4 ms·

> Not exactly 'independent' if >85% of all revenues is directly from Google in which when that funding was threatened by them, Mozilla caved and let go most of

by sfink 5y ago

> Not exactly 'independent' if >85% of all revenues is directly from Google in which when that funding was threatened by them, Mozilla caved and let go most of its staff and rushed to get that contract renewed. That's not at all what happened. Source? > They can't live without the money from their worst competitor. Probably true. We could switch to a different search engine (again), but I'd imagine it wouldn't be pretty. > I don't even think Mozilla takes itself seriously to be 'independent' or free from Google's money which that was promised by the Mozilla CEO 14 years ago. False. (Source: I work for Mozilla.) I won't attempt a further argument here; it doesn't seem worth the attempt. I'll just say that in my daily experience, it's very very hard to detect any "evil Google overlord influence". > So that was complete lies from them, wasn't it? Everyone knows they don't care about privacy at this point. ... I think you might be reading too much into specific complaints. I agree that you can construct a narrative out of a bunch of events that makes Mozilla look bad. Or, you know, you could construct a different narrative. I guess people are drawn to what they want to believe.

rvz 5y ago
> That's not at all what happened. Source? So this is not true, and it is all lies? [0] So Mozilla can survive without Google's money and be free from the demand to be the default search engine by their own competitor? That isn't taking privacy seriously is it? Either way, Google seems to have Mozilla on life support and Mozilla will do anything to keep itself alive whilst falsely preaching their mission on 'privacy'. What else are they hiding? > False. (Source: I work for Mozilla.) I won't attempt a further argument here; it doesn't seem worth the attempt. It is true. Don't bother denying or arguing it because everyone knows it's true. [2] Even from the title in 2007: > "Mozilla can live without Google's Money, Baker says" > "Mozilla Corp. will walk away from Google Inc. and the millions it collects from the search company each year, if that's what it takes to stay independent, the open-source developer's CEO promised" I expect Mozilla employees to continuously deny it. Even when 14 years later, Mozilla still has no significant revenue sources or any plans on being independent and still wants to be heavily reliant on Google's money despite promising to 'walk away' a decade ago. They know that they cannot live without Google's money and call itself 'independent' or 'privacy-first'. There is no significant revenue source other than Google is there? [0] https://www.forbes.com/sites/barrycollins/2020/08/13/mozilla-extends-critical-firefox-search-deal-with-google/#7dc07d8b6ea2 https://www.forbes.com/sites/barrycollins/2020/08/13/mozilla... [1] https://www.zdnet.com/article/mozilla-lays-off-250-employees-while-it-refocuses-on-commercial-products/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/mozilla-lays-off-250-employees... [2] https://web.archive.org/web/20120105090543/https://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9044160/Mozilla_can_live_without_Google_s_money_Baker_says_ https://web.archive.org/web/20120105090543/https://www.compu...
- sfink 5y ago
  > > That's not at all what happened. Source? > So this is not true, and it is all lies? [0] Everything in that article sounds correct to me. > So Mozilla can survive without Google's money and be free from the demand to be the default search engine by their own competitor? That isn't taking privacy seriously is it? Ah, so that's the operative definition of privacy you're using. Yes, Mozilla sends people to Google's search engine, and that search engine is at least capable of tracking users (and many Google properties definitely are tracking users, intensively.) But if you visit www.google.com with any browser, the same thing happens. Yes, it would be better for privacy to default to DuckDuckGo, for example. (That's what my browser is set to.) Mozilla could switch to DDG as its default, but then it would be paid far less and would not be able to support anywhere close to the current level of development. Or they could continue to take Google's money to compete with Google. If Google is secretly in full control of Firefox's direction, then that would be better. But given my personal experience, that is nowhere even close to being the case, and so it's better that Firefox survives. > Either way, Google seems to have Mozilla on life support and Mozilla will do anything to keep itself alive whilst falsely preaching their mission on 'privacy'. What else are they hiding? Mozilla is working hard on privacy. If having google.com as the default search engine invalidates that in your mind, then I have no argument to give. > > "Mozilla Corp. will walk away from Google Inc. and the millions it collects from the search company each year, if that's what it takes to stay independent, the open-source developer's CEO promised" > I expect Mozilla employees to continuously deny it. Even when 14 years later, Mozilla still has no significant revenue sources or any plans on being independent and still wants to be heavily reliant on Google's money despite promising to 'walk away' a decade ago. If that's what it takes to stay independent. Mozilla is independent. Therefore, no need to walk away. It's not a comfortable independence, and Mozilla is actively working on diversifying revenue. I'm sure they could be doing better. I'm not sure random internet commenters could do better, no matter their level of confidence. Taking Google's money is not identical to being "an arm of Google", as Baker put it in that article you quoted. I guess that's the fundamental disagreement here?

by sfink 5y ago

rvz 5y ago

> That's not at all what happened. Source? So this is not true, and it is all lies? [0] So Mozilla can survive without Google's money and be free from the demand to be the default search engine by their own competitor? That isn't taking privacy seriously is it? Either way, Google seems to have Mozilla on life support and Mozilla will do anything to keep itself alive whilst falsely preaching their mission on 'privacy'. What else are they hiding? > False. (Source: I work for Mozilla.) I won't attempt a further argument here; it doesn't seem worth the attempt. It is true. Don't bother denying or arguing it because everyone knows it's true. [2] Even from the title in 2007: > "Mozilla can live without Google's Money, Baker says" > "Mozilla Corp. will walk away from Google Inc. and the millions it collects from the search company each year, if that's what it takes to stay independent, the open-source developer's CEO promised" I expect Mozilla employees to continuously deny it. Even when 14 years later, Mozilla still has no significant revenue sources or any plans on being independent and still wants to be heavily reliant on Google's money despite promising to 'walk away' a decade ago. They know that they cannot live without Google's money and call itself 'independent' or 'privacy-first'. There is no significant revenue source other than Google is there? [0] https://www.forbes.com/sites/barrycollins/2020/08/13/mozilla-extends-critical-firefox-search-deal-with-google/#7dc07d8b6ea2 https://www.forbes.com/sites/barrycollins/2020/08/13/mozilla... [1] https://www.zdnet.com/article/mozilla-lays-off-250-employees-while-it-refocuses-on-commercial-products/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/mozilla-lays-off-250-employees... [2] https://web.archive.org/web/20120105090543/https://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9044160/Mozilla_can_live_without_Google_s_money_Baker_says_ https://web.archive.org/web/20120105090543/https://www.compu...

sfink 5y ago
> > That's not at all what happened. Source? > So this is not true, and it is all lies? [0] Everything in that article sounds correct to me. > So Mozilla can survive without Google's money and be free from the demand to be the default search engine by their own competitor? That isn't taking privacy seriously is it? Ah, so that's the operative definition of privacy you're using. Yes, Mozilla sends people to Google's search engine, and that search engine is at least capable of tracking users (and many Google properties definitely are tracking users, intensively.) But if you visit www.google.com with any browser, the same thing happens. Yes, it would be better for privacy to default to DuckDuckGo, for example. (That's what my browser is set to.) Mozilla could switch to DDG as its default, but then it would be paid far less and would not be able to support anywhere close to the current level of development. Or they could continue to take Google's money to compete with Google. If Google is secretly in full control of Firefox's direction, then that would be better. But given my personal experience, that is nowhere even close to being the case, and so it's better that Firefox survives. > Either way, Google seems to have Mozilla on life support and Mozilla will do anything to keep itself alive whilst falsely preaching their mission on 'privacy'. What else are they hiding? Mozilla is working hard on privacy. If having google.com as the default search engine invalidates that in your mind, then I have no argument to give. > > "Mozilla Corp. will walk away from Google Inc. and the millions it collects from the search company each year, if that's what it takes to stay independent, the open-source developer's CEO promised" > I expect Mozilla employees to continuously deny it. Even when 14 years later, Mozilla still has no significant revenue sources or any plans on being independent and still wants to be heavily reliant on Google's money despite promising to 'walk away' a decade ago. If that's what it takes to stay independent. Mozilla is independent. Therefore, no need to walk away. It's not a comfortable independence, and Mozilla is actively working on diversifying revenue. I'm sure they could be doing better. I'm not sure random internet commenters could do better, no matter their level of confidence. Taking Google's money is not identical to being "an arm of Google", as Baker put it in that article you quoted. I guess that's the fundamental disagreement here?