3 ms·

Mozilla’s new CEO explains his love-hate relationship with Google

19 points by abraham 16y ago

jemfinch 16y ago
"Firefox doesn’t need to privilege any particular website or application, while Google’s Chrome is “tied to their commercial purposes,” he said." Ironically the Mozilla Foundation's primary (practically sole?) source of income is derived from the privilege they give Google in their default search box.
- trotsky 16y ago
  The effort comes just months after Firefox's creator, Mozilla Corp., killed a powerful new tool to limit tracking under pressure from an ad-industry executive, The Wall Street Journal has learned. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704584804575645074178700984.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870458480457564...
  - mbrubeck 16y ago
    That's some very bad reporting from the Wall Street Journal: "Mr. Simeonov reached out to the chief executive of Mozilla, who put him in touch with Jay Sullivan, vice president of products at Mozilla. The two spoke on June 9... The software was removed from the Firefox prototype on June 10." But in fact the software was removed on June 8, before the conversation between Sullivan and Simeonov. Here is the Mercurial changeset: http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/76e9dd2d9322 http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/76e9dd2d9322 Unfortunately, the WSJ reporter looked at the date of a Bugzilla comment, rather than the date of the change it was discussing. This was pointed out by Mozilla security engineer Jesse Ruderman, who provides more details in the comments here: http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/gerv/archives/2010/12/did_we_kill_a_do_not_track_feature.html http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/gerv/archives/2010/12/did_we_...
    - trotsky 16y ago
      Thanks for clarifying that. The journal series has otherwise been quite illuminating.
- travisjeffery 16y ago
  They linked to some information at the bottom of the article: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/mozilla-posts-2009-revenue-surge-google-diversification-issue-remains/41937 http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/mozilla-posts-2009-revenue-sur... "Approximately 86% and 91% of royalties revenue for 2009 and 2008, respectively, was derived from this contract [with Google]."
- mbrubeck 16y ago
  Google is the current default, because we still believe it is the best. But if Google were no longer available as a partner, there are other search companies that would pay for that traffic.
haberman 16y ago
"Google isn’t deliberately lying, he said. However, the company created Chrome for a business reason, and Kovacs said that purpose is not “to free the world from any connection to Google.” Instead, the search giant wants to use the data gathered by Chrome to create a better, more personalized experience in search and other Google products, he said." I dunno, I think Google just wants to make sure that the experience of using the web rocks as hard as it can, because the web is the platform that Google uses to deliver all of its applications. The web is competing with proprietary technologies like iOS apps. If the web is perceived as inferior to iOS apps, then Google is held hostage by the owner of the proprietary platform (Apple). Apple can and will flex this muscle, as we saw when the Google Voice app was denied. So it's in Google's interest to invest into any technology that advances the state of the open web. If Google just cared about "gathering data," it could save 99% of the work by just making search toolbars for other browsers that "phone home."
- mbrubeck 16y ago
  I'm a Mozilla engineer, but I tend to agree with haberman's comment. I haven't seen any sign that Chrome benefits Google web properties any more than the web in general. "If Google just cared about "gathering data," it could save 99% of the work by just making search toolbars for other browsers that "phone home." ...which of course you have done, for a long time. But as far as I know Chrome has succeeded in gaining more users than the toolbars ever did. So maybe building a browser is a necessary cost of total world domination. :) (P.S. Hi Josh!)
- blub 16y ago
  The problem with the so-called open web, is that it's not open when my web apps are closed-source, live in the cloud and are owned by such-and-such corporation, which can terminate my account and delete my data at will. When I install an app on my phone, I get a much stronger sense of ownership, even if the license says that the app is still owned by its respective authors. Even better if it is open source - I get the strongest sense of ownership and control. Using web apps takes away all my power in exchange for some convenience and (sometimes) the advantage of having access to large human networks. Most of the time that's a bad trade-off.
- 16y ago

19 points by abraham 16y ago

"Firefox doesn’t need to privilege any particular website or application, while Google’s Chrome is “tied to their commercial purposes,” he said." Ironically the Mozilla Foundation's primary (practically sole?) source of income is derived from the privilege they give Google in their default search box.

trotsky 16y ago
The effort comes just months after Firefox's creator, Mozilla Corp., killed a powerful new tool to limit tracking under pressure from an ad-industry executive, The Wall Street Journal has learned. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704584804575645074178700984.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870458480457564...
- mbrubeck 16y ago
  That's some very bad reporting from the Wall Street Journal: "Mr. Simeonov reached out to the chief executive of Mozilla, who put him in touch with Jay Sullivan, vice president of products at Mozilla. The two spoke on June 9... The software was removed from the Firefox prototype on June 10." But in fact the software was removed on June 8, before the conversation between Sullivan and Simeonov. Here is the Mercurial changeset: http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/76e9dd2d9322 http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/76e9dd2d9322 Unfortunately, the WSJ reporter looked at the date of a Bugzilla comment, rather than the date of the change it was discussing. This was pointed out by Mozilla security engineer Jesse Ruderman, who provides more details in the comments here: http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/gerv/archives/2010/12/did_we_kill_a_do_not_track_feature.html http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/gerv/archives/2010/12/did_we_...
  - trotsky 16y ago
    Thanks for clarifying that. The journal series has otherwise been quite illuminating.
travisjeffery 16y ago
They linked to some information at the bottom of the article: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/mozilla-posts-2009-revenue-surge-google-diversification-issue-remains/41937 http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/mozilla-posts-2009-revenue-sur... "Approximately 86% and 91% of royalties revenue for 2009 and 2008, respectively, was derived from this contract [with Google]."
mbrubeck 16y ago
Google is the current default, because we still believe it is the best. But if Google were no longer available as a partner, there are other search companies that would pay for that traffic.

haberman 16y ago

"Google isn’t deliberately lying, he said. However, the company created Chrome for a business reason, and Kovacs said that purpose is not “to free the world from any connection to Google.” Instead, the search giant wants to use the data gathered by Chrome to create a better, more personalized experience in search and other Google products, he said." I dunno, I think Google just wants to make sure that the experience of using the web rocks as hard as it can, because the web is the platform that Google uses to deliver all of its applications. The web is competing with proprietary technologies like iOS apps. If the web is perceived as inferior to iOS apps, then Google is held hostage by the owner of the proprietary platform (Apple). Apple can and will flex this muscle, as we saw when the Google Voice app was denied. So it's in Google's interest to invest into any technology that advances the state of the open web. If Google just cared about "gathering data," it could save 99% of the work by just making search toolbars for other browsers that "phone home."

mbrubeck 16y ago
I'm a Mozilla engineer, but I tend to agree with haberman's comment. I haven't seen any sign that Chrome benefits Google web properties any more than the web in general. "If Google just cared about "gathering data," it could save 99% of the work by just making search toolbars for other browsers that "phone home." ...which of course you have done, for a long time. But as far as I know Chrome has succeeded in gaining more users than the toolbars ever did. So maybe building a browser is a necessary cost of total world domination. :) (P.S. Hi Josh!)
blub 16y ago
The problem with the so-called open web, is that it's not open when my web apps are closed-source, live in the cloud and are owned by such-and-such corporation, which can terminate my account and delete my data at will. When I install an app on my phone, I get a much stronger sense of ownership, even if the license says that the app is still owned by its respective authors. Even better if it is open source - I get the strongest sense of ownership and control. Using web apps takes away all my power in exchange for some convenience and (sometimes) the advantage of having access to large human networks. Most of the time that's a bad trade-off.
16y ago