4 ms·

Ironically, Google supports the Mozilla project https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/01/22/so-why-is-google-funding-its-own-competition-in-the-firefox

Ironically, Google supports the Mozilla project https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/01/22/so-why-is-google-funding-its-own-competition-in-the-firefox-os/#1542f01c35c5 https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/01/22/so-why-i... Which means as Mozilla dries up, its only support is "Google." Meaning, soon to you, a chromium firefox based browser no different as to Edge, Brave or whatever else is out there. tl;dr Mozilla is propped up by Google. Google is no bueno.

kbenson 6y ago
> Meaning, soon to you, a chromium firefox based browser no different as to Edge, Brave or whatever else is out there. Doubtful. I think of lot of the reason Google helps fund Mozilla is so there's a better answer to the question "Does Google have a monopoly in web browsers?" It's better for both Google (because they can point at competition) and Mozilla (because Google will still want to hand them money) if Mozilla has their own engine.
- microcolonel 6y ago
  I think given the licensing model of Chromium, every major browser being Chromium-based† is still not really a Google monopoly on browsers, or even on browser engines. † In practice, it's already true, given that Firefox is niche even on desktop.
  - kbenson 6y ago
    It's less about whether they actually have a monopoly, and whether there's shielding from government scrutiny. Their current market share (greater than 60%) affords them quite a large influence on the direction of web standards (which seem to be lagging implementation in browsers). Google is already under constant investigation from various governments at this point. Money spent keeping a competitor alive when it's low market share means it doesn't have the same power as Google is probably money well spent.
    - microcolonel 6y ago
      Influence or not, all a vendor needs to do if they want to compete with chrome is fork it. There can't be an honest way to construe that as a monopoly. Imagine the market was for PNG decoders, and all the major players were using libpng (just like real life). There is no way to conclude that there is a monopoly on that.
      - kbenson 6y ago
        > Influence or not, all a vendor needs to do if they want to compete with chrome is fork it. Sure, but are they going to do a hard left and ignore Google commits, or if Google implements some new CSS features, are they going to pull those in because it's easy and the work is done then they haven't diverged as much, even if they might not have implemented them exactly that way if the incentives weren't aligned quite the same way? > There can't be an honest way to construe that as a monopoly. It doesn't really matter whether it is a monopoly, it matters whether governments see it as unfair. Antitrust laws didn't spring forth from the founders, they were passed by legislature, and then used shortly after to curtail what society perceived to be abuse of power. It also was not done in one go, the Sherman Act was passed in 1890, and then it was updated through both the Clayton Act and Federal Trade Commission Act in 1914.There's nothing to say that laws couldn't be passed to change how antitrust applies slightly (especially in Europe, where they seem to have for appetite for this recently than the US). That might sound a little preposterous, but we're talking about one of the largest companies in the world, which is traditionally when laws like this have been passed in the past. While I doubt if an antitrust case was brought against Google it would be because of Chrome, reducing any example people can point to when justifying making a case is probably worthwhile when operating at Google's scale. > Imagine the market was for PNG decoders, and all the major players were using libpng (just like real life). PNG is a standard, that standard is not changing to any appreciable degree, and if there was a major push to extend PNG and many readers couldn't read PNG's correctly because they used proprietary extensions, we would definitely be having discussions about whether there's enough viable alternatives on the market, do they have enough market share. Keep in mind, this is just a revised instance of Microsoft's strategy of Embrace, Extend, Extinguish where they've learned to be more circumspect and more careful about the "extinguish" step to avoid too much unwanted attention, so it's more nuanced.
- ClikeX 6y ago
  This, Microsoft helped out Apple financially in the 90's when they were being sued for being a monopoly. So this tactic isn't new. Source: https://appleinsider.com/articles/18/08/06/august-6-1997----the-day-apple-and-microsoft-made-peace https://appleinsider.com/articles/18/08/06/august-6-1997----...
  - alwillis 6y ago
    They invested $150 million in non-voting stock, which wasn't a lot of money for Apple, even in those days. However, Apple agreed to make Internet Explorer the default browser for Macs in return for Microsoft to continue to developer Office for the Mac. At the end of the 5-year agreement, Apple released Safari and the rest is history, as they say.
- chinhodado 6y ago
  Someone said this that I really like: "Firefox is Google's antitrust insurance for Chrome."
- gowld 6y ago
  Google funded Mozilla mostly by buying traffic for Search and Ads. Google makes money from advertising, not browsers. Firefox doesn't hurt Google.
  - pkilgore 6y ago
    Google makes money from advertising by acquiring massive quantities of data from users to most-effectively target advertising. Firefox makes it harder to acquire data from users. If market share for Firefox were to increase at the cost of Chrome users, it would hurt Google.
    - s_gourichon 6y ago
      > If market share for Firefox were to increase at the cost of Chrome users, it would hurt Google. This is why we can expect just enough support to keep Firefox existing, with a minor user share.
  - eitland 6y ago
    Google seems to to have a (not very) long term strategy to get rid of adblockers. That is hard as long as there is both - an independent browser engine on the market - and politicians and judges that haven't succumbed to the pressure from Big Media
  - kbenson 6y ago
    The good or service you get in a purchase is not always the whole reason for the purchase. For the same reason you might buy somethingat a fund-raiser for more than you would at other times, Google may be supplying get good terms on their deal with Mozilla. Firefox hurting Google has nothing to do with the reasoning I supplied previously. In fact, Firefox not hurting Google is all the more reason to make sure they get funded and survive if it lets Google avoid or deflect government scrutiny.
danielscrubs 6y ago
Firefox has less memory usage and at least for me, is the faster browser. You even have non-techies at wall street journal recommending people to switch from Google Chrome on YouTube.
- foerbert 6y ago
  Same, at least these days. I have an old chromebook running linux that's at least halfway through it's last leg. I recently tried Firefox on it because an update managed to bork Chrome a bit. I found many of the performance issues I'd been increasingly suffering from cleared up. Amusingly, I was using Chrome in the first place because the exact same situation happened a few years ago, but with the browsers switched.
  - dTal 6y ago
    Worth noting that starting out with a new profile (and empty history database) will speed up any browser, which could help account for both of your experiences.
- Grazester 6y ago
  The WSJ is not a fan of Google btw. I believe it stems from Rupert Murdoch's disdain for the Company

kbenson 6y ago

> Meaning, soon to you, a chromium firefox based browser no different as to Edge, Brave or whatever else is out there. Doubtful. I think of lot of the reason Google helps fund Mozilla is so there's a better answer to the question "Does Google have a monopoly in web browsers?" It's better for both Google (because they can point at competition) and Mozilla (because Google will still want to hand them money) if Mozilla has their own engine.

microcolonel 6y ago
I think given the licensing model of Chromium, every major browser being Chromium-based† is still not really a Google monopoly on browsers, or even on browser engines. † In practice, it's already true, given that Firefox is niche even on desktop.
- kbenson 6y ago
  It's less about whether they actually have a monopoly, and whether there's shielding from government scrutiny. Their current market share (greater than 60%) affords them quite a large influence on the direction of web standards (which seem to be lagging implementation in browsers). Google is already under constant investigation from various governments at this point. Money spent keeping a competitor alive when it's low market share means it doesn't have the same power as Google is probably money well spent.
  - microcolonel 6y ago
    Influence or not, all a vendor needs to do if they want to compete with chrome is fork it. There can't be an honest way to construe that as a monopoly. Imagine the market was for PNG decoders, and all the major players were using libpng (just like real life). There is no way to conclude that there is a monopoly on that.
    - kbenson 6y ago
      > Influence or not, all a vendor needs to do if they want to compete with chrome is fork it. Sure, but are they going to do a hard left and ignore Google commits, or if Google implements some new CSS features, are they going to pull those in because it's easy and the work is done then they haven't diverged as much, even if they might not have implemented them exactly that way if the incentives weren't aligned quite the same way? > There can't be an honest way to construe that as a monopoly. It doesn't really matter whether it is a monopoly, it matters whether governments see it as unfair. Antitrust laws didn't spring forth from the founders, they were passed by legislature, and then used shortly after to curtail what society perceived to be abuse of power. It also was not done in one go, the Sherman Act was passed in 1890, and then it was updated through both the Clayton Act and Federal Trade Commission Act in 1914.There's nothing to say that laws couldn't be passed to change how antitrust applies slightly (especially in Europe, where they seem to have for appetite for this recently than the US). That might sound a little preposterous, but we're talking about one of the largest companies in the world, which is traditionally when laws like this have been passed in the past. While I doubt if an antitrust case was brought against Google it would be because of Chrome, reducing any example people can point to when justifying making a case is probably worthwhile when operating at Google's scale. > Imagine the market was for PNG decoders, and all the major players were using libpng (just like real life). PNG is a standard, that standard is not changing to any appreciable degree, and if there was a major push to extend PNG and many readers couldn't read PNG's correctly because they used proprietary extensions, we would definitely be having discussions about whether there's enough viable alternatives on the market, do they have enough market share. Keep in mind, this is just a revised instance of Microsoft's strategy of Embrace, Extend, Extinguish where they've learned to be more circumspect and more careful about the "extinguish" step to avoid too much unwanted attention, so it's more nuanced.
ClikeX 6y ago
This, Microsoft helped out Apple financially in the 90's when they were being sued for being a monopoly. So this tactic isn't new. Source: https://appleinsider.com/articles/18/08/06/august-6-1997----the-day-apple-and-microsoft-made-peace https://appleinsider.com/articles/18/08/06/august-6-1997----...
- alwillis 6y ago
  They invested $150 million in non-voting stock, which wasn't a lot of money for Apple, even in those days. However, Apple agreed to make Internet Explorer the default browser for Macs in return for Microsoft to continue to developer Office for the Mac. At the end of the 5-year agreement, Apple released Safari and the rest is history, as they say.
chinhodado 6y ago
Someone said this that I really like: "Firefox is Google's antitrust insurance for Chrome."
gowld 6y ago
Google funded Mozilla mostly by buying traffic for Search and Ads. Google makes money from advertising, not browsers. Firefox doesn't hurt Google.
- pkilgore 6y ago
  Google makes money from advertising by acquiring massive quantities of data from users to most-effectively target advertising. Firefox makes it harder to acquire data from users. If market share for Firefox were to increase at the cost of Chrome users, it would hurt Google.
  - s_gourichon 6y ago
    > If market share for Firefox were to increase at the cost of Chrome users, it would hurt Google. This is why we can expect just enough support to keep Firefox existing, with a minor user share.
- eitland 6y ago
  Google seems to to have a (not very) long term strategy to get rid of adblockers. That is hard as long as there is both - an independent browser engine on the market - and politicians and judges that haven't succumbed to the pressure from Big Media
- kbenson 6y ago
  The good or service you get in a purchase is not always the whole reason for the purchase. For the same reason you might buy somethingat a fund-raiser for more than you would at other times, Google may be supplying get good terms on their deal with Mozilla. Firefox hurting Google has nothing to do with the reasoning I supplied previously. In fact, Firefox not hurting Google is all the more reason to make sure they get funded and survive if it lets Google avoid or deflect government scrutiny.

danielscrubs 6y ago

Firefox has less memory usage and at least for me, is the faster browser. You even have non-techies at wall street journal recommending people to switch from Google Chrome on YouTube.

foerbert 6y ago
Same, at least these days. I have an old chromebook running linux that's at least halfway through it's last leg. I recently tried Firefox on it because an update managed to bork Chrome a bit. I found many of the performance issues I'd been increasingly suffering from cleared up. Amusingly, I was using Chrome in the first place because the exact same situation happened a few years ago, but with the browsers switched.
- dTal 6y ago
  Worth noting that starting out with a new profile (and empty history database) will speed up any browser, which could help account for both of your experiences.
Grazester 6y ago
The WSJ is not a fan of Google btw. I believe it stems from Rupert Murdoch's disdain for the Company