6 ms·

Just remember that Mozilla gets over 90% of its revenue from Google.

fabrice_d 5y ago
Also remember that at the same time Google did everything they could to make sure Firefox market share would be as low as possible. See https://twitter.com/johnath/status/1116871231792455686 https://twitter.com/johnath/status/1116871231792455686 and the billions spent in Chrome marketing, bundling with other software, and the free ads on Google properties.
tester756 5y ago
so what? ofc Google wants FF to be *viable*, but not good.
- foxpurple 5y ago
  Probably for legal reasons. Firefox exists so chrome is not a monopoly and stricter government action is not taken. Google doesn’t give money to control Firefox, they just need it to exist.
  - tester756 5y ago
    yea, that's what I meant :P
40four 5y ago
That doesn’t mean anything. It’s a tired attack that gets repeated over and over, but has nothing to do with the values and goals Mozilla/ Firefox represent.
- berniemadoff69 5y ago
  I think if I learned Greenpeace was single-handedly funded by Exxon, my reaction wouldn't be to say 'that doesnt mean anything'
  - ric2b 5y ago
    It can mean many things, depending on their actions. If they were just taking Exxon's money to do good things and Exxon thought it was a great PR move but still completely failed at building a good image that would be a massive win for Greenpeace in my view.
  - pfundstein 5y ago
    So what do you think it means then?
    - TheCycoONE 5y ago
      Not OP, but my understanding is that the browsers 'compete' much less than the public thinks they do. The developers attend conferences together, they co-fund initiatives like the MDN, they ultimately collaborate on a common spec. Google wins as long as people are encouraged to spend more of their time online. Firefox needs market share to sell homepage defaults. Apple wins as long as desktop and mobile capabilities converge so that they can sell iPhones but remains hard to monetize so they can sell apps. No one wins if antitrust regulation gets involved.
  - 40four 5y ago
    I think this a logic fallacy. It’s a false/ incomplete comparison. Mozilla is not an advertising company. They have no incentive to track users or invade privacy. Their whole ethos as a company is pro-privacy obviously. Yes, they take take money from Google to make them the default search engine on a fresh Firefox install. They are a big company with lots of employees (less as of recently) that need to be paid, and they don’t really have any products that generate large amount of income. Seems like a small price to pay if you ask me. I’ve never heard anyone who throws out the ‘Mozilla takes Google money’ criticism back it up with why that somehow compromises Firefox as a browser.
    - atatatat 5y ago
      > they take take money from Google to make them the default search engine on a fresh Firefox install. Heh, no. They take money from Google to get paid and also help Google avoid antitrust suits.
exceptione 5y ago
This tells you how dire the situation is at this moment. If you would view the open web as an ecosystem, we might be on the verge of a total collapse of it. Maybe we should create and broadcast documentaries about it, think BBC Earth style, and watch ourselves and the governments ignore the lessons of it.
SonnyTark 5y ago
So if I was a dominating business, and you're an opensource more ethical solution, all I need to do is make a generous donation to you and publicize that I did, then people like you will say what you just said in every public comparative discussion to try to lower the value of my competitor for me. Investment well spent I say.
- ByThyGrace 5y ago
  Don't you just love and hate game theory?
dralley 5y ago
Just remember that HN loves to criticize every external revenue source they have. Pocket, Mozilla VPN, etc. "why don't they just focus on the browser".
- pseudalopex 5y ago
  People would criticize Pocket less if it lived up to Mozilla's principles of privacy and open source. Or if Mozilla hadn't tried to conceal it was about revenue.
atatatat 5y ago
Exactly. Come back when your "team" is not taking hundreds of millions to put out a consistently less-secure browser based on an engine nobody backs. If anyone wants the free internet, fork Chromium and at least don't start a mile behind when security is what's at stake — like Microsoft did.

Also remember that at the same time Google did everything they could to make sure Firefox market share would be as low as possible. See https://twitter.com/johnath/status/1116871231792455686 https://twitter.com/johnath/status/1116871231792455686 and the billions spent in Chrome marketing, bundling with other software, and the free ads on Google properties.

tester756 5y ago

so what? ofc Google wants FF to be *viable*, but not good.

foxpurple 5y ago
Probably for legal reasons. Firefox exists so chrome is not a monopoly and stricter government action is not taken. Google doesn’t give money to control Firefox, they just need it to exist.
- tester756 5y ago
  yea, that's what I meant :P

40four 5y ago

That doesn’t mean anything. It’s a tired attack that gets repeated over and over, but has nothing to do with the values and goals Mozilla/ Firefox represent.

berniemadoff69 5y ago
I think if I learned Greenpeace was single-handedly funded by Exxon, my reaction wouldn't be to say 'that doesnt mean anything'
- ric2b 5y ago
  It can mean many things, depending on their actions. If they were just taking Exxon's money to do good things and Exxon thought it was a great PR move but still completely failed at building a good image that would be a massive win for Greenpeace in my view.
- pfundstein 5y ago
  So what do you think it means then?
  - TheCycoONE 5y ago
    Not OP, but my understanding is that the browsers 'compete' much less than the public thinks they do. The developers attend conferences together, they co-fund initiatives like the MDN, they ultimately collaborate on a common spec. Google wins as long as people are encouraged to spend more of their time online. Firefox needs market share to sell homepage defaults. Apple wins as long as desktop and mobile capabilities converge so that they can sell iPhones but remains hard to monetize so they can sell apps. No one wins if antitrust regulation gets involved.
- 40four 5y ago
  I think this a logic fallacy. It’s a false/ incomplete comparison. Mozilla is not an advertising company. They have no incentive to track users or invade privacy. Their whole ethos as a company is pro-privacy obviously. Yes, they take take money from Google to make them the default search engine on a fresh Firefox install. They are a big company with lots of employees (less as of recently) that need to be paid, and they don’t really have any products that generate large amount of income. Seems like a small price to pay if you ask me. I’ve never heard anyone who throws out the ‘Mozilla takes Google money’ criticism back it up with why that somehow compromises Firefox as a browser.
  - atatatat 5y ago
    > they take take money from Google to make them the default search engine on a fresh Firefox install. Heh, no. They take money from Google to get paid and also help Google avoid antitrust suits.

exceptione 5y ago

This tells you how dire the situation is at this moment. If you would view the open web as an ecosystem, we might be on the verge of a total collapse of it. Maybe we should create and broadcast documentaries about it, think BBC Earth style, and watch ourselves and the governments ignore the lessons of it.

SonnyTark 5y ago

So if I was a dominating business, and you're an opensource more ethical solution, all I need to do is make a generous donation to you and publicize that I did, then people like you will say what you just said in every public comparative discussion to try to lower the value of my competitor for me. Investment well spent I say.

ByThyGrace 5y ago
Don't you just love and hate game theory?

dralley 5y ago

Just remember that HN loves to criticize every external revenue source they have. Pocket, Mozilla VPN, etc. "why don't they just focus on the browser".

pseudalopex 5y ago
People would criticize Pocket less if it lived up to Mozilla's principles of privacy and open source. Or if Mozilla hadn't tried to conceal it was about revenue.

atatatat 5y ago

Exactly. Come back when your "team" is not taking hundreds of millions to put out a consistently less-secure browser based on an engine nobody backs. If anyone wants the free internet, fork Chromium and at least don't start a mile behind when security is what's at stake — like Microsoft did.