3 ms·

"Firefox doesn’t need to privilege any particular website or application, while Google’s Chrome is “tied to their commercial purposes,” he said." Ironically th

"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.

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.