There is no point in launching a “web app store” just for the sake of countering Google’s move. The web is a pretty good way to distribute web apps already, and if there is going to be a new distribution mechanism, it should have clear advantages over the status quo. In the case of the Chrome Web Store, Google’s blog post cites a few concrete advantages: easier discovery of quality web apps, increased permissions for installed apps and a new business model for developers (specifically, selling apps directly to users).

Easier discovery is a no-brainer, but of course this could be accomplished by a simple web app directory that links directly to various apps on the web. There’s no need to “install” apps to achieve this. There has to be more to a web app store than this. In particular, I love the idea of charging (optionally) for apps. Developers need to eat, and plastering web pages with ads shouldn’t be the only way for them to monetize the fruits of their labor. At one point I thought long and hard about starting a business around a marketplace for Prism web app bundles.

So I agree broadly with Google’s vision for their web store. But we can do better. For one thing, we can be more open, as Jay suggests, rather than using the store to lock users into a specific browser. In addition, we can take advantage of Prism’s much more mature and technically sophisticated platform for adding value to web apps when they are installed locally. After all, Google is promising to deliver something “later this year” whereas Prism web apps like Zimbra Desktop are already being used by tens of thousands of users every day.

I’m proud of what we’ve achieved so far with Prism despite limited development resources. Now is the time to start experimenting with other ideas as web apps continue to meld with traditional desktop apps. How should web apps be discovered and delivered? What does it mean to “install” a web app locally? What new capabilities (and associated APIs) are needed for web apps to rival their desktop equivalents, beyond what is already offered by HTML5? How might a web app payment model function? I believe Prism would be a great vehicle for Mozilla to tease out and play with potential answers to these questions.

To be safe, I’ve completely removed any code that might lead to this type of problem. This should not affect the correct functioning of the protocol handler registration. Prism 1.0b4 is now live on the website. A few other bugs have been fixed as well:

512055 Prism Text Search goes backwards (Next/F3 goes up instead of down through the document)
550700 Hide on close for Mac
557108 Environment settings in override.ini are not used
557110 Command-M doesn’t minimize window of Mac
557112 Command-W causes app to close even if HIDE_ON_CLOSE is set
557519 Protocol handler doesn’t work when window is hidden (HIDE_ON_CLOSE)
559328 Clicks on external links aren’t detected in popup windows
559524 Clicks on non-anchor links don’t open in external browser

The ideal person would be a young C++ developer/Unix hacker with some experience with and especially a lot of interest in working with Mozilla technologies. I can offer awesome conditions (flexibility, compensation, challenging projects, opportunities to learn tons of new stuff).

If you’re interested, please email me your CV. If you know someone who might be interested, please pass the word.

The odd man out is Planet Mozilla. As an active member of the Mozilla community, I can’t not subscribe to this feed. Some of the items (probably several a day) are absolutely vital reading for me if I am to do my job correctly. But the volume of postings makes me depressed and stressed in exactly the way I just mentioned. Particularly irksome is the fact that the vast majority (perhaps 90%) of the posts aren’t of interest to me at all.

Before I go further, let me stress how great Planet Mozilla is and what a personal debt I owe to it. When I began blogging in 2004, I had zero readers, and I had to go about building an audience the hard way (i.e. by humiliating link whoring). When I got onto Planet, my audience increased immensely in one fell swoop, and the new readers were mostly highly informed and articulate (exactly the opposite of what you get by being linked to by, say, Robert Scoble). When I started this blog, I was on Planet from the get go, and it was amazing to have such an immediate and high-quality readership.

All this to say that I understand how hard it is to do anything with p.m.o except add more and more feeds to it. Any disruption to the status quo will lead to howls of protest from people like me who benefit from this great resource. But eventually something has to give. Having a big audience is of diminishing value if the volume of the feed is so high that people don’t have time to read (or even scan) most of it.

When I first started begging for Peer Pressure to be added to p.m.o, I was told that there was discussion about splitting it into multiple feeds. I just checked and there are indeed a few smaller feeds (e.g. Planet Firefox) that are more or less a subset of p.m.o. But this isn’t enough to have the flexibility to make a real choice about which items are of interest (at least not for me). Just looking at the 60-odd unread items in my feed right now, I would suggest that the following categories as sensible:

• Firefox development (present and future)
• Third-party developers using Mozilla platform (including Messaging, Seamonkey)
• Mozilla marketing and the browser market
• Mozilla licensing and open-source in general
• Mozilla Foundation
• Testing
• Employee status updates
• Extension development and AMO
• Mozilla Labs
• Mozilla server admin
• Meeting minutes
• Documentation
• Non-Mozilla posts by Mozilla folks (employees and community)

Something I don’t see right now but that I have seen in the past are posts from people who used to be big contributors to the Mozilla community, but now have nothing to do with it and never write about anything to do with Mozilla. In at least one instance I saw a person fitting this description complain when they were removed (they were then reinstated, much to my chagrin). So perhaps a “Mozilla alumni” feed would make sense as well.

This categorization is by no means definitive. My point is that it is possible to categorize the posts. I’d be ecstatic if the feed were split into 10 or so separate feeds along the lines of what I proposed above. The best part is that, due to the caliber of our blog authors, we can count on people tagging their posts intelligently so they can be included in multiple feeds, if appropriate, without muddying the waters. I certainly have no issue whatsoever with leaving Planet Mozilla exactly as it is now (and continuing to add new feeds frequently), as long as separate feeds are available as an alternative.

But that’s just me. Perhaps I’m the only one who sees this as an issue.

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.

I did my best to reassure him of course, providing arguments that support their choice and pointing him to a blog post by a GNOME developer that gives a fair and balanced assessment of the merits and drawbacks of the two platforms. The truth, however, is that the second wave of the browser wars — the platform wars — is now in full swing, and so far WebKit is winning.

WebKit has decisively chalked up a few early battles. Apple choose WebKit as the engine for Safari back in 2002. Mozilla would have been a logical choice, but those were early days, and even Mozilla insiders say they probably weren’t ready to serve as the foundation for another major browser. Google’s decision to use WebKit in its Chrome browser is more telling. The reality is that, although Mozilla now has a stellar platform, they have made it clear that their primary focus is on Firefox. WebKit, on the other hand, is first and foremost a platform, and as such has an inherent appeal to software developers looking to build their own browser or embed browser functionality.

Well, so what if a bunch of products adopt WebKit over Mozilla? (Flock is the latest to plan a switch, if you believe the rumors.) Firefox is a hugely successful brand, with steadily growing market share that recently topped 20%. And competition in the browser market is a good thing, as Mozillians are quick to point out, and will only serve to accelerate innovation to the benefit of end users.

Mozilla has established principles that imply a custodial role for the internet at large. It is becoming increasingly clear that software that provides some browser functionality (but may not be a browser in the traditional sense) is going to play a bigger role in the future of the web. From media browsers like iTunes and Songbird to single-site browsers like Fluid and Prism, people will be accessing the web via a variety of products in the future. If Mozilla fails to compete effectively in the platform space, it will see its market share decline even if Firefox holds steady among traditional browsers.

This means that Mozilla will be less able to pursue its stated mission. It will be handing control to large corporations like Apple and Google.

Mozilla knows this of course, and they’ve done many things recently to respond to the WebKit threat. The Fennec mobile browser is clearly a huge strategic priority, an attempt to counter the current dominance of WebKit in that space. Firefox’s memory consumption, long a sore spot, has been dramatically improved. And a few individuals have made heroic efforts to make Mozilla more appealing as a platform, rationalizing the code base and rearchitecting Firefox so that it runs on top of XULRunner.

I think more is needed. In particular, I would love to see a reversal of Mozilla’s decision not to “invest in a pre-packaged or stand-alone XULRunner at this time.” This is as much about public relations as anything else. They already offer nightly builds of the platform SDK. (Can we have debug mode though, pretty please?) The platform documentation is so improved it brings tears to my eyes. But hardly anyone outside of the Mozilla community knows about these things. A big loud honking public statement that the platform is being actively developed and marketed, as a product, would in itself be a huge help in getting people to choose Mozilla for their software projects.

The other area screaming for improvement is platform evangelism and developer relations. A funny quote in the TechCrunch story about Flock dumping Mozilla (true or not) cites a “source” complaining that they feel like the “red headed stepchild of the Mozilla development community.” This might seem a bit overboard, but the last open forum I witnessed between Mozilla and users of the platform rapidly descended into a heated shouting match that I thought, for a while, might come to blows.

I don’t want to be seen as airing dirty laundry here. There are tensions inside any developer community, and not all of the complaints (expressed loudly by a few individuals) were fair or reasonable. When I was new to the community, I found Mozilla employees to be exceptionally welcoming and helpful. But I still believe there is a lot of room for improvement. It would be fantastic if Mozilla would appoint at least one individual whose specific role it is to act as a liaison with developers using the platform. A clear go-to person who can help developers to get their patches landed (or explain to them in clear, diplomatic terms why they won’t be) would be invaluable. This person could also help to evangelize use of Mozilla as a platform.

I’m not too worried about Mozilla’s technology. WebKit may be the shiny new toy, but on balance Mozilla stacks up well in terms of performance, stability, standards compliance and features. More to the point, a lot of folks smarter than me are aware of the technology’s shortcomings and are continuing to improve it on many fronts. What is missing so far is clear, public recognition of the strategic value of having a competitive platform.

I’m very keen to hear from others where they think the product should be heading and what sort of organization would be needed to keep some momentum behind it. I feel strongly that Prism can be of great value to Mozilla, and I’m curious to find out if anyone else out there (besides Mark, of course) agrees with me.

I’m also looking forward to attacks by rabid beers [ed note: I meant bears, of course, an obvious Freudian slip], vehicles plowing willy-nilly into air-conditioning units, epic rockslides and all the other mundane occurrences we’ve come to expect at Mozilla community events.

• Chrome uptake tails off quickly (with more gloomy commentary at Giga Om). I’ve been running cold and hot on Chrome’s market potential, but with the steady hand of hindsight (backed up by statistics) to prop me up, I’ll stick with my original assertion that there simply isn’t much room in the market for a new browser brand. Google should focus on making Chrome an awesome single-site browser. I suspect that, once market realities set in, they may well do this.
• I learned a lot from this interview about HTML 5 with Ian Hickson. Just one thing: 2022? Really? I’m all for setting realistic (i.e. highly pessimistic) deadlines, but let’s strap on a pair and get this puppy out the door. My long and storied experience with missing delivery dates has taught me that setting deadlines too far in the future doesn’t make it more likely that you will hit them. It just reduces urgency and makes everything take even longer.
• Ars Technica has a detailed writeup on Skyfire, a Gecko-based browser for Windows Mobile. I’m not sure that users are going to be that gung ho to install third-party browsers on their devices, but maybe Skyfire’s strategy is to cut OEM deals once they are ready. The server-side rendering idea is certainly intriguing, although it breaks a core adage of the technology sphere: never bet against Moore’s Law.
• Did you know that Google has an open source effort called Chromium that complements its Chrome browser? Oh, you did? Ah well, my fault for having such spectacularly smart, well-informed and discerning readers. Anyway, here is a veritable slew of information about the relationship between Chromium, Chrome and the Google mothership
• I’ve been hearing for many months that Adobe has Flash running on the iPhone in its labs. Well here’s confirmation (that they are, at very least, working on it). Lack of Flash is one of the things I love least about my iPhone, so I dearly hope this happens. What use is a web without Flash video and Scramble?
• Todd Ditchendorf has done a fantastic job on Fluid. Now he’s readying a new OS X browser. The feature list is hot, but the same caveats mentioned for Google Chrome apply here, minus the market-bending might of the web’s most powerful company. And why the heck is this a “social browser”? Is every new piece of software now “social” by default?
• Dion Almaer and Ben Galbraith of Ajaxian join Mozilla to head an effort creating new tools for web development. The web sorely needs better development tools. Firebug is getting more love, and Ajaxian (them again!) ran a fascinating piece today about JS Bin, a pastebin variant that enables collaborative development of JavaScript code. Methinks I spot a trend.

This imitation of the for-profit IPO process may seem gimmicky, but in fact it is part of a new trend to improve how non-profits are financed, so that they can escape the obsession with short-term fund-raising that is pervasive in the charitable world. With money in the bank to finance the next three years’ operations, Ms Lublin and her team will be free to focus on reaching Do Something’s goals.

Now I’ve savaged the idea of a Mozilla IPO in the past as demonstrating a “total lack of understanding of the Mozilla community ethos.” The Do Something IPO is different, however, since it does not provide investors with any voting rights. An IPO of this sort would therefore provide Mozilla with additional funds without hampering its ability to pursue its altruistic goals.

Mozilla is unlike most non-profits, of course, because it generates significant revenues. At the same time, income is still paltry compared to the financial resources of its competitors (with the recent entry of Google into the browser space only serving to drive this point home more forcefully). An IPO-like event might make sense if a) it brings in a significant amount of capital relative to current revenues and b) that capital can be deployed effectively to increase Mozilla’s competitiveness.

Both are big ifs. If we assume that Mozilla can achieve turnover of around $100 million annually (not that much of a stretch considering that 2006 revenues were $66 million), the amount raised in an IPO would probably have to be in the order of hundreds of millions to make any real long-term difference. Would Mozilla be willing to float enough of its equity to achieve this, considering that the implied market capitalisation would reflect the fact that “investment” in the company would actually amount to a charitable donation in the absence of voting rights?

Besides which, we all know that throwing more money at a software development project or projects doesn’t necessarily lead to increased productivity. Access to, say, twice its current financial resources certainly wouldn’t make Mozilla’s products twice as good or half their time to market. Then again, managed correctly this extra money could have a real effect on Mozilla’s competitiveness.

A Mozilla IPO still seems highly improbable, even if structured in this way, but the idea and the questions it raises are certainly intriguing.