sabret00the

The changing face of software consumption isn’t something that’s just happened. It’s been something that’s been evolving for as long as software has existed. However we’re now undergoing one of the larger pivotal moments in the way that software is both delivered and consumed.

With recent changes in online technologies, there was much anticipation regarding the role web would play in applications and many dreamed up a euphoric idealism that the world would switch to webapps, as they were naturally cross-platform and cut down the workload and expense of those producing them.

While it’s been argued that such an approach is neither feasible nor in the best interests of consumers. Some have decided to push on with a web-technology-centric strategy to app consumption. Mozilla have reached the Rubicon with Firefox OS (B2G) and have no other recourse but to deliver what they’re contracted to. Even at the detriment of the bigger Mozilla picture. However Facebook, the most popular website on the planet have no such contractual obligations and as such have decided to give up on webapps for mobile in favour of a fully featured native experience.

As it became apparent that everyone knew how to find and download music, Apple successfully rode the momentum with the iTunes and monetised downloading. However, the interesting thing of note was their app store. As per the music industry, the sales of applications was slowing down and while the music industry’s embrace of the internet as a means of delivery was easy, it was thought that the same would be a lot harder for applications. It wasn’t.

With the increased internet speeds worldwide, the shift to digital purchases were always going to be embraced. The question would simply become one of how? How do you sell to consumers and keep them locked in while having the smallest overhead possible? Of course, once again to the rescue is the OS-level application store. However, while that makes delivery but a simple task it doesn’t solve the issue of locking in the user and repeat business is paramount.

This, for all intent and purposes brings us to where we are now. The frailties of the webapp have been highlighted over and over again and while some persist, others have set aside personal ambition and pride in favour of surviving to fight another day. It’s within this chasm of space that the Mozilla Platform should’ve blossomed and dominated. The bridge to the desired-by-some webapp era. The lessons they’d learned with early XUL Firefox put Mozilla in the perfect position to spare others that pain. And for that commercial opportunity, all it would’ve taken is the release of Thunderbird for Android and some standalone Web Developer Tools. However, due to commitments with Firefox OS (B2G), they dropped the ball.

Adobe have probably had the most aggressive start in terms of embracing this modern day model of software consumption. And have targeted students and small businesses alike in their model. Though their rhetoric would have you believe they’re marketing to out-of-touch middle-management. They’ve been bold and opted for the subscription model. Consumers pay a monthly fee and as such can download and install applications. While this means that should they release three versions of their flagship software in a year, you’re quids-in. The issue is that users lose access when they stop their subscription.

There is a better and in fact fairer way however and the question is simply, who will be the first to arrive at it. Software companies, especially large ones, seldom release more than one version (major) of their software a year. Consumers should pay a flat fee for a major version and be given a choice of subscriptions to pay a year. The lower fee would be to support to bugfixes and the higher fee gives you access to any major version that’s released while you’re paying the subscription. If a consumer opts to stop paying the subscription all together the day after a major release, then of course they don’t get any bugfixes. Access to the higher subscription should require so-many months of lower subscription fees or a new purchase. But basically, this enables developers to lock consumers in and build an comfortable environment to work.

In terms of organisations like Mozilla, they could quite easily take a cut as per a license for using their software in a commercial endeavour. And app stores, I’d like to think that they’d see the sense in keeping their hands off of subscription fees that were lower than some arbitrary amount. Well, this is where software consumption will ultimately end up. It’s just a question of how long will it take.

Mozilla recently announced that going forward, they’d put no more resources into Thunderbird and the pre-announcement caused a huge furore. Within the furore popped up the line “B2G is the #1 major strategic priority for Mozilla”. However, the question that it raised was whether or not Mozilla actually have a strategy?

Whether or not B2G or as it’s been renamed Firefox OS can be successful aside, the biggest question here is what exactly is it that B2G brings to the table? Yes we know that Mozilla envision a future where users opt for open web apps over their native counterparts and we’ve all seen how that stands up. But given how Thunderbird was downgraded to community development rather than having its focus shifted to Android where it can become a natural huge success. You would be forgiven for wondering just what the bigger picture is.

Mozilla hasn’t even managed to make the Nightly download page hand-held friendly and again hasn’t done so with Bugzilla, so why should everyone else cement their vision for them? On the other hand Mozilla could’ve gone about this whole utopic world of open web apps differently. Mozilla’s aspirations aside, users enjoy installing apps. To the point that the topic of apps has embedded itself into the social interactions of the many. You only need to look at the successes of Instagram and Draw Something for proof of that. So why is it that the number one strategic priority for Mozilla the hope that users will say “hey let me not go for the most popular phones running the most popular operating system that all my friends and colleagues talk about and instead opt for relatively inconsequential phone manufacterers who opted to create a phone that runs software which is failing to attract users in their primary area of business”.

A companies number one strategic priority should uplift the various other company products. It should improve the company as a whole and all that falls under it. Firefox OS doesn’t do that. Firefox OS ships with an email client that actually took nothing from nor added anything to Thunderbird. Thunderbird isn’t quite innocent in all this though. It in itself didn’t have much portability in terms of it’s code. It’s not written in web technologies or namely XUL like how Firefox is and quite frankly… that’s a problem.

But again, I can’t help but question the actual strategy or goal of Mozilla’s number one strategic priority. For example, let’s say that their new number one strategic priority actually made sense in regards to growing the Mozilla community beyond that of which Blackberry and even the monolithic Microsoft have so elegantly failed to do. Let’s say that their was a clear vision and that vision was write-once, run everywhere. That would be a strategic decision. In fact that could even later tie in with launching an OS. After all, when you have several popular large apps running on your platform, users and vendors stand up and take notice. Or at least that would be the goal, though it’s not really working with Chrome OS right now. But it’s certainly strategic. A Thunderbird written in web technologies that can run on desktop, tablet and smartphone. The same Thunderbird, that along with Firefox that can be packaged with Firefox OS.

Speaking via numbers. Mozilla aren’t a financial powerhouse. They don’t the clout of Google or Apple and so there’s a limit to what they can achieve. Mozilla is an organisation that can’t even get Apple to allow them to run Gecko on iOS and yet the the plan of a Firefox OS somehow won out over smaller baby-steps. Baby-steps that would bring various developers closer to Mozilla and the code-base and potentially force them to re-embrace Firefox thanks to enjoying the ease of the platform to the point that patches trickle into the tree in an attempt to improve the platform and/or the browser. And what about the various end users who begin to acclimatise to ‘The Mozilla way”, the user experience designed for them by Mozilla and the familiarity they get from it. Well of course, those users would organically take a look at other Mozilla products. But those users are not going to give up fully featured phones full of patented gimmicks they want to play with and use for the sparse Firefox OS.

And talking of gimmicks and a Firefox operating system that isn’t Firefox OS. What would’ve been a far more interesting presentation than that of B2G would’ve been Android having Webkit/Chrome ripped out and replaced with Gecko/Firefox. Hey it could’ve even been done on the CyanogenMod tree and could’ve been called something along the lines of FiregenMod or CyanogenFox. With all the publicity that CyanogenMod receives on the various tech sites and the embrace they’ve received from Samsung and Sony. I feel this would’ve actually provided them with an opportunity to be seen on a special edition top-tier phone. Well more top tier than the recently negatively publicised ZTE anyway.

As things currently stand, Mozilla are ploughing resources into a project that has no traction in the real world. Developers won’t leave Android or iOS because that’s where the money is. That’s where the consumers are. Consumers won’t leave because that’s where the apps and their friends are and manufacturers will continue to churn out their best products for whatever operating system will provide them the greatest number of users. There’s no light at the end of the tunnel for B2G, in fact it’s so dark that Mozilla aren’t even sure of whether it is a tunnel or not. But they’ve decided to pin their hopes on Firefox OS rather than actually get involved in something that matters. I’d argue that Mozilla simply don’t get it and that’s a shame. A real shame as they’ve taken a chance to entrench their relevance in modern day lives and thrown it to the wind.

Mozilla has this reputation for caring about people more than profit and it’s a good reputation. Well deserved and generally everyone that has been involved with Mozilla is both honoured and proud. Mozilla has played the role of the underdog well and without the pressures of being the top dog. It’s just got on with it’s job and in doing so Mozilla has championed open source. Taking it from niche nerdism to something that’s embraced not only in tech circles but as a way of life. The strong ties with the community and the transparency that Mozilla have championed are things that have been adopted by projects both larger and smaller.

However having achieved some success, it’s easy to get lost in the plaudits and go out of your way to maintain that perception of success. Google Chrome came along and really attempted to punish every stumble that Mozilla made, aggressively carving out a position in the browser space and even surpassing Mozilla at the alternative to Internet Expolorer. In doing so, Google redefined what was expected of a modern browser beyond what Mozilla had once set and ever since Mozilla has been playing catch up.

Mozilla now entrench in another battle and no longer able to set its own pace. Had to make some changes to the way it went about things. It required more staff and perhaps that is its downfall. The current face of Mozilla is in start contrast to the face that once was. Mozilla wasn’t just about open source, but open design and open concepts. There has been many occasions over the years whereby someone could disagree with Mozilla but for better or worse, they could always understand the train of thought behind the decisions. This is no longer the case.

Mozilla is, at least on the surface, almost entrenched in a new siege mentality. Directions are presented, particularly in regards to design, but none are explained. The assumption that seems to be all over the various forums and in Bugzilla is that Mozilla is simply mimicking that of Chrome. Some developers seem to revel in the practice of not justifying or discussing decisions in public. Aggressively so. Such developers would’ve never have found themselves in the employ of Mozilla a while back but the general attitude right now is that beggars can’t be choosers.

But the question remains, is it worth? It’s there for all to see in the comments sections of all of the mainstream tech sites. People asking and agreeing with the premise that Mozilla has all but decided to do whatever Chrome does. Certain key Mozilla figures are adamant that Mozilla does its own user research and has it’s own user experience teams but with the desktop browser simply becoming and more Chrome-like it’s hard to accept that. Why for example are curved tabs better than square tabs? Why are flat buttons better than accented ones? In which ways is Mozilla arriving at the same conclusions as Google rather than blindly following them?

If Mozilla’s evolution is in fact being hostile to working in the open as the core of a community rather than working above the community then there’s no doubt that this path of evolution is undoubtedly bad.

Back when Firefox launched Panorama, it was launched in a rather linear manner. Here’s a problem and here’s how to fix it. However the major problem was that it was a problem that so few seemed to have, rightfully so its legitimacy was questioned. The manner of the launch in hindsight was wrong and that’s lead to Panorama being maligned.

The initial approach with Panorama was far too linear. It was marketed from a work-flow feature and that’s where it went wrong. To begin with, so few of the browsers users are actually power users. In fact Mozilla’s own research data suggests that users were simply forgetting to close tabs in most cases (if I remember correctly) and further went on to suggest that most didn’t even grasp the concept of tabbed browsing. So if that’s the case, why would you market visual tab management as a work-flow feature?

The approach taken was met with opposition and in fact some users felt the feature was shoehorned in before it was ready. It wasn’t until it’s use was reframed as the ability to visually temporarily bookmark tabs that an interest started to grow in the possibilities of Panorama. But even if you take the feature and you reframe it in a manner to make it more marketable to the average user, there were some usability issues that can’t just be marketed around.

Sadly for Panorama, it meant or indeed still means that it’ll require a concerted effort by a team of developers to really make it into what it should be and deliver the type of punch that was imagined when it envisaged. Apart from making it follow default operating system behavioural patterns. There’s also other usability issues that affect the potential successful turn around of the feature. One of which appears to be based on the assumption that browsing is linear. In it’s current design Panorama currently doesn’t allow you to visually manage tabs in a different window. So if you have a group of tabs open in one window and want to open a group of tabs stored in that same window, you have to choose between groups.

Firefox is also a contradiction in terms of tab management. At the same time Panorama was launched, Mozilla also launched Sync which allows users to access tabs stored on different machines, devices and profiles. However the approach that Sync took was almost like night to Panorama’s day and instead of the taking the visual approach of thumbnails, it instead opted for a list view. It has been put forward that Firefox should refactor Sync into Panorama giving users a truly global tab management canvas but such a proposal has yet to gain traction and that’s a shame as two of the marquee features of Firefox 4 are lacking the polish in which their potential deserves.

It goes without saying that Panorama is an uncut diamond and should it get a push with some additional resources it can really become an asset to Mozilla. Only the powers that be at Mozilla know whether or not Panorama will be relaunched, but as of yet it isn’t on the road map for 2012 and that’s a real shame.

It seems to be a question which various blogs and article collation services were running on their front pages. But in reality it was a non-question. The question wasn’t about losing the deal, it was about whether Mozilla was able to convince Google of their importance in a post Internet Explorer 6 landscape.

Since the last deal was signed, Microsoft’s presence on the internet had majorly dwindled. They’re no longer the go-to company that they were, where a product by Microsoft meant seamless integration which it leveraged to give an impression of better build quality. The internet seemed to be word in the dictionary that no one at the corporation quite seemed to know what to do with. If remembered correctly they even dissolved the Internet Explorer team before attempting to finally bring it back and move people forward. All while doing this, they struggled to understand what was happening on the internet. Allowing the bad reputation of Hotmail’s spam and scam flaws to snowball. Now they are Bing, but they also appear to be forward thinking and that’s largely down to Windows Phone 7.

In the face of the decisions that Microsoft had been making, the Mozilla corporation got caught up in it’s celebrity and once that mirror finally cracked it found itself in a new world. No longer was it fighting against a company with a blatant disregard for the internet, it was fighting against while also fighting simultaneously alongside a company that made its bones off the internet.

Google and Mozilla have successfully come together to push forward and implement a lot of innovations that we today take for granted in our internet lives. That’s what good innovation is about, things that seemed like they should’ve always been like that and to be honest. The internet is a much better place for it.

But now Google is in a position where it’s dependency on Mozilla has been negated and it’s almost in a position of luxury with it’s support to Mozilla. If it’s a question of whether Google would like to have Bing as the default search engine on all of it’s browsers, then of course the answer is no. But does it need that answer to be no? Can it allow it? That’s the question that Mozilla have to ask. Of course given the structure of how things had broken down, Mozilla also had to worry about being low-balled by Miscrosoft should Google withdraw. Already being tight on resources, it really needs to grow it’s workforce rather than reduce it.

The ship that is Mozilla looks in terrible shape as things stand. While it was doing great things with it’s name alone, the overall management of the flagship product (Firefox) meant that bug-fixes were coming out and innovation in the browser was rather stagnant or long-winded. The place you can mostly see the demise of Mozilla is in the Evangelism Team and the presence it holds; once able to convince the mightiest of sites to standardise code, the team seems to now be MIA without even an intern checking the bug-tracker. So it’s no surprise that we’re seeing vast amounts of Web Apps pop up supporting only Chrome in the exact same manner the Web Applications once only supported Microsoft’s Internet Explorer 6.

And what of the resources that Mozilla does still retain? Well a lot of resources are entrenched in the various aspects of Mobile. While others appear to be bumbling around never quite achieving much in the open . Now that’s not to say that said developers aren’t achieving lots, but there’s less transparency in Mozilla of late and of course that’s down to where they presently find themselves in the grand scheme of things. Whether it’s another Mozilla move in homage of the way that Google handle things with Chrome or if it’s just regret and paranoia, it seems to be something that Mozilla are hoping no one seems to have noticed.

Time for Mozilla’s Firefox for Android is running out, the train is fast approaching beta and that’s where people put reviews in the Android market. As things currently stand, the present Nightlies aren’t even usable as a browser. Not that Mozilla acknowledges users would actually like to use it in that fashion. But it’s likely that, based on how the browser is working at present, they’re likely to get a real hammering from the average users who are expecting Firefox for Android to work. And of course there’s still the possible class action lawsuit for voluntarily handing over all their private data to Google without so much as a notification let alone a question of choice.

Mozilla should’ve spent it’s last eighteen months in talks with the likes of Samsung and Sony. The conversation should’ve been centred around providing the browser built in to televisions and Playstations. They should’ve also spent that time improving the clearly neglected and not-so-forward thinking platform so as that they could provide users with Thunderbird for Android. Those aren’t the greatest of feats on their own but they grow Mozilla’s usage and usage guarantees cheques. Another thing that seems to have fallen victim to Mozilla’s tunnel vision is Image Search, Google’s efforts in that area now have it as clear competitor to TinEye and it will come to the fore more and more; there was a separate cheque to be cut with that one.

Mozilla is apparently on a big recruitment drive at the moment, bringing back disgruntled ex-community members and contributors and saying “hey, you once cared, come back and make it better as a job”. Will it work? Who knows. But if it enables them to catch up to Google’s Chrome it could be a good thing for the internet as a whole and force Chrome not to follow the universally hated road that Microsoft done with Internet Explorer. Though of course the PR from Google would attempt to make them look innocent in that regard.

So this time round at least, it wasn’t about being in danger of losing the Google deal, it was just about making sure they had enough to move forward. But if they fail to use the money to drive the company forward, this will indeed be what marks the beginning of the end. Let’s hope that the personality of the user experience team comes to the fore also, because money being used correctly or not, if they can’t arrive at solutions other than what Google has arrived at, people will simply give up on Mozilla.

Reports are emerging that Kodak is about to file for Bankruptcy and to be honest, I don’t think anyone is surprised. See the issue with Kodak is that while it’s business was pictures, it’s done nothing but fail in terms of leading the foray into the future of photography.

Both Kodak and Polaroid should be in a two way battle with each other and that battle should be about digital photo filters and social photography. So the big question here is, why aren’t they? Why is it instead instagam that leads in this space? And why is it that even late to the party in such a field and in such a desperate position, why haven’t they bid on instagram?

At this point, it’s probably too late to simply rebrand instagram as Kodak and so there’s undoubtedly a limit as to what instagram can bring to Kodak. This is of course other than a lifeline. Kodak are no strangers of not seeing the bigger pictures. Despite being the first company to announce the invention of digital cameras they were one of the last major brands to get into the field and only underlined their mistake by later dominating said field.

It’s been speculated that the once iconic brand will in fact sell off all of it’s digital patents portfolio in a bid to stay a float. Which again would be a bad decision seeing as outside of a niche consumer audience, digital is the only viable business left. Rumours are floating around that Google is interested and this would indeed provide greater protection in the ongoing patent war they have with Apple.

But perhaps it simply is the end of an era for Kodak as we know it and perhaps it’s survival could actually be a means to an end. The company that would gain the most from acquiring a slight controlling share would be HTC. The business they done with Beats By Dre shows a bit of forethought. Despite growing popularity, they were becoming bogged down with audio criticism and so bought a chunk of one of the biggest names in audio today. They also have a problem with their cameras and this could be a much cheaper option than a deal with the likes of Canon or Nikon. After all, Samsung, Apple and even Nokia have been making good cameras for their phones for a while, a little help would go a long way.

No matter how I look at it, Kodak never managed to manoeuvre themselves into a position whereby they can grow in the mobile market and the hedged bets they made in regards to consumers all went horribly wrong. The issue is that one eye was always on sustaining the current business model and not enough was made on revolutionising the business.  It’s a shame, but sometimes the mighty must fall in order to remind those around them of what mistakes not to make.

In terms of mobile and Mozilla, we’re by and large talking about one of two things here. It comes pretty much down to the efforts directed at Android and the efforts directed at B2G.

Boot2Gecko

The Boot2Gecko efforts are the simplest to deal with, why because they’re over ambitious.  Booting to the web is something that so few consumers, in reality actually want. It’s a concept designed by geeks who see the Cloud as some form of utopia. Totally forgetting that it’s simply a rehash of the 80′s where network computers were connected to mainframes and it’s been given a new lick of paint. There’s a curiosity about things like booting to the web but that’s roughly where it stops. Google’s failure with ChromeOS is testament to that and Google better than anyone have the motive for ChromeOS to be successful but the traction just isn’t there.

See the problem with things like ChromeOS and B2G is that they’re just not tangible. The consumer likes to own things, likes to feel things. They like to feel as though they’re in possession of something. That’s why things like App Store’s for PC and Laptops have been so slow in their adoption. People wanted to the prestige of boxes. This is all supported by data that all the major browser makers should be able to get a hold of; how many users are installing web apps on their home screens? And let’s compare that to the same app installed via the various markets out there.

The very notion of ChromeOS and B2G catching on is a euphoric fantasia. The world has only just taken the step to smartphone after being invited so many times over and the world didn’t come to accept that invitation till it was ready, no amount of prodding or pulling managed to speed it up. Granted it only took for the right presentation of the right user experience but none the less, it was an incredibly slow painful process.

Here’s a simple question that should’ve been the basis of the whole rebuttal of the proposal for B2G. What incentives does such a proposal offer to anyone with a stake in this? To the networks, it would require a mass infrastructure in most places around the world. To the OEMs it offers what? It doesn’t allow them to try and lock users into their own brand of user experience nor does it wear and tear on the phone in the same way. Even for the developers of apps, how will they peddle their wares? No one is about to give up on revenue, thus B2G is simply a passion project. If Mozilla can’t out-market Chrome in their push for Firefox, how do they expect to out market what is now the biggest most used operating system in the world?

Users enjoy native apps. The apps are the definition of the era we’re in. To direct finite resources in anything to the contrary is a waste of said resources.  Yes, perhaps I was wrong when I stated previously that Mozilla should throw it’s weight behind MeeGo given it’s abandonment. But I’m sure there was another ship better suited for jumping on rather than building a new ship from scratch.

Native UI Firefox

The native UI is the third UI revamp of Fennec. The initial UI was based on Froyo. A thing of beauty, it was full of curves and looked slick. Then came the Gingerbread overhaul and let’s be frank, it was ugly and now we’re back to beautiful with the Native UI.

There’s been a lot of hype about this third incarnation and it’s strangely odd how much every time it’s mentioned as native, UI is neatly tacked on to the end despite it being more than just a UI overhaul.

In a perfect world, Firefox would be modular and developers could simply slap any UI they wanted over the top. So Java, XUL, C# or new emerging technologies. However that isn’t the case, perhaps that’s why it almost feels like Mozilla is waiting for Blackberry to die before rolling out it’s client. Remember those B2G resources? They’d be better spent making this a reality.

As a result of this incarnation of Fennec, some of the more stand out features of the past have been lost. Slide right for tabs being a prime example and slide left for navigation being another. Those were original and innovative, but that also means unique and different. So for every user that loved those features there’d be at least one that hated them.

The new UI has landed on the Nightly channel and it’s not really with much excitement. In fact it’s with disappointment. Despite the UI being snappy, it”s not really worth anything is pages are clipped. The pages are being served with odd dimensions and text boxes can’t be accessed. I get that this is a channel for alpha testing, but that’s it; The Nightly channel is for testing, not development. What happens if these bugs aren’t fixed in time for the Aurora merge? Does Mozilla back out the native UI? Does Nightly once again become a epileptic seizure risk depending on what sites you’re visiting with the XUL UI? Is the general non-responsiveness just accepted until said native bugs are fixed? How did this get approval for the tree?

There was actually talk about how to improve things with the XUL UI, which were missed due to the linear approach. i.e. the use of an omni.jar inside the APK which could shave off a little time off of startup. I’m curious as to what other Firefox 4 train start-up improvements never made it into the browsers mobile cousin. I’d definitely like to see them happen for Fennec, no matter which UI is preferred. Let’s see Fennec be all that it can be.

Once you start to look past the buzzword of ‘Native UI’, other issues start to arise. The AwesomeBar is no longer awesome. And now there’s no longer a Firefox on a smartphone, but rather Firefox is assimilated to become part of the smartphone; Things like bookmarks and browsing history, once something shared solely between the user and Mozilla are suddenly shared with Google too. Mozilla who once stood up proudly for internet freedom and privacy has suddenly kowtowed before Google and willingly handed over everything it can. It’s hard not to feel this was done in an underhanded fashion given that all attention has diverted elsewhere and with closer inspection, all Mobile decisions have gone private and behind close doors.

Google’s goal with Android was to create an ecosystem for locking people into their services. It’s about revenue. Whether this is about their search or their advertising. The current implementation of Native UI Fennec feeds into that, providing Google with more data about Firefox users than they’ve ever previously had access to. Why is Mozilla attempting to drive the Google business model and in such a nonchalant way? Were the alpha testers on the Nightly Channel informed of this? Asked if this was preferential before the change took place? No, but it was pushed through without regard of some of the core principles Mozilla has built it’s issue upon.

So now we’ve identified The Pledge being Fennec, The Turn being that Native UI Fennec will, based on current design, wisp away both privacy and freedom. I’m eager to see what The Prestige will be.

Thunderbird

We’re yet to see any traction with Thunderbird for Android, not even a mockup. Perhaps it’s unrealistic to expect anything prior to the roll-out of Native UI Fennec to the masses. But it’d be nice to know if this is something Mozilla want to pursue or not.

With Google Chrome doing so well, there’s a lot of eyes on it and the usage model it promotes. The problem with the Google approach to browsers is that it’s so comprehensively one-size-fits-all. One-size-fits-all works for some people but when a user is no longer of what one-size is and in fact Google starts slicing bits off of the whole a user is entitled to, a problem arises. For people that know no better, that’s fine, they don’t know that there’s more to internet browsing than the main window. To people who want the bare minimum again that’s fine, but it isn’t necessarily right.

Dietrich Ayala recently raised in a blog post a few ideas about Firefox and how to bring it forward in the current climate of this browser cold war. Dietrich has gone on to evolve his ideas for the modularisation and thus the progression of Firefox by suggesting that we bundle core features as add-ons.

While somewhat in agreement, I don’t believe it makes the change in as effective a way as possible. Recently I’ve talked about the level of frustration I’ve felt regarding the various sister and cousin projects that Firefox has and how I believe that more of the burden should be on the platform. Well that’s at least what I’ve been getting at and it’s basically what I’m attempting to further lobby for.

There are various aspects of the Mozilla family where to put it frankly, the approach is simply sloppy and inefficient. It can be improved and thus should be improved. Take Tabs for example, there were various changes made to tabs between Firefox 4 and Firefox 10, there was an even bigger change made between Firefox 3 and Firefox 4. The changes made should automatically be carried over to Thunderbird and yet they’re not. Why? Because the design doesn’t allow for streamlined changes like that. The Tabs API should firmly be in the platform and thus such changes should be reflected in the children unless desired not to.

Again with for example the Firefox button, it should be as simple as deciding the populous and hey-presto you have it in the development channel of both Firefox and Thunderbird. By decreasing the dependencies between parts at the bottom, you create a greater ecosystem for the applications at the top. You’re also able to pool your resources more effectively allowing for more workers at the bottom and greater precision at the top.

The idea itself extends beyond that. You can think to include the RSS reader. Google has decided to leave it out of their browser. This isn’t a matter of simple numbers, as they run Google Reader, the advertising revenue there is enough to warrant being browser free. However I’ve been informed that even then, the number of users that use the Google Reader service pales in comparison to the number of users of their browser. Mozilla are also of the opinion that the RSS reader isn’t an aspect of their browser that warrants enough resources to make it ground-breaking. Now that in itself is a disappointment, especially when you consider extensions like Brief are exactly what users should be presented with. It’s easier to read and the learning curve is considerably lessened. That said, resources are finite. But ultimately an RSS reader is something that’s in that grey area between browser and Email client. So between the two, the collective requirement of a good reader aspect should be sufficient to not only create something like Brief but improve upon it.

Firefox has for as long as I can remember featured the ‘Send Link’ feature. Now personally, I can’t remember the last time I shared a page via email. I’ve sent pages via Instant Messenger, via Social Media and via Text Message, but via Email? No. When it was suggested that Firefox add a feature to enable social sharing of page, the masses cried bloat. I cried in gratitude, the masses won out, I stuck with the prototype extension. But this is something that should’ve been done on the platform, thus servicing sharing on whichever app in whichever manner the application required. This could’ve also lead to allowing users to customise their application and thus have their personal sharing needs. Again with the ‘Save Page As…’ feature, the rarity of users wanting to actually download whole page is so low a number that it may be impossible to see without aide. Instead the feature should by default to save as a PDF and the option entitled Download or Save Copy. And at installation a user can select whether to save pages as PDFs or HTML files with folders. I know that it’s far more likely to want an email saved as a PDF than it is a HTML file with folders in tow and let’s not forget that Mobile defaults to the option of PDF.

These are but a few examples of how the platform stepping up, decreasing it’s dependencies and becoming 100% API reliant can foster the applications and enable innovation rather than what feels like struggling to simply staying afloat. If it’s a question of is it time, the answer is a resounding yet. For the greater good, it really is. But will it happen? I fear not.

I’ve just read on planet.mozilla.org that Alex Faaborg is leaving Mozilla. It’s a sad day for Mozilla and Firefox. His contributions over the years have been immense and in my time as a contributor I’ve only ever had my respect and admiration for the UX team grow. I’ve been accused of criticising the team but that isn’t the case for me all, for me I merely comment with passion for the project of which the UX team has fostered. If not for that team, I wouldn’t have built the confidence and will to get involved. We’ve all lost a huge part of what makes Mozilla such an amazing product. I have no doubt that Alex Faaborg will go on to be even more successful in his new field. I only hope that we can live as a product can live up to the standards he’s set. I’m truly grateful to be a product of some of his immense design work. Good luck to him.

This is a question of brand identity and UX Design. Mozilla has recently (relatively speaking) invested heavily in UX. To the point that it actually managed to snag an employee or two from Google.  So now that they have teams of people behind user experience, the user is set to be empowered.

As with any UX changes, the push for change is often met with hardship. You only need to look at the furore that happens every time Facebook so much as tweaks a design let alone changing it.

Mozilla has enough man power in tow regarding UX now, that there are different teams and it’s two of those teams that I focus on here. Desktop and Mobile. The two teams have undoubtedly taken different approaches to their vision of what Firefox is and this has been enabled by Mozilla by failing to establish brand identity. Something which I previously spoke about.

You would think that natural evolution would see one team assimilate another and be reborn something like a Venn diagram. However it would appear that Microsoft may be to blame for this natural evolution failing to take place. Thanks to a rule of native code only and then banning the GPL license from their Market Place (App Store).

This has meant that the User Experience, while designed well, is designed differently from Desktop to Mobile. While the bulk of features trickle from Desktop to Mobile and thus Mobile team is often inspired by Desktop. It doesn’t mean that there’s UX consistency. This varies from small things like using different shades of colours for security level indication depending on platform, it also extends to bigger things like the lack of key-hole on Mobile.

Sadly though, not just for the end user of Firefox, but also other Mozilla product users, like that of Thunderbird and also Mozilla as a whole. It’s only delaying the inevitable. Touch screen workstations are quickly become a reality. Whether laptops at home or work, you’re likely to own or at least be using one regularly in as little as five years by my estimates. And Mozilla will be forced to be ahead of the crowd on that one thus time runs short. It’s at that point that Mozilla will be forced to look at making their design consistent across touch experiences and that will spread further. Brand identity consistency will stretch first across Firefox and then across Mozilla.

When it happens it will be a good thing for everyone. It means that teams will be shuffled and people good at designing on a massive scale will do while people that are better with intricacies will concentrate on those while people be overseeing coordinating and keeping consistent. Hopefully it will promote the switch to being completely API dependent, but that’s another subject. But when it happens, we’ll all benefit from a better User Experience across the board.