3 ms·

This is the ground on which the war against Google, Facebook, et al is fought, but open-source solutions like Firefox are going to need to find a better way to

This is the ground on which the war against Google, Facebook, et al is fought, but open-source solutions like Firefox are going to need to find a better way to monetize if they want to win. All this does is firm up the resolve of user identity resellers like FB and Google to see that Firefox gets destroyed, and it demonstrates why tech eventually all boils down to platform control. With Facebook code intruding into every nook and cranny of the web via React and Google's position as digital Sauron, monitoring and parsing out your search history, watch history, all phone activity, emails, SMSes, and more, user identity resellers are a formidable foe, and Mozilla is in its familiar position as the David of noble, non-moneyed interests challenging the user-hostile Goliath. Firefox may find unlikely allies in Microsoft and Apple, since these two companies still make at least some money selling an actual product instead of just slurping up information about their users and repackaging it. The best thing Mozilla could do is convince Apple and Microsoft to give up their independent lackluster browser implementations and ship Firefox as the default instead.

marten-de-vries 9y ago
I agree it would be great if other browsers implemented this as well, but you lose me at: > The best thing Mozilla could do is convince Apple and Microsoft to give up their independent lackluster browser implementations and ship Firefox as the default instead. Multiple independent implementations are of vital importance to the web. We've seen it with IE6 before, and having two browsers is cutting it too close.
- cookiecaper 9y ago
  The "independent implementations" aren't worth much if nobody uses them. Chrome already has a majority of the market share at ~60%, with Safari, its nearest competitor, trailing far behind at ~15%. Firefox is sitting at 9.3%. [0] Combining IE/Edge, Safari, and Firefox still leaves Firefox at half of the market share of Google, and that's still a distinct disadvantage, but it's a much stronger fighting position than single-digit market share. Google and Facebook are not naive upstarts and it won't be easy to quash them, especially not when little old Mozilla is running on comparative fumes compared to a couple of the best-capitalized companies on the planet. Google and Facebook's interests are aligned as both base their business model on profiling and reselling data derived from user behavior, so it's unlikely that Google will feel inclined to implement desired user protections against that business model. It's very important that we have strong competition representing a diversity of interests, especially when the dominant player's business model is just "slick spyware". Without a competitor in the same league, consumers don't really have an option. [0] https://www.w3counter.com/globalstats.php?year=2017&month=11 https://www.w3counter.com/globalstats.php?year=2017&month=11
nol13 9y ago
take all the tracking away sure, but lets leave react out of this.
- cookiecaper 9y ago
  Well, that's just the thing. Facebook's control over React means it won't be left out of this. Why do we think that they invest in this? Every company wants to integrate themselves as an irreducible dependency in your processes and systems. Facebook doesn't get any money for letting you use React, and they no longer get the value of using it as a kludge to allow them to more easily steal the intellectual property of small inventors (not that they needed anything extra on that front anyway). The continuing value added to Facebook's bottom line by React is in granting influence far outside of their natural scope. Could they counter Mozilla's move by introducing new React "features" that Mozilla simply "can't support" yet, even though they "really super duper hope the new featureset can come to Gecko-based browsers next year"? Even more insidiously, could there possibly be some little snafus in their QA process that let bugs that affect Gecko-based browsers go unnoticed? That's their leverage, that's their retaliation against Apple and Mozilla's moves to stymie their flow of user behavioral data. But, I'm sure a company whose revenue stream is wholly predicated upon reselling user identity would never do something "shady" like this to prevent competitors from blocking their access to the data that forms the lifeblood of their product, right? ... Right?
  - nol13 9y ago
    but i like it.
bigbugbag 9y ago
> Mozilla is in its familiar position as the David of noble, non-moneyed interests challenging the user-hostile Goliath. Mozilla is in its familiar position of only existing because Goliath gives back a small fraction of its tracking/advertising earnings in exchange for sending users its way. The exact opposite on non-moneyed interests. Do you remember how Apple considered using mozilla code to buld their browser but rejected the idea because the code quality was much too low for their standard so they went to KHTML to build webkit ? Yeah vendor lock-in walled garden Apple ditching safari for firefox, not happening. What's to gain for microsoft by switching to firefox ? Chance are this is not happening either.
- cookiecaper 9y ago
  > Mozilla is in its familiar position of only existing because Goliath gives back a small fraction of its tracking/advertising earnings in exchange for sending users its way. The exact opposite on non-moneyed interests. I respect this position and admit that it's relevant. However, under this hypothetical, they may not need such sponsorship anymore, and they're clearly currently taking actions that will help protect users from it. IMO this is only a serious issue if you believe that Mozilla's survival is predicated upon the continued flow of search sponsorship dollars. While their budgets may change and they may come out the end looking much different, I don't think that Mozilla or a spiritual successor serving substantially the same purpose (like OpenSolaris -> illumos) will cease to exist, no matter what Google et al do to them. >What's to gain for microsoft by switching to firefox ? Apple and Microsoft's interest would be defensive, blocking Google's dominance over the browser platform. They'd be interested in this because Google is currently a serious threat to both companies' major lines of business. At present, with a fragmented competitive landscape, it's unlikely anyone will be able to stand up to Chrome. And however good or bad we believe Google or Chrome are, it's never good to lack a peer that can keep the company accountable (that is, monopolies are bad). > Chance are this is not happening either. I agree completely, I don't think this is a likely scenario. I just think it's an interesting and positive one.

marten-de-vries 9y ago

I agree it would be great if other browsers implemented this as well, but you lose me at: > The best thing Mozilla could do is convince Apple and Microsoft to give up their independent lackluster browser implementations and ship Firefox as the default instead. Multiple independent implementations are of vital importance to the web. We've seen it with IE6 before, and having two browsers is cutting it too close.

cookiecaper 9y ago
The "independent implementations" aren't worth much if nobody uses them. Chrome already has a majority of the market share at ~60%, with Safari, its nearest competitor, trailing far behind at ~15%. Firefox is sitting at 9.3%. [0] Combining IE/Edge, Safari, and Firefox still leaves Firefox at half of the market share of Google, and that's still a distinct disadvantage, but it's a much stronger fighting position than single-digit market share. Google and Facebook are not naive upstarts and it won't be easy to quash them, especially not when little old Mozilla is running on comparative fumes compared to a couple of the best-capitalized companies on the planet. Google and Facebook's interests are aligned as both base their business model on profiling and reselling data derived from user behavior, so it's unlikely that Google will feel inclined to implement desired user protections against that business model. It's very important that we have strong competition representing a diversity of interests, especially when the dominant player's business model is just "slick spyware". Without a competitor in the same league, consumers don't really have an option. [0] https://www.w3counter.com/globalstats.php?year=2017&month=11 https://www.w3counter.com/globalstats.php?year=2017&month=11

nol13 9y ago

take all the tracking away sure, but lets leave react out of this.

cookiecaper 9y ago
Well, that's just the thing. Facebook's control over React means it won't be left out of this. Why do we think that they invest in this? Every company wants to integrate themselves as an irreducible dependency in your processes and systems. Facebook doesn't get any money for letting you use React, and they no longer get the value of using it as a kludge to allow them to more easily steal the intellectual property of small inventors (not that they needed anything extra on that front anyway). The continuing value added to Facebook's bottom line by React is in granting influence far outside of their natural scope. Could they counter Mozilla's move by introducing new React "features" that Mozilla simply "can't support" yet, even though they "really super duper hope the new featureset can come to Gecko-based browsers next year"? Even more insidiously, could there possibly be some little snafus in their QA process that let bugs that affect Gecko-based browsers go unnoticed? That's their leverage, that's their retaliation against Apple and Mozilla's moves to stymie their flow of user behavioral data. But, I'm sure a company whose revenue stream is wholly predicated upon reselling user identity would never do something "shady" like this to prevent competitors from blocking their access to the data that forms the lifeblood of their product, right? ... Right?
- nol13 9y ago
  but i like it.

bigbugbag 9y ago

> Mozilla is in its familiar position as the David of noble, non-moneyed interests challenging the user-hostile Goliath. Mozilla is in its familiar position of only existing because Goliath gives back a small fraction of its tracking/advertising earnings in exchange for sending users its way. The exact opposite on non-moneyed interests. Do you remember how Apple considered using mozilla code to buld their browser but rejected the idea because the code quality was much too low for their standard so they went to KHTML to build webkit ? Yeah vendor lock-in walled garden Apple ditching safari for firefox, not happening. What's to gain for microsoft by switching to firefox ? Chance are this is not happening either.

cookiecaper 9y ago
> Mozilla is in its familiar position of only existing because Goliath gives back a small fraction of its tracking/advertising earnings in exchange for sending users its way. The exact opposite on non-moneyed interests. I respect this position and admit that it's relevant. However, under this hypothetical, they may not need such sponsorship anymore, and they're clearly currently taking actions that will help protect users from it. IMO this is only a serious issue if you believe that Mozilla's survival is predicated upon the continued flow of search sponsorship dollars. While their budgets may change and they may come out the end looking much different, I don't think that Mozilla or a spiritual successor serving substantially the same purpose (like OpenSolaris -> illumos) will cease to exist, no matter what Google et al do to them. >What's to gain for microsoft by switching to firefox ? Apple and Microsoft's interest would be defensive, blocking Google's dominance over the browser platform. They'd be interested in this because Google is currently a serious threat to both companies' major lines of business. At present, with a fragmented competitive landscape, it's unlikely anyone will be able to stand up to Chrome. And however good or bad we believe Google or Chrome are, it's never good to lack a peer that can keep the company accountable (that is, monopolies are bad). > Chance are this is not happening either. I agree completely, I don't think this is a likely scenario. I just think it's an interesting and positive one.