9 ms·

I would've thought this was obvious. Google didn't just pay $300 to stop Firefox from using Bing, although I'm sure that played a big role, too, but I believe t

I would've thought this was obvious. Google didn't just pay $300 to stop Firefox from using Bing, although I'm sure that played a big role, too, but I believe the reason Mozilla got $300 million was because they knew how to negotiate the price up. I don't think Mozilla really wanted to change to Bing. Also, Google is a lot better off having an ally in Mozilla. Not so much because they don't want Bing to get a lot of users, but because together with Mozilla they have over 50% of the browser market share, and since the whole total of that market share includes very modern browser versions(Chrome always on latest version, Firefox not too far behind with the old ones), Google and Mozilla can pretty much dictate where the web is going now. I wouldn't be surprised if for those $300 million they also got Mozilla to accept using Native Client in Firefox later on. I think this part of the partnership matters more than just stopping Bing from becoming the default search on Firefox.

khuey 15y ago
Mozilla's decisions on what technologies to support and what to oppose are not influenced by our business arrangements.
- jedberg 15y ago
  Not officially, no, but I'm sure if google goes to mozilla and says, "hey, we think you guys should support technology X, it's really great" I'm sure you'd listen and probably get a good nudge from the higher ups that, "hey maybe we should listen to those google people".
  - magicalist 15y ago
    Think about who the higher ups at Mozilla are. Brendan Eich is CTO, for instance, and you can see exactly what he thinks about supporting NaCl right now if you look at his recent posts :)
  - khuey 15y ago
    We might prioritize things based on input from Google (we tend to listen to things Google's web properties have to say since they run some of the biggest websites on the planet). This is usually a collaboration between the technical folks at both organizations to drive things that are best for the web. We're not going to implement things that we think are bad for the web just because Google says so. You can look around to see what Brendan Eich (CTO of Mozilla, a higher up by any definition) has to say about Dart and NaCl. Google's money doesn't buy our cooperation on these kinds of issues (and it's worth noting that we work with plenty of people who aren't paying us money, such as Facebook, the same way that we work with Google).
  - potch 15y ago
    That notion could not be more wrong.
  - bzbarsky 15y ago
    You mean just like happened with WebSQL and Google's attempts to push back on the Do Not Track header?
  - groby_b 15y ago
    I suggest you read any of the w3c/whatwg mailing lists where Mozilla and Google folk discuss issues. I don't think you can accuse Mozilla of caving in to Google demands at all :) Which, while annoying for you if you happen to want to push one of those things, is a fantastic thing for the Web. We all simply want to build a better web - and out of the disagreements, we get clarity how to do that.
azakai 15y ago
> I wouldn't be surprised if for those $300 million they also got Mozilla to accept using Native Client in Firefox later on. If you're suggesting that Mozilla would do something bad for the web for money, then I think you couldn't be more wrong. Mozilla is a nonprofit exactly for this reason. (Worth noting that the for-profit Opera opposes Native Client too - it isn't just nonprofits that have values.)
- tomjen3 15y ago
  Is that sarcasm? Native client is one of the best things that will ever happen to the web since jQuery made it possible to write cross-browser javascript. Imagine how much easier it will be in the future when ever very intensive programs can be written, and run, on the web.
  - prodigal_erik 15y ago
    That future is better known as client/server, and it's a huge step backwards. There was only one client that worked at all, it was terrible, and you couldn't fix it. No, every time an author imposes fixed client behavior rather than writing publically addressible content which can be rendered and repurposed in many ways, the world-wide web dies a little more.
    - tomjen3 15y ago
      I seem to be somewhat dense today, do you mind explaining to me what harm will come if the next IDE to a language I use is implemented in native client and runs in a browser and wouldn't come if it was written in java and ran on my desktop? (and therefore was only available when my laptop was, etc) or for that matter the photoshop or some computer game.
      - prodigal_erik 15y ago
        My concern is for content increasingly being siloed within an app that only permits its use in ways encouraged by the author. An IDE is a decent counter-example, since nothing like it would have been feasible before js apps began displacing the web. But it's more and more unlikely that any app other than that IDE will be able to access your source code, simply because it's easier not to bother supporting a stable and documented API when the maintainer's favored client can be revved at a moment's notice.
redthrowaway 15y ago
s/300 ^[million]/300M I think...

khuey 15y ago

Mozilla's decisions on what technologies to support and what to oppose are not influenced by our business arrangements.

jedberg 15y ago
Not officially, no, but I'm sure if google goes to mozilla and says, "hey, we think you guys should support technology X, it's really great" I'm sure you'd listen and probably get a good nudge from the higher ups that, "hey maybe we should listen to those google people".
- magicalist 15y ago
  Think about who the higher ups at Mozilla are. Brendan Eich is CTO, for instance, and you can see exactly what he thinks about supporting NaCl right now if you look at his recent posts :)
- khuey 15y ago
  We might prioritize things based on input from Google (we tend to listen to things Google's web properties have to say since they run some of the biggest websites on the planet). This is usually a collaboration between the technical folks at both organizations to drive things that are best for the web. We're not going to implement things that we think are bad for the web just because Google says so. You can look around to see what Brendan Eich (CTO of Mozilla, a higher up by any definition) has to say about Dart and NaCl. Google's money doesn't buy our cooperation on these kinds of issues (and it's worth noting that we work with plenty of people who aren't paying us money, such as Facebook, the same way that we work with Google).
- potch 15y ago
  That notion could not be more wrong.
- bzbarsky 15y ago
  You mean just like happened with WebSQL and Google's attempts to push back on the Do Not Track header?
- groby_b 15y ago
  I suggest you read any of the w3c/whatwg mailing lists where Mozilla and Google folk discuss issues. I don't think you can accuse Mozilla of caving in to Google demands at all :) Which, while annoying for you if you happen to want to push one of those things, is a fantastic thing for the Web. We all simply want to build a better web - and out of the disagreements, we get clarity how to do that.

azakai 15y ago

> I wouldn't be surprised if for those $300 million they also got Mozilla to accept using Native Client in Firefox later on. If you're suggesting that Mozilla would do something bad for the web for money, then I think you couldn't be more wrong. Mozilla is a nonprofit exactly for this reason. (Worth noting that the for-profit Opera opposes Native Client too - it isn't just nonprofits that have values.)

tomjen3 15y ago
Is that sarcasm? Native client is one of the best things that will ever happen to the web since jQuery made it possible to write cross-browser javascript. Imagine how much easier it will be in the future when ever very intensive programs can be written, and run, on the web.
- prodigal_erik 15y ago
  That future is better known as client/server, and it's a huge step backwards. There was only one client that worked at all, it was terrible, and you couldn't fix it. No, every time an author imposes fixed client behavior rather than writing publically addressible content which can be rendered and repurposed in many ways, the world-wide web dies a little more.
  - tomjen3 15y ago
    I seem to be somewhat dense today, do you mind explaining to me what harm will come if the next IDE to a language I use is implemented in native client and runs in a browser and wouldn't come if it was written in java and ran on my desktop? (and therefore was only available when my laptop was, etc) or for that matter the photoshop or some computer game.
    - prodigal_erik 15y ago
      My concern is for content increasingly being siloed within an app that only permits its use in ways encouraged by the author. An IDE is a decent counter-example, since nothing like it would have been feasible before js apps began displacing the web. But it's more and more unlikely that any app other than that IDE will be able to access your source code, simply because it's easier not to bother supporting a stable and documented API when the maintainer's favored client can be revved at a moment's notice.

redthrowaway 15y ago

s/300 ^[million]/300M I think...