4 ms·

Google doesn't pay Mozilla's bills as a donation, they pay for traffic because they make money from it. Why does this make Mozilla powerless? Was Google success

by yoavm 3y ago

Google doesn't pay Mozilla's bills as a donation, they pay for traffic because they make money from it. Why does this make Mozilla powerless? Was Google successful, for example, in making Firefox not support all the things is does that allow for better Ads blocking? https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-Origin-works-best-on-Firefox https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-Origin-works-b...

3LazTjBv-f 3y ago
At this point in time we can second guess the "they pay for traffic". AFAIK Firefox market share dropped significantly but Google payment stayed mostly the same. Maybe it is now more about not facing antitrust scrutiny, just like when Microsoft "invested" in Apple? And speaking of Microsoft - I am using Thunderbird 102.6.1, since any newer version doesn't work for me with Outlook365 - MS OAuth implementation requires user agent to be accepted by some "administrator". Looks like great example of what we can expect from Google, even if that Web Integrity get delayed for few years. Mozilla really is powerless - either they cave in, like with video DRM - or their browser won't be useful as daily driver
- yoavm 3y ago
  > Maybe it is now more about not facing antitrust scrutiny, just like when Microsoft "invested" in Apple? Maybe, but what does that change? It might even be a stronger lever to pull than "we will stop sending you traffic". My point is that Google isn't donating money to Mozilla because it's nice, it pays for something (traffic / legal protection / whatever). I just don't see how the parent idea that Mozilla most comply with Google because Google "pays their bills" holds.
Ygg2 3y ago
> Was Google successful, for example, in making Firefox not support all the things is does that allow for better Ads blocking? They're working on it see Manifest v3.
- yoavm 3y ago
  You mean this? https://www.theverge.com/2023/1/17/23559234/firefox-manifest-v3-content-ad-blocker https://www.theverge.com/2023/1/17/23559234/firefox-manifest... https://adguard.com/en/blog/firefox-manifestv3-chrome-adblocking.html https://adguard.com/en/blog/firefox-manifestv3-chrome-adbloc... https://www.ghacks.net/2022/09/24/mozilla-reaffirms-that-firefox-will-continue-to-support-current-content-blockers/ https://www.ghacks.net/2022/09/24/mozilla-reaffirms-that-fir...
jeroenhd 3y ago
Mozilla relented when EME made its way into browsers. Important websites didn't work on Firefox and users were unhappy. If the same happens now with remote attestation (and I can totally see that happening on streaming websites), Mozilla will have to risk losing even more of their small user base or relent and make some version of the protocol.
account42 3y ago
Let's be real: If Firefox changed the default search engine it probably wouldn't even cause a blip to Google's traffic. The real reason Google pays Mozilla is probably closer to "controlled opposition" or "antitrust shield".
- yoavm 3y ago
  As I replied to one of the other comments - why does it matter? So let's say they're paying as an anti-trust shield. Does that make it a donation? Does that mean the Mozilla can't do things Google doesn't like?

by yoavm 3y ago

3LazTjBv-f 3y ago

At this point in time we can second guess the "they pay for traffic". AFAIK Firefox market share dropped significantly but Google payment stayed mostly the same. Maybe it is now more about not facing antitrust scrutiny, just like when Microsoft "invested" in Apple? And speaking of Microsoft - I am using Thunderbird 102.6.1, since any newer version doesn't work for me with Outlook365 - MS OAuth implementation requires user agent to be accepted by some "administrator". Looks like great example of what we can expect from Google, even if that Web Integrity get delayed for few years. Mozilla really is powerless - either they cave in, like with video DRM - or their browser won't be useful as daily driver

yoavm 3y ago
> Maybe it is now more about not facing antitrust scrutiny, just like when Microsoft "invested" in Apple? Maybe, but what does that change? It might even be a stronger lever to pull than "we will stop sending you traffic". My point is that Google isn't donating money to Mozilla because it's nice, it pays for something (traffic / legal protection / whatever). I just don't see how the parent idea that Mozilla most comply with Google because Google "pays their bills" holds.

Ygg2 3y ago

> Was Google successful, for example, in making Firefox not support all the things is does that allow for better Ads blocking? They're working on it see Manifest v3.

yoavm 3y ago
You mean this? https://www.theverge.com/2023/1/17/23559234/firefox-manifest-v3-content-ad-blocker https://www.theverge.com/2023/1/17/23559234/firefox-manifest... https://adguard.com/en/blog/firefox-manifestv3-chrome-adblocking.html https://adguard.com/en/blog/firefox-manifestv3-chrome-adbloc... https://www.ghacks.net/2022/09/24/mozilla-reaffirms-that-firefox-will-continue-to-support-current-content-blockers/ https://www.ghacks.net/2022/09/24/mozilla-reaffirms-that-fir...

jeroenhd 3y ago

Mozilla relented when EME made its way into browsers. Important websites didn't work on Firefox and users were unhappy. If the same happens now with remote attestation (and I can totally see that happening on streaming websites), Mozilla will have to risk losing even more of their small user base or relent and make some version of the protocol.

account42 3y ago

Let's be real: If Firefox changed the default search engine it probably wouldn't even cause a blip to Google's traffic. The real reason Google pays Mozilla is probably closer to "controlled opposition" or "antitrust shield".

yoavm 3y ago
As I replied to one of the other comments - why does it matter? So let's say they're paying as an anti-trust shield. Does that make it a donation? Does that mean the Mozilla can't do things Google doesn't like?