IE goes boom!
November 30, 2005 4:40 PM   Subscribe

It's a Google-Mozilla conspiracy against Microsoft.
posted by Lotto at 4:44 PM on November 30, 2005

I don't know whether I'd ever participate, but the graph that "illustrates the dramatic transfer of wealth from Google to you as you participate" is most amusing.
posted by mmahaffie at 4:46 PM on November 30, 2005

Is this serious? Does Google mention this strategy anywhere?
posted by MrZero at 4:47 PM on November 30, 2005

uh, scam and/or joke anyone?
posted by ori at 4:48 PM on November 30, 2005

AdSense publishers can generate earnings by referring users to Firefox.
posted by Orange Goblin at 4:50 PM on November 30, 2005

(yes, this is a joke).
posted by drpynchon at 4:51 PM on November 30, 2005

InformationWeek article
posted by ori at 4:51 PM on November 30, 2005

Said browser contains the Google Toolbar. That's called incentive. The toolbar keeps people away from yahoo and if its anything like its IE cousin its spyware for more of Google's datamining efforts.
posted by skallas at 4:54 PM on November 30, 2005

So is this a joke, or isn't it?
posted by arcticwoman at 4:57 PM on November 30, 2005

Google lives and dies on the web. I can see how it would be to their benefit to 1) have more standard compliant browsers out there to work their magic and 2) be less dependant on Microsoft for their platform.

But anybody whose choice of browser can be bought for a dollar is not likely to be loyal.
posted by zanni at 4:57 PM on November 30, 2005

Zanni, you're mistaken... they're not offering a dollar to someone who converts... they're offering a dollar to site maintainers for every user THEY convince to convert.

I'm intrigued.
posted by verb at 4:59 PM on November 30, 2005

It is not a joke. It is part of Google AdSense. I put a link on my web site. Anyone who uses that link to download FireFox causes Google to pay me a dollar to my AdSense account. AdSense only pays a check when you have over $100 in the account, so you must either have some ad revenue or 100 signups for this to pay off.
posted by Xoc at 5:02 PM on November 30, 2005

Why?
posted by OmieWise at 5:04 PM on November 30, 2005

Just had a thought: would it be illegal for to Microsoft to make it so IE won't access Google/Mozilla? Or at least puts a banner at the top saying "Keep using our products!" when ever you visit. Sure, people in the know would complain, but probably most IE users would just accept it, or think the internet was broken.
posted by Orange Goblin at 5:07 PM on November 30, 2005

You get a dollar if you get someone to start using Google Toolbar, which now exists for firefox. Google apparently wants people to use firefox, but mostly they want people to use the google toolbar.

These people have created a somewhat humorous site that markets the idea of getting referral money to switch people to fire fox because they dislike IE.

I would imagine that you can probably get a similar fee for getting IE users to install google toolbar, but I'm not sure.
posted by delmoi at 5:07 PM on November 30, 2005

Just had a thought: would it be illegal for to Microsoft to make it so IE won't access Google/Mozilla? Or at least puts a banner at the top saying "Keep using our products!" when ever you visit.

It would probably be an anti-trust violation if Microsoft did something like that, but it wouldn't be illegal for apple or opera to do it (although I think it should be. It's Spyware behavior)
posted by delmoi at 5:09 PM on November 30, 2005

When a user you’ve referred to Firefox plus Google Toolbar runs Firefox for the first time, you’ll receive up to $1 in your account, depending on the user’s location. And it has to be a Windows user too.
posted by smackfu at 5:13 PM on November 30, 2005

I'm not going to force anyone to use any browser, that's what the government does and I don't want people to confuse me with the government.

I don't mind nudging them in the right direction but this is more than nudging. Or was I the only one that got a dead "Continue without FireFox" link?
posted by fenriq at 5:14 PM on November 30, 2005

Given that, I certainly think that if you're going to put a Firefox button on your homepage, and you already have an AdSense account, it would be silly not to do this.
posted by smackfu at 5:15 PM on November 30, 2005

"1) have more standard compliant browsers out there to work their magic"

The way that they break their pages in Opera pretty much illustrates how committed they are to the web being more standards compliant.
posted by a_green_man at 5:17 PM on November 30, 2005

but why? Google don't own Firefox, so is this only to piss off Microsoft?

How do I do it? (it's easy)

1. You need a Google AdSense account to make referral money for each user switched. If you don't already have an account, click this button to sign-up:

To get more people signed up with AdSense? Once they're comfortable doing business with Google, they might do more. Getting customers costs far more than keeping them.
posted by mullingitover at 5:35 PM on November 30, 2005

Or was I the only one that got a dead "Continue without FireFox" link?

I think that's just part of the demo, as the next demo is virtually the same thing without a 'continue without firefox' link. There'd be no need for there to be 2 if the first was meant to not work.
posted by jacquilynne at 5:42 PM on November 30, 2005

If I recall correctly there have actually been some shenanigans with IE/MSN search users trying to get to mozilla.org, linux searches and other loosely related competitors.

But if I further recall correctly it was MSN Search itself doing the hanky panky, not a direct-URL hit from the address bar in IE.
posted by loquacious at 6:06 PM on November 30, 2005

I've has a Firefox button on my page for a long time, and I have Google adsense ads, but I don't think I'd feel right encouraging anyone to use any Google toolbar. A buck to get people to switch would be cool, but the IE Google toolbar has spyware-y aspects, and I presume the FF one does too.
posted by words1 at 6:17 PM on November 30, 2005

Had. I've had. Had had had.
posted by words1 at 6:17 PM on November 30, 2005

loquacious: you're correct. For a while, searching for "firefox" on MSN search would give you 2/3 pages of other results before the Mozilla links. I noticed this myself and wrote them a snotty letter; they replied along the lines of "it's a new search engine, we're still tweaking the results". I can only guess that many others complained, too, since 'proper' firefox is now the top result.
posted by blag at 6:22 PM on November 30, 2005

That's just what the Web needs, more 'You must have browser Foo™ to view this site' crap. Behold the imminent anti-Firefox backlash.
posted by IshmaelGraves at 6:26 PM on November 30, 2005

Also, if you think Google is Evil, don't even go near the AdSense sign-up. Since it is taxable income, they need identity-theft levels of personal data.
posted by smackfu at 6:38 PM on November 30, 2005

Also, if you think Google is Evil, don't even go near the AdSense sign-up. Since it is taxable income, they need identity-theft levels of personal data

Well, I've been with Adsense for over a year now. So far none of my identity info has been stolen, and the check I get from Google each month nearly pays the rent. You can be paranoid, or you can throw up a spot of code on your site and get free money... to each their own.
posted by RoseovSharon at 7:09 PM on November 30, 2005

AdSense only pays a check when you have over $100 in the account

Untrue. They pay out at $100, but also every year at tax time regardless of balance.
posted by scottreynen at 7:20 PM on November 30, 2005

Currently, this is U.S publishers only
posted by Pigpen at 7:38 PM on November 30, 2005

Oops, no longer true.. My bad.
posted by Pigpen at 7:39 PM on November 30, 2005

That graph is not nearly credulous. It greatly overstates my assets.
posted by baphomet at 7:46 PM on November 30, 2005

But anybody whose choice of browser can be bought for a dollar is not likely to be loyal.

Sure - but google isn't paying people to use firefox, it's paying people to successfully advertise firefox, where success is defined by someone actually following through and moving to firefox. The person seeing the ad gets none of the money, and isn't motivated by the exchange of money.
posted by odinsdream at 7:50 PM on November 30, 2005

but why? Google don't own Firefox, so is this only to piss off Microsoft?

It's more likely that google is interested in tracking your online surfing habits with the prepackaged googlebar.

*runs off to adjust tinfoil hat*
posted by squeak at 8:36 PM on November 30, 2005

Like skallas said, it's got to be about the Google Toolbar. Assuming it's all for real, that is.

People who run Firefox generally have no reason to want to add Google's Toolbar to it, since Firefox already has Google search from the address bar, and I suspect probably some other Google-related stuff which I don't know about because I've either turned it off or not installed it, that would render the Google Toolbar even more entirely irrelevant than it already is. Or, it could just be that the kind of people who think it's worth taking the time to switch to Firefox are also less likely than average to want to install the Google Toolbar. Either way, Google probably isn't too happy about it.
posted by sfenders at 8:38 PM on November 30, 2005

Because Firefox defaults to a google search?
posted by Eideteker at 9:17 PM on November 30, 2005

A few weeks ago I was on SomethingAwful and found this in the Weekend Web section. Fantasy becomes reality I guess. I use Firefox, but this is just plain stupid.
posted by Burton at 9:35 PM on November 30, 2005

I don't know why they want people to use the Google Toolbar. I suspect that whatever the reason is, it doesn't really make any sense.
posted by sfenders at 9:47 PM on November 30, 2005

Google probably believes that it's worth a $1 to have someone using their toolbar rather than someone else's. Whether or not they'll do nefarious things with it now or down the road is unclear ... although their slogan is "Do no Evil"
posted by RonZ at 10:19 PM on November 30, 2005

So every time I download Firefox, Google kills a kitten?
posted by spilon at 10:49 PM on November 30, 2005

The day Google pays me to use their toolbar is the day this will be interesting; I'd say my complete browsing history might be worth, I dunno, a couple bucks a month? Or heck, I'd rather barter my personal information for AdWords credit or access to some sort of new GooglePremium^TM service (domain hosting, site hosting, free pron; they gotta use those super-sekret-shipping-container-NOCs for something) As it stands, they're just marketing their toolbar with a juicy incentive for publishers. fap fap fap
posted by Loser at 11:52 PM on November 30, 2005

Why should this be a surprise to anyone? Firefox's default home page is on google.com. Google employs Firefox developers Ben Goodger, Darin Fisher, Brian Ryner, and Greasemonkey developer Aaron Boodman. Google has also been working on improving the user experience of tabs. In my mind, the fact that Google is willing to pay a little money to people who successfully advertise Firefox is, well, a non-story.

skallas: "Said browser contains the Google Toolbar."

It does? I don't see it on my copy of 1.5. I see the search field that's set to Google by default, but also includes Yahoo, Amazon, Answers.com, CC, and eBay. Is this something that's limited to the Windows version? Why isn't it in the release notes?
posted by Plutor at 4:29 AM on December 1, 2005

I'm curious -- if I want to deploy firefox to my 30+ workstation network, is there a way to take advantage of this to make a few bucks? I mean, the users will be converting from IE, after all...
posted by splice at 5:38 AM on December 1, 2005

the why of it is because google plans to use firefox as a rich web platform (eg XUL) to complete with microsoft.
posted by paradroid at 6:33 AM on December 1, 2005

Personally I love the Google toolbar for Firefox. Of course I run the unofficial Google toolbar, not the real deal. All the same fun at my fingertips, none of the spyware datamining (well, I imagine there might be some, but not any more than you'd normally get by running a Google search in the first place.)

I do not really like the idea of saying "bad browser, no website". In my opinion, if your website doesn't work on a browser, you write crappy code. I know that it's hard to get some specific look or feel but the content should be accessible. Hell, I test sites using Netscape 1.1, and if I can't read the content I fix the problem.

From a design perspective I'd say it would be easier to just build a FF-specific design using CSS, and import something different for IE users using the < isie> tags that Microsoft built in. Valid code, solves your problem, and still lets you stick it to the unwashed masses. Much better than an obnoxious "your browser sucks" popup.
posted by caution live frogs at 6:42 AM on December 1, 2005

skallas : "Said browser contains the Google Toolbar."

Huh? Since when? It never had it before, and I just downloaded 1.5 yesterday, so if it contains it, it has contained it for less than 24 hours.

squeak : "It's more likely that google is interested in tracking your online surfing habits with the prepackaged googlebar."

Again, huh?

Plutor : "It does? I don't see it on my copy of 1.5. I see the search field that's set to Google by default, but also includes Yahoo, Amazon, Answers.com, CC, and eBay. Is this something that's limited to the Windows version?"

Nope, it's not preinstalled in Windows either. As you say, Google is the default search field, but that's it. Maybe it's a prepackaged thing for Amiga or Commodore users.
posted by bugbread at 6:45 AM on December 1, 2005

It does contain the Google Toolbar if you download it from these referral links. The page it sends you to is this one, which is different depending on what browser you are currently using. If FF, it has a toolbar download. If IE, it has a "Firefox® - Google Toolbar Included" download.
posted by smackfu at 7:05 AM on December 1, 2005

smackfu : "It does contain the Google Toolbar if you download it from these referral links."

Thanks. I apologize to skallas and squeak (and anyone else who was PO'ed about me being jerky).
posted by bugbread at 7:20 AM on December 1, 2005

Ah, yeah. Now I get it, too. My first point stands, though. Google's been supporting Firefox for æons.
posted by Plutor at 7:52 AM on December 1, 2005

Why are they doing it?

Like Mullingitover says, there's mucho $ for Google in this.

You have to sign up as an Adsense user to put the button on your website.

Once you do so, Google gets paid *every time* someone clicks on the ads on your website.

It may sound like Google's losing money, $1 for each click on the Mozilla-download button but in the long run, this could actually turn out to be a profitable money-maker.

They take a shot at Microsoft, they help break the IE monopoloy, they recruit more customers, it's easy to implement, and it's profitable.

Very, very, crafty.
posted by storybored at 8:33 AM on December 1, 2005

That's just what the Web needs, more 'You must have browser Foo™ to view this site' crap.

snip

I do not really like the idea of saying "bad browser, no website". In my opinion, if your website doesn't work on a browser, you write crappy code.

This is a little different in that you're not banning the browser because of rendering issues, you're banning it because of philosophical/monetary issues. So the ban can be lifted easier.
posted by breath at 9:22 AM on December 1, 2005

Microsoft's the one to always take down competitors, so it's a tiny bit of payback to see someone taking a crack at microsoft.
posted by stratastar at 9:56 AM on December 1, 2005

breath writes "you're banning it because of philosophical/monetary issues"

No; I disagree. People are trying to ban browsers not due to philosophy but because it is damn hard to make a website that looks nice in every browser - that's a coding issue. If you choose Option 3 in the FPP link you're actually fully blocking access to the site for people who use IE, by intentionally adding code that excludes them. This is bad coding, by design rather than through ignorance, but bad coding nonetheless. I find this as distasteful as sites that are IE only. There's no reason to block a visitor from the content just because their browser can't render the display the way yours does.

You can't control display on a site. Trying to ensure that every visitor sees the exact same thing by enforcing browser use is every bit as futile as trying to insist that every visitor use a 1024x768 display resolution or Adobe RGB colorspace. You can have a big influence on page display, of course, but you cannot control the user experience the way you can with print. Too many people who build websites tend to forget that, resulting in pages that look shitty (on a widescreen monitor for example many, many websites push all the content into an 800px-wide column that only takes up half my screen because the designers can't think in liquid layout terms).

Building a painstakingly styled page is great, and I have admiration for people who can do it well. I'm not an expert at it, but I do my best to make pages work in most browsers. I do not ever bar anyone from seeing content though, as Option 3 tries to do. If I have a layout that absolutely will not work visually in Browser X I'd rather feed users of that browser plain vanilla pages and style them only for good browsers than add code that purposefully excludes someone.
posted by caution live frogs at 10:27 AM on December 1, 2005

Mm, bugbread jerky.
posted by mendel at 10:45 AM on December 1, 2005

The grand irony of this is that the cash payment only counts for MS Windows users.

from the Google small print: (after signing in)

* A Firefox referral is counted when a Windows user, who has not previously installed Firefox, downloads and runs the program for the first time.

Not quite the same appeal - Please take your Mac back to the shop, swap it for a PC, reinstall the whole operating system, then download firefox so I can make $1.
posted by Lanark at 11:41 AM on December 1, 2005

There still aren't that many Macs out there, and Safari is much better than IE. Switching to Firefox just isn't very compelling. I doubt you would lose any real money.
posted by smackfu at 12:54 PM on December 1, 2005

I assume everyone who commented did read (or at least skim) the page. (No one is laboring under the misapprehension that Google actually created this page, right? Some of the comments above seem to imply so. Notably, ori & drpyncheon seem to be correct in their suppositions near the top of this page.)

From the link, for those who can't be bothered:

About us
We are four politically-oriented friends [not Google - gohlkus] who care about open source software coming out on top. Individually, we work on activism efforts like Downhill Battle and open source projects like Blogtorrent and Broadcast Machine / DTV.

We've thought about doing something like this for a while now, and Google's "bounty" sealed the deal. If we make some referral money ourselves, we get to do more stuff like this. We wrote this open letter, too:

Why we made Explorer Destroyer
posted by gohlkus at 3:22 PM on December 1, 2005