3 ms·

Their statement was pretty straightforwards, IMO. The argument is that Mozilla is one of the smaller, independent companies that Google competes with, and that

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.
    - jefftk 6y ago
      I'm not advocating one way or the other
Yizahi 6y ago
How exactly do they want to proceed then? The only way now not to hurt Mozilla is to stop the lawsuit completely. Any other action will hurt Mozilla because they are connected by an oxygen tube to the Google. And Mozilla got into this situation completely voluntarily and according to the plan.