On GameSpot: What's the 2009 Game of the Year?
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet

May 19th, 2008

Why I called Mozilla's change to the Firefox install process "sneaky"

Posted by Adrian Kingsley-Hughes @ 5:54 am

Categories: Software, Thoughts

Tags: Mozilla Firefox 3.0, Mozilla Firefox, Web Browser, Mozilla Corp., Web Browsers, Internet, Adrian Kingsley-Hughes

Seems like some of you objected to my use of the term “sneaky” to describe the change made to the install routine of Firefox 3.0 RC1, while others thought I was being too easy on Mozilla.

Two emails from the Hardware 2.0 mailbag:

  • What’s “sneaky” about the install process for Firefox 3??? If you can’t or don’t want to read the screens than that’s your problem!
  • I think it’s interesting that while you tore into Apple for making Safari available through the Apple Software Updater to iTunes users you choose to give Mozilla a get-out-of-jail-free card and only label this malware-like move as “sneaky.”

First, some background. As most Firefox users will be aware, the choice as to whether Firefox was set as the default browser used to be set at the time when the browser was first run (this was true of Firefox 1.5, 2.0 and 3.0 beta - I can’t remember further back than 1.5 though … maybe someone else can remind me if the process was the same). Starting with Firefox 3.0 RC1 the default browser setting has been rolled into the install routine. As expected, the option is pre-checked:

So, why did I call this sneaky? Simple - because it caught me out, and not many things catch me out! I’ve carried out hundreds, if not thousands, of Firefox installs and handled each and every beta release of Firefox 3.0 and the install process has become second nature to me. This time, it caught me out and I only spotted what had happened when Internet links on my desktop that had previously been marked by the Big Blue E suddenly changed to the Firefox logo. Sure, I probably should have been paying more attention, but I wasn’t. I guess I trusted Mozilla.

So why has the Firefox development team gone and made this change between the beta of Firefox 3.0 and the Release Candidate? Simple, it’s because the old method made it far too easy for people to download Firefox, even install Firefox, but to then forget about it and never even run it. Also, when people are faced with a dialog box asking a simple Yes/No question, I guess that people were being conservative and choosing not to make Firefox the default browser. The only reason to change this process now would be that Mozilla feels that this move will help it turn some of those downloaders that aren’t committed to running Firefox into regular users. 

Mozilla’s own product planning document for Firefox 3.0 states that one of the objectives for the browser should be to “continue to increase usage share and broaden the Firefox audience” - seems like this change in the install routine is one way that Mozilla plan to use to increase market share.

Is this move deceptive? No, I can’t say that it is, especially compared to Apple’s move in pushing Safari through the software update mechanism. I don’t like it, and this move offers yet another reason for me to hate the entire browser industry, but it’s no deal-breaker. Browser makers only care about one thing - market share. It’s all about a fight for market share, and in this big land grab the users are caught in the middle.

That aside, I’m still on track to make a complete switch over to Firefox 3.0 as soon as it hits final release. It’s an excellent browser.

Thoughts?

Adrian Kingsley-HughesAdrian is a technology journalist and author who has devoted over a decade to helping users get the most from technology. He also runs a popular blog called The PC Doctor. See his full profile and disclosure of his industry affiliations

Want to get in touch? Got a tip? Feel free to drop me a note! I ALWAYS respect anonymity. I'm also on Twitter (@the_pc_doc)

Right to Reply: Should any industry representatives wish to comment on any posts on Hardware 2.0, I will be happy to publish their reply verbatim on this blog.

Subscribe to Hardware 2.0 via Email alerts or RSS.

Related Discussions on TechRepublic

Did you know you can take part in these discussions with your ZDNet membership?

  • Talkback
  • Most Recent of 234 Talkback(s)
RE: Why I called Mozilla's change to the Firefox install process
Read the EULA! (Read the rest)
Posted by: JeremyBoden Posted on: 07/07/09 You are currently: a Guest | | Terms of Use
It got me, and I read the article!  BitTwiddler | 05/19/08
Holy **** it's fast  fr0thy2 | 05/20/08
RE: Why I called Mozilla's change to the Firefox install process  kronj | 05/19/08
RE: Why I called Mozilla's change to the Firefox install process  hunterahp | 05/19/08
A Response  DannyO_0x98 | 05/19/08
And you do....  Flying Pig | 05/19/08
There's another choice  ellaz@... | 05/20/08
Does Microsoft Give a Choice?  Calknight | 05/29/08
you are an idiot for making that comparison  JamesDoyle | 06/06/08
precisely the point......  cymru999 | 05/19/08
Imagine  mi_saeed@... | 05/20/08
Not necessarily  Ben_E | 05/20/08
RE: Why I called Mozilla's change to the Firefox install process  DannyO_0x98 | 05/19/08
It was hypocritical  Marcos El Malo | 05/19/08
No, it wasn't.  scpredmage | 05/19/08
The point -------  Spiritusindomit@... | 05/19/08
...which was promptly missed.  scpredmage | 05/19/08
And missed by many others...  buddybu@... | 05/20/08
It's not hypocritical; it's use friendly.  alaniane@... | 05/19/08
RE: Why I called Mozilla's change to the Firefox install process  mistercatworks@... | 05/19/08
correct, especially older users  dragon@... | 05/19/08
Whippersnappers!  Marcos El Malo | 05/19/08
not to mention the drugs  dragon@... | 05/19/08
But could you spell???  randysmith@... | 05/23/08
Re: Whippersnappers!  AmraLeo | 05/20/08
Whippersnappers? Where?!  spiderlilly@... | 05/20/08
Please.....Really  k12IT | 05/19/08
You must be a fan.  Cayble | 05/19/08
no seriously...  Paul Fletcher | 05/19/08
OOOOOPS! He forgot about that  Ole Man | 05/19/08
exactly  merc2dogs` | 05/19/08
Agree! Article = Non-Story  friedtoast@... | 05/20/08
In what world?  JackLR | 05/19/08
I imagine this article was written  Ole Man | 05/19/08
Help! Please protect me from  RS9 | 05/19/08
Yes and No  cslycord@... | 05/19/08
RE: Why I called Mozilla's change to the Firefox install process  TerryNorton | 05/19/08
Even more reason why it's bad practice  Marcos El Malo | 05/19/08
Why?  JT82 | 05/19/08
Because  Marcos El Malo | 05/19/08
Im not arrogantly assuming anything...  JT82 | 05/19/08
Your wasting your time  RS9 | 05/19/08
arrogantly assuming?  brian ansorge | 05/19/08
agreed  Paul Fletcher | 05/19/08
Absolutely!  Drakaran | 05/19/08
Avergate downloader would have chosen 2.0, not 3  DanLM | 05/26/08
Quite the contrary  JackLR | 05/19/08
so uncheck the button. nt  merc2dogs` | 05/19/08
RE: Why I called Mozilla's change to the Firefox install process  sfsz | 05/19/08
You're justifying bad behavior  Marcos El Malo | 05/19/08
How is IE the worst? I sniff Apple kool-aid here...  JT82 | 05/19/08
Not only do they push the browser updates...  mrlinux | 05/19/08
I think i know what you are referencing....  JT82 | 05/19/08
Well I upgraded IE so that I could get the update  mrlinux | 05/19/08
And thats terribly descript.....  JT82 | 05/19/08
Upgrade not necessary  Gerry_z | 05/19/08
That is utterly FUD  DCMann | 05/19/08
Windows lovers wining  sergiovf@... | 05/19/08
It's not bad behaviour  alaniane@... | 05/20/08
Like I said in my earlier post...  BitTwiddler | 05/19/08
do you read every EULA every time you install?  lars_huttar@... | 05/19/08
No this is NOTHING like what Apple did  JT82 | 05/19/08
Different circumstance, similar concept...  techconc | 05/19/08
This is silly  eMJayy | 05/19/08
You're right, this is silly...  techconc | 05/19/08
A little off base, there...  scpredmage | 05/19/08
You would be right, but  Gerry_z | 05/19/08
Are you going to develop programs for the iPhone?  sergiovf@... | 05/19/08
Good point  AJ-Ubuntu-User | 05/19/08
Any data on the threat to add Phorm style  mtgarden | 05/19/08
Its not sneaky, per se....but not entirely uncommon  JT82 | 05/19/08
RE: Why I called Mozilla's change to the Firefox install process  dragonkindancer | 05/19/08
Im curious...  JT82 | 05/19/08
Nthng New  Cwessels | 05/19/08
MMMMMkay..but..  JT82 | 05/19/08
"...another reason to hate the entire browser industry..."  techboy_z | 05/19/08
ZDNET should....  BitTwiddler | 05/19/08
Never mind!  BitTwiddler | 05/19/08
Maybe Sneaky, but....  rbeier1116 | 05/19/08
RE: Why I called Mozilla's change to the Firefox install process  danthor | 05/19/08
RE: why I 'lied' about FireFox's new Install Process  eweekling | 05/19/08
You miss the point, imo  cgdams | 05/19/08
Not so fast...  JT82 | 05/19/08
Errr..no.  DCMann | 05/19/08
Apparently...  zdnet@... | 05/19/08
RE: Why I called Mozilla's change to the Firefox install process  asadotzler | 05/19/08
RE: Why I called Mozilla's change to the Firefox install process  mskoh52 | 05/19/08
It is a good thing!  pauliusp | 05/19/08
RE: Why I called Mozilla's change to the Firefox install process  JoesCat | 05/19/08
RE: Why I called Mozilla's change to the Firefox install process  bendarden@... | 05/19/08
Why do you care??  greetz@... | 05/19/08
RE: Why I called Mozilla's change to the Firefox install process  Ronin69 | 05/19/08
RE: Why I called Mozilla's change to the Firefox install process  Timpraetor | 05/19/08
RE: Why I called Mozilla's change to the Firefox install process  bendarden@... | 05/19/08
RE: Why I called Mozilla's change to the Firefox install process  joel@... | 05/19/08
Naaa.....  Kg001 | 05/20/08
RE: Why I called Mozilla's change to the Firefox install process  daboogiemansass@... | 05/19/08
I haven't used IE in years...  schmandel@... | 05/19/08
RE: Why I called Mozilla's change to the Firefox install process  jimroberson@... | 05/19/08
RE: Why I called Mozilla's change to the Firefox install process  JackLR | 05/19/08
RE: Why I called Mozilla's change to the Firefox install process  cymru999 | 05/19/08
Look again  Gerry_z | 05/19/08
RE: Why I called Mozilla's change to the Firefox install process  wshannon | 05/19/08
REPLY:JT82  mrlinux | 05/19/08
RE: Why I called Mozilla's change to the Firefox install process  dorkiedorkfromdorktown | 05/19/08
RE: Why I called Mozilla's change to the Firefox install process  bearlyworking | 05/19/08
The only trouble I've ever had was NOT getting Firefox as the default  mark.hill.smt | 05/19/08
RE: Why I called Mozilla's change to the Firefox install process  cwmoore@... | 05/19/08
RE: Why I called Mozilla's.......  Joe Dufflebag | 05/20/08
RE: Why I called Mozilla's change to the Firefox install process  bigpicture | 05/19/08
RE: Why I called Mozilla's change to the Firefox install process  ajsdecepida@... | 05/19/08
RE: Why I called Mozilla's change to the Firefox install process  vkelman@... | 05/19/08
RE: Why I called Mozilla's change to the Firefox install process  T Wayne | 05/19/08
RE: Why I called Mozilla's change to the Firefox install process  Hardride85@... | 05/19/08
RE: Why I called Mozilla's change to the Firefox install process  n_lain@... | 05/19/08
No, not sneaky.  Steve Goldman | 05/19/08
RE: Why I called Mozilla's change to the Firefox install process  Frodo420024 | 05/19/08
RE: Why I called Mozilla's change to the Firefox install process  kevin.meza@... | 05/19/08
Firefox's marketing move  moxion | 05/19/08
RE: Why I called Mozilla's change to the Firefox install process  regroch@... | 05/19/08
If your installing it isn't the point to use it?  Breetai | 05/19/08
I don't want a Release Candidate as my default...  hoohah | 05/19/08
I'm sorry...  scpredmage | 05/19/08
Principle of least surprise  hoohah | 05/19/08
Prinicple of least risk  scpredmage | 05/19/08
RE: Why I called Mozilla's change to the Firefox install process  daveayerst | 05/19/08
Aww Comon it's easy...  Kg001 | 05/20/08
RE: Why I called Mozilla's change to the Firefox install process  chromeronin | 05/19/08
System Preference not browser hijacking?  Rich2020 | 05/19/08
Storm in a teacup  red_nectar | 05/19/08
RE: Why I called Mozilla's change to the Firefox install process  DJThuht | 05/19/08
RE: Why I called Mozilla's change to the Firefox install process  macsie | 05/19/08
I remember being a bit surprised,  mhenriday | 05/19/08
RE: Why I called Mozilla's change to the Firefox install process  etdweasel@... | 05/19/08
Still gotta disagree with you...  I_am_windex007@... | 05/19/08
Reviewers need to be Objective...  dsilvia | 05/19/08
"hate the entire browser industry"  jorjitop | 05/19/08
RE: Why I called Mozilla's change to the Firefox install process  zardoz7606 | 05/19/08
RE: Why I called Mozilla's change to the Firefox install process  tripn | 05/19/08
RE: Why I called Mozilla's change to the Firefox install process  McGilucudy | 05/19/08
RE: Why I called Mozilla's change to the Firefox install process  McGilucudy | 05/19/08
RE: Why I called Mozilla's change to the Firefox install process  McGilucudy | 05/19/08
RE: Why I called Mozilla's change to the Firefox install process  i3of3 | 05/19/08
Microsoft installs IE as default browser without asking  mbabuskov | 05/19/08
RE: Why I called Mozilla's change to the Firefox install process  KeithAu001 | 05/19/08
I agree  AJ-Ubuntu-User | 05/19/08
I do not see a problem here  AJ-Ubuntu-User | 05/19/08
Reviewers need to be objective...  dsilvia | 05/19/08
Gee, it surely gets us going wink  petit@... | 05/19/08
RE: Why I called Mozilla's change to the Firefox install process  robert.morgan@... | 05/19/08
If you don't want Firefox to be your browser why install it?  Randalllind | 05/19/08
Ummm, because it's his job?  johnnydigit@... | 05/19/08
evaluate a new version of software.  AJ-Ubuntu-User | 05/19/08
RE: Why I called Mozilla's change to the Firefox install process  dsilvia | 05/19/08
Please, Do not remove...  dsilvia | 05/19/08
Question...  Spiritusindomit@... | 05/19/08
No worse than  Mahegan | 05/19/08
Sneaky  leeegeee | 05/19/08
RE: Why I called Mozilla's change to the Firefox install process  mysidia | 05/19/08
I still think it was sneaky  Ole Man | 05/19/08
RE: Why I called Mozilla's change to the Firefox install process  dutchv@... | 05/19/08
RE: Why I called Mozilla's change to the Firefox install process  stbham@... | 05/19/08
Blaming a wrong one  vkelman@... | 05/19/08
Citrix is,  Gerry_z | 05/19/08
Citrix (metaframe for x86) is only compatible with IE  sergiovf@... | 05/19/08
This is a non issue!  gmureddu@... | 05/19/08
RE: Why I called Mozilla's change to the Firefox install process  mysidia | 05/19/08
So IE,  Gerry_z | 05/19/08
RE: Why I called Mozilla's change to the Firefox install process  aallord | 05/19/08
Whats your point?  mlambert890@... | 05/19/08
Much ado about nothing..............  ZDNET_guest666 | 05/19/08
mickeysoft has received so much criticism  Ole Man | 05/19/08
Ancient precedent...  craigg4c | 05/19/08
RE: Sneaky -- no, seen much worse!  tpatriarche@... | 05/19/08
RE: Why I called Mozilla's change to the Firefox install process  tom.zdnet@... | 05/19/08
RE: Why I called Mozilla's change to the Firefox install process  Steve C-1 | 05/19/08
RE: Why I called Mozilla's change to the Firefox install process  Woodyboy | 05/19/08
RE: Why I called Mozilla's change to the Firefox install process  Woodyboy | 05/19/08
RE: Why I called Mozilla's change to the Firefox install process  jim.setele@... | 05/19/08
No Offense but Get a Life  r_bigcat@... | 05/19/08
Ditto, plus.  sawatzky | 05/19/08
Mob will never be happy  vshamanovsky | 05/19/08
RE: Why I called Mozilla's change to the Firefox install process  atari8bit@... | 05/19/08
Sneaky? No  etschuetz@... | 05/19/08
I agree  mrppea | 05/20/08
AUTO UPDATES IN THE BACKGROUND  atari8bit@... | 05/19/08
why worry, firefox?  dragonmago@... | 05/19/08
Probably just an issue for those who only use Windows and know no better..  LazLong | 05/19/08
RE: Why I called Mozilla's change to the Firefox install process  kench300 | 05/19/08
RE: Why I called Mozilla's change to the Firefox install process  bnichols23@... | 05/19/08
RE: Nothing wrong really  fletcher.khoo | 05/19/08
RE: Why I called Mozilla's change to the Firefox install process  button56@... | 05/19/08
Huh? What's the fuss? Get a life!  crave420fubar@... | 05/19/08
Literacy...  button56@... | 05/19/08
I would have never noticed.  djchandler | 05/19/08
RE: Why I called Mozilla's change to the Firefox install process  heinziten@... | 05/19/08
RE: Why I called Mozilla's change to the Firefox install process  heinziten@... | 05/19/08
RE: Why I called Mozilla's change to the Firefox install process  n9joy@... | 05/19/08
I dont get the point of this article  ben.rattigan | 05/20/08
RE: Why I called Mozilla's change to the Firefox install process  rjohnuk@... | 05/20/08
RE: Why I called Mozilla's change to the Firefox install process  rjohnuk@... | 05/20/08
RE: Why I called Mozilla's change to the Firefox install process  mateokow@... | 05/20/08
sneaky?  mateokow@... | 05/20/08
RE: Why I called Mozilla's change to the Firefox install process  insanish1 | 05/20/08
Sneaky? Not sure I would call it that  roldaa | 05/20/08
RE: Why I called Mozilla's change to the Firefox install process  oldsteamer | 05/20/08
RE: Why I called Mozilla's change to the Firefox install process  dave_p_1 | 05/20/08
RE: Why I called Mozilla's change to the Firefox install process  baylors | 05/20/08
RE: Why I called Mozilla's change to the Firefox install process  ramien@... | 05/20/08
RE: Why I called Mozilla's change to the Firefox install process  corky1234@... | 05/20/08
How do you know?  hugh@... | 05/20/08
RE: Why I called Mozilla's change to the Firefox install process  sir4taye@... | 05/20/08
RE: Why I called Mozilla's change to the Firefox install process  Dem0072 | 05/20/08
Not really...  techconc | 05/20/08
RE: Why I called Mozilla's change to the Firefox install process  daltrie | 05/20/08
just your shortcut?  bnichols23@... | 05/20/08
wow  rebelxhardcore | 05/20/08
getting hit  bnichols23@... | 05/20/08
What Were You thinking About???  bokushi99-cnet@... | 05/21/08
Has anybody considered technical reasons for this?  Mitch 74 | 05/21/08
RE: Why I called Mozilla's change to the Firefox install process  Mike Bear | 05/21/08
Foxmarks and NoScript  rtk | 05/21/08
RE: Why I called Mozilla's change to the Firefox install process  davidctm@... | 05/21/08
RE: Why I called Mozilla's change to the Firefox install process  merc2dogs` | 05/21/08
If that's the only "problem" you noticed....  Rick S._z | 05/21/08
RE: Why I called Mozilla's change to the Firefox install process  PaddyO | 05/21/08
Oh come on now!  Four-Eyes | 05/21/08
RE: Why I called Mozilla's change to the Firefox install process  WNelWeb | 05/26/08
um, I had no problem spotting it  DanLM | 05/26/08
RE: Why I called Mozilla's change to the Firefox install process  heliovil@... | 05/29/08
RE: Why I called Mozilla's change to the Firefox install process  eval@... | 06/28/08
Not At All  Meesha | 07/07/08
I never seen...  rebelxhardcore | 07/01/09
RE: Why I called Mozilla's change to the Firefox install process  JeremyBoden | 07/07/09

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

Click Here
advertisement

Recent Entries

advertisement
Click Here

Archives

ZDNet Blogs

White Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

SmartPlanet

Click Here