4 ms·
> 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 ot
by 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 agoBut the fact that Mozilla continue to require Google's money to survive means that not enough people would make the same choice.
- bink 4y agoPerhaps, 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 agoWhile 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.