Firefox-based Social Browser Flock Launches 329
daria42 writes "The much-hyped Flock, a new browser based on Mozilla Firefox and integrating features like RSS feeds, blogging tools, the del.icio.us social bookmarking and Flickr photo sharing services has just launched a public developer preview to the world. Flock is being driven by a team of developers being led by Bart Decrem, a well-known open source developer who co-founded the ill-fated Eazel project back in 1999 and has been involved with both the Mozilla and GNOME foundations. On his blog this week he says Flock won't be forking the Firefox codebase."
Browser UI (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Browser UI (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Browser UI (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Browser UI (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Browser UI (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Browser UI (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Browser UI (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Browser UI (Score:3, Funny)
The greatest feature... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The greatest feature... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The greatest feature... (Score:5, Funny)
So is the refresh button a titty twister?
Social Browser? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Social Browser? (Score:2, Funny)
Extra! Extra! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Extra! Extra! (Score:2, Informative)
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.flock
Unlike that of Microsoft's Internet Explorer site:
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.micro soft.com/windows/ie/default.mspx [w3.org]
But then again, that's not surprising.
cutting edge? (Score:5, Informative)
I would agree (Score:2)
If they really want to be a "social" browser, why'd they overlook BitTorrent?
Is this a group that can only make skins? I know there isn't (that I've found) a FF plugin for BT, but would it really be hard for a group that supposes to make a better browser?
Re:cutting edge? (Score:5, Insightful)
Finally someone does it, and people are quick to start belittling it for not being something fantastic and earth shattering. It said straight up that it was based on Firefox.
It's not doing anything nasty like Netscape did, so this just means that there are more alternatives out there. Last time I checked, that was considered to be good around here.
Re:cutting edge? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:cutting edge? (Score:3, Insightful)
>something fantastic and earth shattering. It said straight up that it was based on
>Firefox.
Because it's different people doing the suggesting and the belittling?
Re:cutting edge? (Score:3, Insightful)
In my book, you don't get points for redesigning a browser that was already written with a front end for a bookmarking system that was already written.
Yes, I know there are other features. See paragraph 1.
It's probably great for emo kids. (Score:2)
Re:It's probably great for emo kids. (Score:2)
What I need..... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:What I need..... (Score:5, Funny)
So a browser that hates you enough to try to kill you, or failing that, your computer at every turn? One that does it's own thing, regardless of what you tell it to do, and when you finally manage to get it to do what you want, it does it half assed?
Wait...I think I just described IE.
Re:What I need..... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:What I need..... (Score:2)
It usually helps... (Score:5, Informative)
The User-Agent string. (Score:5, Informative)
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8b5) Gecko/20051019 Flock/0.4 Firefox/1.0+
So if you see it in your server logs, it's because the user is using Flock. If you do see it, please post here so we can gauge the spread of this browser.
Re:The User-Agent string. (Score:3, Funny)
No, Barry. It doesn't work that way. (Score:3, Funny)
Prediction (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously. If there's one thing I think most people can agree on, it's that the number of successful web browsers seems bounded pretty low. You've pretty much got IE, Firefox/Mozilla, Opera, and Safari. I imagine that those are the only browsers showing up with at least 5% in server logs, but in the past there have been many more, some getting more attention than others.
People want to use mainstream browsers. Giving me quick access to something like a blog or Flickr isn't "innovative". A bookmark/favorite does the same thing with less overhead. I can get all sorts of functionality with Firefox and IE using extensions and ActiveX. If Flock is based on Firefox, but they don't plan to fork the codebase or do anything more than GUI changes and extension-cabable add-ons, then what's the point?
The Internet public has a way of weeding out browsers. The mainstream ones stay put (unless they get screwed by major corporations, *cough* Netscape 6 *cough*) and these amazing "new" ones go the way of the dodo. This one will be no different.
Re:Prediction (Score:2)
You and I can look and say: firefox with skin and plugins? wtf? But they look and say: "omg!!111!!! must buy this!!111!"
Re:Prediction (Score:5, Informative)
I thought the same thing until I actually tried the Flock Developer Preview that was just released. (I'm posting this from it now.)
I was all set to be unimpressed but I have to tell you, it's pretty impressive if you have a blog how easy they have made posting Web content to it. There's a "shelf" tool, for starters, that you use by just highlighting any text on a page and dragging-and-dropping it into the Shelf. Then, when you want to post about that text, you just click the "Blog this" button on the toolbar; this opens a new post (Flock autodetects the settings for your blog, so there's no configuration if you use most popular packages) in a WYSIWYG editor. Drag the text from the shelf into the editor and it pops the text in, encloses it in BLOCKQUOTE tags, and adds the cite="" attribute with the URL from the original page.
Revolutionary? Maybe not. But it's so damn slick! Currently when I blog something I copy it from Firefox into an HTML editor (Movable Type's built in editor sucks), mark it up there, log into the admin screen for my blog, then paste the marked-up text into a new post. Oh, and then I have to go back and find the original URL, copy it, and paste it in the appropriate pages. That's a lot of back and forth that Flock eliminates.
Some people use a tool like MarsEdit [ranchero.com] or wBloggar [wbloggar.com] to combine the "markup" and "posting" steps together in one place. But Flock puts all the features of those products right in my browser -- no switching between programs, no copy/paste gymnastics. There's a market for those products, so it's not a big leap to imagine a market for Flock, either (albeit a small one).
It'll be interesting to see how well Flock holds up to ongoing use over time. But my first impressions are better than I expected them to be. You might want to try it too before you pass judgement...
(Random other observation: Flock changes the default engine for the Firefox search box from Google to Yahoo! A political statement? Is Yahoo! connected to Flock somehow? Veeery interesting...)
Re:Prediction (Score:2, Funny)
Eat my Karma baby. It's soooo worth it.
Re:Prediction (Score:2)
What is it about blogs? (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously, every time someone bashes on "blogs" it sounds to me like people bashing on television. Fine. Do
And now, my prediction. (Score:2)
I'm posting this from Flock right now. It doesn't even have a "stop" button, but it does have an option "blog editor".
It didn't offer to auto-import my FireFox bookmarks, but it did offer to import IE (on Windows).
I think this will be all about how much stress their servers can handle
Re:Prediction (Score:2)
No, it doesn't. I haven't made up my mind on Flock yet, but at least I'm using it before making an opinion. You, clearly, are not, and haven't tried to.
Re:Prediction (Score:5, Interesting)
Seriously. If there's one thing I think most people can agree on, it's that the number of successful web browsers seems bounded pretty low. You've pretty much got IE, Firefox/Mozilla, Opera, and Safari. I imagine that those are the only browsers showing up with at least 5% in server logs, but in the past there have been many more, some getting more attention than others.
I don't think it's just a problem of, we have too many browsers, or that this new browser doesn't add any nice features. I think the real question is, is it clear enough what the benefit of using "Flock" is?
I think most people right now think of there being two kinds of browsers: IE, that feature-poor default browser that gets blamed for all the security problems-- and then just "everything else". Firefox, Safari, Camino, and Opera all fit into the "everything else" category, and though they may be different from each other, they all offer the advantages of tabs, pop-up blocking, RSS feeds, and not-being-IE. Everyone has their favorite, but I don't think, for the most part, any of them distinguish themselves greatly enough to be much more than a matter of preference. None of them quite make it to be THE browser to use.
So I think the question might be something like: Are the benefits of Flock clear enough to distinguish itself as THE browser to use, or will Flock become just another on the list of maybes. I think if it sticks on the list of maybes, inertia alone will keep it from displacing any of the other bigger browsers very much.
I'm not talking about whether Flock is good or not, but are the benefits going to be clear to joe-schmoe. With tabs and pop-up blockers, it's rather easy to show those things to my parents and explain, this is why you want this browser. Are the benefits that clear with Flock? I'll tell you, I'm not even sure I understand what's supposed to be good about this new browser yet.
If they can't answer that question, I'd say they'll be trapped with a bit of a marketing problem. There's the niche of technical people who use flickr and blog alot who might appreciate the features, but they can be a tough crowd to hold on to en masse. Without capturing the imagination of a larger audience, I don't know if they'll be able to reach critical mass.
Re:Prediction (Score:3)
The main problem I see with that is that a lot of features integrate with each other, and replace functionality in Firefox, rather than just augmenting it. The favourites system, for example, is completely replaced. Removing existing functional
Re:Prediction (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Prediction (Score:2)
Eye fidn yuor bl0gzoring intugirng nad woud like 2 subScrieb 2 ya RSS feed.
New spam and phishing grounds (Score:5, Insightful)
These systems would also make ideal phishing grounds. Posting a fake "eBay" link ("look at this cool auction!!!") would take the target person to a faked eBay auction page (e.g with an IDN exploit [shmoo.com]) or just a scam domain (ebbay.com, etc.) that then asks for a eBay or Paypal password. Since many of the people that would follow a socially bookmarked eBay link are eBay/Paypal users the phisher would get a high hit rate.
Even if the system relies on some form of accumulated reputation or trust networks, its still possible for someone to cultivate a great reputation before abusing the system with spam or phishing.
Re:New spam and phishing grounds (Score:5, Insightful)
Currently the web is a sort of one way medium. With flock, it can help it to become a 2 way medium much easier.
Agents in this sort of system (People will then be able to filter out the data for the masses to consume.
Have a look at reddit.com
Its a great example of how the wider community filters out the bad stuff.
Another is to take a look a slashdot.
Its a two way system. You post, someone moderates.
Overall it creates a collective emergent intelligence which filters out the bad stuff and leaves in information you desire.
The higher the score, the better this system works.
The key part is of course the identity of an agent.
I'm pretty sure someone isn't going to spend lots of time manually building up their karma just to get banned in one fell swoop by posting up a few ads. Its simply not cost effective.
Re:New spam and phishing grounds (Score:4, Insightful)
Large masses with moderation powers leads to centerist bullshit that tries to please everyone rather than being factually accurate. You post what everyone can easily agree with (We need to protect our children, microsoft is bad, firefly is good, apple and google are gods who can do no evil, etc) and you get modded up. You post something accurate that pisses people off, and you get modded down.
Re:New spam and phishing grounds (Score:3, Interesting)
In the arena of slashdot, sure its a sort of democratic system that brings out a specific view point or weighs in heavily of a specific subject matter but thats what this system is about. Finding out what the masses are in favour for. Yes is tramples all over minorities which means there is a gap left that could be exploited if someone can come up with a system that fixes it.
Also, remember that all these opinions are of ONE demographic. I bet you slashdot would start le
Re:New spam and phishing grounds (Score:4, Interesting)
Moderators on Slashdot have gotten a lot better about modding down opinions they disagree with, and instead have taken to just posting disagreements. You'll notice the number of pro-Microsoft comments that get modded up in any Microsoft-is-evil story.
As one guy who posts more than he probably should, Modders seem to respond these days to forcefully held opinions part of which they personally, individually agree with. Therefore the best way to get modded up is to agressively defend a lot of little positions that will appeal to several subgroups, especially underrepresented ones. For example, "It is clear that the furry community of Canada have become THE mainstream SkyOS users of choice, but not all of the time." Don't do it all in one sentence, of course, and don't get fur into your keyboard. Defending two fundamentally opposite but technically non-conflicting viewpoints also helps get mod points. If the "Microsoft is a convicted monopolist" half of your post doesn't get a particular moderator, the "but Microsoft has done a lot of good things" half will.
Changing your subject line seems to reduce your chances of getting modded up, strangely enough. Also swear once, and only once. This proves just how muck you fucking believe what you're posting. Real people swear.
All of that is only if you don't have anything to say. These days, the other good way to get modded up is to know your stuff and have something to actually say. If it is an article about Unix Microsoft, and you happened to sit in on a few dozen meetings with MS about it, post. It will be moderated up. If it is about the Free Software Federation of Florence, and you happen to be a member of Love, Linux, and Linguine, post.
While it can be gamed, the Slashdot moderating system seems to work. I hardly ever see posts modded to 0 which don't deserve it, or posts at +5 which really, really shouldn't be. Really, the only major problem is that there aren't enough genuinely good posts. But that's not a fault of the moderation system, just a sign that people have things to do with their lives.
As someone that has worked with user-created content professionally, I'd have to say that Slashdot is a shining example of what's possible. You have hundreds of comments on a story, 10 of which are worth reading. But those 10 are of the quality of journalism you would find at News.com, the Register.co.uk, and the New York Times... You know, the "I'm professional, really" rags. And there are whole threads of interesting discussions that haven't degraded to usenet-level postings. All of this by volunteers who probably should be doing something else.
And if you want to see what's possible, try browsing with everything turned down except "funny" mods up +5.
I'm really looking forward to Flickr. Collaborative content, collaborative filtering, and multi-direction communication seems to be driving the internet forward these days. And it's about time... TNINTV.
Well, browsers happen... (Score:5, Interesting)
Are we going full circle? (Score:3, Interesting)
Are we going full circle and just reinventing AOL or other online services applications? We're coming back to the "online service application" -- the one program used for email, viewing information, "everything" you can do online....
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Note to developers (Score:4, Insightful)
Have a nice day and enjoy the VC money. Foosball rox!
Re:Note to developers (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Note to developers (Score:2)
Re:Note to developers (Score:2)
Remember how people on slashdot shot down the iPod w
Re:Note to developers (Score:2)
No wireless. Less space than a Nomad.
For our Arabic friends (Score:2, Funny)
That should be Badr Decrem.
some cool features for bloggers (Score:2)
Re:some cool features for bloggers (Score:2, Interesting)
I just tested it out myself and nothing major or life changing in it.
what it will be good for is getting firefox to the masses of people who ARE NOT computer geeks and know all about which plugins are what and how to go about installing these things.
Users in the end want simplicity. An analogy would be that I would consider this browser like a holiday package.
Sure you can go out and buy a plane ticket, sort out the best value hotel, fix up transfers etc etc but for the 90% of the people who simply wa
A new record.... (Score:4, Funny)
Yeah, I've already got a browser that works for me. Thanks anyway flockers...
Re:A new record.... (Score:2)
Wow. It renders faster on OS X (Score:2)
As if... (Score:2, Funny)
Flock'd! (Score:3, Funny)
That, or when you're playing football and you get cleats square in your gonads. You're flock'd then, too.
My thoughts (Score:5, Informative)
What I like:
The default theme is much prettier than any Firefox theme I've seen. Not a big deal, but it is nice to not have to search through a ton of themes to get one that's aesthetically pleasing.
At the right side of the bookmark toolbar is a drop down menu, where you select don't make me weak at the kneesthe folder to view, and that folder's contents show up in the bar. Sure not one of the great innovations of our time, but I love it. Already I use it more than I ever used the bookmark menu. I would be delighted if Mozilla merged this into Firefox.
Another thing that Firefox has been missing is searchbar history. It's one of those small things that can really make the difference in your user experience.
They also have the option to bring back the find as you type bit, and I've only had one instance where it tries to start searching when I'm typing in a textbox.
Things that I'm neutral towards or dislike:
I'm not a big blogger or del.icio.us user, so those features don't excite me overmuch.
That said, the built-in interface to Blogger simply doesn't work. You try to open an old post and supposedly all the text in it is "2005".
When playing with the blogging applet, at times I would get CPU usage of ~98%.
Beyond the bookmark toolbar, the rest of the favorites interface is cluttered and stuff that I would never use.
The CSS implementation is a bit sketchy (though still better than IE, in my opinion).
But hey, they gave fair warning that there are some major bugs. Hopefully most of these will be fixed up by 1.0.
Why is it so hard to use delicious in Flock? (Score:2)
Now I have no idea how to make Flock show me the tags delicious users are putting on pages.
None of the getting started with Flock pages help me. I don't seem to be made aware anywhere that any major website has tags I can see.
Flock Hype (Score:2)
Some gems embedded in poo. (Score:4, Insightful)
And all of it could be done in FF extensions in just a few weeks (and hopefully will).
The rest of it is just a huge mess of poo with a few good ideas plopped into it. I think everyone should try it out, see what they did right and what they did wrong, and write some FF extensions for the rest of us to use. I can't beleive they got VC money for this, sorry guys. PS- I love the ability to switch collections on the toolbar, but can't figure out for the life of me why I cant open multiple tabs by middle clicking.
for me, 'tis useful (Score:2, Interesting)
My Flock Preview Release Review (Score:2)
Flock had me skeptical from the screenshots (ugly and useless), but having actually used it, it's pretty gosh darn neat. The Shelf is an incredible killer feature. I've tried out a few similar extensions for Firefox, but none did it as smoothly and intuitively as Flock has. All it needs is a few hardcore snippet-management-tools, and it'll be my new favorite research program.
Likewise, the blog editor falls under the "pretty neat" status. The formatting gets eaten by Wordpress.com's post-parser (to filter
PREDICTION! (Score:2)
This is ridiculous (Score:3, Interesting)
Someone went and turned a browser from a window through which you can view the web to an application where you interact with parts of it (among the most popular parts these days) more intuitively. And you look beyond how neat that is because you want to look down your noses at the emo teens. Fucking class act.
13 new things in flock (Score:5, Informative)
1. replaces old-school bookmarks with one-click social bookmarking to Del.icio.us
2. tagging is there if you want to do two-click bookmarking and tag
3. a new bookmarks manager with an integrated rss reader
4. built in search engine that indexes every page you visit and has a Spotlight-style as-you-type UI
5. keeps a list of the sites you visit most frequently
6. multiple bookmarks toolbar (one for work, one for play etc.)
7. finds feeds, lets you view them
8. caches the feeds so you can read them on the train
9. aggregated RSS view for all of your bookmarks folders
10. integrated blog editor (support wordpress, movable type, blogger)
11. one click 'blog this' feature (it does the blockquotes, citations and all that stuff for you)
12. Flickr integration (drag and drop pix into blogs)
13. shelf: a web scrapbook that helps you organizae stuff you want to blog
and of course it's open source and cross platform.
details at http://www.flock.com/fiveways/togetstarted/13.php [flock.com]
Re:13 new things in flock (Score:2)
in Soviet Russia... (Score:2)
For geeks and nerds only (Score:3, Insightful)
One of the biggest traps I have ever seen a geeky developer (and I use the term endearingly) fall into is that the whole world is going to love your product as much as you do.
It just doesn't happen that way unfortunately.
Firefox is probably close to market saturation because anyone who actually cares about their computer and likes to tinker with extension and RSS feeds is using it, but everyone else *just isn't concerned* and it totally passes them by.
Flock is just several orders of magnitude higher up the 'niche' market than that. By reading /. and similar boards all day, it may seem that the world is occupied by similarly minded geeks, but the sad truth is that it isn't.
The vast, vast, VAST majority of people are happy to buy a computer, turn it on and then double-click the icon on the desktop that mentions 'internet' and that is all they will ever do.
Saying that, I probably assume that the Flock developers don't realise that. Maybe they do and yet they still wish to develop a niche product. If that's the case then all power to them!
using it now (Score:2)
Is it just me, or is this thing noticeably faster than Firefox 1.0.7? Can anyone comment on how the speed compares to FF 1.5 beta?
Outfoxed (Score:3, Interesting)
A required feature of web 2.0: hype? (Score:3, Informative)
I've been following Flock ever since the site launched. I read preview after preview from web 2.0 people who claimed Flock would be God's gift to the modern age, better than parasols or flying airships or rockets to the moon. So, of course, I downloaded it with great haste yesterday only to discover . .
. . . that it is little more than an AJAX-esque skin for Firefox with some "fancy" extensions, fancy meaning slow and unworkable. Marshall McLuhan, media genius and internet saint, said that hot media burns fast and clear, shining for only a moment and then gone. Well, friends, Flock is hot in the McLuhan sense. It was best experienced as an anticipation, not as something that has actually arrived. The reality is that Flock is flying lame.
What the Flock people should have done is release it quietly to a few developers, let them test it under promise of silence, and then when they had something worth screaming about - screamed then, and only then. Instead, they screamed before they had anything, in the sense that they posted flickr screenshots, and whipped up the blogosphere in orgasmic anticipation.
I felt cheated trying Flock, and vindicated when I uninstalled it. I've been very impressed with Web 2.0 so far, or whatever it is they're calling webpages on the internet that are well coded, but if Flock is the future I want out.
They're doing what Linux distros do. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:They're doing what Linux distros do. (Score:2)
Re:They're doing what Linux distros do. (Score:2)
Re:Only average users don't care (Score:2)
Re:Wonderful. (Score:2, Funny)
peace
Re:Wonderful. (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is fair enough.
This web 2.0 is rather new. It's still trying to be defined. What we are seeing at this stage is new technologies that allow for a greater social interaction. Meanwhile the underlying systems are creating an emergent intelligence that can provide you with a greater experience.
It's a new technology and who else is better than understanding new technology than youngsters?
I still recall the time when cellphones were starting to become the mainstream. The older folk kept on asking why anyone would want such a device. Turn the clock forward and pretty much the entire younger generation at that time now has a cellphone. They identified the capability and found new uses for the technology.
This web 2.0 buzz is simply that cycle repeating. No one has anything against you not giving a care about these new systems. but. what you should do is stand aside while the people that embrace that "moved cheese" start to live a better and fully life using the technologies designed specifically for this purpose
Re:Wonderful. (Score:5, Insightful)
Enabling anyone to create, edit, and share is one of the defining premises of the web and it's only this premise that is deepening that really defines the new generation of web apps. I fully expect to see every kind of human-computer interaction pick up community features in the near future and become merged into the web browser.
A lot is made of the UI changes in the Web 2.0 (or AJAX, or whatever) and those are important but they are really only important so much as they improve the ability to communicate more complex things with more people quickly.
Not a good thing to ignore if you're job involves software, communications, or media.
Re:Wonderful. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Wonderful. (Score:3, Insightful)
Lots of hype. (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Wonderful. (Score:5, Insightful)
As for community features. I'm not sure they belong merged into the browser but I'm not sure they don't either so it's a worthy experiment. I'm sure the better parts will get merged backwards into Firefox. Community sites shouldn't be a replacement for a social life but they can provide an extension of a social life. Obviously you're using Slashdot so you have no room to make fun of users of community sites.
Re:Wonderful. (Score:2)
Re:Wonderful. (Score:2)
Nope, but this [mozilla.org] does.
Re:Wonderful. (Score:4, Insightful)
If the giggling teenage masses switch to better browsers, everyone prospers.
Re:Wonderful. (Score:2)
Re:Wonderful. (Score:3, Insightful)
Just thought I should point that out...
</off-topic>
Re:Wonderful. (Score:2)
Teenage girls are pretty much the last thing the average Slashdotter knows anything about.
Re:Wonderful. (Score:2)
I can't stand 'em. They make being female online harder because, in some circles at least, people expect me to be cute, slutty, and dumb. After all, that's how any girl past puberty is "supposed" to be. And she's supposed to talk about her wonderful boyfriend(s) at length in her public blog, complete with details on her sex life, her friends' sex lives, her sex life with her friends, etc. And there must be many shout outs to her frie
Re:Wonderful. (Score:2)
The web does not need ANOTHER wave of
"OMG!!!!1111!!!! L0L1!!1!1 dats t3h funnyest sh1t!!"
No realy... demographics and even the money be damned. It still hasnt fully recovered from the first beating it took. Give the internet a few more years god damn it i Like free porn at my fingertips
Re:It makes me think of "frock". (Score:2)
And impressionable nuns - not all Catholic priests are perverts you know
Re:For Everybody's Information: (Score:3, Informative)
It's a bad user experience on several levels.
1. 'extensions' brings up a small window with 3 buttons and a link - the link is the different one (smallest visual appearance) that brings you to an extension place.
2. The procedure isn't one click, as I get a fairly scary warning box saying to not install software from places I don't trust. Should I trust the extension? Pretty much every extensio