Mozilla is an interesting case, but I don't think it's representative of the wider ecosystem because it's unique. It's a corporation which isn't selling its pr

Mozilla is an interesting case, but I don't think it's representative of the wider ecosystem because it's unique. It's a corporation which isn't selling its products, and it's also a nonprofit which doesn't use its donations to finance its product development. And its main income source is Google advertising money. While I have some fondness for Mozilla, it's on a path to failure in the long term. It's trying to be both a corporation and an open source project and it's failing at both. I don't think the Google funding has been at all healthy for it. There is a demand for mobile operating systems and web browsers. While it is currently funded through advertising and other means, if this method of funding was ended, the demand would not vanish. The market would adjust to support that demand. After all, we did historically pay for operating systems and applications. Entire corporations' fortunes were made from software sales. In many ways, I would prefer a return to this model. It's simpler and it's honest. I very much prefer to be a valued paying customer rather than a product, with all of the privacy and other problems which result. It also results in a better product since the companies' incentives are more aligned with the paying end user. Absolutely agreed about the lawmakers being more careful. Looking back at the Microsoft antitrust trial, that seems small beans compared with what big tech is up to today. And even then, I personally think that a broken up Microsoft would have been better for both the company and the wider world. And I think that applies tenfold to the tech behemoths we have allowed to accrete today.