly:
Google, when they launched Chrome, the name Chrome was an ironic title. It implied they wanted to build a browser that didn’t have any chrome, that didn’t have any user interface – they just want to be a pane of glass to the Internet. Setting aside for a minute whether that is even possible, we think the technical term for a browser is a user agent. We think the browser can do much on behalf of users – it can help you find stuff, it can help you figure out what you want – but it can also mediate between what’s on your desk and what on the Web. It can meld those two together, mash them up so to speak. I think the browser sits at the interesting interface of client and cloud and there will always be that interface.
I brought up another in relation to Google Docs and other web-based software:
So now I know why Google Docs hasn’t encroached more significantly on Microsoft’s turf: it kind of sucks. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t need or want the zillions of bizarre features that traditional shrink-wrapped vendors insist of pushing on users in order to drive revenue from useless “upgrades”. But something as basic as table management should just work, and the exported output should look like the original document, dammit.
Despite Arrington’s assertion (in the above-linked post) that “you won’t miss Office” thanks to web-based alternatives, the opposite is true at present. I talk to people constantly who won’t even switch to Mac Office because it isn’t compatible enough with the Windows version.
That said, I believe that the shift of software to the web is an inexorable trend. Google recognizes this, and they are tailoring their strategy to the world five to ten years out. This is sensible since it will take that long to put together a viable alternative to mature operating systems like Windows and OS X. By extension, Mozilla may find itself in an untenable position in this timeframe. If Google is successful with its strategy (which in practice means OEM deals that will see its OS and browser shipped pre-installed on new computers), Firefox will be the only major browser that has to be explicitly downloaded and installed by its users.
Firefox isn’t in any immediate danger. But if Mozilla wants to protect its turf over the longer term, it may want to follow Google in developing a lightweight operating system focused on the web, just as it has started to take the mobile space more seriously in the wake of Mobile Safari and Android.
20 Responses to “Do We Need a Firefox OS?”
This is an interesting wrap-up, Matthew. I share you opinion regarding the strategic direction of Chrome OS. But instead of Mac OS or Windows, this OS will be open-source. Every browser “vendor”/”developer community” will be free to bundle their browser together with a customized version of Chrome OS and republish it.
By Heiko Behrens on Jul 9, 2009
Perhaps even more impressive is how effortlessly Chrome has carved out a recognizable niche for itself in a crowded, mature market with strong incumbents.
Chrome’s niche, it seems to me, consists almost exclusively of people who were formerly using Firefox, gave Chrome a go when it came out, and found it solved some dissatisfaction with Firefox. Much the same thing as Firefox did to Internet Explorer, so in that regard, it’s something to be wary of.
A significant difference though, is that where Firefox made a great deal of effort to reach the mainstream, Chrome hasn’t. It’s certainly attracted attention among those whose business it is to know about web browsers. But my experience is that it’s utterly unknown outside of that group.
And unless Google begin to actively promote it – either through marketing (like Firefox did), or through bundling it with some physical product (like Apple or Microsoft did) – then I think it will be doomed to remain a little-known bit player, much like Opera does now.
By Simon on Jul 9, 2009
One thing about Google Docs – having seen Bespin it doesn’t take much imagination to use canvas for Google Docs. Once that move is made it ought to be trival to get 1:1 Office compatibility.
Then once that happens I won’t need to install Office any more and be able to access my xlsx & docx wherever I want, just like email via gafyd
@Simon: Google is marketing it on its web properties. Google Search & You Tube are two that I’ve seen it on…
By Nicholas Orr on Jul 9, 2009
If Google can make an OS, someone should be able to make a better one using Firefox; a Powered by Mozilla fast-boot lightweight OS out of XULRunner apps and extensions. Make it available as a bootable USB (take your browser and e-mail with you) and as a conventional distro. Now that the TechCrunch tablet is using WebKit, is Splashtop closest to such a thing? (I’m typing this on Kubuntu, but I find its Firefox/Thunderbird integration lacking.)
Google Docs works just fine for a huge percentage of all Office users, they just don’t know it yet.
Google is profoundly weird in doing Android and Google OS simultaneously. Fake Steve Jobs’ blog post skewers their confusion and inability to say No to engineer ideas.
By skierpage on Jul 9, 2009
> All of its proponents that I’ve spoken to praise
> its small footprint (both in terms of screen
> real estate and system resources)
Why do people keep repeating this, when most actual comparisons of memory usage show Chrome using far more memory than other browsers (which makes sense given its architecture)?
http://dotnetperls.com/chrome-memory
By Robert O'Callahan on Jul 9, 2009
No. This is a red herring. Do not waste your time. Please focus on doing precisely the opposite: bring the web to your computer, not your computer to the web. That is precisely what a WWW browser is for.
By ;dslfdf on Jul 9, 2009
I will restrain myself mightily and not say what I actually think of the idea that Mozilla might need to come out with an OS of its own, and leave it at that.
By Jeff Walden on Jul 9, 2009
Matthew, we managed to gain 300 million users in less than 5 years without depending on being bundled with an OS.
That number will certainly be well north of half a billion before Chrome OS gains even a percent or two of the desktop installed base.
We are still consistently taking share from Apple and Microsoft on their respective platforms.
Why wouldn’t we continue to make the best browser for every operating system out there and keep on growing our user base the way we have for the previous 5 years?
Oh, and Chrome doesn’t have 3-4% of the browser market. It has about 2%, maybe 2 and a half, tops.
By Asa Dotzler on Jul 9, 2009
I would argue that Ubuntu, Maemo, and Splashtop have been shipping FirefoxOS for a long time, it’s just that they’re not marketed that way.
A lot of people set up Ubuntu for their non-computer-literate parents/grandparents, with a desktop that’s clean except for a prominent Firefox icon. With Prism you can even give gramps a direct “Gmail” button.
I’m sure Google will come up with some nice UI ideas to make this sort of setup smoother, but those ideas, if they prove popular, will be easy enough to adapt to Ubuntu and the rest.
And that’s really what Google wants from this anyway. They don’t care if ChromeOS itself takes off, but they want to legitimise the idea that the OS doesn’t matter, and the important applications are all on the Web. If they succeed then all the non-Microsoft operating systems and browsers will benefit.
By Ami Ganguli on Jul 9, 2009
It’s natural for a company like Google to build a product centered around web. It has already done that with Chrome, now it is just extending it to reach a wider market.
Open sourcing the Chrome OS is a good market strategy, which may attract developers towards the new OS.
By Veera on Jul 9, 2009
I need my hard drive. I want to be able to share my documents with other people, even if they don’t have a Google account.
By Vincent on Jul 9, 2009
Mozillo shouldn’t need a OS. First like on eof the comments sais, they can just load Firefox on Chrome OS and they will have the OS + Browser.
But second, i don’t think Chrome OS will be just a browser + OS. They will redesign the OS, so I expect a better OS-Browser integration than we have today.
This is being done with Prism, and multiplatform. So Mozilla should bet on Prism and a better Desktop integration, to allow the depelopers to design a full desktop application with web technologies. That’s the aim of Chrome but the mistake of google, in my opinion, is to make and use an specific OS.
By nunes on Jul 9, 2009
Another vote for not creating an OS. Mozilla knows and creates browsers and should just leave it at that.
By Kurt (supernova_00) on Jul 9, 2009
I think firefox should stick to what they know… building a great browser… but lately, they have fallen behind in terms of speed to Chrome. So, I think the effort should be concentrated on getting back out in front of the Chrome team in terms of speed.
Given that Firefox4 will have multiple processes, and a compelte Weave 1.0 (hopefully), I think firefox will be an OS in its own right.
The whole concept of OS’s being replaced by a computer that boots into a browser is going to take 6-10 years to change… its a massive paradigm shift.
For the meantime, I think that COS will only speak to a niche market until everything… “EVERYTHING…. that is games, apps, etc…” is online. Which will eventually happen, but were not there yet.
So, hold up on the FxOS and let FirefoxNext be the best browser in the world!
By g on Jul 9, 2009
‘I talk to people constantly who won’t even switch to Mac Office because it isn’t compatible enough with the Windows version.’
That’s half the reason Microsoft makes a cut-down version for Mac, it keeps bosses from allowing staff to use the native apps, and keeps full migrations to Mac from happening. (I’d also call it an anti-trust issue, but you can’t have everything)
This problem is trying to be solved by OpenOffice.org et al standardising ODF, as now nearly all* the office software suites have or are implementing ODF support, so this looks to be the way out from the Office stranglehold. Maybe Mozilla can help this along.
*Only notable exception is Apple’s iWork. go figure.
By John Drinkwater on Jul 11, 2009
Some sort of wide adoption of a standard that preserves precise formatting across different office suites would certainly be a big step forward.
By Matthew Gertner on Jul 12, 2009
Yes we need Firefox! Firefox has been the best browser around for many years now and has been light years ahead in terms of standards compliance for ages.
I don’t foresee Google chrome taking much of Firefox browser share. I can see the possibility of some of the IE users however moving to chrome which can only be a good thing especially if they are some of the IE 5 / IE 6 users I am constantly having to write hacks for to support!
By Inflecto Systems (Web Based Software) on Aug 3, 2009
“This leaves Mozilla as the only major browser vendor which doesn’t have an operating system. ”
Opera has just about the same number of users as Chrome.
By Dionte on Aug 4, 2009
Why not ?
Mozilla is application platform, not just a browser. So why not is it be a mozilla os ? There are plenty of extensions and plugins on mozilla platform. It’s time to go for internet users.
By mikeyao on Aug 8, 2009