Discussion in 'other software & services' started by guest, Apr 2, 2012.
No, it's a shame for a free and open internet. Any one browser having a large amount of market share is bad for the internet. Ideally IE would lose 20% and Chrome/Firefox would gain 10%.
One browser having a huge market share makes the others try harder to gain its share/relevance.
Several browsers having the same market share make them all accommodate.
Nope. But you can believe that if you like.
I'm just showing you that logic can be double-edged.
Maybe. I've got friends at Mozilla and Google lol they all pretty much want an even split and agree that no browser should be in control of large market share. I don't want to speak for either of them though.
Honestly speaking, a browser having 50-60% of the market share doesn't really seem to hurt.
A search engine having 90%+ of market share is much more harmful, imo.
I don't think search engines effect the internet nearly as much as the browser - the conduit 99.99% of users view and interact with the web. I'm sure Google's near monopoly (isn't it only like... 65%? I don't follow these things much) isn't helping other search engines though. I also don't really care - this isn't a MS vs Google thing.
I think IE having 60% of the market kinda sucks. More than half of the computers int he world are using it. That means if Chrome/Firefox put their weight behind something it still might not become a standard because IE won't be compatible - so either there has to be backwards compatibility for IE (hard, makes it difficult for adoption) or IE needs to lose some users.
I'm not asking for a stagnant 33.33% but a nice fluctuation between 25-45 between the three would be nice.
Once browser having more than half of the share at any one time is not good.
I'm all for an open Internet... but... from whom are you stealing your connection, to have it free? I pay for it.
I suppose it makes sense. Otherwise, let's think. Google funds Mozilla. Mozilla, on its turn, obviously has Google search engine as the default search engine.
So, the more money Google makes, the more money Mozilla will get, I suppose. So, your Mozilla employee friend only wants to have a good pay check. The same applies to the Google one.
It makes sense they both share the same idea about the market share. They wouldn't if one of them worked for Microsoft and the other for Google.
Trust me, Mozilla isn't in it for the money (nor do they need it) and they aren't rooting for a google monopoly. But really, I would not be ok talking for my friends lol you can just take that statement or leave it.
Browsers shouldn't be putting their weight into exclusive standards. They should work together for the same markup goal - with the guidance of the W3C.
They aren't in it for the money, nor do they need it? Really? Are the developers going to work for free? And, if they don't need it, why all these years of funding from Google? Or, did Mozilla donate the money to charity?
1) Yes, plenty of devs work for free. Open source is nice like that.
2) They have enough money to last for a long long time without google.
3) While they certainly enjoy their pay the people there are idealists and legitimately believe in creating an open project that's all about the user.
Like an OS and an office suite.
I can't believe you are going to argue against interoperability. The arguments in favor of interoperability are very strong...
I'm not arguing against it. I'm asking why it's up to w3c and only w3c.
There are no idealists anymore. There never really were anyway. There was a rumour that there were idealists in the 1960s but this is a fallacy spread by hypocritical hippies who were probably on drugs anyway.
Well in that case... down with Mozilla?
A better question is: why not W3C?
After all, "W3C is the main international standards organization for the World Wide Web. W3C was created to ensure compatibility and agreement among industry members in the adoption of new standards."
Like Webkit currently is doing?
I love point 2). Without Google? It's their funding. Even if Google stops funding them or Mozilla ends the partnership... it's still Google's money there, isn´t it?
And, they're still getting the money... millions of dollars, I suppose... from Google. So, for such an idealists, they sure seem to love the green. If they don't want it, if they don't need it, if they despise it... donate it. Millions of people are in extreme need out there.
Who said why not w3c? I'm all for that. I'm asking why browsers can't create standards.
I formally apologize for any and all eye strain that the scrolling caused you.
To an extent, yes.
Not sure what you mean. The money is Mozilla's. They have lots of it.
I'm not sure why it's one or the other - either they don't have enough money and they desperately need Google or what... they have so much money that they need to donate it?
They have lots of money - it's about that simple.
I don't know in detail, but I think browsers developers can create standards and put them under review to be improved/approved in the W3C working groups.
But when browsers developers create standards and implement them in their browsers without some kind of recommendation from W3C, they hurt the same markup goal - interoperability.
The 'idealists' at Mozilla may truly believe that they are idealists but there is actually no such thing as an idealist now. It is impossible for them to survive in the 21st century. Usually they implode after contracting a form of malware known as cynicism.
Although to be honest, cynical pessimistic disillusionment coupled with a mocking misanthropic irony comes natural to me because I'm English.
Maybe Americans are more idealistic.
Separate names with a comma.