6 ms·

Mozilla is only "independent" if you take an extremely loose interpretation of that word. Follow the money: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Corporation#

Mozilla is only "independent" if you take an extremely loose interpretation of that word. Follow the money: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Corporation#Affiliations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Corporation#Affiliatio... I only dug into this after having a mildly unproductive run-in with what-wg. Mostly Google and Mozilla guys, and not terribly open. Asking them "why" typically gets very evasive replies, if any at all! The guy Phillip at Opera was a class act though. Been using Opera ever since!

scrollaway 9y ago
Mozilla has many flaws, lack of transparency is not one of them. I don't even know where to start with your comment. You're linking the Mozilla Corp wikipedia page, insinuating they're "not terribly open" (and putting Google in that basket), on a subject you give almost no hints about, but hey Opera is a thing? And somehow this comment means that Mozilla is not independent?
- jstewartmobile 9y ago
  Read again. I doubted Mozilla Corp's "independence" in the first sentence. "not terribly open" in the last paragraph was in reference to the WHAT-WG group, which is "[m]ostly Google and Mozilla guys". From the posts in that group, those guys seem more like co-workers than competitors. For anyone who believes money to be some kind of motivating thing, it isn't hard to come to the conclusion that Mozilla is Google-by-proxy. edit: And apparently I have to have "hits" to my name to state that getting 85% of your revenue from Google puts your independence into question???
  - jopsen 9y ago
    I know first hand that Mozilla is a highly competent organization, but it not an organization capable of keeping a nefarious secret :) Leadership at Mozilla have already shown themselves willing to break with Google. And I doubt it's any secret that they've been looking for alternative revenue sources. If you want to question Mozillas independence please bring something more substantive than baseless speculation.
    - jstewartmobile 9y ago
      It is no secret that for at least the past decade, the majority of Mozilla's revenue has been from search partnerships. In what bizzaro world can you derive the majority of your revenue from a thing while simultaneously declaring independence from it?
      - Vinnl 9y ago
        Apparently, this one, as they were doing it. What helps think about it is that the 'dependence' was a business transaction: Google paid Mozilla, and got something in return. Much like a startup being dependent on a single large customer yet still wanting to diversify.
        jstewartmobile 9y ago
        Until they have actually diversified, they are by definition dependent on whichever search engine they are currently contracted to.
        Vinnl 9y ago
        Yes, but you implied they couldn't strive for independence while doing so. Furthermore, it's good to note that they have actually diversified: https://blog.mozilla.org/press/2014/11/new-search-strategy-for-firefox-promoting-choice-and-innovation/ https://blog.mozilla.org/press/2014/11/new-search-strategy-f...
        jstewartmobile 9y ago
        That is from 2014. They are back on the smack[0]. As long as search is the revenue center, there isn't much room[1] for diversification. If they need annual revenue of ~$400M to operate, it's either Google or Google. edit: On that last point, I could be wrong. Most of the biggies could throw half a billion at them indefinitely if it served the right purpose. [0] https://techcrunch.com/2017/11/14/mozilla-terminates-its-deal-with-yahoo-and-makes-google-the-default-in-firefox-again/ https://techcrunch.com/2017/11/14/mozilla-terminates-its-dea... [1] https://www.netmarketshare.com/search-engine-market-share.aspx https://www.netmarketshare.com/search-engine-market-share.as...
  - Jaepa 9y ago
    Would you rather have people in standards groups to act more like competitors instead of coworkers? Cause that seems like a really bad idea. As for: > For anyone who believes money to be some kind of motivating thing, it isn't hard to come to the conclusion that Mozilla is Google-by-proxy > edit: And apparently I have to have "hits" to my name to state that getting 85% of your revenue from Google puts your independence into question??? You aren't bring its independence into question, you are stating its an easy conclusion that Mozilla is Google-by-proxy. The 85% was from 2011. As of 2015 Mozilla stop receiving cash from Google inpart to them changing there default searches (why google paid Mozilla). That may have changed recently with Firefox 57 as they change the default search back, but even then google announced a while back they were cutting how much they were going to pay, so I doubt it will be the same 85%.
    - jstewartmobile 9y ago
      If they paired up with a search provider other than Google, does that make them any more independent? If they only get 70%, or 50%, of their income from a search engine, does that make them independent? A non-profit that has a taxable subsidiary and receives the bulk of its funding from the search industry does not strike me as being particularly independent.
      - roca 9y ago
        What are you claiming now? Are you claiming Mozilla was the tool of Google, switched to being the tool of Microsoft or Yahoo, and then back to being the tool of Google? Or are you claiming that Mozilla is the tool of the "search industry" which is some amorphous group containing all of the above? Google (and other companies in some countries) pay Mozilla to be the default search in Firefox. It's a business transaction and adequately explains why Mozilla gets paid. Conspiracy-theorizing claims that secret terms bind Mozilla to some hidden agenda should not be believed in the absence of evidence, and I haven't seen any. (And I'm a former Mozilla Distinguished Engineer.)
        jstewartmobile 9y ago
        It is super, super simple. When 80%+ of your revenue depends on a search engine, and you still have payroll to make, you are by definition dependent upon it, regardless of which one it happens to be at the time. The article title is "Maintaining an Independent Browser is Expensive". I'm just calling it out. From the tone of the replies, kicked off by a guy in the analytics industry who went so far as to google me for a comment, Upton Sinclair is screaming from the grave: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" edit: And granted, they can currently play Google against Bing, although that isn't a terribly impressive degree of freedom. edit edit: And where did the word "secret" enter into the conversation? It's like you depend on a search engine (or a batch of them during your break from Google) for most of your revenue, and I'm the one who has to prove that you're not influenced by that???
- coinme 9y ago
  I agree, and this is not to mention that a lot of the companies funding Mozilla that may love not to pay them, but they have to because there is a viable independent company that provides a browser. I am glad that Mozilla exists, and I was glad that they existed even when I used Chrome (pre Firefox Quantum).

scrollaway 9y ago

Mozilla has many flaws, lack of transparency is not one of them. I don't even know where to start with your comment. You're linking the Mozilla Corp wikipedia page, insinuating they're "not terribly open" (and putting Google in that basket), on a subject you give almost no hints about, but hey Opera is a thing? And somehow this comment means that Mozilla is not independent?

jstewartmobile 9y ago
Read again. I doubted Mozilla Corp's "independence" in the first sentence. "not terribly open" in the last paragraph was in reference to the WHAT-WG group, which is "[m]ostly Google and Mozilla guys". From the posts in that group, those guys seem more like co-workers than competitors. For anyone who believes money to be some kind of motivating thing, it isn't hard to come to the conclusion that Mozilla is Google-by-proxy. edit: And apparently I have to have "hits" to my name to state that getting 85% of your revenue from Google puts your independence into question???
- jopsen 9y ago
  I know first hand that Mozilla is a highly competent organization, but it not an organization capable of keeping a nefarious secret :) Leadership at Mozilla have already shown themselves willing to break with Google. And I doubt it's any secret that they've been looking for alternative revenue sources. If you want to question Mozillas independence please bring something more substantive than baseless speculation.
  - jstewartmobile 9y ago
    It is no secret that for at least the past decade, the majority of Mozilla's revenue has been from search partnerships. In what bizzaro world can you derive the majority of your revenue from a thing while simultaneously declaring independence from it?
    - Vinnl 9y ago
      Apparently, this one, as they were doing it. What helps think about it is that the 'dependence' was a business transaction: Google paid Mozilla, and got something in return. Much like a startup being dependent on a single large customer yet still wanting to diversify.
      - jstewartmobile 9y ago
        Until they have actually diversified, they are by definition dependent on whichever search engine they are currently contracted to.
        Vinnl 9y ago
        Yes, but you implied they couldn't strive for independence while doing so. Furthermore, it's good to note that they have actually diversified: https://blog.mozilla.org/press/2014/11/new-search-strategy-for-firefox-promoting-choice-and-innovation/ https://blog.mozilla.org/press/2014/11/new-search-strategy-f...
        jstewartmobile 9y ago
        That is from 2014. They are back on the smack[0]. As long as search is the revenue center, there isn't much room[1] for diversification. If they need annual revenue of ~$400M to operate, it's either Google or Google. edit: On that last point, I could be wrong. Most of the biggies could throw half a billion at them indefinitely if it served the right purpose. [0] https://techcrunch.com/2017/11/14/mozilla-terminates-its-deal-with-yahoo-and-makes-google-the-default-in-firefox-again/ https://techcrunch.com/2017/11/14/mozilla-terminates-its-dea... [1] https://www.netmarketshare.com/search-engine-market-share.aspx https://www.netmarketshare.com/search-engine-market-share.as...
- Jaepa 9y ago
  Would you rather have people in standards groups to act more like competitors instead of coworkers? Cause that seems like a really bad idea. As for: > For anyone who believes money to be some kind of motivating thing, it isn't hard to come to the conclusion that Mozilla is Google-by-proxy > edit: And apparently I have to have "hits" to my name to state that getting 85% of your revenue from Google puts your independence into question??? You aren't bring its independence into question, you are stating its an easy conclusion that Mozilla is Google-by-proxy. The 85% was from 2011. As of 2015 Mozilla stop receiving cash from Google inpart to them changing there default searches (why google paid Mozilla). That may have changed recently with Firefox 57 as they change the default search back, but even then google announced a while back they were cutting how much they were going to pay, so I doubt it will be the same 85%.
  - jstewartmobile 9y ago
    If they paired up with a search provider other than Google, does that make them any more independent? If they only get 70%, or 50%, of their income from a search engine, does that make them independent? A non-profit that has a taxable subsidiary and receives the bulk of its funding from the search industry does not strike me as being particularly independent.
    - roca 9y ago
      What are you claiming now? Are you claiming Mozilla was the tool of Google, switched to being the tool of Microsoft or Yahoo, and then back to being the tool of Google? Or are you claiming that Mozilla is the tool of the "search industry" which is some amorphous group containing all of the above? Google (and other companies in some countries) pay Mozilla to be the default search in Firefox. It's a business transaction and adequately explains why Mozilla gets paid. Conspiracy-theorizing claims that secret terms bind Mozilla to some hidden agenda should not be believed in the absence of evidence, and I haven't seen any. (And I'm a former Mozilla Distinguished Engineer.)
      - jstewartmobile 9y ago
        It is super, super simple. When 80%+ of your revenue depends on a search engine, and you still have payroll to make, you are by definition dependent upon it, regardless of which one it happens to be at the time. The article title is "Maintaining an Independent Browser is Expensive". I'm just calling it out. From the tone of the replies, kicked off by a guy in the analytics industry who went so far as to google me for a comment, Upton Sinclair is screaming from the grave: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" edit: And granted, they can currently play Google against Bing, although that isn't a terribly impressive degree of freedom. edit edit: And where did the word "secret" enter into the conversation? It's like you depend on a search engine (or a batch of them during your break from Google) for most of your revenue, and I'm the one who has to prove that you're not influenced by that???
coinme 9y ago
I agree, and this is not to mention that a lot of the companies funding Mozilla that may love not to pay them, but they have to because there is a viable independent company that provides a browser. I am glad that Mozilla exists, and I was glad that they existed even when I used Chrome (pre Firefox Quantum).