Mozilla Exec Claims Apple is Hunting OSS Browsers

Rob writes with a link to a Computer Business Review article on the negative impact Mozilla COO John Lilly sees Apple is having on Open Source. Lilly claims that Jobs' recent discussion of Safari on Windows is an attempt to create a duopoly of browsers (IE and Safari), with Firefox and the rest on the outside looking in. "The graph 'betrays the way that Apple, so often looks at the world,' Lilly said. 'But make no mistake: this wasn't a careless presentation, or an accidental omission of all the other browsers out there, or even a crummy marketing trick,' he said. 'Lots of words describe Steve and his Stevenotes, but 'careless' and 'accidental' do not. This is, essentially, the way they're thinking about the problem, and shows the users they want to pick up.'" We discussed an analyst's opinion on this subject this past Friday.

Re:Um... what?

You meant inferior, but I'll forgive you since I know you're using a mac and the keyboard has all the keys in funny places.

Re:Um... what?

There are quite a few misconceptions about what apple do as a company to help or harm the OSS industry. It's a combination of balancing their goals as a business that needs to innovate to stay profitable versus keeping good PR with the sprawling list of partners. An example of this is why apple chose kHTML to start with, they needed a small project they could take control of, mozilla was of sufficient popularity that apple would have very little control in directing it to suit their needs over time. kHTML and now webkit allow this. Also I personally feel it's good to have two mature open source web browsing engines, having one leads to pigeon holing over time (hence why mozilla is suffering a little bit of bloat in recent times.)

I don't agree that Apple are lacking in their support for open source - Apple run their projects as open source when available (you can't open source company secrets and as a result they don't open those older projects to the community). They also use open source throughout their operating system. (http://www.apple.com/opensource/) details some of their open source efforts in osx. Whether directed by apple or otherwise. Apple have also been disproportionately light on litigious affairs with open source vendors. Particularly important when you consider that the expose feature in OS X is actually patented by Apple. (Despite this many enjoy it in ubuntu and other xgl implementations.)

Turning a blind eye and only engaging in litigation where contracts with partners (usually the music industry) require them to do so is an often unrecognised merit to the company's management.

http://www.macosforge.org/ lists many of the bigger apple led open source projects.

Also including all the standards compliant browsers on the slide isn't a good idea for a whole world of obvious reasons. (It's not got much to do with a need for being in the limelight.. it was an apple developer conference, apple -is- in the limelight there.)

Re:Um... what?

Apple's introducing a superior browser to Windows

You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

Not about market share

If they really want the market share, make Firefox 3 worth going back to, and I, for one, will start using FF again.

RTFA. They don't want the market share. They want to keep the web open, as stated in the Mozilla Manifesto [mozilla.org].

Anyway, they do have the market share. Apple releasing Safari for Windows will increase consumer choice and the competition will help all browsers improve. It will also help web developers realize they can't develop for only one or two browsers, but instead should develop according to standards unless they want to turn away significant fractions of visitors. I see only good coming out of the release, regardless of what Jobs' intentions are.

Re:Not about market share

Anyway, they do have the market share.

I don't have the exact numbers, but I'm reasonably certain that there are more Firefox users on Windows than there are Apple OSX users, period. That's not meant as a slam against Apple, but I don't think Firefox has too much to worry about. I think Safari on Windows will likely be used mainly by developers looking who want to be able to test web pages on Safari without using a Mac...

Re:Not about market share

Right. In my post and the one I was responding to, "they" refers to Mozilla. Mozilla has a 15 [hitslink.com] to 25 [w3counter.com]% share depending on which web stats you believe. In comparison, the share of OSX users is only about 4 to 5% of desktop computers. Safari will have to become very popular on Windows before it's even the #2 browser. If they come out with such a superior browser that so many users want to switch, that can only be a good thing, as John Lilly has said.

Then what are they crying about?

RTFA. They don't want the market share. They want to keep the web open, as stated in the Mozilla Manifesto.

Safari rigorously follows the standards, helping keep the web open for all standards-based browsers. Mozilla should be thanking them.

Re:Not about market share

Apple releasing Safari for Windows will increase consumer choice and the competition will help all browsers improve.

Not if Safari doesn't improve *significantly*. Right now, Safari has been widely reviewed as crap-ola on Windows. Just releasing a browser doesn't mean that it's going to become a standard. If nobody ends up using it, then Safari won't have any impact at all.

Re:Um... what?

Exactly. Safari 3 on Mac is the nicest browser I've used for a long time. Safari 3 on Windows seems to be making all of the UI mistakes that FireFox does on Mac. On the plus side, now WebKit works on Windows (thanks to Adobe), it's possible for someone other than Apple to make a WebKit-based browser that does conform to the Windows UI guidelines, such as they are.

Re:Um... what?

So you're not Apple's target audience for Safari on Windows anyway.
what part of this picture [flickr.com] and this picture [flickr.com] is everyone having such a hard time comprehending? Apple's target audience, is all the users that don't use IE. Steve Jobs has clearly shown this.

Here's what I'm referencing. [jubjubs.net] Jobs says: "Well we dream big. We would love for Safari's marketshare to grow substantially. That's what we'd love." Steve Jobs doesn't just want Safari available so people can test their websites quickly at their same Windows box, he want's all of the market share from Opera/Firefox/etc. If his graph would've shown market share eaten up from IE there wouldn't even be these discussions going on, but instead what we see is an inside look into Steve's view on how he wants the market to change.

Re:Um... what?

Yes, Firefox has a search bar that supports more browsers, but it doesn't have a drop down list with my previous searches.

What? Of course it does. Click in search bar, and press down arrow. Drop-down list full of previous searches appears.

It's not terribly useful, though, because auto-complete is faster -- and Firefox's autocomplete also takes advantage of Google's suggestions feature to show me a list of searches I haven't even made yet. (Maybe Safari's does too... I haven't tried it, because Apple hasn't released a version that will work on any of the operating systems I use.)

Close buttons for each tab in each tab

What's the point? If I want to close a tab, I middle-click on it, which is the default behaviour in Firefox. It's more convenient, because I don't have to hit a tiny close button, I can aim for anywhere on the tab. It's safer, because when I just want to select a tab, I can click anywhere on it with the left button, and not risk accidentally closing it. And it leaves more room on the tab for the name of the site.

Hey, it's not my fault if you bought a computer that only came with a one or two button mouse. :P

Safari is better at resuming stalled downloads.

Quite possibly. I don't use Firefox for big downloads - that's what dedicated download programs like wget are for.

That said, I'd use Safari as well if I could - some sites don't work properly in Firefox, and Konqueror is painful to use. Sadly, Apple haven't released a Linux Safari, so I don't have that option.

Re:Um... what?

They're already TRYING to do this (at least with iTunes anyway).
I specifically downloaded Quicktime *without* iTunes, because quite frankly, I don't want iTunes. When there's an update for Quicktime, the updater pre-checks iTunes for download and installation. The same thing happened when I updated Safari.
I suspect that in the future, any updates for iTunes or Quicktime for Windows users will also contain the pre-checked box for Safari as well.

It's just a checkbox, but the default action of most users is to just keep clicking next until the funny little window is gone.
To me, it's underhanded.

Re:Um... what?

I've got a nastly little anarchist streak in me. I think it'd be hilarious for the browser wars to play out like this. Download Windows update? IE takes control. Song off iTunes? Safari grabs control back.

Knock down drag out no holds barred browser war, np.

In more ways than one...

Lilly claims that Jobs' recent discussion of Safari on Windows is an attempt to create a duopoly of browsers (IE and Safari), with Firefox and the rest on the outside looking in.

I feel that Mozilla is trying to do the same thing to Lynx [browser.org].

Apple on Windows

Gee, I hope its as user friendly as iTunes. I simply live to see the message "You cannot use iTunes because another user is running a copy". That's user friendliness right there.

Re:Apple on Windows

Presumably when another user is running a copy.

Re:Apple on Windows

Then uses hers to play Elton John and the Moulin Rouge soundtrack

Damn. I knew Slashdotters were hard up for female companionship, but this is over the top. Why don't you just stick to porn and wanking like the rest of us?

Re:Apple on Windows

Why don't you just stick to porn and wanking like the rest of us?

Because it's not as fun and a lil Elton John and Moulin Rouge is worth having access to a sex partner?

Re:Apple on Windows

"I will never own a Mac until Steverino departs the scene..."

So, you have an older PowerMac, then right? Scully was more your cup of tea?

I've never seen this itunes error, and I use fast user switching all the time. On OSX it just simply works. :) Of course, that's part of why I think Safari on Windows is silly - itunes on Windows is silly too. Broken crap under Windows doesn't convert people to use Mac, it just pisses them off.

Re:Apple on Windows

People already detailed the "switch users" reason earlier in the thread, but if I've learned anything, it's that you should never ask "Why would you want to do that anyways?" in regards to most computer questions, ESPECIALLY in a moderately to heavily tech-oriented forum. People are creative. They thing of ways to use things that lots of others don't. They ALWAYS have a reason to want to do it.

Same base reason why DRM sucks really. A company starts out and thinks up 5-10 ways that people are "allowed" to use something and shuts everything else off. Then they wonder what the hell is wrong when the masses start complaining that it's not doing what they need it to.

On not being #3

In computing, you can be successful as #2, but the #3 player usually loses out and disappears. (Remember Amiga? Commodore? DEC? Ask Jeeves?) If Apple wants their browser to have any commercial significance, they have to pass Firefox.

Re:On not being #3

Yeah, like Gateway, Opera, XBox...wait a minute...

Re:what Apple/Jobs should do is:

webkit has been open source for years. It was adobe who really did all the work getting safari to run in windows

So apple spends no time/money, opens a new source of google search bar revenue, AND gets a wider iphone "sdk"

Safari on windows was a success before Jobs announced it

Nothing to Worry About...

Safari is even less enticing on Windows than it is in its native environment.

Pie Chart is all about marketing

I find it hard to believe that Apple, which from time to time is king of marketing, seriously believes that the browser battle is between just itself and IE. It's no doubt well aware FireFox is number 2, and Safari is close to last, in terms of market share. Instead, this is Apple trying to create the illusion that it really is the big dangerous new browser on the block, and create the perception of market dominance and leadership. I don't think it will work, and this is likely to make Apple look foolish in the eyes of the non-default to IE market, but that's what Apple is trying to do with these silly charts and pronouncements.

Re:Pie Chart is all about marketing

Bullshit. They directly compare two charts - one with IE, Safari, and FF, and then a "future chart," with only IE and Safari.

Re:Pie Chart is all about marketing

That's not at all how Apple operates. You're completely ignoring their real motives. They don't care if they own the dominant web browser. They know it's basically irrelevant to their business.

What Apple sells is a particular computing experience. To have people develop web apps for the iPhone they need the browser platform it runs on: Safari. So Safari on Windows lets non-Mac users develop iPhone applications (similar to OS X's Dashboard).

Apple does not care if only developers use Safari on Windows. As long as there's a lot of iPhone apps to download. Having people browse the web with Safari on Windows does nothing for Apple's bottom line. But as a development platform it's critical to their latest product.

Re:Pie Chart is all about marketing

Instead, this is Apple trying to create the illusion that it really is the big dangerous new browser on the block, and create the perception of market dominance and leadership. I don't think it will work, and this is likely to make Apple look foolish in the eyes of the non-default to IE market, but that's what Apple is trying to do with these silly charts and pronouncements.

Apple's marketing was always extreme, and that is their style for as long as Jobs is on top.

This achieves few things:

- The core of Mac users become even more devoted to the Apple brand (it's sort of like a cult, it doesn't matter sometimes Jobs says ridiculous things).

- The rest of the world sees Apple as arrogant, sometimes foolish, but always and always interesting nonetheless.

- Which on the other hand makes Apple a great news material, and gains it a huge media coverage.

So the bottomline: they're doing what they have to, to survive. The "reality distortion field" of Jobs isn't a myth - it's very real, and the guy's doing it to get the exact effects he gets.

Apple always tries to create its own bubble where it competes with mythical collective enemies such as "The PC", "Microsoft", "The rest of the Phones", "The rest of the browsers". To support this bubble, you need the extreme kind of marketing Jobs does, otherwise it falls a apart and Apple will have to compete in the real market like any other company.

Jobs uses bubbles in his own company as well. Many people know that he would separate his employees in "buubles" and let them "fight" each other (in their work) to full exhaustion (such was the case with Apple II and Lisa teams). The other team is the enemy, and you gotta do everything humanly possible to support your own bubble.

Re:Pie Chart is all about marketing

Apple's marketing was always extreme, and that is their style for as long as Jobs is on top.

What do you mean by extreme? It's always seemed fairly sedate and understated to me, with the exception of the raucous iPod ads. Remember the Mac ads when Jobs came back? They were all elegant, and barely even dared to "sell" the products - they were mostly just sparse shots of the product on a white background, with little elaboration.

I think the marketing of Microsoft and Dell are much more extreme. The Windows Vista ad is ridiculous - as if people actually say "Wow!" at a new version of Windows. Or there's the Microsoft ads that talk about how they empower people to conquer the universe. Or the Dell ads, with their SUPER COOL!! CHEAP!! BUY NOW!!! AMAZING FEATURES!!!!

All of those examples seem much more extreme that the comparatively quiet and friendly Apple advertising.

it's sort of like a cult, it doesn't matter sometimes Jobs says ridiculous things

Why should it matter? I use Apple products because they work well. Should I use something different just because Jobs occassionally puts his foot in his mouth? I don't understand why anyone would choose a computer or software based on the personality of the CEO, rather than the usefulness of the hardware and software.

Apple always tries to create its own bubble where it competes with mythical collective enemies such as "The PC", "Microsoft",

Geeee, that's all a fabrication. It's not like Dell or Microsoft have ever acted antagonistically towards Apple, or "declared war" on them. Oh wait, they have. The other players have just as much, or more, of a problem with this mentality than Apple. Just look at all the big-noting over companies trying to create an "iPod killer," for example. If anything, Apple is happy surviving alongside the other players, where the likes of Microsoft and Dell aren't happy until they crush all the competition. To them, being in second place means losing. Apple's definition of victory is totally different.

I have a MBP...

and installed both Firefox and Thunderbird after about a week of owning the thing. The MBP is great, but iMail & Safari are pretty weak. I don't think Mozilla has anything to worry about.

1996 called

It wants its bounce message back. Most spam these days comes from faked, and sometimes legitimate, email addresses, so you're basically bouncing the spam back to an innocent person and possibly spamming them if the original message is included.