Firefox: On the front lines of the Internet wars
Mitchell Baker has long been on the front lines of the Internet wars. As a lawyer at Netscape, she watched Microsoft steal market share (illegally, a federal court ruled) from the first software program that gave people easy access to the Internet. Since 1998, she's been at the forefront of the Mozilla project, which started out as a volunteer effort to build a better browser. (Mozilla was a nickname for the Mosaic Killer project started by Netscape founder Marc Andreessen to replace his first browser program.)
Since its formal launch in 2004, Mozilla's free Firefox browser has won plaudits from industry and academic experts, who say it is safer and more user friendly than Microsoft's Internet Explorer. IE has suffered from vulnerabilities to home-page hijackers, pop-up advertisers, and hacker programs that collect personal information from home PCs or turn home computers into "zombies" that obey hackers' commands. The endorsements and security improvements have helped Firefox eat into Microsoft's near monopoly. Industry analyst WebSideStory says 9 percent of all American Web surfers are now using Firefox, and IE's market share has fallen from a 2003 high of 96 percent to 87 percent today.
That success pushed Mozilla to turn professional. Baker is now chief executive officer of the for-profit Mozilla Corp., which uses revenue from search commissions to pay the 42 staffers who oversee the volunteers who still tweak and test the software. The leftover profits go to the firm's owner, the nonprofit Mozilla Foundation.
In the heart of Silicon Valley, Baker leaned back on the headquarters' beanbag chairs and explained how a tiny business, offering a free software program and helped by a bunch of volunteers, hopes to compete with the single most successful business in history.
U.S.News: With the recent controversy over false entries in Wikipedia, an open-source encyclopedia, how can you assure Web users that Firefox won't be vandalized?
Baker: A lot of people don't understand that. They think it is chaotic. They say how can you trust it if it is open source because anybody can put anything in? That is not the case in many open-source projects, and it is not the case in ours. You can't just check code in. At least one person and probably two people [staff members or trusted outside experts] are supposed to look at it first and make sure it does what it is supposed to do. It is a lot more disciplined than people think. We can tell you for any piece of code that is checked in, who checked it in, when it was checked in, what problem they thought they were solving, who looked at that piece of code and thought it was OK, how many revisions it had been through. . . . It is not like Wikipedia.
U.S.News: When Firefox first came out, it was safer than IE because it was so obscure that no bad guys were writing viruses for it. But now bad guys are writing viruses for all sorts of operating systems and browsers. [The latest report by Internet security analyst Secunia noted that Firefox had only two small software glitches that could be exploited and gave it a green light. Internet Explorer, which has 22 software vulnerabilities, received an orange warning light.] Will Firefox still be safer if it becomes more popular?
Baker: We are in good shape. . . . Many citizens may not focus on something so arcane as the method we use to develop the software, but open source provides a level of security and consumer advocacy that doesn't exist in other settings. We have a set of friendly people who look for potential issues or occasionally find a real vulnerability. Those people participate because they care about the browser they are using or they are out to prove their own expertise. [In fact, Mozilla rewards those who help them find and fix real security problems with token payments of $500.]
U.S.News: You don't like the word consumers.
Baker: I think consumers is the wrong word. What people do with the Web is not just consume: They create, they participate, they do things, they blog. . . . Our corporate structure gives us a chance to think about what benefits you when you use the Web. How do we create a center for citizens on the Web? Investment and commercial entities building the Web are critical. But you need at least one thing that isn't devoted to exactly how much return on investment can we get and is focused on what do human beings need to participate effectively to work together in this new thing we call the Web. That is the core of what we are trying to do.
U.S.News: You're still having some problems with some E-commerce and other sites that won't work with Firefox.
Baker: A lot of these sites were built during the '90s under a monopoly system. They were built using a set of technologies that were unique to IE and [Microsoft's] Windows operating system. We have a list of those that don't work with Firefox. We have an evangelism component, and we try to explain and be helpful. But if they built their site based on [controversial and potentially insecure Microsoft programs such as] ActiveX, they are stuck, since we won't support that because of the security problems. Financial institutions in particular have very long certification processes with browsers. We do get more and more mail from sites that are making the effort to support Firefox, though.
U.S.News: You watched Netscape get crushed by Microsoft. Now you are running a business that is winning market share back from Microsoft. Is there a little feeling of getting your own back?
Baker: It sounds hokey, but it is not about getting back.
U.S.News: Not even a little bit?
Baker: No. I don't think you can be a little bit about revenge and getting back. What really drives me and other people here is what the Web can be, what the possibilities are, the chance to communicate and work together with vast communities.
U.S.News: You also launched an E-mail product, but that doesn't seem to be gaining much traction. What's next for Mozilla?
Baker: Our focus remains Firefox. The browser is good. But plenty more can be done, especially with sharing and collaboration. We keep looking at RSS [really simple syndication, a program that alerts you when new content pops up on websites you've selected]. Firefox is already RSS-enabled. And we have a live-bookmark feature so that if you subscribe it will tell you if there is new content. Live bookmarks are a first step. We know we are not done with bookmarks. There is a lot of content on the Web that is changing. How do we help people see what is changing that interests them without them having to go visit 40 or 50 sites or open 40 or 50 windows? The Web is just overwhelming in what's out there. And often the technical community wants to create more and more complex things. Our job is to provide just a taste so that people are not overwhelmed and so that they can see what can be done out there.
U.S.News: What do you think about the controversy over Google's censoring of Chinese websites?
Baker: I don't comment on search engines, positive or negative, because they are partners of ours. [Search companies like Google pay Firefox for searches made with the browser.] But we are striving to be the center for consumers on the Web. Are we going to be perfect at that? Nope. One of these days you are going to sit here, and you are going to ask me, "Gee, you said you are for the consumer, and do you think this is 100 percent right?" and maybe I'll have to say, "Maybe we made a mistake" or "Maybe we had two bad options." No organization is going to be perfect.
U.S.News: Microsoft is coming out with a new browser that seems to promise many of the features of Firefox. What have you heard about how good IE 7 will be?
Baker: I never underestimate Microsoft or the fierceness of its competitive caliber. IE 7 is going to be much improved. It will probably have most or all of the things that made Firefox useful. I think IE 7 represents a significant success for the Mozilla project in its own right. The fact that IE users will have the benefit of [these] things is part of our goal of making the Web better. Will it cut into our market share? We'll see. I'm not sure how successful they have been in solving some of the security problems. But IE 7 is just one step. What we really need to see is whether IE 7 represents a change of heart in Microsoft's approach to browsers and not just in response to Firefox, but a long-term change in making a product that serves users well, because we will continue to do that.