4 ms·

After Google used browsers to gain monopoly and cutting off their income, there's only so many monetization strategies you can do to stay somewhat competitive w

by rplnt 6y ago

After Google used browsers to gain monopoly and cutting off their income, there's only so many monetization strategies you can do to stay somewhat competitive with an advertising company providing browser for free while simultaneously trying to block you from using any other browser.

spinningslate 6y ago
Won't argue that Mozilla/Firefox has been comprehensively out-manouvered by Google/Chrome. I'm still puzzled why Moz haven't tried a paid-for Firefox option. They've gone to the bother of creating entire new paid-for products - with all the budget and product/market fit uncertainty that involves. Surely a paid-for FF option would have been a less expensive experiment? Perhaps the terms of the Google "donation" prevent/constrain that. I wouldn't be surprised if so. Which does lead to an interesting - if probably fanciful - scenario from the anti-trust investigation announced today... ...charactertise the browser as a "utility" and require G to (a) transfer it into Mozilla's stewardship and (b) force them to license from there. (I know: unrealistic, unworkable, lots of other "just no"s. But a fun idea nonetheless).
- modo_mario 6y ago
  >Won't argue that Mozilla/Firefox has been comprehensively out-manouvered by Google/Chrome. And sometimes without being at fault really. I remember a key moment when firefox was bleeding users was when google decided that H264 would be the standard after switching for a while and mozilla having to run after it trying to get implementations going and then still having a laggy af experience on youtube and the like because the implementation google went with was proprietary. >I'm still puzzled why Moz haven't tried a paid-for Firefox option. and what functionality would the paid version of firefox have? Chances are it would cause an outrage and user-loss due to cries that functionality would be premium only tbh. It would also probably make not much of a dent in the budget.
  - spinningslate 6y ago
    > and what functionality would the paid version of firefox have? Maybe it's what it _doesn't_ have. No ads for Pocket/VPN/whatever. Maybe it comes with DDG as the default search engine. Or maybe it's pre-configured with a set of tested privacy-focused extensions. Pro-privacy advocates might be in the minority, but it's a growing and generally vociferous minority. Mozilla's VPN offering suggests they see privacy as a market. FF is still by far their most popular offering; so I'm simply wondering why there's been no effort I'm aware of to explore the intersection of FF, privacy and revenue. Recognising Google would most likey challenge that.

by rplnt 6y ago

spinningslate 6y ago

Won't argue that Mozilla/Firefox has been comprehensively out-manouvered by Google/Chrome. I'm still puzzled why Moz haven't tried a paid-for Firefox option. They've gone to the bother of creating entire new paid-for products - with all the budget and product/market fit uncertainty that involves. Surely a paid-for FF option would have been a less expensive experiment? Perhaps the terms of the Google "donation" prevent/constrain that. I wouldn't be surprised if so. Which does lead to an interesting - if probably fanciful - scenario from the anti-trust investigation announced today... ...charactertise the browser as a "utility" and require G to (a) transfer it into Mozilla's stewardship and (b) force them to license from there. (I know: unrealistic, unworkable, lots of other "just no"s. But a fun idea nonetheless).

modo_mario 6y ago
>Won't argue that Mozilla/Firefox has been comprehensively out-manouvered by Google/Chrome. And sometimes without being at fault really. I remember a key moment when firefox was bleeding users was when google decided that H264 would be the standard after switching for a while and mozilla having to run after it trying to get implementations going and then still having a laggy af experience on youtube and the like because the implementation google went with was proprietary. >I'm still puzzled why Moz haven't tried a paid-for Firefox option. and what functionality would the paid version of firefox have? Chances are it would cause an outrage and user-loss due to cries that functionality would be premium only tbh. It would also probably make not much of a dent in the budget.
- spinningslate 6y ago
  > and what functionality would the paid version of firefox have? Maybe it's what it _doesn't_ have. No ads for Pocket/VPN/whatever. Maybe it comes with DDG as the default search engine. Or maybe it's pre-configured with a set of tested privacy-focused extensions. Pro-privacy advocates might be in the minority, but it's a growing and generally vociferous minority. Mozilla's VPN offering suggests they see privacy as a market. FF is still by far their most popular offering; so I'm simply wondering why there's been no effort I'm aware of to explore the intersection of FF, privacy and revenue. Recognising Google would most likey challenge that.