4 ms·

Isn’t receiving hundreds of millions a year a sustainable business? I did not realize currency trade was constrained to your sensibilities; my bad. Private pro

Isn’t receiving hundreds of millions a year a sustainable business? I did not realize currency trade was constrained to your sensibilities; my bad. Private property, free markets! Until two parties enter into an arrangement then you demand they open themselves to business with others?

acoard 4y ago
> Isn’t receiving hundreds of millions a year a sustainable business? Right, but the argument goes that the only reason Google pays Mozilla so much is to prop up the competition. Google may have calculated that it would be preferable to pay the hundreds of millions, rather than have Firefox die just leaving Chrome/Safari. Thus, it's not really a sustainable business, but rather being the lucky benefactor of some scheme. Their value is only in being 'the other guy', not in actually creating a valuable product for consumers. I wouldn't call that a sustainable business.
- eminence32 4y ago
  > Their value is only in being 'the other guy', not in actually creating a valuable product for consumers Mozilla's value to Google might be only being "the other guy", but Mozilla is valuable to me (a consumer) because they are producing a Firefox, which is a product I consider valuable. Obviously I would prefer that Mozilla can find a self-sustainable business model to support Firefox development. But if I had to choose between "Mozilla doesn't exist" and "Mozilla exists only because it gets money from Google", then I choose the latter.
  - _aavaa_ 4y ago
    But the fact that Mozilla continue to require Google's money to survive means that not enough people would make the same choice.
    - bink 4y ago
      Perhaps, but also consider that they are only in this position because Google uses their search monopoly to fund development of a free alternative... much like Microsoft used their desktop OS monopoly to do the same in the 90s.
    - jorams 4y ago
      While I don't think user payments would be enough to fund development, I don't think "they need Google's money" is evidence for it. It's not like paying for Firefox is currently an option. Firefox is developed by the Mozilla Corporation. The closest thing to paying for Firefox is probably donating to the Mozilla Foundation, but that money is used for education and advocacy.
      - _aavaa_ 4y ago
        > It's not like paying for Firefox is currently an option. That's a choice made by the Mozilla Corporation, not a technical impossibility.
- Beltalowda 4y ago
  How are you supposed to build a "sustainable business" if you're expected to offer your product for free because your competitors are pouring money from other businesses in to it to offer it for free? Google Chrome is not a "sustainable business" either; it just gets funded by Google's other business activities (mainly Google ads). Arguably, Safari is the only one that people (indirectly) pay for when they purchase an Apple device. > Their value is only in being 'the other guy', not in actually creating a valuable product for consumers. I use Firefox purely because I feel it works better than Chrome.
- evr1isnxprt 4y ago
  The majority of the software industry is just lucky benefactors who “got there first”. Google isn’t a sustainable business without paying enormous sums to remain in business, without a whole lot of political concessions that have been made to hype USian markets. What is and isn’t a sustainable business is relative to how frequently you have been told what is and isn’t sustainable business.
  - signatoremo 4y ago
    > The majority of the software industry is just lucky benefactors who “got there first”. This is not true. There are so many examples of 2nd mover who became the dominant force, such as Zoom, Photoshop, MS Office, IntelliJ. To attribute a success product purely to luck is also intellectually lazy. There are often so many factors, in many cases conflicting, that change of course of a product. It is impossible to say luck is the main factor, although it is usually a factor.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
ClumsyPilot 4y ago
Imagine you pissoff Jeff Bezos, sould it be cool if he pays your employer to fire you, your landlord to get rid of you, hires a private detective to dig up dirt on you and offers every future employer money just to ruin your carreer? Thats what free market allows.
- evr1isnxprt 4y ago
  Oh I wasn’t advocating for free markets. I think it’s a ridiculous “phrase of power” spoken tradition gibberish. I’m highlighting social hypocrisy. Google isn’t sustainable without policy concessions; the market value gibberish is added onto something that is propped up by government looking the other way to sell the idea to people who don’t understand finance is an ephemeral con game. IMO “big software products and services” are only big business because it’s also profitable to politicians insider trading schemes. Open source and for hire software workers and ridding ourselves of big corp protectionism provisions in law and policy would be great. Very little of this distributed ledger and accounting nonsense has value to the average worker; their day to day is being a worker. Make the minority of “successes” compete on an open labor market instead of giving Bezos a pass. Having 25 people willing to chuck $50k each at my dreams. Make him a gig worker too.

acoard 4y ago

> Isn’t receiving hundreds of millions a year a sustainable business? Right, but the argument goes that the only reason Google pays Mozilla so much is to prop up the competition. Google may have calculated that it would be preferable to pay the hundreds of millions, rather than have Firefox die just leaving Chrome/Safari. Thus, it's not really a sustainable business, but rather being the lucky benefactor of some scheme. Their value is only in being 'the other guy', not in actually creating a valuable product for consumers. I wouldn't call that a sustainable business.

eminence32 4y ago
> Their value is only in being 'the other guy', not in actually creating a valuable product for consumers Mozilla's value to Google might be only being "the other guy", but Mozilla is valuable to me (a consumer) because they are producing a Firefox, which is a product I consider valuable. Obviously I would prefer that Mozilla can find a self-sustainable business model to support Firefox development. But if I had to choose between "Mozilla doesn't exist" and "Mozilla exists only because it gets money from Google", then I choose the latter.
- _aavaa_ 4y ago
  But the fact that Mozilla continue to require Google's money to survive means that not enough people would make the same choice.
  - bink 4y ago
    Perhaps, but also consider that they are only in this position because Google uses their search monopoly to fund development of a free alternative... much like Microsoft used their desktop OS monopoly to do the same in the 90s.
  - jorams 4y ago
    While I don't think user payments would be enough to fund development, I don't think "they need Google's money" is evidence for it. It's not like paying for Firefox is currently an option. Firefox is developed by the Mozilla Corporation. The closest thing to paying for Firefox is probably donating to the Mozilla Foundation, but that money is used for education and advocacy.
    - _aavaa_ 4y ago
      > It's not like paying for Firefox is currently an option. That's a choice made by the Mozilla Corporation, not a technical impossibility.
Beltalowda 4y ago
How are you supposed to build a "sustainable business" if you're expected to offer your product for free because your competitors are pouring money from other businesses in to it to offer it for free? Google Chrome is not a "sustainable business" either; it just gets funded by Google's other business activities (mainly Google ads). Arguably, Safari is the only one that people (indirectly) pay for when they purchase an Apple device. > Their value is only in being 'the other guy', not in actually creating a valuable product for consumers. I use Firefox purely because I feel it works better than Chrome.
evr1isnxprt 4y ago
The majority of the software industry is just lucky benefactors who “got there first”. Google isn’t a sustainable business without paying enormous sums to remain in business, without a whole lot of political concessions that have been made to hype USian markets. What is and isn’t a sustainable business is relative to how frequently you have been told what is and isn’t sustainable business.
- signatoremo 4y ago
  > The majority of the software industry is just lucky benefactors who “got there first”. This is not true. There are so many examples of 2nd mover who became the dominant force, such as Zoom, Photoshop, MS Office, IntelliJ. To attribute a success product purely to luck is also intellectually lazy. There are often so many factors, in many cases conflicting, that change of course of a product. It is impossible to say luck is the main factor, although it is usually a factor.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]

ClumsyPilot 4y ago

Imagine you pissoff Jeff Bezos, sould it be cool if he pays your employer to fire you, your landlord to get rid of you, hires a private detective to dig up dirt on you and offers every future employer money just to ruin your carreer? Thats what free market allows.

evr1isnxprt 4y ago
Oh I wasn’t advocating for free markets. I think it’s a ridiculous “phrase of power” spoken tradition gibberish. I’m highlighting social hypocrisy. Google isn’t sustainable without policy concessions; the market value gibberish is added onto something that is propped up by government looking the other way to sell the idea to people who don’t understand finance is an ephemeral con game. IMO “big software products and services” are only big business because it’s also profitable to politicians insider trading schemes. Open source and for hire software workers and ridding ourselves of big corp protectionism provisions in law and policy would be great. Very little of this distributed ledger and accounting nonsense has value to the average worker; their day to day is being a worker. Make the minority of “successes” compete on an open labor market instead of giving Bezos a pass. Having 25 people willing to chuck $50k each at my dreams. Make him a gig worker too.