7 ms·

One angle of this case which is often missed is the impact on browsers. If Google is forbidden from paying browser vendors for being the default search engine,

One angle of this case which is often missed is the impact on browsers. If Google is forbidden from paying browser vendors for being the default search engine, bye bye, Firefox. A significant part of Mozilla's revenue comes from their deal with Google. I don't think a project as big as a browser could survive without that revenue. If Google wins, Google has a search monopoly. If Google loses, they will have a slightly smaller search monopoly and a browser monopoly.

abdullahkhalids 6y ago
I am not too concerned. I think Mozilla will simply have to switch to a donation based system (like Wikimedia Foundation), with relevant restructuring to a non-profit. And I think they will be able to raise 10s of millions of dollars.
- doublerabbit 6y ago
  And if they didn't excessively pay their high execs stupid amount of money.
- Ygg2 6y ago
  We'll see if Mozilla will be able to achieve that. I hope so. I want it to succeed, but according to Mozilla that donation based structure would be impossible. While you could be cynical, I think people using Wikipedia are way more numerous than people using Firefox. I think it's inevitable that the future will be dominated by a Blink based browser. It's omnipresent on mobile and the desktop will probably just be Edge (a Blink derivative).
  - account42 6y ago
    > impossible > inevitable Well now that that's settled...
    - Ygg2 6y ago
      What are you counter arguments?
  - kmonsen 6y ago
    That is simply not true, if we take the fact that 60% of search traffic in USA comes from iOS that is all from WebKit and not Blink. Even Chrome and Firefox on iOS uses WebKit.
  - godshatter 6y ago
    If they crash and burn someone can just fork the project from their ashes. I think some group will take it on because it's important to have another rendering engine that's not Konqueror-derived.
Spivak 6y ago
Luckily, I don’t think Red Hat would let Firefox die because it’s the default browser they ship for RHEL and Fedora. I imagine development would slow to a crawl but it would still be around.
- zepto 6y ago
  Why wouldn’t they switch to chromium?
  - Spivak 6y ago
    They could eventually but already having shipped Firefox in RHEL 8 for 10 years minimum guaranteed support makes it tough.
redm 6y ago
"If Google loses, they will have a slightly smaller search monopoly and a browser monopoly." It's my understanding that this case will continue to evolve as it goes forward and so will the possible remedies. I think you are assuming the best case scenario in a loss for Google. Mozilla doesn't factor into this for me. They have been making missteps for years. The fact that they have become totally dependent on Google rather than finding other partners and business models is on them. Live by Google, die by Google. While Mozilla has made some progress on the browser quality, the reason they are loosing the browser market is 1) the browser just isn't as good as Chrome (I've tried to love Firefox) and 2) Google is spamming Chrome on all its platforms. This lawsuit may resolve #2, but only Mozilla can resolve #1.
- CivBase 6y ago
  > the browser just isn't as good as Chrome How do you figure? Firefox is my browser of choice on both desktop and mobile.
  - MacsHeadroom 6y ago
    Well for one, FireFox frequently breaks on non-standards compliant tech industry standard business critical Google web apps. Outside the work context, leisure time is regularly frustrated by FireFox struggling to render pages or load videos on Google owned YouTube.com as well as they do in Chrome. This seems to happen a few days each month for the past 8 years or so. Therefore Chrome is clearly the better browser. /s
- scarface74 6y ago
  #3. Most people are browsing on mobile and Chrome is the default browser on Android and Safari (or at least the engine) is the only one allowed on iOS devices.
- corford 6y ago
  1). is very subjective and I think depends quite heavily on what platform you are using it on. FF is my daily driver on Windows and I much prefer it over Chrome (which I also use frequently).
bogwog 6y ago
That's not a big deal. The main appeal of Firefox today is that it's not owned by Google and doesn't violate your privacy (as much, anyways). The browser itself is great, I use it all the time, and I vastly prefer the UI over Chrome. However, I don't think many would care if the world ends up on a single common browser as long as it doesn't consolidate power to a single entity. Microsoft has their own fork of Chromium, and if the possibility of building a browser business makes a comeback (thanks to any changes in Google), I'm sure many other companies will follow suit. Of course, this all depends on what actually happens to Google as a result of this lawsuit. So we'll have to wait and see.
- ece 6y ago
  Multiple rendering engines are probably a good thing in the long term for the web, and arguably losing other technology that Mozilla has worked on like Rust would be a big loss if Mozilla couldn't be as competitive as it has been. I'm not so sure weaponizing privacy against Google by breaking a good amount of websites embedding Youtube videos is really the best way to get market share though, so by that metric, Google losing would hopefully mean Mozilla could work just as well as other browsers by default and actually gain market share.
  - treis 6y ago
    >Multiple rendering engines are probably a good thing in the long term for the web, I think people forget how terrible browser compatability used to be. You had to use jQuery and worry about what you could and couldn't use. Pax Chromana in comparison is a dream. It's possible that chrome stagnates like IE did. But I don't think so. Google is primarily a web company and so it's in their interest to keep innovating on the browser to make their websites better.
    - rurp 6y ago
      I agree that Google will keep the basic end user functionality working well once they have a full monopoly. But I expect them to accelerate their attacks on ad blocking and tracking protection. A browser that is great at rendering websites but makes it extremely difficult to block ads and trackers is probably Google's ideal goal.
m463 6y ago
Maybe another outlook is that firefox has been captured, put in a box and fed just enough to keep it alive. on mobile the complaint says: "The six “core” apps are Google Play, Chrome, Google’s search app, Gmail, Maps, and YouTube. Manufacturers must preinstall the core apps in a manner that prevents the consumer from deleting them, regardless of whether the consumer wants them. These preinstallation agreements cover almost all Android devices sold in the United States." So chrome must be installed, prominently, and is not able to be deleted by the device manufacturers. In absence of this, would device manufacturers install firefox and send them some support?
- myko 6y ago
  Isn't the same true of Safari? It seems most of the complaints leveled at Google around Android are as bad in the Apple ecosystem.
  - sharkjacobs 6y ago
    It's the preinstalled default but you've been able to remove Safari from iOS for a couple years now.
    - myko 6y ago
      Not really, only iOS 14 allows the user to select a different browser as the default - and it does so in some severely limiting ways: - It isn't actually that browser rendering anything, it's Safari under the covers (though Chrome does replace the networking stack with its own) - Every attempt to launch a browser other than Safari requires an extra selection on the user's part to approve it. Every time.
  - heavyset_go 6y ago
    Not only that, but other browser engines are not allowed on iOS at all. Even Firefox is just a skin over Safari's WebKit on iOS.
  - scarface74 6y ago
    Yes, but what’s not true about Apple/Safari is that Apple hasn’t raised the ire of the administration for being “unfair to conservatives”. Don’t you find it a little strange that pro-business/anti-regulation conservatives are going after “big business”?
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
ocdtrekkie 6y ago
Nothing is "often missed" about this. Mozilla has already written a blog post asking the court not to go after Google on this issue because it might hurt them. I am sure Google is all too happy to promote this angle, suggesting we should protect Chrome out of some misguided attempt to protect Firefox. If Google is stripped of Chrome or prohibited from using various tactics to promote Chrome over alternatives, Firefox will benefit, massively. Revenue may drop in the short term, so it may not look great for Mozilla-the-company, but Firefox usage will soar, and revenue-generating strategies will follow thereafter. It's sad Mozilla is hurting themselves here by coming to Google's defense, but that's how whipped Google has them right now.
ksec 6y ago
I think this could actually be one of the best outcome for Google. Google save $10B per year paying to Apple for the default search engine spot. User continue to use Google anyway as 98% of user simply dont go anywhere else. Their Chrome remain dominant and Firefox is dead. The only possibility this is actually worst would be the incentive of Apple creating its own Search Engine. Likely without porn or whatever content they deem unfit and enter Web Curation. Of course they would be highly unlikely given the current Anti-Trust issues.

abdullahkhalids 6y ago

I am not too concerned. I think Mozilla will simply have to switch to a donation based system (like Wikimedia Foundation), with relevant restructuring to a non-profit. And I think they will be able to raise 10s of millions of dollars.

doublerabbit 6y ago
And if they didn't excessively pay their high execs stupid amount of money.
Ygg2 6y ago
We'll see if Mozilla will be able to achieve that. I hope so. I want it to succeed, but according to Mozilla that donation based structure would be impossible. While you could be cynical, I think people using Wikipedia are way more numerous than people using Firefox. I think it's inevitable that the future will be dominated by a Blink based browser. It's omnipresent on mobile and the desktop will probably just be Edge (a Blink derivative).
- account42 6y ago
  > impossible > inevitable Well now that that's settled...
  - Ygg2 6y ago
    What are you counter arguments?
- kmonsen 6y ago
  That is simply not true, if we take the fact that 60% of search traffic in USA comes from iOS that is all from WebKit and not Blink. Even Chrome and Firefox on iOS uses WebKit.
- godshatter 6y ago
  If they crash and burn someone can just fork the project from their ashes. I think some group will take it on because it's important to have another rendering engine that's not Konqueror-derived.

Spivak 6y ago

Luckily, I don’t think Red Hat would let Firefox die because it’s the default browser they ship for RHEL and Fedora. I imagine development would slow to a crawl but it would still be around.

zepto 6y ago
Why wouldn’t they switch to chromium?
- Spivak 6y ago
  They could eventually but already having shipped Firefox in RHEL 8 for 10 years minimum guaranteed support makes it tough.

redm 6y ago

"If Google loses, they will have a slightly smaller search monopoly and a browser monopoly." It's my understanding that this case will continue to evolve as it goes forward and so will the possible remedies. I think you are assuming the best case scenario in a loss for Google. Mozilla doesn't factor into this for me. They have been making missteps for years. The fact that they have become totally dependent on Google rather than finding other partners and business models is on them. Live by Google, die by Google. While Mozilla has made some progress on the browser quality, the reason they are loosing the browser market is 1) the browser just isn't as good as Chrome (I've tried to love Firefox) and 2) Google is spamming Chrome on all its platforms. This lawsuit may resolve #2, but only Mozilla can resolve #1.

CivBase 6y ago
> the browser just isn't as good as Chrome How do you figure? Firefox is my browser of choice on both desktop and mobile.
- MacsHeadroom 6y ago
  Well for one, FireFox frequently breaks on non-standards compliant tech industry standard business critical Google web apps. Outside the work context, leisure time is regularly frustrated by FireFox struggling to render pages or load videos on Google owned YouTube.com as well as they do in Chrome. This seems to happen a few days each month for the past 8 years or so. Therefore Chrome is clearly the better browser. /s
scarface74 6y ago
#3. Most people are browsing on mobile and Chrome is the default browser on Android and Safari (or at least the engine) is the only one allowed on iOS devices.
corford 6y ago
1). is very subjective and I think depends quite heavily on what platform you are using it on. FF is my daily driver on Windows and I much prefer it over Chrome (which I also use frequently).

bogwog 6y ago

That's not a big deal. The main appeal of Firefox today is that it's not owned by Google and doesn't violate your privacy (as much, anyways). The browser itself is great, I use it all the time, and I vastly prefer the UI over Chrome. However, I don't think many would care if the world ends up on a single common browser as long as it doesn't consolidate power to a single entity. Microsoft has their own fork of Chromium, and if the possibility of building a browser business makes a comeback (thanks to any changes in Google), I'm sure many other companies will follow suit. Of course, this all depends on what actually happens to Google as a result of this lawsuit. So we'll have to wait and see.

ece 6y ago
Multiple rendering engines are probably a good thing in the long term for the web, and arguably losing other technology that Mozilla has worked on like Rust would be a big loss if Mozilla couldn't be as competitive as it has been. I'm not so sure weaponizing privacy against Google by breaking a good amount of websites embedding Youtube videos is really the best way to get market share though, so by that metric, Google losing would hopefully mean Mozilla could work just as well as other browsers by default and actually gain market share.
- treis 6y ago
  >Multiple rendering engines are probably a good thing in the long term for the web, I think people forget how terrible browser compatability used to be. You had to use jQuery and worry about what you could and couldn't use. Pax Chromana in comparison is a dream. It's possible that chrome stagnates like IE did. But I don't think so. Google is primarily a web company and so it's in their interest to keep innovating on the browser to make their websites better.
  - rurp 6y ago
    I agree that Google will keep the basic end user functionality working well once they have a full monopoly. But I expect them to accelerate their attacks on ad blocking and tracking protection. A browser that is great at rendering websites but makes it extremely difficult to block ads and trackers is probably Google's ideal goal.

m463 6y ago

Maybe another outlook is that firefox has been captured, put in a box and fed just enough to keep it alive. on mobile the complaint says: "The six “core” apps are Google Play, Chrome, Google’s search app, Gmail, Maps, and YouTube. Manufacturers must preinstall the core apps in a manner that prevents the consumer from deleting them, regardless of whether the consumer wants them. These preinstallation agreements cover almost all Android devices sold in the United States." So chrome must be installed, prominently, and is not able to be deleted by the device manufacturers. In absence of this, would device manufacturers install firefox and send them some support?

myko 6y ago
Isn't the same true of Safari? It seems most of the complaints leveled at Google around Android are as bad in the Apple ecosystem.
- sharkjacobs 6y ago
  It's the preinstalled default but you've been able to remove Safari from iOS for a couple years now.
  - myko 6y ago
    Not really, only iOS 14 allows the user to select a different browser as the default - and it does so in some severely limiting ways: - It isn't actually that browser rendering anything, it's Safari under the covers (though Chrome does replace the networking stack with its own) - Every attempt to launch a browser other than Safari requires an extra selection on the user's part to approve it. Every time.
- heavyset_go 6y ago
  Not only that, but other browser engines are not allowed on iOS at all. Even Firefox is just a skin over Safari's WebKit on iOS.
- scarface74 6y ago
  Yes, but what’s not true about Apple/Safari is that Apple hasn’t raised the ire of the administration for being “unfair to conservatives”. Don’t you find it a little strange that pro-business/anti-regulation conservatives are going after “big business”?

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

ocdtrekkie 6y ago

Nothing is "often missed" about this. Mozilla has already written a blog post asking the court not to go after Google on this issue because it might hurt them. I am sure Google is all too happy to promote this angle, suggesting we should protect Chrome out of some misguided attempt to protect Firefox. If Google is stripped of Chrome or prohibited from using various tactics to promote Chrome over alternatives, Firefox will benefit, massively. Revenue may drop in the short term, so it may not look great for Mozilla-the-company, but Firefox usage will soar, and revenue-generating strategies will follow thereafter. It's sad Mozilla is hurting themselves here by coming to Google's defense, but that's how whipped Google has them right now.

ksec 6y ago

I think this could actually be one of the best outcome for Google. Google save $10B per year paying to Apple for the default search engine spot. User continue to use Google anyway as 98% of user simply dont go anywhere else. Their Chrome remain dominant and Firefox is dead. The only possibility this is actually worst would be the incentive of Apple creating its own Search Engine. Likely without porn or whatever content they deem unfit and enter Web Curation. Of course they would be highly unlikely given the current Anti-Trust issues.