The future of Firefox

Use of Mozilla's Firefox browser is declining (at least as a percentage of market share), and people are concerned.

Some are concerned that we will lose an option in the browser market. Others are concerned that the demise of Firefox signals a forthcoming decline of open-source software. Mozilla, of course, is concerned about its business.

I'm not sure what Mozilla should do in this situation. I do have some observations:

First, people select browsers (and other things) for one of two reasons.

1) They want to use the specific product (in this case, the Firefox browser)

2) They don't want to use the alternatives (in this case, Internet Explorer, Edge, Chrome, Safari, etc.)

To improve its market share, Mozilla will have to either provide a product or service that people want to use, or be an alternative to a product that people don't want to use. Mozilla must either make a better browser, one that people look at and think to themselves "yeah!", or wait for people to dislike the other browsers on the market.

When Chrome appeared on the market, people used it, I think, for the latter reason. At the time, Internet Explorer (IE) was the most commonly used browser (sometimes by corporate dictat) and people did not like it. Chrome was not Internet Explorer, and by using Chrome, one could "poke Microsoft in the eye".

But that was then. Now, people use Chrome because they want to. People might have chosen Chrome after using Gmail, and may have had favorable opinions of Google due to the 1GB space for mailboxes, which was quite large at the time. And Gmail was free!

Whatever the reasons, people like Chrome. Mozilla does not have the tailwind of people disliking their current browser.

Waiting for potential customers to dislike their current product is not a viable strategy. People may be unhappy with some of Google's practices, and that may drive some away from Chrome (and some of those to Firefox) and Mozilla has been advertising along those lines.

But dislike of Google is probably not enough. Mozilla needs "a better mousetrap".

And I'm not sure how they can build one.

A new old web

One idea I have been pondering is a retro version of the world wide web. This "new old web" would be a world-wide web as it originally existed: a collection of static web pages with links to other web pages, either on the same site or on other sites.

The defining aspects of this new old web are what it doesn't have: HTTPS, certificates, cookies, and JavaScript. It would be a simpler version, and an unsecure version, of today's web.

Why do this? Why re-create the old web, one that does not have HTTPS and therefore security?

In a word, permanence.

The current web all but requires HTTPS, which in turn requires security certificates, which in turn expire and therefore require replacements. All of that means that a web site needs maintenance, every 12 months or whenever the certificates expire.

What I am considering is a web that lets one set up a web server and leave it running with no maintenance. Perhaps one could apply updates to the operating system and occasionally blow dust out of the box, but that's it. No annual dance for certificates. Maybe one does not even update the operating system.

Why do this? Mostly as a thought experiment, to see where it leads us. So let's start with these conditions and see where we go. 

This new old web could have web sites that exist for years, or even decades.

Of course, without certificates, one cannot support HTTPS.

Without HTTPS, one cannot transact business. No banking, no credit card statements, and no purchases.

Without HTTPS, one cannot securely log in to a web site, so no personalized web sites. No Facebook, no Twitter, no e-mail.

Such a web would need a new web browser. Current web browsers dislike HTTP connections, and warn that the page is insecure. (We may be a few years away from requiring HTTPS for all links and URLs.) So with current web browsers deprecating HTTP, perhaps we need a new HTTP-only browser.

A new HTTP-only browser would request and load pages over HTTP connections. It would not request an HTTPS connection. A link to HTTPS would be considered an ill-formed link and not valid.

If I'm building a new browser, I can make other changes.

I banish cookies. This prevents third-party cookies and tracking. Overall, this is an enhancement to privacy.

Scripts are also forbidden. No JavaScript or any scripts of any type. The HTML <script> tag must render as text. This eliminates the threat of cross-site scripting.

Web pages may contain text, HTML, and CSS.

One could use PHP, JSP, ASP or ASPX on the server side to render web pages, although the possible uses may be limited. (Remember, no logins and no user IDs.)

It seems that such a web would be mostly static web pages, serving documents and images. I suppose one could serve videos. One could, of course, link from one page to the next.

My idea is not to replace the existing web. The existing web, while it started as this earlier, static web, has evolved into a different thing, one that is quite useful.

My idea is to create a second web, one that exists in parallel to the current web. I would like to try it, just to see what people would do with it. Instead of a web with private areas for private data (e-mail, Facebook, online banking, music that has been purchased, etc.) we would have a web where everything is available to everyone.

How would we act in such a space? What would we create?

That is what I have been pondering.

Apple's browser

Does Apple need a browser?

Apple has Safari, but maintains it poorly. Is Apple serious about its browser?

Come to think of it, why does Apple need a browser?

I can think of several reasons:

Ego Apple has to have a browser to satisfy its ego. It needs to have a browser to meet some internal need.

Freudian? Yes. Reasonable? No.

Apple is a smart company. It doesn't invest in products to suit its ego. It invests to improve revenue.

Keeping up with Microsoft Microsoft has a browser. Apple wants, at some level, to compete with Microsoft. Therefore, Apple needs a browser.

Doubtful. Apple doesn't have to match Microsoft one-for-one on features. They never have.

Superlative web experience Apple knows Mac OSX and iOS better then anyone. They, and only they, can build the browser that provides the proper user experience.

Possible. But only if Apple thinks that a good web experience is necessary.

Avoid dependence on others Max OSX (and iOS), despite Apple's most fervent wishes, still needs a browser. Without an Apple browser, Apple would have to rely on another browser. Perhaps Google Chrome. Perhaps Mozilla Firefox. But relying on Google is risky -- Google and Apple are not the best of friends. Relying on Mozilla is also risky, but in another sense: Mozilla may not be around much longer, thanks to the popularity of other browsers (of which Safari is one).

All of these strategies have one thing in common: the assumption that Apple considers the web important.

I'm not sure Apple thinks that. It may be that Apple thinks, in the long run, that the web is unimportant. Apple focusses on native apps, not HTML 5 apps. The dominant app design processes data on the local device and uses the cloud for storage, but nothing more. Apple doesn't provide cloud services for computing. Apple has no service that matches Windows Azure or Google's computer engine. In Apple's world, devices compute and the cloud stores.

* * * * *

The more I think about it, the more I convince myself that Apple doesn't need a browser. Apple has already delayed several improvements to Safari. Maybe Apple thinks that Safari is good enough for the rest of us.

In the Apple ecosystem, they may be right.