3 ms·

> If browsers were commodity items, we'd see more innovation and participation than we do now commodity != competitive If anything the low margin of a commodi

by adolph 4y ago

> If browsers were commodity items, we'd see more innovation and participation than we do now commodity != competitive If anything the low margin of a commodity market freezes innovation and participation. If anything the period leading up to monopoly is the best for innovation and participation. The monopoly company takes its winnings for a time and then loses its shine as it matures and a new paradigm takes over. Like you said, Mozilla has an unhealthy revenue model from the cartel. If anything they act as sock puppet competition for Google, a subsidiary save in name out of monopsony. Still, in 2020, Mozilla Corporation’s revenue was $466 million from its search partnerships (largely driven by its search deal with Google), subscriptions and advertising revenue. https://techcrunch.com/2021/12/13/mozilla-expects-to-generate-more-than-500m-in-revenue-this-year/ https://techcrunch.com/2021/12/13/mozilla-expects-to-generat...

tannhaeuser 4y ago
Hmm I think you're right wrt commodity markets and lack of incentives for innovation. What I meant was that if the specs for the "web stack" would set any kind of reasonable target for implementation, then we could've seen new browser projects, especially F/OSS user and privacy-focussed ones; but they don't, making them mere instruments for pulling up the ladder. Despite of this, folks cheer at eg bits of inessential yet complex CSS additions and bloating JavaScript the language with inessential features.
- adolph 4y ago
  What is the scope of what you call the "web stack?" Is DNS, TLS, http, html, css, DOM, ECMA, not enough of a standard/target already? I think the challenge for F/OSS user and privacy-focussed browsers is an environment where a living can't be made with it through licensing/subscriptions. Pureblood Gnu is fine for folks with academic sinecures, but without cash, the bazaar is bare. Brave is making an effort as is the Neeva search engine, probably others too. https://neeva.com/index https://neeva.com/index
  - tannhaeuser 4y ago
    > Is DNS, TLS, http, html, css, DOM, ECMA, not enough of a standard/target already? It is, but as long as we allow a single party to grossly bloat HTML, http and DNS (ie DoH, http/3) plus driving CSS ad absurdum over the course of 25 years, not to speak of JS APIs, there's not even a theoretical chance of new browsers emerging, since by the time those efforts can be completed, they're obsolete. And Mozilla is complicit in this, yet want to lecture us about the open web and stuff.

by adolph 4y ago

tannhaeuser 4y ago

Hmm I think you're right wrt commodity markets and lack of incentives for innovation. What I meant was that if the specs for the "web stack" would set any kind of reasonable target for implementation, then we could've seen new browser projects, especially F/OSS user and privacy-focussed ones; but they don't, making them mere instruments for pulling up the ladder. Despite of this, folks cheer at eg bits of inessential yet complex CSS additions and bloating JavaScript the language with inessential features.

adolph 4y ago
What is the scope of what you call the "web stack?" Is DNS, TLS, http, html, css, DOM, ECMA, not enough of a standard/target already? I think the challenge for F/OSS user and privacy-focussed browsers is an environment where a living can't be made with it through licensing/subscriptions. Pureblood Gnu is fine for folks with academic sinecures, but without cash, the bazaar is bare. Brave is making an effort as is the Neeva search engine, probably others too. https://neeva.com/index https://neeva.com/index
- tannhaeuser 4y ago
  > Is DNS, TLS, http, html, css, DOM, ECMA, not enough of a standard/target already? It is, but as long as we allow a single party to grossly bloat HTML, http and DNS (ie DoH, http/3) plus driving CSS ad absurdum over the course of 25 years, not to speak of JS APIs, there's not even a theoretical chance of new browsers emerging, since by the time those efforts can be completed, they're obsolete. And Mozilla is complicit in this, yet want to lecture us about the open web and stuff.