19 ms·

Mozilla Reaction to U.S. vs. Google

232 points by doppp 6y ago

roody15 6y ago
“ The ultimate outcomes of an antitrust lawsuit should not cause collateral damage to the very organizations – like Mozilla – best positioned to drive competition and protect the interests of consumers on the web.” Or in other words ... “We need Google’s money” ... Firefox
- nikitaga 6y ago
  In other words, buying a default position in a browser or OS is not an anti-competitive practice. Many other things Google does are, but this isn't. This DOJ lawsuit is basically a gift to Google if you actually think through what it is likely to achieve, and what a better targeted lawsuit could have achieved but won't, because DOJ chose to instead spend its resources on a weak case for an issue that is largely irrelevant to Google's moat.
  - dleslie 6y ago
    Isn't it, though? What's the share of views from Opera or even Brave? Owning #1 and having the rather distant #2 beholden to you makes it even less likely that a market upstart will be able to emerge; particularly when #1 and #2 are loss leaders.
    - nikitaga 6y ago
      Having money to buy something that is for sale is not anti-competitive in itself, neither is selling stuff to a monopolist at market rates. You need to look at why Google's adtech is so obscenely profitable, why they are able to generate so much profit per user. A lot of it is powered by things that either already are or should be illegal, from various abuses of monopolistic power to forced tracking without informed consent. Fixing those issues would be a good start. Otherwise, nothing will change. Google has enough of its own moat with Pixel devices and Android and Chrome that banning or somehow restricting the sale of default search engine position will hurt sellers of those defaults like Mozilla much more than it will hurt Google's monopoly. Just because the lawsuit is on paper targeted at Google, doesn't mean that their competitors (or the public) will be the beneficiaries of its results.
      - coliveira 6y ago
        People misinterpret what antitrust is all about. It is not about making transactions at market rates. It is about having the power to define market rates through the operations of the company (trust) and its close associates. All the characteristics of trusts appear in Google's behavior when they buy competitors and pay their buddies (FF) to deal with them. When they say that people "chose" to use Google properties, this is clearly false in the moment that they buy would be competitors and pay FF and Apple prices that cannot be replicated by others.
        nikitaga 6y ago
        Just what kind of conspiracy do you think exists between Google, Mozilla, and Apple? Those seem to be normal business relationships. Google being the highest bidder, i.e. paying "prices that can not be replicated by others" does not make an antitrust case alone. By that logic you could sue every billionaire buying expensive real estate, art, surgeries, etc. Buying competitors (DoubleClick) is the kind of stuff that should have been prevented on antitrust grounds, but that is not related to the search box transaction at all, and is not the focus of this lawsuit.
        coliveira 6y ago
        > By that logic you could sue every billionaire buying expensive real estate, art, surgeries, etc I don't know any billionaire who has cornered the market for real estate, art, etc. Your example just shows that there is something special about the web search market: it was cornered by Google using several strategies that amount to monopoly.
        nikitaga 6y ago
        Yet you haven't provided any explanation why Google's deals with Mozilla and Apple should be considered anti-competitive. Those deals are not how Google became ubiquitous, neither in search nor in advertising. Once again, do you think Microsoft doesn't have the same money as Google to pay for default search placement? Or do you think Apple or Mozilla won't take their money? I'm sure Microsoft has the money. They just don't want to spend it on this because they don't earn as much money from their search users as Google does, so Google outbids them. You keep talking about generalities of Google's monopoly position, but I'm not disputing that their monopoly position is problematic and should be reigned it. What I'm saying is that this particular lawsuit succeeding will at best be a wash all things considered, and at worst will entrench Google's moat even further if it kills off Mozilla. Or, if you don't think so, what kind of court-imposed solution do you think will come out of this lawsuit?
  - snarf21 6y ago
    Microsoft lost this argument with regards to IE.
  - ocdtrekkie 6y ago
    Depends what you think the resolution is going to be. If they stop them funding other browsers maybe. ...If they force Google to divest Chrome, it's not going to be a gift. All this is proving is there is no effective alternative to breaking Google up and selling it off in parts.
    - coliveira 6y ago
      I think breaking up Google would be the best option for the market, and even for shareholders. The value of the company after splitting will most probably be higher than under control of the current leadership. They're killing lots of great products in order to maintain the monopoly of search.
  - fooey 6y ago
    I feel like this DOJ suit is so lazy and misguided, the end result will be inoculating Google against anti-trust for a generation.
- darksaints 6y ago
  It's not that simple. Sure, Google currently pays the bills, but when they go to negotiate, Bing is their BATNA, and the BATNA is what negotiations always trend towards. Mozilla benefits more from a stronger Bing than they do a stronger Google.
  - wmf 6y ago
    If Google is banned from buying search engine defaults, Bing might be hit by the same ban or at least they'd no longer be bidding against Google so now they'd just have to outrun... DDG?
    - darksaints 6y ago
      I think this is the best explanation for Mozilla's position on this. It would be a death blow for Mozilla if google was taken out of the running altogether, simply because then their BATNA would be DDG. It's not clear if anti-trust action against google will affect Google's ability to buy default traffic from Mozilla, which is why they haven't taken a particularly strong position yet. Some forms of anti trust action could help Mozilla by bolstering competitors, but other types of actions could hurt Mozilla. It seems like a wait and see kind of thing.
      - wmf 6y ago
        BTW every time competition comes up in this case we should probably ask: competition in what? The case appears to be focusing on search engines and ad networks, but trying to create more competition in search could end up reducing competition in browsers (hence Mozilla's concern about collateral damage). Google is so huge and has so many interlocking monopolies that I don't envy anyone who's trying to fix any of it.
        toast0 6y ago
        Even if browser competition is important, and even if that (currently) requires a stream of money to flow to Mozilla, it doesn't follow that we should allow unlawful abuse of other monopolies in order to support that. Of course, it's possible the courts decide the status quo is lawful and there's no change. In a hypothetical situation where you separate Google Ads from Google Search from Google everything else, Google search would still want to pay browsers for default search, and Chrome, Firefox, Safari, etc would still have a revenue stream; however, they would only be able to do so to the extent of their web search revenues. Likely the baby Googles are still dominant in all of their fields, but it's not as assured, because there will be less cross promotion, exclusivity, and tying. If you instead leave Google whole, and prohibit paying browsers for default search, you still have internal payments (de facto, if not explicit) to Chrome and Android that drive product decisions like defaults and putting an unremovable search bar in the default launcher.
- 75dvtwin 6y ago
  Warning: hypothesis It could be that Mozilla's role in the whole scheme of things is to act as 'Plausible Deniability' defense for big G. Which is, probably, what that Mozilla's current CEO lawyer is there for. Google needed to get rid of Brendan Eich (Mozilla's CEO that was to browsers, like Bill Gates to Windows) - for the plausible deniability defense to work [1] [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2014/04/11/did-mozilla-ceo-brendan-eich-deserve-to-be-removed-from-his-position-due-to-his-support-for-proposition-8/#2a3181d22158 https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2014/04/11/did-mozilla-ce...
  - cryptica 6y ago
    This is a good hypothesis. Unfortunately, plausible hypotheses and the truth have a way of getting downvoted to the bottom of the comment section these days. I always find myself scrolling straight to the bottom of the last page of HN discussions to find interesting comments. Downvote if you agree.
  - boomboomsubban 6y ago
    So what about the five years between when Eich left to 2019, where Chris Beard, an MBA as CEO? Plus, why would Yahoo have wanted the search contract then?
- ComodoHacker 6y ago
  It's more like "We need money. Due to Google monopolistic position, it's Google's money for now."
  - walrus01 6y ago
    I think you would see a (further) mass exodus from people using Firefox if they suddenly changed the default search engine for all versions, in all languages worldwide, to Bing.
    - gogopuppygogo 6y ago
      Is there even enough mass market adoption for such an exodus at this point? Firefox has basically ceded its mass market usage to chrome. From my subjective experience, the only people I see using it today are technical.
      - ForHackernews 6y ago
        People keep claiming this, but how has Mozilla 'ceded' anything? Firefox became somewhat popular at a time when the big player was Internet Explorer, and it was manifestly terrible. As soon as Google started heavily promoting Chrome (which is, whatever else you might say about it, vastly superior to IE6) people switched to that. What could Mozilla realistically do to compete against the world's largest marketing company pushing their browser?
        pferde 6y ago
        By consistently and continually molding Firefox to be as similar to Chrome as possible instead of offering something different enough to present a meaningful choice. Of course most users took the path of least resistance if the choice was between Chrome and pretty-much-also-Chrome.
        sgc 6y ago
        I think FFs loss of market share of course has been affected by advertising, but mainly by their own mistakes. I don't think the similarities to Chrome (which were not really so great for a long time) were the main driver. I tried to hold onto FF for as long as possible for ideological reasons, and then for some years when I couldn't justify it because of just terrible performance, I used Chromium. They had a much, much better plugin market / platform for a long time and that too was a larger part of the draw that differentiated them. I switched back to FF as soon as I heard they had dealt with most of their speed issues in an update but, extremely reluctantly, I have been considering whether they are any better than Chromium at this point with the privacy / ad shenanigans that really seem to insist on reappearing in different ways with great consistency lately. The recent monetization debacle has frankly been disheartening. So the main points for me are that they failed on speed (which drove most people I know who switched to Chrome) and now on culture/honesty.
- walrus01 6y ago
  Earlier in the day I read several news articles about the US V. Google lawsuit. Before I even clicked the link, while hovering over it, I thought "I wonder how close they're going to come in this response to biting the hand that feeds them... How are they going to possibly handle this?" It is my understanding that something like 95% of mozilla's gross revenue each year comes from the google search commission deal. If I am wrong on this somebody please correct me.
- syspec 6y ago
  Dead on
- cryptica 6y ago
  It's unsettling how they try to make themselves look like the little guy fighting for justice... They get over $400 million revenue per year, much of it from Google. They're part of the problem. They're gatekeepers. Also, their funding initiatives to change the web are total BS. They don't want to change anything. They will only fund projects that reinforce the established order and help to lock out the competition. They like things just as they are. They have no idea what it's like to actually be the little guy.
- nulbyte 6y ago
  I would be surprised if Mozilla doesn't charge everyone who is available out of the box. If they don't, they should. I don't think there should be a default. New users should be presented a list to select their preferred search engine. This could be an educational effort; many users are likely unaware that there are alternatives. Many users don't care, because they don't understand the difference. A brief onboarding experience would help increase awareness, and it would avoid the codependency problem Mozilla itself created.
- snarf21 6y ago
  This whole things just seems so silly to address. Instead of making it the default search engine simply have a search engine chooser at install. Google is "preferred" (which they still pay for) but below that is a list that is searchable of all other search engines to choose.
  - arrosenberg 6y ago
    Google paying for that position is the same anti-competitive act they are being sued for.
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  The idea that a severance of Google’s alleged monopoly would cause a collapse of the competition actually undermines Mozilla’s point and strengthen’s the US’s point, ironically enough.
  - xxpor 6y ago
    How so? It seems like either outcome is bad.
    - blackearl 6y ago
      Firefox's waning market share and need to suckle upon Google's teat to survive will only get worse and more dependent with time. So if Google doesn't meet all the qualifications of a monopoly now, it'll be much worse if the US waits to take action.
      - xxpor 6y ago
        But if Mozilla goes away because Google can't pay them, are we actually better off?
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
        coliveira 6y ago
        In that case Firefox will be able to make deals with companies other than Google, such as Apple and MS.
        Spivak 6y ago
        But they can literally already do that right now. Google just pays more. Nothing forces them to go with Google — they even switched to Yahoo for a bit. This only ends with Mozilla getting less money since without Google bidding the value of the placement goes down.
        6y ago
- j4nt4b 6y ago
  I wonder if Firefox partnering with Duck Duck Go instead would be feasible, or even a net positive for users and developers. I'll admit to partly liking this idea just for the Game of Thrones spiteful backstab energy.
  - boogies 6y ago
    Palemoon does this. But I don’t think they can afford to pay nearly as much: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24840474 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24840474
  - srtjstjsj 6y ago
    It would bankrupt either Firefox or DDG
- LockAndLol 6y ago
  Maybe people should be able to donate directly to Firefox development and not to some controlling org that decides to "invest" the money as it sees fit. But that would be too honest and easy. Gotta have a way to siphon off lots of money for your own bloated salary and the best way to do that is to be between donation and destination. I'm not sure why the Firefox people haven't split from Mozilla to rectify this. What's keeping them there? Didn't Thunderbird devs split? What am I missing?
  - coliveira 6y ago
    > why the Firefox people haven't split from Mozilla Because it is their job! Do you have a rival company to hire all these people?
jqpabc123 6y ago
Mozilla is a Google subsidiary whose job is to support and perpetuate the illusion of competition.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  If Mozilla was a Google subsidiary we'd have WebSQL. I'm not saying that the outcome of that was wrong, just that it wouldn't be what it was if Mozilla was a front for Google.
  - wmf 6y ago
    What's better than a front? A front that thinks they're not a front.
- 29athrowaway 6y ago
  Just wait until they release Mozillium, their Chromium based browser.
  - edoceo 6y ago
    I'm a hype-man at this point but I think Servo still shows promise
    - dane-pgp 6y ago
      Broke: The DOJ forbid Google from paying Mozilla to make Google the default search provider for Firefox. Woke: The DOJ force Google to pay Mozilla double to make Google the default search provider for Firefox AND Servo.
    - nanagojo 6y ago
      They laid off the servo peeps
    - gilrain 6y ago
      They literally laid off the entire Servo team this year. Their browser R&D is dead.
throwaway13337 6y ago
Back in '97, Microsoft invested 150m into Apple as well as published office on macs. This was very likely an effort to keep a competitor alive to pretend windows was not a monopoly. Mozilla is in a much worse position than Apple was in '97. The only way they can continue to exist is to be on the take from Google's handout. The corpse of Mozilla as a puppet to perform for regulators at Google's command is probably a net negative for the world. Maybe Mozilla has run its course.
- foepys 6y ago
  The day Mozilla shuts its doors is the day when Google would become synonymous with the internet. Nobody would ever be able to make anything in it that Google doesn't want to exist. Google would deprecate APIs for other APIs that seemingly have the same purpose but are missing a single crucial feature. They would build websites on Chrome private builds that include features that make these apps possible and conveniently release them at nearly the same time so nobody can contest them at launch. Add-ons would be deleted because of arbitrary "ToS violations" like Apple already does. Although they are already planning to cripple add-ons like ad blockers with manifest v3. And much more.
  - throwaway13337 6y ago
    The argument is that it's already happened. But because Mozilla exists, they can pretend that it hasn't. In this way, Mozilla is actually helping Google dominate the internet by providing very useful regulatory cover. Google has free reign to do all of what you listed. They tread lightly only due to fears of regulation.
    - foepys 6y ago
      What's the next step after Mozilla shuts down and Google loses its cover? Anti-trust cases take at least 10 years. This is plenty of time for Google to make the internet theirs and the then defunct Gecko engine to be too old to use. Blink and WebKit will be the only engines left. Even if you then pry Blink and Chrome away from Google, there will never be another browser engine and it's naïve to think that just because Blink isn't legally part of Alphabet anymore that they will be instantly independent.
gkoberger 6y ago
I've been wondering if Mozilla ends up owning Chromium eventually. It would make sense... it's the part of Google's business that they'd be most likely to be okay parting with (after all, it's open source), they wouldn't lose much (Mozilla would still keep Google as the default search engine), and they could get regulators off their backs. Plus, Google and Mozilla have a longstanding relationship – the early offices were provided by Google and for a long time, every Mozilla employee had a Google badge. The Chrome and Mozilla teams like each other. (I'm an ex-Mozillian with no inside knowledge!)
- nanagojo 6y ago
  It will happen IMO, they already laid off the servo team and security response team. About 200+ people.
  - dblohm7 6y ago
    The latter part of your statement isn’t true. Yes, some people formerly in charge of security response were unfortunately laid off, however that is not indicative of that entire team nor its capabilities.
    - dleslie 6y ago
      I'm sure there's a skeleton team remaining to keep up appearances.
      - dblohm7 6y ago
        That is also false. I described what happened here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24659174 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24659174
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- jcranmer 6y ago
  The only way that makes sense is if you kill off Gecko (or, more bizarrely, Blink/Chromium). which cuts the number of browser vendors down to a very lopsided 2. And you end up with a very complicated, extremely essential piece of modern computer infrastructure reliant on a single underfunded organization--which is the sort of situation that resulted in the OpenSSL failures that led to Heartbleed.
hashtagmarkup 6y ago
The latest update to Firefox featured a very prominent suggestion to use Mozilla VPN. It seems like a focus on privacy is their reaction. Keeping your data away from companies like Google is the suggestion.
- dralley 6y ago
  A VPN service is just a cheap and on-brand way to provide independent revenue. It's probably less motivated by actual concern than business necessity.
- dleslie 6y ago
  VPNs do not provide anonymity. Firefox mobile recently broke addon compatibility in an devastating way; notably, in this context, breaking addons that remove utm trackers and redirect amp to html.
hapless 6y ago
Mozilla's principal source of revenue is a fat check from Google every month. Anti-trust is a mixed blessing for Mozilla.org, at best, and a huge negative for Mozilla.com.
- dleslie 6y ago
  And an enormous negative for the rather well-compensated executive.
- colordrops 6y ago
  A mixed blessing only if antitrust action doesn't target the browser monopoly. If they do something to constrain Chrome, this could be a boon to Mozilla.
  - zamadatix 6y ago
    It doesn't matter how constrained Chrome becomes if Mozilla can't pay any developers. Hence Mozilla's reaction being one focusing on "collateral damage" and "Unintended harm".
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - colordrops 6y ago
      That's a huge lack of imagination. If Mozilla gets a large percentage of users they will find funding one way or another.
      - MauranKilom 6y ago
        So why haven't they done that that in the past 10 years?
        zaphirplane 6y ago
        See antitrust allegations ;)
colordrops 6y ago
This is embarrassing for Mozilla. They've laid their allegiance bare.
lukewrites 6y ago
> This could affect the high pay of our c suite, which means we will continue to lay off engineers. /s
rurp 6y ago
I'm really struggling to find a charitable way to interpret this post, especially in light of other recent Mozilla moves. Are they really arguing that Google's near monopoly is good for... Privacy? Users? The internet? This really seems like a shameless shill post driven by the same management that thinks that laying off most of their browser developers is the right way forward for Firefox.
- dralley 6y ago
  Their statement was pretty straightforwards, IMO. The argument is that Mozilla is one of the smaller, independent companies that Google competes with, and that the DoJ should be careful about not hurting said small, independent companies (namely Mozilla) in the process of their anti-trust action.
  - dleslie 6y ago
    Google does not compete with Mozilla. Chrome is a loss leader that allows Google to ensure that their products have access to the views they need, and by paying Mozilla a critical share of their operating budget they ensure that the risk of an upstart to their loss leader is minimal.
    - jefftk 6y ago
      > Chrome is a loss leader Alternatively: making a browser means you can choose the default search engine, and this is valuable. Google pays Firefox ~$450M for this, for ~9% of desktop traffic. [1] Chrome is ~70% of desktop traffic [1] and so you could extrapolate it at ~$3.5B. [1] https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share/desktop/worldwide https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share/desktop/worl... (Disclosure: I work for Google, speaking only for myself)
      - srtjstjsj 6y ago
        If you work at Google it might be ill-advised to advocate on behalf of the antitrust action against Google.
tehjoker 6y ago
This is what you get when the money comes from a rich funder and not from the people.
- wmf 6y ago
  Sure, but how do we get the people to pay for Firefox?
  - cecja 6y ago
    You know not like this.
  - gilrain 6y ago
    The first step is to let them. There is currently no way for a user to support Firefox development.
    - sumedh 6y ago
      https://donate.mozilla.org/en-GB/ https://donate.mozilla.org/en-GB/
      - detaro 6y ago
        Wrong Mozilla. Mozilla Corporation is developing Firefox (and giving its profits to the parent entity, Mozilla Foundation), the foundation isn't paying for Firefox development.
        abraxaz 6y ago
        Yeah, AFAIK the donations all go to other causes. I could not find anything in writing regarding this on their site but this was explained to me on their IRC channel.
      - gilrain 6y ago
        It has been confirmed many times that exactly zero of funds donated to the Mozilla Foundation go to Firefox, which is developed by the Mozilla Corporation.
jorgBaller 6y ago
I am currently making a reaction video to Mozilla's reaction to U.S vs. Google. Coming soon!
- jmnicolas 6y ago
  I expect an Asmongold reaction to your video as soon as you release it.
  - xnyan 6y ago
    you WON'T BELEIVE this MINDBLOWING decision from the KING OF THE INTERNET!?? confused duck face
mdoms 6y ago
Mozilla really should declare their own interests front and center before an article like this one.
- walrus01 6y ago
  I agree, it would be more upfront to link to their annual report which gives an idea of just how much they depend on the search engine deal for revenue. https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/annualreport/2018/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/annualreport/2018/
  - arminiusreturns 6y ago
    Where is the 2019 report? When I tried to change the url to 2019 I got a 404, and funnily enough, when I just remove the year from the url, expecting it to go to the latest, it instead redirects to 2017... a bit humorous and sad for a huge a bastion of the internet. That said, here is the relevant part from your link: " Today, the majority of Mozilla Corporation revenue is generated from global browser search partnerships, including the deal negotiated with Google in 2017 following Mozilla’s termination of its search agreement with Yahoo/Oath (which was the subject of litigation the parties resolved in 2019.) In CY 2018, Mozilla Corporation generated $435.702 million from royalties, subscriptions and advertising revenue compared to $542 million in CY 2017. 2017 was an outlier, due in part to changes in the search revenue deal that was negotiated that year. Despite the year-over-year change, Mozilla remains in a strong financial position with cash reserves to support continued innovation, partnerships and diversification of the Firefox product lines to fuel its organizational mission. A portion of search revenue combined with grants and donations is used to fuel the advocacy and movement building work of the Mozilla Foundation and its broad network of supporters of Mozilla’s mission. "
    - cherrycherry98 6y ago
      Forget where I read this but apparently they routinely file for an extension when doing their taxes so they don't submit to the IRS until October. Expect the 2019 annual report sometime in November which is when they usually publish it.
cecja 6y ago
Mozilla really going to lose all the trust there is left what a stupid stupid statement to make.
treelovinhippie 6y ago
Baahhahahahahhahahahahhaahahahahaa.
ggm 6y ago
Mozilla would survive the transition. Reduced, circumscribed but survive. Because even post regulatory breakup some entities would want search, and would pay Mozilla for search placement. The time to release Firefox 92 from Firefox 91 might be a lot longer than from 81 to 82, and be, essentially boring. Is that actually a tragedy? I would argue, no.
- advanced-DnD 6y ago
  Not before the exec milk every single ounce they could before exiting.
  - jmnicolas 6y ago
    Is there no way to fire theses vampires and recenter the project just on Firefox?
    - anticensor 6y ago
      Not without backlash from those people.
      - ggm 6y ago
        are you saying there is no recourse through the board?
- srtjstjsj 6y ago
  Firefox is dying and with less funding it will die sooner.
aokiji 6y ago
Mozzila has been receiving money from Google. It is a typical strategy where you pump the company with money and force the management to run it into the ground. Google doing this to Firefox is no different than politicians in European countries keeping a silent on China's crimes against humanity because their countries receive Chinese investment.
brodouevencode 6y ago
Not gonna listen to an organization regarding political matters in the name of fairness and competition when they have a past of firing employees over their personal political matters that do not interfere with the organization. In my book they have nothing to say unless it's purely about their product.
zxcvbn4038 6y ago
From the title I thought this was going to be an xkcd cartoon with a bunch of stick figures celebrating — but this works too. I’ve watched Chrome take over through the years - it hasn’t become the new IE yet, it doesn’t have the stagnation and compliance issues that IE had - but has been concerning that it’s become one of two engines and that Google has been whittling away privacy features in general and making its apps immune to cache clears and data wipes.
- chias 6y ago
  From the title, I thought this was "How does Mozilla feel about the United States, as compared to how Google feels about it" and just sort of tucked it away in the "lolwut" corner of my mind until I saw the "U.S. vs. Google" headline.
what-the-grump 6y ago
"Small and independent companies such as Mozilla thrive by innovating, disrupting and providing users with industry leading features and services in areas like search." >disrupting "drastically alter or destroy the structure of." Every single tech pitch, article, blog, shart of tech thought includes disrupting of the status quo or competition. So this should be right up your alley no Mozilla, or is it not as fun being on the disrupted side?
- everdrive 6y ago
  At this point the term is meaningless. It's just something tech companies feel compelled to say they do.
TheUndead96 6y ago
Given the financial incentives, I see Mozilla's stance as an extension of Google's.
nanna 6y ago
Mozilla exists for the public benefit, and therefor it should be publicly funded. We should be demanding that it is freed from the shackles of market capitalism.
syshum 6y ago
It is always sad to see just how far Mozilla has fallen from Open Web days.... If this response does not cement the idea that Mozilla is nothing more than a puppet to Google I dont know what will.
ekianjo 6y ago
Mozilla is far from being a non-biased party in this as they are fed from the hand of Google.
Yizahi 6y ago
Haha. I respect Mozilla but this was totally expected reaction - since lawsuit directly touches on the fact that Google "bribes" it's way to the monopoly, then of course Mozilla will be affected. So they cry "do anything but only if it won't affect our Google money". And the phrase "look at the ecosystem in its entirety" means "do nothing". IT people should know this better than anyone - waiting for the perfect solution with zero drawbacks mean never getting that solution at all.
- ilikehurdles 6y ago
  How do you differentiate "bribes" from "purchasing something that the merchant offered", ie placement as the default search engine?
  - randall 6y ago
    Exactly. All sorts of BD deals get caught up in this line of thinking. Basically it's anti-competitive when there's already a monopoly and you get money for it? "Give your users a worse experience because they can't pay us, and we need the money."
  - Yizahi 6y ago
    That will be determined by DoJ, I hope. Personally I see way too many ultra rich corporation's behaviors get a pass just because they strictly don't equal definition of a "bribe". Or how 95% of the whole word market is not a "monopoly" because "look, there is that 2% competitor, free market works".
    - jonny_eh 6y ago
      > That will be determined by DoJ The court will decide (unless the issue is settled beforehand).
  - vaccinator 6y ago
    If you don't want to get in any trouble, just give it a good name... like in the case of lobbying the US government.
thayne 6y ago
I really hope one result of this is that chrome and widevine control are taken from google.
zobzu 6y ago
well its interesting to see that their interest is not the users at all, but the money. they've become a servant of Google and they do not want this to stop. Basically Mozilla is not independent and is too scared to be.
mapgrep 6y ago
It seems reasonable to argue that fighting Google's browser monopoly justifies Mozilla helping enable the search monopoly for limited periods of time through default search agreements. Or you could reasonably argue that the default search payments Mozilla takes are way less harmful to competitors than other things Google does, like scraping data from third party sites and presenting it above search results. I'm not sure if I agree, but you could definitely argue these things. Interestingly, Mozilla never comes right out and makes these arguments in its blog post. I guess maybe they imply them. I honestly am not sure if this is because any statement on this has to be heavily vetted by lawyers, or if, as some people will surely suggest, they are afraid of offending Google. (I don't really think they are? But maybe I'm wrong....)
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
kemonocode 6y ago
If I were Mozilla, I'd probably be very careful in my wording, even though Google actually does have an interest in keeping Mozilla and Firefox around to be token competition and point at legislators they don't actually have a complete monopoly on everything web because... hey, there is at least one other major browser out there with a wholly different codebase from ours!
cnst 6y ago
Mozilla the last to learn they need a lobbyist in Washington?
- deleted 6y ago
  - cnst 6y ago
    That's unexpected and mysterious! Any reason a question couldn't be fielded in public at HN? :-)
timka 6y ago
Sure, that's not how we fix Big Tech. Because everything Big must not be privately held. At least all that constitutes modern critical infrastructure must be precisely and transparently planned for public good.
ltbarcly3 6y ago
Mozilla has been on life support from Google since at least 2005. For years Google paid Mozilla $1 for every Firefox download in an attempt to break Internet Explorer dominance. That Mozilla would defend Google while being almost completely funded by Google for nearly two decades is.. well.. obvious. That Mozilla needs Google's money is obvious, that Mozilla is beholden to Google because they need that money to survive is obvious, and this is exactly why we need antitrust intervention from government when large corporations are able to control not only their own resources, but remake entire industries to serve their own interests.

232 points by doppp 6y ago

“ The ultimate outcomes of an antitrust lawsuit should not cause collateral damage to the very organizations – like Mozilla – best positioned to drive competition and protect the interests of consumers on the web.” Or in other words ... “We need Google’s money” ... Firefox

nikitaga 6y ago
In other words, buying a default position in a browser or OS is not an anti-competitive practice. Many other things Google does are, but this isn't. This DOJ lawsuit is basically a gift to Google if you actually think through what it is likely to achieve, and what a better targeted lawsuit could have achieved but won't, because DOJ chose to instead spend its resources on a weak case for an issue that is largely irrelevant to Google's moat.
- dleslie 6y ago
  Isn't it, though? What's the share of views from Opera or even Brave? Owning #1 and having the rather distant #2 beholden to you makes it even less likely that a market upstart will be able to emerge; particularly when #1 and #2 are loss leaders.
  - nikitaga 6y ago
    Having money to buy something that is for sale is not anti-competitive in itself, neither is selling stuff to a monopolist at market rates. You need to look at why Google's adtech is so obscenely profitable, why they are able to generate so much profit per user. A lot of it is powered by things that either already are or should be illegal, from various abuses of monopolistic power to forced tracking without informed consent. Fixing those issues would be a good start. Otherwise, nothing will change. Google has enough of its own moat with Pixel devices and Android and Chrome that banning or somehow restricting the sale of default search engine position will hurt sellers of those defaults like Mozilla much more than it will hurt Google's monopoly. Just because the lawsuit is on paper targeted at Google, doesn't mean that their competitors (or the public) will be the beneficiaries of its results.
    - coliveira 6y ago
      People misinterpret what antitrust is all about. It is not about making transactions at market rates. It is about having the power to define market rates through the operations of the company (trust) and its close associates. All the characteristics of trusts appear in Google's behavior when they buy competitors and pay their buddies (FF) to deal with them. When they say that people "chose" to use Google properties, this is clearly false in the moment that they buy would be competitors and pay FF and Apple prices that cannot be replicated by others.
      - nikitaga 6y ago
        Just what kind of conspiracy do you think exists between Google, Mozilla, and Apple? Those seem to be normal business relationships. Google being the highest bidder, i.e. paying "prices that can not be replicated by others" does not make an antitrust case alone. By that logic you could sue every billionaire buying expensive real estate, art, surgeries, etc. Buying competitors (DoubleClick) is the kind of stuff that should have been prevented on antitrust grounds, but that is not related to the search box transaction at all, and is not the focus of this lawsuit.
        coliveira 6y ago
        > By that logic you could sue every billionaire buying expensive real estate, art, surgeries, etc I don't know any billionaire who has cornered the market for real estate, art, etc. Your example just shows that there is something special about the web search market: it was cornered by Google using several strategies that amount to monopoly.
        nikitaga 6y ago
        Yet you haven't provided any explanation why Google's deals with Mozilla and Apple should be considered anti-competitive. Those deals are not how Google became ubiquitous, neither in search nor in advertising. Once again, do you think Microsoft doesn't have the same money as Google to pay for default search placement? Or do you think Apple or Mozilla won't take their money? I'm sure Microsoft has the money. They just don't want to spend it on this because they don't earn as much money from their search users as Google does, so Google outbids them. You keep talking about generalities of Google's monopoly position, but I'm not disputing that their monopoly position is problematic and should be reigned it. What I'm saying is that this particular lawsuit succeeding will at best be a wash all things considered, and at worst will entrench Google's moat even further if it kills off Mozilla. Or, if you don't think so, what kind of court-imposed solution do you think will come out of this lawsuit?
- snarf21 6y ago
  Microsoft lost this argument with regards to IE.
- ocdtrekkie 6y ago
  Depends what you think the resolution is going to be. If they stop them funding other browsers maybe. ...If they force Google to divest Chrome, it's not going to be a gift. All this is proving is there is no effective alternative to breaking Google up and selling it off in parts.
  - coliveira 6y ago
    I think breaking up Google would be the best option for the market, and even for shareholders. The value of the company after splitting will most probably be higher than under control of the current leadership. They're killing lots of great products in order to maintain the monopoly of search.
- fooey 6y ago
  I feel like this DOJ suit is so lazy and misguided, the end result will be inoculating Google against anti-trust for a generation.
darksaints 6y ago
It's not that simple. Sure, Google currently pays the bills, but when they go to negotiate, Bing is their BATNA, and the BATNA is what negotiations always trend towards. Mozilla benefits more from a stronger Bing than they do a stronger Google.
- wmf 6y ago
  If Google is banned from buying search engine defaults, Bing might be hit by the same ban or at least they'd no longer be bidding against Google so now they'd just have to outrun... DDG?
  - darksaints 6y ago
    I think this is the best explanation for Mozilla's position on this. It would be a death blow for Mozilla if google was taken out of the running altogether, simply because then their BATNA would be DDG. It's not clear if anti-trust action against google will affect Google's ability to buy default traffic from Mozilla, which is why they haven't taken a particularly strong position yet. Some forms of anti trust action could help Mozilla by bolstering competitors, but other types of actions could hurt Mozilla. It seems like a wait and see kind of thing.
    - wmf 6y ago
      BTW every time competition comes up in this case we should probably ask: competition in what? The case appears to be focusing on search engines and ad networks, but trying to create more competition in search could end up reducing competition in browsers (hence Mozilla's concern about collateral damage). Google is so huge and has so many interlocking monopolies that I don't envy anyone who's trying to fix any of it.
      - toast0 6y ago
        Even if browser competition is important, and even if that (currently) requires a stream of money to flow to Mozilla, it doesn't follow that we should allow unlawful abuse of other monopolies in order to support that. Of course, it's possible the courts decide the status quo is lawful and there's no change. In a hypothetical situation where you separate Google Ads from Google Search from Google everything else, Google search would still want to pay browsers for default search, and Chrome, Firefox, Safari, etc would still have a revenue stream; however, they would only be able to do so to the extent of their web search revenues. Likely the baby Googles are still dominant in all of their fields, but it's not as assured, because there will be less cross promotion, exclusivity, and tying. If you instead leave Google whole, and prohibit paying browsers for default search, you still have internal payments (de facto, if not explicit) to Chrome and Android that drive product decisions like defaults and putting an unremovable search bar in the default launcher.
75dvtwin 6y ago
Warning: hypothesis It could be that Mozilla's role in the whole scheme of things is to act as 'Plausible Deniability' defense for big G. Which is, probably, what that Mozilla's current CEO lawyer is there for. Google needed to get rid of Brendan Eich (Mozilla's CEO that was to browsers, like Bill Gates to Windows) - for the plausible deniability defense to work [1] [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2014/04/11/did-mozilla-ceo-brendan-eich-deserve-to-be-removed-from-his-position-due-to-his-support-for-proposition-8/#2a3181d22158 https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2014/04/11/did-mozilla-ce...
- cryptica 6y ago
  This is a good hypothesis. Unfortunately, plausible hypotheses and the truth have a way of getting downvoted to the bottom of the comment section these days. I always find myself scrolling straight to the bottom of the last page of HN discussions to find interesting comments. Downvote if you agree.
- boomboomsubban 6y ago
  So what about the five years between when Eich left to 2019, where Chris Beard, an MBA as CEO? Plus, why would Yahoo have wanted the search contract then?
ComodoHacker 6y ago
It's more like "We need money. Due to Google monopolistic position, it's Google's money for now."
- walrus01 6y ago
  I think you would see a (further) mass exodus from people using Firefox if they suddenly changed the default search engine for all versions, in all languages worldwide, to Bing.
  - gogopuppygogo 6y ago
    Is there even enough mass market adoption for such an exodus at this point? Firefox has basically ceded its mass market usage to chrome. From my subjective experience, the only people I see using it today are technical.
    - ForHackernews 6y ago
      People keep claiming this, but how has Mozilla 'ceded' anything? Firefox became somewhat popular at a time when the big player was Internet Explorer, and it was manifestly terrible. As soon as Google started heavily promoting Chrome (which is, whatever else you might say about it, vastly superior to IE6) people switched to that. What could Mozilla realistically do to compete against the world's largest marketing company pushing their browser?
      - pferde 6y ago
        By consistently and continually molding Firefox to be as similar to Chrome as possible instead of offering something different enough to present a meaningful choice. Of course most users took the path of least resistance if the choice was between Chrome and pretty-much-also-Chrome.
        sgc 6y ago
        I think FFs loss of market share of course has been affected by advertising, but mainly by their own mistakes. I don't think the similarities to Chrome (which were not really so great for a long time) were the main driver. I tried to hold onto FF for as long as possible for ideological reasons, and then for some years when I couldn't justify it because of just terrible performance, I used Chromium. They had a much, much better plugin market / platform for a long time and that too was a larger part of the draw that differentiated them. I switched back to FF as soon as I heard they had dealt with most of their speed issues in an update but, extremely reluctantly, I have been considering whether they are any better than Chromium at this point with the privacy / ad shenanigans that really seem to insist on reappearing in different ways with great consistency lately. The recent monetization debacle has frankly been disheartening. So the main points for me are that they failed on speed (which drove most people I know who switched to Chrome) and now on culture/honesty.
walrus01 6y ago
Earlier in the day I read several news articles about the US V. Google lawsuit. Before I even clicked the link, while hovering over it, I thought "I wonder how close they're going to come in this response to biting the hand that feeds them... How are they going to possibly handle this?" It is my understanding that something like 95% of mozilla's gross revenue each year comes from the google search commission deal. If I am wrong on this somebody please correct me.
syspec 6y ago
Dead on
cryptica 6y ago
It's unsettling how they try to make themselves look like the little guy fighting for justice... They get over $400 million revenue per year, much of it from Google. They're part of the problem. They're gatekeepers. Also, their funding initiatives to change the web are total BS. They don't want to change anything. They will only fund projects that reinforce the established order and help to lock out the competition. They like things just as they are. They have no idea what it's like to actually be the little guy.
nulbyte 6y ago
I would be surprised if Mozilla doesn't charge everyone who is available out of the box. If they don't, they should. I don't think there should be a default. New users should be presented a list to select their preferred search engine. This could be an educational effort; many users are likely unaware that there are alternatives. Many users don't care, because they don't understand the difference. A brief onboarding experience would help increase awareness, and it would avoid the codependency problem Mozilla itself created.
snarf21 6y ago
This whole things just seems so silly to address. Instead of making it the default search engine simply have a search engine chooser at install. Google is "preferred" (which they still pay for) but below that is a list that is searchable of all other search engines to choose.
- arrosenberg 6y ago
  Google paying for that position is the same anti-competitive act they are being sued for.
ashtonkem 6y ago
The idea that a severance of Google’s alleged monopoly would cause a collapse of the competition actually undermines Mozilla’s point and strengthen’s the US’s point, ironically enough.
- xxpor 6y ago
  How so? It seems like either outcome is bad.
  - blackearl 6y ago
    Firefox's waning market share and need to suckle upon Google's teat to survive will only get worse and more dependent with time. So if Google doesn't meet all the qualifications of a monopoly now, it'll be much worse if the US waits to take action.
    - xxpor 6y ago
      But if Mozilla goes away because Google can't pay them, are we actually better off?
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - coliveira 6y ago
        In that case Firefox will be able to make deals with companies other than Google, such as Apple and MS.
        Spivak 6y ago
        But they can literally already do that right now. Google just pays more. Nothing forces them to go with Google — they even switched to Yahoo for a bit. This only ends with Mozilla getting less money since without Google bidding the value of the placement goes down.
        6y ago
j4nt4b 6y ago
I wonder if Firefox partnering with Duck Duck Go instead would be feasible, or even a net positive for users and developers. I'll admit to partly liking this idea just for the Game of Thrones spiteful backstab energy.
- boogies 6y ago
  Palemoon does this. But I don’t think they can afford to pay nearly as much: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24840474 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24840474
- srtjstjsj 6y ago
  It would bankrupt either Firefox or DDG
LockAndLol 6y ago
Maybe people should be able to donate directly to Firefox development and not to some controlling org that decides to "invest" the money as it sees fit. But that would be too honest and easy. Gotta have a way to siphon off lots of money for your own bloated salary and the best way to do that is to be between donation and destination. I'm not sure why the Firefox people haven't split from Mozilla to rectify this. What's keeping them there? Didn't Thunderbird devs split? What am I missing?
- coliveira 6y ago
  > why the Firefox people haven't split from Mozilla Because it is their job! Do you have a rival company to hire all these people?

jqpabc123 6y ago

Mozilla is a Google subsidiary whose job is to support and perpetuate the illusion of competition.

dragonwriter 6y ago
If Mozilla was a Google subsidiary we'd have WebSQL. I'm not saying that the outcome of that was wrong, just that it wouldn't be what it was if Mozilla was a front for Google.
- wmf 6y ago
  What's better than a front? A front that thinks they're not a front.
29athrowaway 6y ago
Just wait until they release Mozillium, their Chromium based browser.
- edoceo 6y ago
  I'm a hype-man at this point but I think Servo still shows promise
  - dane-pgp 6y ago
    Broke: The DOJ forbid Google from paying Mozilla to make Google the default search provider for Firefox. Woke: The DOJ force Google to pay Mozilla double to make Google the default search provider for Firefox AND Servo.
  - nanagojo 6y ago
    They laid off the servo peeps
  - gilrain 6y ago
    They literally laid off the entire Servo team this year. Their browser R&D is dead.

throwaway13337 6y ago

Back in '97, Microsoft invested 150m into Apple as well as published office on macs. This was very likely an effort to keep a competitor alive to pretend windows was not a monopoly. Mozilla is in a much worse position than Apple was in '97. The only way they can continue to exist is to be on the take from Google's handout. The corpse of Mozilla as a puppet to perform for regulators at Google's command is probably a net negative for the world. Maybe Mozilla has run its course.

foepys 6y ago
The day Mozilla shuts its doors is the day when Google would become synonymous with the internet. Nobody would ever be able to make anything in it that Google doesn't want to exist. Google would deprecate APIs for other APIs that seemingly have the same purpose but are missing a single crucial feature. They would build websites on Chrome private builds that include features that make these apps possible and conveniently release them at nearly the same time so nobody can contest them at launch. Add-ons would be deleted because of arbitrary "ToS violations" like Apple already does. Although they are already planning to cripple add-ons like ad blockers with manifest v3. And much more.
- throwaway13337 6y ago
  The argument is that it's already happened. But because Mozilla exists, they can pretend that it hasn't. In this way, Mozilla is actually helping Google dominate the internet by providing very useful regulatory cover. Google has free reign to do all of what you listed. They tread lightly only due to fears of regulation.
  - foepys 6y ago
    What's the next step after Mozilla shuts down and Google loses its cover? Anti-trust cases take at least 10 years. This is plenty of time for Google to make the internet theirs and the then defunct Gecko engine to be too old to use. Blink and WebKit will be the only engines left. Even if you then pry Blink and Chrome away from Google, there will never be another browser engine and it's naïve to think that just because Blink isn't legally part of Alphabet anymore that they will be instantly independent.

gkoberger 6y ago

I've been wondering if Mozilla ends up owning Chromium eventually. It would make sense... it's the part of Google's business that they'd be most likely to be okay parting with (after all, it's open source), they wouldn't lose much (Mozilla would still keep Google as the default search engine), and they could get regulators off their backs. Plus, Google and Mozilla have a longstanding relationship – the early offices were provided by Google and for a long time, every Mozilla employee had a Google badge. The Chrome and Mozilla teams like each other. (I'm an ex-Mozillian with no inside knowledge!)

nanagojo 6y ago
It will happen IMO, they already laid off the servo team and security response team. About 200+ people.
- dblohm7 6y ago
  The latter part of your statement isn’t true. Yes, some people formerly in charge of security response were unfortunately laid off, however that is not indicative of that entire team nor its capabilities.
  - dleslie 6y ago
    I'm sure there's a skeleton team remaining to keep up appearances.
    - dblohm7 6y ago
      That is also false. I described what happened here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24659174 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24659174
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
jcranmer 6y ago
The only way that makes sense is if you kill off Gecko (or, more bizarrely, Blink/Chromium). which cuts the number of browser vendors down to a very lopsided 2. And you end up with a very complicated, extremely essential piece of modern computer infrastructure reliant on a single underfunded organization--which is the sort of situation that resulted in the OpenSSL failures that led to Heartbleed.

hashtagmarkup 6y ago

The latest update to Firefox featured a very prominent suggestion to use Mozilla VPN. It seems like a focus on privacy is their reaction. Keeping your data away from companies like Google is the suggestion.

dralley 6y ago
A VPN service is just a cheap and on-brand way to provide independent revenue. It's probably less motivated by actual concern than business necessity.
dleslie 6y ago
VPNs do not provide anonymity. Firefox mobile recently broke addon compatibility in an devastating way; notably, in this context, breaking addons that remove utm trackers and redirect amp to html.

hapless 6y ago

Mozilla's principal source of revenue is a fat check from Google every month. Anti-trust is a mixed blessing for Mozilla.org, at best, and a huge negative for Mozilla.com.

dleslie 6y ago
And an enormous negative for the rather well-compensated executive.
colordrops 6y ago
A mixed blessing only if antitrust action doesn't target the browser monopoly. If they do something to constrain Chrome, this could be a boon to Mozilla.
- zamadatix 6y ago
  It doesn't matter how constrained Chrome becomes if Mozilla can't pay any developers. Hence Mozilla's reaction being one focusing on "collateral damage" and "Unintended harm".
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - colordrops 6y ago
    That's a huge lack of imagination. If Mozilla gets a large percentage of users they will find funding one way or another.
    - MauranKilom 6y ago
      So why haven't they done that that in the past 10 years?
      - zaphirplane 6y ago
        See antitrust allegations ;)

colordrops 6y ago

This is embarrassing for Mozilla. They've laid their allegiance bare.

lukewrites 6y ago

> This could affect the high pay of our c suite, which means we will continue to lay off engineers. /s

rurp 6y ago

I'm really struggling to find a charitable way to interpret this post, especially in light of other recent Mozilla moves. Are they really arguing that Google's near monopoly is good for... Privacy? Users? The internet? This really seems like a shameless shill post driven by the same management that thinks that laying off most of their browser developers is the right way forward for Firefox.

dralley 6y ago
Their statement was pretty straightforwards, IMO. The argument is that Mozilla is one of the smaller, independent companies that Google competes with, and that the DoJ should be careful about not hurting said small, independent companies (namely Mozilla) in the process of their anti-trust action.
- dleslie 6y ago
  Google does not compete with Mozilla. Chrome is a loss leader that allows Google to ensure that their products have access to the views they need, and by paying Mozilla a critical share of their operating budget they ensure that the risk of an upstart to their loss leader is minimal.
  - jefftk 6y ago
    > Chrome is a loss leader Alternatively: making a browser means you can choose the default search engine, and this is valuable. Google pays Firefox ~$450M for this, for ~9% of desktop traffic. [1] Chrome is ~70% of desktop traffic [1] and so you could extrapolate it at ~$3.5B. [1] https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share/desktop/worldwide https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share/desktop/worl... (Disclosure: I work for Google, speaking only for myself)
    - srtjstjsj 6y ago
      If you work at Google it might be ill-advised to advocate on behalf of the antitrust action against Google.

tehjoker 6y ago

This is what you get when the money comes from a rich funder and not from the people.

wmf 6y ago
Sure, but how do we get the people to pay for Firefox?
- cecja 6y ago
  You know not like this.
- gilrain 6y ago
  The first step is to let them. There is currently no way for a user to support Firefox development.
  - sumedh 6y ago
    https://donate.mozilla.org/en-GB/ https://donate.mozilla.org/en-GB/
    - detaro 6y ago
      Wrong Mozilla. Mozilla Corporation is developing Firefox (and giving its profits to the parent entity, Mozilla Foundation), the foundation isn't paying for Firefox development.
      - abraxaz 6y ago
        Yeah, AFAIK the donations all go to other causes. I could not find anything in writing regarding this on their site but this was explained to me on their IRC channel.
    - gilrain 6y ago
      It has been confirmed many times that exactly zero of funds donated to the Mozilla Foundation go to Firefox, which is developed by the Mozilla Corporation.

jorgBaller 6y ago

I am currently making a reaction video to Mozilla's reaction to U.S vs. Google. Coming soon!

jmnicolas 6y ago
I expect an Asmongold reaction to your video as soon as you release it.
- xnyan 6y ago
  you WON'T BELEIVE this MINDBLOWING decision from the KING OF THE INTERNET!?? confused duck face

mdoms 6y ago

Mozilla really should declare their own interests front and center before an article like this one.

walrus01 6y ago
I agree, it would be more upfront to link to their annual report which gives an idea of just how much they depend on the search engine deal for revenue. https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/annualreport/2018/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/annualreport/2018/
- arminiusreturns 6y ago
  Where is the 2019 report? When I tried to change the url to 2019 I got a 404, and funnily enough, when I just remove the year from the url, expecting it to go to the latest, it instead redirects to 2017... a bit humorous and sad for a huge a bastion of the internet. That said, here is the relevant part from your link: " Today, the majority of Mozilla Corporation revenue is generated from global browser search partnerships, including the deal negotiated with Google in 2017 following Mozilla’s termination of its search agreement with Yahoo/Oath (which was the subject of litigation the parties resolved in 2019.) In CY 2018, Mozilla Corporation generated $435.702 million from royalties, subscriptions and advertising revenue compared to $542 million in CY 2017. 2017 was an outlier, due in part to changes in the search revenue deal that was negotiated that year. Despite the year-over-year change, Mozilla remains in a strong financial position with cash reserves to support continued innovation, partnerships and diversification of the Firefox product lines to fuel its organizational mission. A portion of search revenue combined with grants and donations is used to fuel the advocacy and movement building work of the Mozilla Foundation and its broad network of supporters of Mozilla’s mission. "
  - cherrycherry98 6y ago
    Forget where I read this but apparently they routinely file for an extension when doing their taxes so they don't submit to the IRS until October. Expect the 2019 annual report sometime in November which is when they usually publish it.

cecja 6y ago

Mozilla really going to lose all the trust there is left what a stupid stupid statement to make.

treelovinhippie 6y ago

Baahhahahahahhahahahahhaahahahahaa.

ggm 6y ago

Mozilla would survive the transition. Reduced, circumscribed but survive. Because even post regulatory breakup some entities would want search, and would pay Mozilla for search placement. The time to release Firefox 92 from Firefox 91 might be a lot longer than from 81 to 82, and be, essentially boring. Is that actually a tragedy? I would argue, no.

advanced-DnD 6y ago
Not before the exec milk every single ounce they could before exiting.
- jmnicolas 6y ago
  Is there no way to fire theses vampires and recenter the project just on Firefox?
  - anticensor 6y ago
    Not without backlash from those people.
    - ggm 6y ago
      are you saying there is no recourse through the board?
srtjstjsj 6y ago
Firefox is dying and with less funding it will die sooner.

aokiji 6y ago

Mozzila has been receiving money from Google. It is a typical strategy where you pump the company with money and force the management to run it into the ground. Google doing this to Firefox is no different than politicians in European countries keeping a silent on China's crimes against humanity because their countries receive Chinese investment.

brodouevencode 6y ago

Not gonna listen to an organization regarding political matters in the name of fairness and competition when they have a past of firing employees over their personal political matters that do not interfere with the organization. In my book they have nothing to say unless it's purely about their product.

zxcvbn4038 6y ago

From the title I thought this was going to be an xkcd cartoon with a bunch of stick figures celebrating — but this works too. I’ve watched Chrome take over through the years - it hasn’t become the new IE yet, it doesn’t have the stagnation and compliance issues that IE had - but has been concerning that it’s become one of two engines and that Google has been whittling away privacy features in general and making its apps immune to cache clears and data wipes.

chias 6y ago
From the title, I thought this was "How does Mozilla feel about the United States, as compared to how Google feels about it" and just sort of tucked it away in the "lolwut" corner of my mind until I saw the "U.S. vs. Google" headline.

what-the-grump 6y ago

"Small and independent companies such as Mozilla thrive by innovating, disrupting and providing users with industry leading features and services in areas like search." >disrupting "drastically alter or destroy the structure of." Every single tech pitch, article, blog, shart of tech thought includes disrupting of the status quo or competition. So this should be right up your alley no Mozilla, or is it not as fun being on the disrupted side?

everdrive 6y ago
At this point the term is meaningless. It's just something tech companies feel compelled to say they do.

TheUndead96 6y ago

Given the financial incentives, I see Mozilla's stance as an extension of Google's.

nanna 6y ago

Mozilla exists for the public benefit, and therefor it should be publicly funded. We should be demanding that it is freed from the shackles of market capitalism.

syshum 6y ago

It is always sad to see just how far Mozilla has fallen from Open Web days.... If this response does not cement the idea that Mozilla is nothing more than a puppet to Google I dont know what will.

ekianjo 6y ago

Mozilla is far from being a non-biased party in this as they are fed from the hand of Google.

Yizahi 6y ago

Haha. I respect Mozilla but this was totally expected reaction - since lawsuit directly touches on the fact that Google "bribes" it's way to the monopoly, then of course Mozilla will be affected. So they cry "do anything but only if it won't affect our Google money". And the phrase "look at the ecosystem in its entirety" means "do nothing". IT people should know this better than anyone - waiting for the perfect solution with zero drawbacks mean never getting that solution at all.

ilikehurdles 6y ago
How do you differentiate "bribes" from "purchasing something that the merchant offered", ie placement as the default search engine?
- randall 6y ago
  Exactly. All sorts of BD deals get caught up in this line of thinking. Basically it's anti-competitive when there's already a monopoly and you get money for it? "Give your users a worse experience because they can't pay us, and we need the money."
- Yizahi 6y ago
  That will be determined by DoJ, I hope. Personally I see way too many ultra rich corporation's behaviors get a pass just because they strictly don't equal definition of a "bribe". Or how 95% of the whole word market is not a "monopoly" because "look, there is that 2% competitor, free market works".
  - jonny_eh 6y ago
    > That will be determined by DoJ The court will decide (unless the issue is settled beforehand).
- vaccinator 6y ago
  If you don't want to get in any trouble, just give it a good name... like in the case of lobbying the US government.

thayne 6y ago

I really hope one result of this is that chrome and widevine control are taken from google.

zobzu 6y ago

well its interesting to see that their interest is not the users at all, but the money. they've become a servant of Google and they do not want this to stop. Basically Mozilla is not independent and is too scared to be.

mapgrep 6y ago

It seems reasonable to argue that fighting Google's browser monopoly justifies Mozilla helping enable the search monopoly for limited periods of time through default search agreements. Or you could reasonably argue that the default search payments Mozilla takes are way less harmful to competitors than other things Google does, like scraping data from third party sites and presenting it above search results. I'm not sure if I agree, but you could definitely argue these things. Interestingly, Mozilla never comes right out and makes these arguments in its blog post. I guess maybe they imply them. I honestly am not sure if this is because any statement on this has to be heavily vetted by lawyers, or if, as some people will surely suggest, they are afraid of offending Google. (I don't really think they are? But maybe I'm wrong....)

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

kemonocode 6y ago

If I were Mozilla, I'd probably be very careful in my wording, even though Google actually does have an interest in keeping Mozilla and Firefox around to be token competition and point at legislators they don't actually have a complete monopoly on everything web because... hey, there is at least one other major browser out there with a wholly different codebase from ours!

cnst 6y ago

Mozilla the last to learn they need a lobbyist in Washington?

deleted 6y ago
- cnst 6y ago
  That's unexpected and mysterious! Any reason a question couldn't be fielded in public at HN? :-)

timka 6y ago

Sure, that's not how we fix Big Tech. Because everything Big must not be privately held. At least all that constitutes modern critical infrastructure must be precisely and transparently planned for public good.

ltbarcly3 6y ago

Mozilla has been on life support from Google since at least 2005. For years Google paid Mozilla $1 for every Firefox download in an attempt to break Internet Explorer dominance. That Mozilla would defend Google while being almost completely funded by Google for nearly two decades is.. well.. obvious. That Mozilla needs Google's money is obvious, that Mozilla is beholden to Google because they need that money to survive is obvious, and this is exactly why we need antitrust intervention from government when large corporations are able to control not only their own resources, but remake entire industries to serve their own interests.