6 ms·

They should really start putting out a few more of these, https://stackdiary.com/mozilla-usage-decline-from-2022-to-2023/ https://stackdiary.com/mozilla-usage-

They should really start putting out a few more of these, https://stackdiary.com/mozilla-usage-decline-from-2022-to-2023/ https://stackdiary.com/mozilla-usage-decline-from-2022-to-20... 30% of users lost in the last 4+ years and very little work being done on things like the latest CSS properties. Makes me wonder if Google uses this as a means to pay them less. The last contract was in 2020 to this year I think? https://www.zdnet.com/article/sources-mozilla-extends-its-google-search-deal/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/sources-mozilla-extends-its-go...

not_your_vase 3y ago
Google does not want to pay Mozilla less. They don't care about Firefox's market share, it's virtually 0. But in the moment Firefox disappears, Chrome will be undeniably a monopoly. As long as Firefox exists, Google can easily deflect such monopoly claims - they even "encourage and foster" competition on the browser market.
- jjtheblunt 3y ago
  > Chrome will be undeniably a monopoly Isn't Safari by existing at whatever market share still a counterexample to Chrome being a monopoly?
  - pmontra 3y ago
    I can't use Safari on my HP Linux laptop and on my Android phone. Apple doesn't make it for those OSes. That's a choice like any other one. What I don't like is that deny other companies to run their own browser engines on iOS. They have to reskin Safari. Luckily this is going to change soon at least in the EU.
    - jjtheblunt 3y ago
      That’s unrelated to the parent comment that Chrome is an imminent monopoly, though.
- darklycan51 3y ago
  Safari exists... plus a browser engine alone doesn't constitue a monopoly, you'd have a hard case arguing that.
  - Aeolun 3y ago
    Safari is itself a monopoly. Using anything but Safari/Webkit on iOS is not allowed.
  - FirmwareBurner 3y ago
    >Safari exists... Only for Apple users.
    - darklycan51 3y ago
      it used to exist in windows and it can exist again, would be trivial for google to pay for slight development costs to port safari to windows again if they really needed it to. Just like how office exists in macos
- boomboomsubban 3y ago
  This argument is silly. Google buying the default search is currently being used as evidence in an antitrust case over Google search being a monopoly. Chrome only exists to make more money for Google search, there's no way that Google would risk their (alleged) search monopoly just to prevent a browser monopoly. Google genuinely believes the money they pay Mozilla and Apple is worth it.
  - osirisgothra_ 3y ago
    It is all for show. Everything companies do is for show. They will always do what makes them look best and make sure to do all the needed covering-their-butt tactics at the same time as to ensure no problems. Nothing anyone does or says is going to change things much. Even if the company were to break up, I doubt that would hinder them much. Look at other big companies that had to break up, they aren't sweating it out.
  - not_your_vase 3y ago
    If they wouldn't pay Mozilla, Firefox simply wouldn't exist - there would be no other browser where Google would have to buy the default search position. It would be one less problem for Google, if the goal of their payment would be really only to be the default search engine in Firefox. If that would be true, it would be silliest waste of money from them - worse than Google Glass.
    - boomboomsubban 3y ago
      >there would be no other browser where Google would have to buy the default search position. Except Safari, which they already spend far more money on then Firefox. And if Google wouldn't pay, some other search engine would. We've seen it before, when Yahoo offered more money than Google.
      - not_your_vase 3y ago
        Don't try to build a house out of this argument, because the wolves are going to blow it away. If the top search engine spot in Firefox would be so valuable, than there would be real bidding wars. $400M/year is nothing when it comes to BigTech. Frankly, anyone could pitch a business plan for an investment bank to get a few billions and outbid Google. If anyone cared... but being the default search engine in a browser that virtually nobody uses isn't worth a lot. But it's a fantastic decoy, if you have nothing better. (Also, Yahoo offered more when both Firefox and Yahoo still mattered. Which is not the case anymore. The only viable search engine today is Bing, who stopped caring about search, as AI seems to be more lucrative for them. Marginalia is also here, but that guy has less money than MS, prolly) Safari exists exclusively on iOS and MacOS. On Android, Windows and Linux Chrome has virtually 100% market share. Do you know why Google spends more money on Safari? Because on that platform they want to be the default browser. Safari doesn't depend on Google at all. Not like Firefox. Firefox dies in 2 minutes once Google decides that it has outlived their usefulness, at which point all their users default to Chrome, where they don't have to pay to be the default search engine. And at the point they would have to pay only Safari, without any negative impact on their search traffic. But as it stands today, they would have no competitor on the vast majority of the consumer computing systems.
- highwaylights 3y ago
  I've got to believe this is the phone call that saved Apple in the 90's too. For all the different interpretations of history and motivations that happened at that time it was clear to everyone that Microsoft stepped in because of the anti-trust investigations already happening and couldn't afford to have them expand beyond Internet Explorer, which would have definitely happened if the Mac disappeared. Google's in a much safer place with Chrome (its open-source and other browsers are actively using the engine in the market), but why risk it? It's cheap insurance.
  - _emacsomancer_ 3y ago
    Chrome isn't open source; Chromium is. (But perhaps they're not ineffective at blurring such things in people's minds.)
    - highwaylights 3y ago
      I get that and probably should’ve clarified. What I mean is they can hold up Chromium and say “we made it so that literally anyone can take what we made and make their own copy without our branding and talking to our services, for free”. That’s an incredibly strong defence against being a monopoly.
- Seattle3503 3y ago
  Safari is a more meaningful competitor, and they hold significant market share on mobile.
reidrac 3y ago
I commuted by train between 2010 and 2011 in England, and there were big billboard ads of Google Chrome. Not sure what effect these have, but I wonder how many people don't know about Firefox at all.
- skilled 3y ago
  Yeah, they have the eff you money to throw around. They sponsor the McLaren F1 team as one of the primary sponsors, https://www.mclaren.com/racing/partners/chrome/ https://www.mclaren.com/racing/partners/chrome/ And F1 gets hundreds of millions of viewers each year.
- glandium 3y ago
  I remember reading, at that time, that the ad budget for Chrome in London alone was more than the entire budget of Mozilla.
- simulo 3y ago
  I vaguely remember even seeing Chrome distributed as bundleware.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
hutzlibu 3y ago
They rather should rehire some of their engineers: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2020/08/firefox-maker-mozilla-lays-off-250-workers-says-covid-19-lowered-revenue/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2020/08/firef... They still have the funds, but if they continue to get left behind, they will also run out of money eventually with no more market share to profit from. The only thing firefox has in favour is a) they are not google and slightly more trustworthy b) ad blockers still work (also on mobile)

not_your_vase 3y ago

Google does not want to pay Mozilla less. They don't care about Firefox's market share, it's virtually 0. But in the moment Firefox disappears, Chrome will be undeniably a monopoly. As long as Firefox exists, Google can easily deflect such monopoly claims - they even "encourage and foster" competition on the browser market.

jjtheblunt 3y ago
> Chrome will be undeniably a monopoly Isn't Safari by existing at whatever market share still a counterexample to Chrome being a monopoly?
- pmontra 3y ago
  I can't use Safari on my HP Linux laptop and on my Android phone. Apple doesn't make it for those OSes. That's a choice like any other one. What I don't like is that deny other companies to run their own browser engines on iOS. They have to reskin Safari. Luckily this is going to change soon at least in the EU.
  - jjtheblunt 3y ago
    That’s unrelated to the parent comment that Chrome is an imminent monopoly, though.
darklycan51 3y ago
Safari exists... plus a browser engine alone doesn't constitue a monopoly, you'd have a hard case arguing that.
- Aeolun 3y ago
  Safari is itself a monopoly. Using anything but Safari/Webkit on iOS is not allowed.
- FirmwareBurner 3y ago
  >Safari exists... Only for Apple users.
  - darklycan51 3y ago
    it used to exist in windows and it can exist again, would be trivial for google to pay for slight development costs to port safari to windows again if they really needed it to. Just like how office exists in macos
boomboomsubban 3y ago
This argument is silly. Google buying the default search is currently being used as evidence in an antitrust case over Google search being a monopoly. Chrome only exists to make more money for Google search, there's no way that Google would risk their (alleged) search monopoly just to prevent a browser monopoly. Google genuinely believes the money they pay Mozilla and Apple is worth it.
- osirisgothra_ 3y ago
  It is all for show. Everything companies do is for show. They will always do what makes them look best and make sure to do all the needed covering-their-butt tactics at the same time as to ensure no problems. Nothing anyone does or says is going to change things much. Even if the company were to break up, I doubt that would hinder them much. Look at other big companies that had to break up, they aren't sweating it out.
- not_your_vase 3y ago
  If they wouldn't pay Mozilla, Firefox simply wouldn't exist - there would be no other browser where Google would have to buy the default search position. It would be one less problem for Google, if the goal of their payment would be really only to be the default search engine in Firefox. If that would be true, it would be silliest waste of money from them - worse than Google Glass.
  - boomboomsubban 3y ago
    >there would be no other browser where Google would have to buy the default search position. Except Safari, which they already spend far more money on then Firefox. And if Google wouldn't pay, some other search engine would. We've seen it before, when Yahoo offered more money than Google.
    - not_your_vase 3y ago
      Don't try to build a house out of this argument, because the wolves are going to blow it away. If the top search engine spot in Firefox would be so valuable, than there would be real bidding wars. $400M/year is nothing when it comes to BigTech. Frankly, anyone could pitch a business plan for an investment bank to get a few billions and outbid Google. If anyone cared... but being the default search engine in a browser that virtually nobody uses isn't worth a lot. But it's a fantastic decoy, if you have nothing better. (Also, Yahoo offered more when both Firefox and Yahoo still mattered. Which is not the case anymore. The only viable search engine today is Bing, who stopped caring about search, as AI seems to be more lucrative for them. Marginalia is also here, but that guy has less money than MS, prolly) Safari exists exclusively on iOS and MacOS. On Android, Windows and Linux Chrome has virtually 100% market share. Do you know why Google spends more money on Safari? Because on that platform they want to be the default browser. Safari doesn't depend on Google at all. Not like Firefox. Firefox dies in 2 minutes once Google decides that it has outlived their usefulness, at which point all their users default to Chrome, where they don't have to pay to be the default search engine. And at the point they would have to pay only Safari, without any negative impact on their search traffic. But as it stands today, they would have no competitor on the vast majority of the consumer computing systems.
highwaylights 3y ago
I've got to believe this is the phone call that saved Apple in the 90's too. For all the different interpretations of history and motivations that happened at that time it was clear to everyone that Microsoft stepped in because of the anti-trust investigations already happening and couldn't afford to have them expand beyond Internet Explorer, which would have definitely happened if the Mac disappeared. Google's in a much safer place with Chrome (its open-source and other browsers are actively using the engine in the market), but why risk it? It's cheap insurance.
- _emacsomancer_ 3y ago
  Chrome isn't open source; Chromium is. (But perhaps they're not ineffective at blurring such things in people's minds.)
  - highwaylights 3y ago
    I get that and probably should’ve clarified. What I mean is they can hold up Chromium and say “we made it so that literally anyone can take what we made and make their own copy without our branding and talking to our services, for free”. That’s an incredibly strong defence against being a monopoly.
Seattle3503 3y ago
Safari is a more meaningful competitor, and they hold significant market share on mobile.

reidrac 3y ago

I commuted by train between 2010 and 2011 in England, and there were big billboard ads of Google Chrome. Not sure what effect these have, but I wonder how many people don't know about Firefox at all.

skilled 3y ago
Yeah, they have the eff you money to throw around. They sponsor the McLaren F1 team as one of the primary sponsors, https://www.mclaren.com/racing/partners/chrome/ https://www.mclaren.com/racing/partners/chrome/ And F1 gets hundreds of millions of viewers each year.
glandium 3y ago
I remember reading, at that time, that the ad budget for Chrome in London alone was more than the entire budget of Mozilla.
simulo 3y ago
I vaguely remember even seeing Chrome distributed as bundleware.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

hutzlibu 3y ago

They rather should rehire some of their engineers: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2020/08/firefox-maker-mozilla-lays-off-250-workers-says-covid-19-lowered-revenue/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2020/08/firef... They still have the funds, but if they continue to get left behind, they will also run out of money eventually with no more market share to profit from. The only thing firefox has in favour is a) they are not google and slightly more trustworthy b) ad blockers still work (also on mobile)