21 ms·
Firefox Features Google as Default Search Provider in the U.S.
- ams6110 9y agoMakes sense I guess. Nobody wants Yahoo search as a default.
- ovao 9y agoAnd, to be fair, most users probably want Google to be their default. Considering how heavily Mozilla’s been recently touting Firefox as the privacy-oriented alternative to Chrome (in Facebook ads, and probably elsewhere), to me it makes Mozilla appear flippant.
- TheGrassyKnoll 9y agoWell, there's 'flippant' and then there's financial reality.
- jonnycomputer 9y agoI feel like the quality of deep search is diminishing; either there is less free content on the web, or search has been optimized for something else; I just get the same results over and over, not matter what combination of search terms I used on a topic.
- Frank2312 9y agoWhat if it's actually an improvement in search results? Everyone will search for something with a different set of words based on their experience. If most of those sets of words, all used to search for the same topic in the end, return the same results, isn't it an improvement? Unfortunately, as you said, it doesn't help when trying to tweak the results you see to find your answer, but most people probably don't search in depth to find THE answer, but are looking for AN answer.
- feikname 9y agoAgreed. I am getting irrelevant results WAAY more often than I used to, and it only gets worse.
- mseri 9y agoIt could also be due to the quantity of indexed data
- pessimizer 9y agoSEO won. There were no economic incentives for Google to continue to fight it; they have no significant competitors. A better strategy for Google is to buy pieces of or provide services to the companies that dominate the first page. Dollars put into the branding of being the best search aimed at the current userbase are been more effective than actually innovating on search anyway. People don't objectively rank search results between engines. They do defend their current habits, though, and solid branding material gives them something to tell themselves to counteract any (rare) arguments to switch.
- fenwick67 9y agoI think the problem is that making a worthless website (by this I mean worthless to users) is so cheap but also very lucrative for content farms. A webpage with garbage content but that has taken the right SEO measures has a good chance of getting on the first page and getting clicked, and these can be cloned ad infinitum with different content. It's very easy now for good content to be hidden amongst clickbait.
- toomanybeersies 9y agoc.f. Wikihow, and its endless stream of useless how-tos
- Psilidae 9y agoI agree. It's incredibly difficult to find anything that isn't a basic, low-value result when you're looking for advanced, detailed content. Maybe I'm looking up practices on how to write efficient SQL queries. All of the results I find are just slideshare presentations and basic blog posts on how to add an index to your select statement. It feels impossible to find depth nowadays, when everything that search engines deem relevant are the big, heavy-SEO websites with the lowest tier of query-relevant information. Sure, the results may be good for people who want just-the-basics about what they're searching, but anything more than that feels hidden away.
- putonyourshoes 9y agoHi, I work on Google search. I'd be interested in any specific examples of queries that you think give worse results today than in the past.
- dleslie 9y ago"Interstate 76 custom maps" I'm sure it's confusing to your algorithms on many levels. Is it a map of the highway that I want? Oh, there's this game, let's add that too. What about some news about the highway? I just want some new roads to frag on... I get one result with what I'm looking for.
- sesqu 9y agoI can't give you specific examples, but I occasionally google news stories trying to find sources, followups, or more information - only to be flooded with more copies of the exact same news story. And that only goes for stories I have a link for already; half-remembered stories are practically impossible to search for.
- putonyourshoes 9y agoHi, I work on Google search. Can you share any examples of the types of search queries that used to work better for you?
- mrarjonny 9y agoDuckDuckGo, Start Page, or Qwant might have been a little more in the spirit of Mozilla and privacy. Then again it takes about half a second to change the default search to your own preference. Google is probably the most approachable for the vast majority of users. It is a sensible move in that regard.
- neuland 9y agoYour right on a privacy front from an absolute perspective. But, it's almost certain that Google paid for this change. A stronger Mozilla (financially speaking) is good for privacy and free software. Also, normal users expect Google. So, having it in the default provides a more familiar experience for them to possibly switch to Firefox.
- amelius 9y agoStill, Firefox could automatically switch to e.g. Duckduckgo whenever the user is in incognito mode.
- oatmealsnap 9y agoThat's a great idea, along with a message explaining why.
- talmand 9y agoWell, they could, but I would assume a contract with Google would prevent that.
- luckystarr 9y agoCould. We don't know what's in this contract.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- 9y ago
- ocdtrekkie 9y agoThere will likely be some people errantly suggesting this is due to search quality. It is not. Yahoo previously outbid Google approximately three years ago for that default search offering, and it's likely their arrangement has come to an end. One of Mozilla's strongest sources of funding comes from selling the default search engine spot to the highest bidder. EDIT: As an interesting note: Yahoo's deal was for five years, not three. I am guessing Verizon decided it didn't want to pay for Mozilla anymore, and cut it off early?
- pythonaut_16 9y agoWhich is a great choice IMO. Open source software needs funding, and I'm always a fan of projects finding ways to be self supporting rather than relying solely on donations. Changing default search is trivial enough for anyone who cares to, and if they did go with Duck Duck Go or similar as the default, I think you'd likely find many/most users changing the default search to Google anyway.
- dblohm7 9y ago"We exercised our contractual right to terminate our agreement with Yahoo! based on a number of factors including doing what’s best for our brand, our effort to provide quality web search, and the broader content experience for our users. We believe there are opportunities to work with Oath and Verizon outside of search," Mozilla Chief Business and Legal Officer Denelle Dixon said in a statement.
- sidcool 9y agoLooks like Google is gaining its foothold back
- quickben 9y agoI've been out of reading news about it are they still shuffling cash to Mozilla?
- MaxBarraclough 9y agoI suspect so. Not very impressed that Mozilla failed to mention the money question, when it's obviously going to be a matter of concern for anyone who thinks the Mozillian way. Could be an interesting tension if so. Mozilla were involved in a recent event promoting awareness of data/privacy concerns. They weren't shy about mentioning Google by name as a big bad. https://theglassroom.org/ https://theglassroom.org/
- boomboomsubban 9y agoMozilla has always disclosed financial matters in their financial reports, bringing it up in a release announcement would send a strange message.
- michaelbrooks 9y agoDid they ever lose it? Chrome has over 50% browser usage and FF less than 10%. I bet most of those Chrome users haven't changed their default search.
- ethhics 9y agoSo Mozilla backed out of their 5-year contract with Yahoo then [1]. Do they have a new agreement with Google that I'm not seeing anywhere? [1] https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/11/19/promoting-choice-and-innovation-on-the-web/ https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/11/19/promoting-choice-an...
- ocdtrekkie 9y agoMy guess is the other way around: Yahoo backed out of their contract with Mozilla. The biggest difference for either of these companies this year is that Verizon now owns Yahoo, and probably doesn't want to pay for search market share. If the deal's a yearly cost or something similar, the bill's coming up in December.
- Redoubts 9y agoThey have to keep paying though https://www.recode.net/2016/7/7/12116296/marissa-mayer-deal-mozilla-yahoo-payment https://www.recode.net/2016/7/7/12116296/marissa-mayer-deal-...
- kyrra 9y agoWe don't know the exact details of the contract. And even if it was written as such, both parties could agree to a change in the contract that could allow either side to get out on certain conditions.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- dblohm7 9y ago"We exercised our contractual right to terminate our agreement with Yahoo! based on a number of factors including doing what’s best for our brand, our effort to provide quality web search, and the broader content experience for our users. We believe there are opportunities to work with Oath and Verizon outside of search," Mozilla Chief Business and Legal Officer Denelle Dixon said in a statement.
- ronjouch 9y agoShortened title is misleading: Firefox Features Google as Default Search Provider... "in the U.S., Canada, Hong Kong and Taiwan" EDIT title updated (within HN title length constraints, I guess), thanks admins :)
- porfirium 9y agoIt's already the default in Europe from what I've seen.
- nimbius 9y agojust another reason to avoid it. mandatory telemetry, mandatory pulseaudio in linux, pocket, that weird failed video chat thing, and the DRM add-on that literally no one asked for.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- cujo 9y agoI'm seeing a checkbox to disable DRM content playing in preferences. I know it's just one item in your list, but at least it's an option.
- Karunamon 9y agoDon’t forget the plugins which are a shell of their former selves.
- Gaelan 9y ago> mandatory telemetry Explain? > mandatory pulseaudio Don’t know enough to have an opinion on this > pocket Does FF send data if you don’t use the feature? Actually not sure. > video chat thing You’re avoiding a browser because of… a feature you don’t use? > DRM add-on literally no one asked for …except for the tiny fraction of FF users that are also Netflix subscribers
- dingo_bat 9y agoAnd use what instead? Out of all the mainstream options, Firefox is the best when it comes to privacy and giving users the power.
- burner47 9y agohttps://www.waterfoxproject.org/ https://www.waterfoxproject.org/
- Santosh83 9y agoYou have options to decline sending any potentially personal data back, and then telemetry would include only basic, anonymised usage info to help them improve Firefox. Pocket is now part of Mozilla and you can still just remove the button from the toolbar and ignore it completely. I assume that video chat thing was only ever proof-of-concept, at least I don't see it anywhere anymore. As for EME, well, most people want their Netflix/Hulu fix. If Mozilla declined to support EME then they'll quickly become obsolete.
- dec0dedab0de 9y agoI really just wish they would go back to letting the search bar change on the fly and remain that way until you change it back. With the little icon letting you know which service it is currently set to. Does anyone know why that functionality was removed? If I'm searching for anything other than my default chances are I'm going to be searching at least 3 different things before getting it right, but then I can't just change the text and press enter. While I'm ranting, when did google stop paying attention to the actual words you type and starting showing what they think you meant? I mean I know it's been gradual, but at some point over the last few years I've noticed having to use quotes for almost everything, and it still doesn't return exact results. I assume that has something to do with how they normalize the ngrams and how I'm not the target audience anymore, but it's still annoying.
- jonnycomputer 9y agoI feel the same way.
- davej 9y agoProbably because search providers (e.g.. Google/DDG) will pay more for exclusive preference on the search bar.
- dec0dedab0de 9y agoI really don't think that's it. I think someone at mozilla thought it would be a "less cluttered" interface.
- pavement 9y agoDid you mean: something you definitely did not mean? Showing results for something you definitely did not mean Search instead for something you meant No, Google, that's not what I meant. Put these links way, I did not mean that. I meant what I said.
- nerdponx 9y agoBandcamp's search is particularly bad in this regard, and doesn't even give you the option to quote or manipulate your search terms. This is an increasing trend across the industry. I've been calling it "technological paternalism".
- lloydde 9y agoMozilla missed the opportunity to regain some of their authentic voice with this announcement. “This is part of our ongoing search strategy, announced in 2014 to evaluate and select the best search experience in each region as opposed to having a single global default.” is revisionist. I worked on a competing browser, Flock, in 2005 and Mozilla already had a strong and wonderful commitment to use the (local) best search engine for Firefox in a region. When they switched to “Yahoo!” without additional transparency about the economic factor it made it easier for me to use Chrome without feeling moral regret. With the exception of this blog post / announcement I’m really excited overall to see Mozilla back in the game.
- ocdtrekkie 9y agoThere was never any real commitment to the "best" search engine in a region. Mozilla has been paid by Google to be the default search since 2004.
- icebraining 9y agoI'd say they're using the best for the financial viability of Mozilla. Which in turn is for the best of their users.
- ocdtrekkie 9y agoI don't disagree. But that doesn't change the fact that the parent post's idea that they "choose the best search engine" is completely false. Mozilla has been paid for search settings consistently since 2004.
- lloydde 9y agoThe feedback in the responses leads me to believe my ear may have been too close to the loudspeaker, but here is a quote attributed to Mozilla Marketing leader Asa Dotzler in 2009: “Firefox users have their choice of several built-in and popular search services including Google’s number 1 competitor and the second most popular, Yahoo!. Google is the default for most Firefox locales because it’s the best search service available for the largest number of Firefox users (and was years before there was any revenue associated with default status).” https://searchengineland.com/will-bing-finally-be-admitted-into-the-firefox-club-31679 https://searchengineland.com/will-bing-finally-be-admitted-i... I also think I remember Firefox’s default search engine in Japan regularly being used as an example of doing right by users.
- AdmiralAsshat 9y agoEh...if the Google search money keeps Mozilla going, why not? It's no worse than having Yahoo as the default search provider previously. I switch my default to DuckDuckGo anyway.
- indubitable 9y agoThings like this illustrate why it's a bit disingenuous to praise the nonprofit status of Mozilla as some huge distinguishing factor. Not only do the executives pay themselves more than generous salaries (1m for chair, 874k for director, 908k for treasurer) but nonprofit doesn't mean free from commercial concerns. They still need to make money to pay those salaries and support their projects. It seems wiser to judge the ethos of a company based on their actions and decisions instead of their corporate tax status. [1] - https://static.mozilla.com/moco/en-US/pdf/2014_Mozilla_Foundation_Fed_990_Public_Disclosure.pdf https://static.mozilla.com/moco/en-US/pdf/2014_Mozilla_Found...
- kalcode 9y agoWhy can't people get rich while making a difference? These same people could be working for other companies who are not fighting for our privacy and an open web. I agree that what is considered high paying salary is completely insane these days with wealth inequality and the idea that such sum of money if more than an individual will ever have use for. But that is a different topic. A non-profit status doesn't always mean charity. In Mozilla case they are a Foundation, another entity eligible for non-profit status. They have different goals than a charity. One of the things they do to earn this status is grants. And they have lots of grants. Now what is funny is you exclude the $0 the five Directors made. Also Mitchell Baker doesn't get their entire pay from salary. That why it is in the second column. Last salary report on her was $400k. Which is weird cause that was in 2014 the same as this public disclosure form. Not sure why you purposely left out the fact their salary isn't actually 1 millions. But total compensation. So their 'disingenuous' nature isn't so black and white as a headline 'non-profit chair has a 1 million dollar salary'.
- pessimizer 9y agoA company's priorities are defined by how it spends its money. Very high salaries are a sign that a company is prioritizing the personal enrichment of particular people. > A non-profit status doesn't always mean charity. Many unambiguous charities have salaries just as high, and the same rationalizations.
- Bhilai 9y agoMozilla's punch line "Built for People, not for profit" stands at odds with this since we know Google monetizes the heck out your search history. Another interesting thing to note is Apple dropped Bing for Siri and Firefox stayed with Google. Sounds like Microsoft is not even trying.
- bitmapbrother 9y agoWas their punchline also at odds when they used Yahoo/Bing or was that different?
- karmapolic 9y agodefault search should be google search and default maps should be google maps. yelp on the contrary forces you to use apple maps on iphone and that kind of sucks.
- Feniks 9y agoYou can't even remove all the search engines. I tried.
- bad_user 9y agoOn mobile Firefox makes it really easy to select a different provider. I now use it on iOS too, even if it's just a shell for iOS's Safari view — the UI is nicer and you can enable tracking protection to be always on.
- Fej 9y agoI wonder if at this point Google wants to keep Mozilla in the game. Their market share is low enough and it keeps antitrust regulators at bay. It looks bad if there are only two major browsers, one of which owned by a company which already got slapped for this very kind of monopolistic behavior. Sorta like Intel and AMD.
- frik 9y agoWith Firefox 57, the UI changed to look almost identical to Chrome. The tabs are now boxy, not round anymore. The hamburger menu changed from the useful big box with big icons to a long menu that looks 99% like Chrome incl the unusual page zoom buttons in the menu. Now we may know why, Google is paying them again, after Yahoo deal is no more.
- thisacctforreal 9y agoWhat's with requiring an Add-on to set a search engine URL? I can't remove the "&t=ffab" query tag from the DuckDuckGo search. Presumably ffab is Firefox Address Bar.