No. That's missing the point. It's got to stop. Social features are great for some things. Social features are not great if you shoe-horn them in a totally inappropriate way that doesn't add value. Life is better for me and the vast majority of its users if FireFox doesn't add pointless social features that I won't use anyway. I don't want to see people's ratings for sites, see grouped recommendations or communicate with other FireFox users. The people who do want this functionality can install extensions, and those extensions largely already exist.
Besides, this may mean I need to rewrite Halo's Law ("Every site expands until it becomes a social network, those that don't are replaced by those that do").
Maybe it's just me and the people I know, but the real value of firefox - other than the obvious advantages over IE - is the plugin functionality.
So when Google Chrome came out, I immediately thought of it as a IE killer - not a Firefox killer. I'm almost scared for them to start providing plugin support/features/etc as it could just end up being Firefox.
Chrome isn't an IE killer, its a Firefox killer. Why? because Chrome (like IE) is a chosen browser. IE is a default.
Most Firefox users have chosen to use it. Downloaded it. Installed it. Tried it & use it. Most IE users have not.*
Once someone is making a choice, you can reach her. Say 'but wait there's more.' IE users aren't even going to know about Chrome. They won't ever be consciously deciding between browsers. If they are, resistance to change is a big factor. If Chrome becomes demonstrably better choice, it will be chosen. But only by those making a choice. Everyone else isn't listening.
So basically FF users make a choice & Chrome gets to make its pitch. IE users don't. Product similarity has nothing to do with it. Its market similarity that runs this show.
*Obviously some IE users made a choice. They're in the FF category.
Wow great points. I don't know this with any certainty (I'm not a Google insider or anything), but I'm willing to bet that Chrome is going to become more of a default browser. Google didn't market Firefox near as aggressively as they could of. And with Android coming out, Google will decide the default browser. There's a lot more mobile devices out there than PCs.
Same here - I only use FF b/c of the add-ins. After that, all browsers are equally suck in my book. Chrome was fast therefore I like it. It doesn't have add-ins so it loses to FF.
Comments
No. That's missing the point. It's got to stop. Social features are great for some things. Social features are not great if you shoe-horn them in a totally inappropriate way that doesn't add value. Life is better for me and the vast majority of its users if FireFox doesn't add pointless social features that I won't use anyway. I don't want to see people's ratings for sites, see grouped recommendations or communicate with other FireFox users. The people who do want this functionality can install extensions, and those extensions largely already exist.
Besides, this may mean I need to rewrite Halo's Law ("Every site expands until it becomes a social network, those that don't are replaced by those that do").
Maybe it's just me and the people I know, but the real value of firefox - other than the obvious advantages over IE - is the plugin functionality.
So when Google Chrome came out, I immediately thought of it as a IE killer - not a Firefox killer. I'm almost scared for them to start providing plugin support/features/etc as it could just end up being Firefox.
Have you ever blogged about Halo's Law?
This is off topic, but I'll bite.
Chrome isn't an IE killer, its a Firefox killer. Why? because Chrome (like IE) is a chosen browser. IE is a default.
Most Firefox users have chosen to use it. Downloaded it. Installed it. Tried it & use it. Most IE users have not.*
Once someone is making a choice, you can reach her. Say 'but wait there's more.' IE users aren't even going to know about Chrome. They won't ever be consciously deciding between browsers. If they are, resistance to change is a big factor. If Chrome becomes demonstrably better choice, it will be chosen. But only by those making a choice. Everyone else isn't listening.
So basically FF users make a choice & Chrome gets to make its pitch. IE users don't. Product similarity has nothing to do with it. Its market similarity that runs this show.
*Obviously some IE users made a choice. They're in the FF category.
Wow great points. I don't know this with any certainty (I'm not a Google insider or anything), but I'm willing to bet that Chrome is going to become more of a default browser. Google didn't market Firefox near as aggressively as they could of. And with Android coming out, Google will decide the default browser. There's a lot more mobile devices out there than PCs.
That's what I was thinking as I wrote it.
Same here - I only use FF b/c of the add-ins. After that, all browsers are equally suck in my book. Chrome was fast therefore I like it. It doesn't have add-ins so it loses to FF.
I've actually found myself using both or either depending on the task and the computer I have.
>Have you ever blogged about Halo's Law?
I don't have a blog - it's more of a recurring joke than anything else.