4 ms·

It looks like they are already monetizing it. A few of the articles have a "Sponsored by X" below them. I don't love that, but at least they set it up in a way

It looks like they are already monetizing it. A few of the articles have a "Sponsored by X" below them. I don't love that, but at least they set it up in a way where they aren't collecting data on users to show them. They have to pay the bills somehow.

okasaki 6y ago
The $500M per year they get from Google isn't enough to pay the bills?
- ValentineC 6y ago
  It's dangerous to depend on a single company (that also happens to have a competing product). What happens if the money stops coming?
  - asldfhasdf2 6y ago
    > that also happens to have a competing product Firefox is a "feature" for Google Chrome. The day Google stops paying mozilla and mozilla close shop, they will get the same treatment Google itself set up in courts against Microsoft for IE6. It's pretty much protection money for their past selfs.
    - hu3 6y ago
      That's my theory as well. It's cheaper to keep mozilla barely alive than to pay lawyers and governments for anti-trust lawsuits around the globe. And they get to harvest search data from firefox users as a bonus.
    - smnthermes 6y ago
      Google doesn't actually need Mozilla to increase their search market share. When Mozilla switched to Yahoo in the U.S., many users switched back to Google [1], and those who care about privacy switch to things such as DuckDuckGo anyways. [1] https://searchengineland.com/report-yahoo-search-losing-firefox-users-switchback-google-212472 https://searchengineland.com/report-yahoo-search-losing-fire...
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- erk__ 6y ago
  Maybe, but that does not mean that they should put all their eggs into one basket.
- IanOzsvald 6y ago
  Developing more than one revenue stream is likely to be a more resilient strategy than hoping that Google is happy to keep paying a competitor browser to stay in business
  - ekianjo 6y ago
    Ads this way is not a sustainable revenue strategy, it's pocket money at best.
    - nojito 6y ago
      Pocket money is better than no money.
- heffer 6y ago
  Having other sources of revenue outside of a benefactor whose interesting in you relies on having a relevance in the browser market with them also actively engaged in implicitly or explicitly undermining that with a product of their own doesn't seem like too bad of an idea.
  - okasaki 6y ago
    How does this relate to the original claim I was responding to which was "they have to pay their bills somehow"?
  - smnthermes 6y ago
    Why not switch to DuckDuckGo? The marketing target of Mozilla is privacy, and users who care about it don't use Google as their search engine anyways. Also, donations to Mozilla Foundation are not even used for Firefox development: https://old.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/a98gmi/donations_to_mozilla_foundation_are_not_used_for/ https://old.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/a98gmi/donations_t...
- dblohm7 6y ago
  Not when you're up against billion-dollar budgets.

okasaki 6y ago

The $500M per year they get from Google isn't enough to pay the bills?

ValentineC 6y ago
It's dangerous to depend on a single company (that also happens to have a competing product). What happens if the money stops coming?
- asldfhasdf2 6y ago
  > that also happens to have a competing product Firefox is a "feature" for Google Chrome. The day Google stops paying mozilla and mozilla close shop, they will get the same treatment Google itself set up in courts against Microsoft for IE6. It's pretty much protection money for their past selfs.
  - hu3 6y ago
    That's my theory as well. It's cheaper to keep mozilla barely alive than to pay lawyers and governments for anti-trust lawsuits around the globe. And they get to harvest search data from firefox users as a bonus.
  - smnthermes 6y ago
    Google doesn't actually need Mozilla to increase their search market share. When Mozilla switched to Yahoo in the U.S., many users switched back to Google [1], and those who care about privacy switch to things such as DuckDuckGo anyways. [1] https://searchengineland.com/report-yahoo-search-losing-firefox-users-switchback-google-212472 https://searchengineland.com/report-yahoo-search-losing-fire...
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
erk__ 6y ago
Maybe, but that does not mean that they should put all their eggs into one basket.
IanOzsvald 6y ago
Developing more than one revenue stream is likely to be a more resilient strategy than hoping that Google is happy to keep paying a competitor browser to stay in business
- ekianjo 6y ago
  Ads this way is not a sustainable revenue strategy, it's pocket money at best.
  - nojito 6y ago
    Pocket money is better than no money.
heffer 6y ago
Having other sources of revenue outside of a benefactor whose interesting in you relies on having a relevance in the browser market with them also actively engaged in implicitly or explicitly undermining that with a product of their own doesn't seem like too bad of an idea.
- okasaki 6y ago
  How does this relate to the original claim I was responding to which was "they have to pay their bills somehow"?
- smnthermes 6y ago
  Why not switch to DuckDuckGo? The marketing target of Mozilla is privacy, and users who care about it don't use Google as their search engine anyways. Also, donations to Mozilla Foundation are not even used for Firefox development: https://old.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/a98gmi/donations_to_mozilla_foundation_are_not_used_for/ https://old.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/a98gmi/donations_t...
dblohm7 6y ago
Not when you're up against billion-dollar budgets.