Let’s face it. Whether we like it or not, there is a lot of buzz surrounding a minimalistic browser interface that aims to maximize contents pace. The result is what we commonly would describe as a “full screen browser”. Mozilla Labs posted a prototype, but we wonder whether such a browser actually makes sense.
I’ll invite you to head over and take a close look at the browser called Webian Shell (WS), before I’ll ask you or your opinion, since we are completely confused about Mozilla’s direction. To be clear, WS is not a Mozilla project, but a demo that was developed by a RabbitSoft developer who contributed the browser to Mozilla Labs, which published the project in the daily Mozilla blog summary. I get the sense that Mozilla Labs has turned into a convenient place for Mozilla to test the waters of some interesting projects and, if necessary, easily distance itself from them.
WS is a minimalistic browser that aims to create a full-screen view for content and essentially repelace the general OS GUI with a browser interface. This may sound familiar – it is what Google does with Chrome and Chrome OS, but then we know that Mozilla has been following most significant trends that had been created by Google and it was merely a matter of time until we would see a Mozilla-version of Chrome OS. WS is built on the Mozilla Chromeless technology and not a finished product, but just a test version that is now looking for more developers to participate. Developer Ben Francis has a lot of enthusiasm for the project, but we wonder how far this idea can go.
If we assume that WS will be a desktop OS replacement, and if it is supposed to run web apps on top of a hidden OS, the browser may have the problem that it is – well – a browser and not a platform. Google is doing a much better job at building an ecosystem that consists of devices and applications, whereas WS stands pretty much alone and simply provides the prospect that users will have to borrow applications for this OS replacement from places such as the Chrome web store. However, we aren’t sure that this is a winning concept. Without an ecosystem, WS makes very little sense.
We firmly believe that reduced browser interfaces, even those with removed URL bars, guide the way to alternatives for the traditional OS. Google is clearly building the case for its Chromebooks – which is much more than just a notebook with a browser interface. There is hardware, plenty of software, a developer base, as well as a smartphone and tablet platform that can be connected to the browser OS at any given time. Chrome OS may not be able to replace Windows, but it is compelling enough to carve out a niche for Google. It is important to remember Google’s motivation to turn Chromebooks into a success: Chromebooks force users to use Chrome, which are closely tied to Google’s search products and, as a result, guarantees a Google Adsense consumer. Every Chromebook sold is, in theory, a browser user and an advertising consumer lost for Microsoft.
Microsoft is desperately trying to push Bing into the search market, with limited success, to slow Google’s march. IE9 is not quite the killer product Microsoft has anticipated, but it is the foundation for web technologies inside Windows 8, which will be Microsoft’s bet to leverage web applications. The difference to Google is that Microsoft is still focusing on the operating system and the browser that runs on top of it. This is similar to Apple, which also banks on the continued success of Mac OS X on the PC, but will clearly need a very strong Safari browser to run web apps. Both Microsoft and Apple will be offering full-screen views for apps in their new operating systems. While Google, Microsoft and Apple have different approaches, they all share the common ground that there is an ecosystem in place to support their browser strategy. How will Mozilla support a full screen browser that is pitched as an OS? What is Mozilla’s platform?
Your guess is as good as ours. Mozilla talks about its open web app idea and hopes that download locations will pop up across the web to make the case for Firefox as the bets browser for the “open” web. We don’t think that this will be enough. We have said it before and we say it again: The browser race has become a platform race and Mozilla is losing ground as Firefox remains just a browser. It is already shut out of Chromebooks, there is not much demand for a separate web browser on smartphones as we spend 90% of our time in smartphone apps, the Android tablet market is virtually non-existent at this time and Microsoft may argue that IE9/IE10 in Windows 8 will deliver the best app experience. Over time, Firefox’ appeal could fade.
The Webian Shell interface has been praised and it has been criticized. We are somewhere in the middle, but believe that there is a lesson to be learned: Without platform support, Mozilla will face tough times and it may soon be difficult to pitch a standalone browser without platform benefits.
What are your thoughts? Should Mozilla pitch such a browser and try to offer its browser as an OS replacement?
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
