Marketing Mozilla 263
garzpacho writes "Despite a 10% market share, Firefox isn't quite mainstream, especially with fairly flat growth after its initial explosion. With the approaching October release of Firefox 2, the team is looking for ways to gain greater mainstream acceptance — and adoption. This article and slideshow look at some of the company's unusual marketing efforts to date and speculate on the future. From the article: '[T]o widen its current user base, Mozilla will need more than elaborate marketing events. Because the new version of Internet Explorer is expected to be more competitive with Firefox, Firefox may need to evolve into more than just a browser. Seth Godin, author of several books on the Internet, including Small Is the New Big, says Mozilla needs to incorporate tools like tagging or... [linking] to eBay's Skype calling service that will help keep friends connected. The idea being, the browser becomes more valuable the more your friends use it, so you've got a reason to become a Firefox evangelist. Mozilla isn't giving many details on the soon-to-be-launched Firefox 2, but... there will be new features not found in current browsers.'"
How about the free software aspect? (Score:3, Insightful)
Keep Mozilla Simple (Score:5, Insightful)
Just get it pre-installed at dell/compaq/HP/etc (Score:5, Insightful)
Wasn't firefox designed as the simple mozilla? (Score:5, Insightful)
I hope history doesn't repeat itself, use the KISS principle.
Um (Score:3, Insightful)
Is Seth unfamiliar with Flock [flock.com], I wonder? It's exactly what he's asking for. And I haven't exactly noticed it threatening to swamp Firefox in terms of popularity (though in fairness it hasn't reached 1.0 yet -- but I really doubt it will blow FF away even then, except maybe among some niche audiences).
Bloatware? (Score:2, Insightful)
I think if Mozilla convinced more IT Managers that it is the browser that their users ought to be using, IT Departments everywhere begin to set Firefox as the default browser on all of their computers and more people start realizing the benefits of Firefox.
It should NOT evolve into more that just a browser (Score:5, Insightful)
I have a better idea (Score:3, Insightful)
That would make it worth using again. After a promising start, it got worse and worse with every release.
But instead, they are focusing on marketing techniques and gimmicks in order to spread the fox. It would be cool to have a good, not a well marketed, browser. Besides, do they really think they're in MS's league when it comes to marketing software?
Hmmm. (Score:3, Insightful)
Firefox appealed to me because of simplicity with the option of adding things that I wanted. IE7 is a clunky piece of trash...it looks like sh*t and I can't stand it. Keep it simple for the n00bs, the l337 h@x0rz can use extensions.
Who are they hiding the features from? (Score:5, Insightful)
In the words of Anakin.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Firefox may need to evolve into more than just a browser.
Please don't do it!
I use Firefox because it's simple, it has a minimal resource footprint (unless you start getting addicted to extensions (*looks sternly at Forecastfox*)), and above all renders QUICKLY.
I don't know why IE can't replicate this, but still IE takes forever to render some pages long after Firefox is done loading. But that nimbleness is precisely what keeps me with Firefox. Start loading it with everything including the kitchen sink, and I personally will find the next, simpler browser.
How bout we just stick to web browsing??? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Who are they hiding the features from? (Score:1, Insightful)
I would gladly not tell anyone if that was a stipulation for having sex with Jessica Alba. And believe me, it would be WAY better than developing any sort of code.
Re:How about the free software aspect? (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh No (Score:1, Insightful)
Almost everyone I know who uses Firefox does so because it's relatively lightweight, a good quality browser and can be extended through plug-ins they can choose to install. Firefox was supposed to be about simplicity - a usable web browser without the fluff, bloat, padding of other browsers like IE or even the Mozilla suite. When you take that away, you remove the reason why people choose Firefox.
Congratulations - if Firefox starts heading in the direction outlined, you've just lost your core market.
Want to know how to get Firefox out to a bigger audience? Get PC manufacturers to bundle Firefox with their Windows installs. Get major websites that write IE-only sites to support Firefox. Good luck with those ones...
Re:Keep Mozilla Simple (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a structural flaw somewhere in the brain of many software product marketeer. When asked on how to enlarge market share or how to make more profit, the answer apparently always is: Enlarge functionality, more functions means more market share means more profit.
It's wrong. I always tend to flee away from products when they reach this phase and become bloated. That's why i ran into Firefox in the first place! Because it's light weight. I think a better market strategy would be: Firefox 2 is even more light weight, it runs smoother and faster than anything you've experienced so far. We dumped the features that nobody uses and made it even easier to use.
That would make my parents happy, I'll tell you.
Re:Keep Mozilla Simple (Score:5, Insightful)
I disagree. They killed the original Mozilla suite because it was bloated with things you don't need while browsing. As a web browser, it did a basic job - "but wait, there's more! You also get this email client you may not need, which doubles as a newsreader; you get an IRC client, an HTML editor, and let's see what else we can cram in here!"
To compete with Internet Explorer, you want to pare it down to just a browser, and enhance the browsing experience. All those other things are completely different products. If I feel I need to replace my existing email client, let me decide separately. Same for the rest. I just want the best browsing experience I can have. Firefox is an attempt to deliver that, and nothing else.
So I say, if they can incorporate clever extensions as default options that enhance the everyday browsing experience, like tabs or better bookmarks or even bittorrent (a transparent download enhancement?), that makes perfect sense. However, extra tools that are effectively different tasks altogether unrelated to browsing, like IRC chat or internet telephony - those should probably stay as user-installable extensions.
I'll browse the web efficiently with Firefox, and if I decide I need to get on the FooBar internet bandwagon, maybe there's a neat extension that does that job for me right from firefox. But if it has little to do with browsing, it doesn't belong in the default download.
Re:Keep Mozilla Simple (Score:3, Insightful)
The biggest problem I see (on further reflection) is that by providing all those plug-ins as default, Mozilla is basically vouching that they won't break anything. This makes patches much more difficult, as they have been known to break extensions in the past... Basically, it make me worry that Mozilla will be dealing with scope creep, and that too much time will be spent on managing extensions.
That said, maybe they could link to sites where bundled packages are available. E.g., Click this link to download $DOMAIN.com's version that includes extended functions for instant messaging.
Firefox is the most unstable program in common use (Score:5, Insightful)
That's because spyware is marketed in a more effective fashion. Yes, the spyware marketing is a lie, and a destructive lie. However, spyware is marketed as simple. If you investigate Firefox, you will find many, many articles with the general subject: "How to spend a day doing highly technical things that may or may not make Firefox work correctly". For example, Google "Firefox memory" [google.com]. Or, Google "Firefox unstable" [google.com]. Or, "Firefox Crash" [google.com].
Sure, Firefox has extensions, but they often make Firefox unstable. The Firefox team thinks that it is entirely acceptable to market Firefox extensions, but when the extensions cause Firefox to be unstable, to excuse the instability by saying that it is caused by an extension.
From the Slashdot story: "With the approaching October release of Firefox 2, the team is looking for ways to gain greater mainstream acceptance - and adoption." This is nonsense, in my opinion. Firefox is, once again, the most unstable program in common use [slashdot.org]. If anyone on the Firefox team actually cared about Firefox acceptance, they would fix the bugs, which were first reported 3 years ago. Note that the main bug report linked is always marked invalid. That's not because anything has been done about the instability of Firefox; it's because people on the Firefox team don't want to, or don't know how to, fix the very, very serious bugs.
The 1.5.0.4 version of Firefox was quite stable, if the Flashblock extension was installed. The 1.5.0.6 version is unstable again. The CPU-hogging bug is back!
This comment posted from a copy of Firefox that is constantly using about 5% of the CPU, even when all pages have been loaded, and there is no active content. That's 2.8% on the way to 70% or more, which will soon make it necessary to close Firefox and reboot Windows XP.
The problem appears to be that Firefox does not allocate enough resources. If you open several Firefox windows and several tabs in each window, and leave them open for several days, or suspend or hibernate your computer a few times, you will find that Firefox has started to hog the CPU.
Apparently everyone on the Firefox team wants to add features or work on easy bugs. Apparently also, browser programmers are not necessarily heavy browser users. People who often do research on the internet are likely to cause Firefox to become unstable.
Re:Keep Mozilla Simple (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, I would argue that bittorrent has nothing to do with web browsing, and that it's exactly the type of application you were talking about in the Mozilla suite that shouldn't have been there. I mean, if you're adding bittorrent, why not an emule client? Why not a binary newsreader? Why not all the other ways people download things? And hey, while we're at it, people get files through email too! And then suddenly you're right back where we started with the bloated Mozilla suite.
The problem is everybody seems to say the same thing, "oh, Firefox should just be a web browser, except for this one extra feature that I think would fit in perfectly!" But that "one extra feature" is different for everybody, and if you include one, there's going to be a temptation to try to include them all. This is how feature bloat starts, and it's exactly what happened to Mozilla.
The Firefox team needs to stay focused like a laser beam on Firefox's core function. It's what differentiates Firefox from every other browser. I don't see what the point is in even trying to compete with IE, honestly, especially if it degrades the experience. I mean if the way to compete with IE is to make the browser as bad as IE and as bad as the Mozilla suite, then what are we actually gaining? It's as if a great indie rock band decides they want more fans, so they emulate Britney Spears. I mean, maybe that'll get them more fans, but it's sure not going to make the music any better.
People use Firefox because they don't want all these "features". If I want tons of features and I don't want to use IE, I can just use Opera. I use Firefox because it's a lightweight browser that does nothing but browse and does it well. I do agree that enhancements to the browsing experience can be added (e.g. tabbed browsing), but every single feature being considered needs to pass that litmus test first and foremost. When somebody proposes a feature, everybody needs to ask first "is this directly related to web browsing?" and second "will the majority of users want this?" If the answer to *either* of those questions is "no", then the feature should not be added.
Re:How about the free software aspect? (Score:4, Insightful)