6 ms·

Finally, that extension for Google Translate was really clunky and it was weird that this is coming so late while Chrome had a polished integration for such a l

by dewey 3y ago

Finally, that extension for Google Translate was really clunky and it was weird that this is coming so late while Chrome had a polished integration for such a long time already.

xnorswap 3y ago
Not wanting to run it via a cloud service was probably a big factor, assuming google translate goes via the cloud. Google has no qualms about sucking up all your data.
- jqpabc123 3y ago
  Google has no qualms about sucking up all your data. Google also has no qualms about you using Firefox. They pay Mozilla $450 mil a year to insure it stays this way.
  - syncbehind 3y ago
    Google absolutely has qualm about you using Firefox. Yes, they pay Moz money to keep them as the preferred search, but that's because it's the better of two options (no data at all from you, or at least your search data). But if you need evidence that Google has qualms about you using other browsers, look at how poorly supported other browsers are for google services.
  - JohnBooty 3y ago
    I don't claim to read minds or have inside information, but there's no doubt in my mind that this is largely a $450mil annual hedge against getting antitrust'd by the DOJ.
    - jqpabc123 3y ago
      Sorry, that argument no longer flies. Goggle payments have done nothing but go up as FireFox market share has done nothing but go down --- to the point of insignificance, now around 3% world wide --- less than Opera. Paying a huge sum of money for a miniscule market share doesn't provide any reasonable hedge --- as evidenced by the fact that Google is in the middle of an anti-trust lawsuit and FireFox has played virtually no role.
      - simonw 3y ago
        I would expect Google aren't paying based on market share, they're paying based on the number and quality of users they get access to. If market share goes down but total market size rises, and the cohort of users selecting Firefox have more disposable income (hence are more profitable for search advertising), paying more for them over time would be a rational decision.
      - JohnBooty 3y ago
        Still flies. Goggle payments have done nothing but go up as FireFox market share has done nothing but go down Your reasoning, then, is that Google is paying Firefox strictly for business reasons but they've decided to increase payments as Firefox's share has decreased. Because they're bad at business? Or some other strictly business-y reason(s)? I mean, okay, but please be explicit about this. FireFox has played virtually no role [in Google's antitrust case] That suggests it's working. The DOJ has antitrust beef(s) with Google, but monopolizing the browser market is not one of those beefs. We can't read the minds of the DOJ, but it strongly suggests Google's support of Firefox is working within that context. It does not, obviously, give them global blanket immunity against all conceivable antitrust shenanigans -- were you mistakenly believing this is what I was suggesting?
      - robin_reala 3y ago
        Not sure where you’re getting your Opera figures from, but I’m seeing 4x Firefox than Opera, even with Firefox typically shimming away Google Analytics.
        jqpabc123 3y ago
        https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share These obviously float up and down some over time but Firefox has been consistently under 3% globally for a while now.
        robin_reala 3y ago
        Right, but Firefox’s enhanced tracking protection mode blocks Statcounter’s JS (see https://github.com/disconnectme/disconnect-tracking-protection/blob/f8fa73ea12ad425647da25af76de99c8859e26fd/services.json#L12462-L12467 https://github.com/disconnectme/disconnect-tracking-protecti... which is where, I believe, Mozilla source their ETP blocklist from). Given the userbase for Firefox these days, I’d be very surprised if Statcounter is even vaguely accurate.
    - Anamon 3y ago
      Aren't those very payments currently turning out to be a big antitrust issue for Google, for unfairly keeping people away from other search engines? Different battleground, but could very well end up having a major impact on this.
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    Given the choice between: - massive anti-trust lawsuit - paying $450 million / year to Mozilla - you using Chrome - you using FireFox It is very well possible that the preferred boxes to tick include you using Chrome and paying $450 million / year to Mozilla to recoup some of that money. Chrome is one of the more powerful planks in Google's control over the web, without Chrome they'd be fighting a continuous rearguard action, now they get to be the dictators. Think of the $450 million as a license to operate. Any users that end up using the product created using that $450 million are additional loss.
    - mardifoufs 3y ago
      Yeah, the ideal outcome for Google would be paying Mozilla whatever amount they need to stay afloat while still having no market share. As you said, 450 is just the cost of doing business. Though I wonder how effective the monopoly "shield" would be if Firefox continues slipping in market share. Maybe they just need it to exist?
cassianoleal 3y ago
It's been available as an extension for a while. Great that it's better integrated with the browser now though!
forgotpwd16 3y ago
>that extension for Google Translate was really clunky https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/traduzir-paginas-web/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/traduzir-pagi... This works exactly like the respective Chrome feature. >this is coming so late Because it isn't the same thing. This is done locally. (Not the linked extension but the Firefox built-in.)
- tmpX7dMeXU 3y ago
  A difference that doesn’t matter to most people most of the time. GP wants a translation service built in to the browser. Even if they appreciate it being local-only, coming back with “no, here’s some largely irrelevant technical difference that makes this better!” misses the point.
  - samtheprogram 3y ago
    It's Mozilla, so most of their users do care. And if they don't, the extension with the same capabilities as Chrome already existed.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - capableweb 3y ago
    > A difference that doesn’t matter to most people most of the time. This seems to be about the first time I see Mozilla knowing its own users better than a random HN user know Mozilla's users. Mozilla/Firefox is meant for users who care about privacy, it's literally the first taglines you see when visiting the landing pages for Mozilla or Firefox. So, with this newfound knowledge about who is using Firefox and who is using other browsers like Google Chrome, maybe now it makes sense why Firefox wanted local translations instead of sending them off somewhere else?

by dewey 3y ago

Finally, that extension for Google Translate was really clunky and it was weird that this is coming so late while Chrome had a polished integration for such a long time already.

xnorswap 3y ago

Not wanting to run it via a cloud service was probably a big factor, assuming google translate goes via the cloud. Google has no qualms about sucking up all your data.

jqpabc123 3y ago
Google has no qualms about sucking up all your data. Google also has no qualms about you using Firefox. They pay Mozilla $450 mil a year to insure it stays this way.
- syncbehind 3y ago
  Google absolutely has qualm about you using Firefox. Yes, they pay Moz money to keep them as the preferred search, but that's because it's the better of two options (no data at all from you, or at least your search data). But if you need evidence that Google has qualms about you using other browsers, look at how poorly supported other browsers are for google services.
- JohnBooty 3y ago
  I don't claim to read minds or have inside information, but there's no doubt in my mind that this is largely a $450mil annual hedge against getting antitrust'd by the DOJ.
  - jqpabc123 3y ago
    Sorry, that argument no longer flies. Goggle payments have done nothing but go up as FireFox market share has done nothing but go down --- to the point of insignificance, now around 3% world wide --- less than Opera. Paying a huge sum of money for a miniscule market share doesn't provide any reasonable hedge --- as evidenced by the fact that Google is in the middle of an anti-trust lawsuit and FireFox has played virtually no role.
    - simonw 3y ago
      I would expect Google aren't paying based on market share, they're paying based on the number and quality of users they get access to. If market share goes down but total market size rises, and the cohort of users selecting Firefox have more disposable income (hence are more profitable for search advertising), paying more for them over time would be a rational decision.
    - JohnBooty 3y ago
      Still flies. Goggle payments have done nothing but go up as FireFox market share has done nothing but go down Your reasoning, then, is that Google is paying Firefox strictly for business reasons but they've decided to increase payments as Firefox's share has decreased. Because they're bad at business? Or some other strictly business-y reason(s)? I mean, okay, but please be explicit about this. FireFox has played virtually no role [in Google's antitrust case] That suggests it's working. The DOJ has antitrust beef(s) with Google, but monopolizing the browser market is not one of those beefs. We can't read the minds of the DOJ, but it strongly suggests Google's support of Firefox is working within that context. It does not, obviously, give them global blanket immunity against all conceivable antitrust shenanigans -- were you mistakenly believing this is what I was suggesting?
    - robin_reala 3y ago
      Not sure where you’re getting your Opera figures from, but I’m seeing 4x Firefox than Opera, even with Firefox typically shimming away Google Analytics.
      - jqpabc123 3y ago
        https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share These obviously float up and down some over time but Firefox has been consistently under 3% globally for a while now.
        robin_reala 3y ago
        Right, but Firefox’s enhanced tracking protection mode blocks Statcounter’s JS (see https://github.com/disconnectme/disconnect-tracking-protection/blob/f8fa73ea12ad425647da25af76de99c8859e26fd/services.json#L12462-L12467 https://github.com/disconnectme/disconnect-tracking-protecti... which is where, I believe, Mozilla source their ETP blocklist from). Given the userbase for Firefox these days, I’d be very surprised if Statcounter is even vaguely accurate.
  - Anamon 3y ago
    Aren't those very payments currently turning out to be a big antitrust issue for Google, for unfairly keeping people away from other search engines? Different battleground, but could very well end up having a major impact on this.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  Given the choice between: - massive anti-trust lawsuit - paying $450 million / year to Mozilla - you using Chrome - you using FireFox It is very well possible that the preferred boxes to tick include you using Chrome and paying $450 million / year to Mozilla to recoup some of that money. Chrome is one of the more powerful planks in Google's control over the web, without Chrome they'd be fighting a continuous rearguard action, now they get to be the dictators. Think of the $450 million as a license to operate. Any users that end up using the product created using that $450 million are additional loss.
  - mardifoufs 3y ago
    Yeah, the ideal outcome for Google would be paying Mozilla whatever amount they need to stay afloat while still having no market share. As you said, 450 is just the cost of doing business. Though I wonder how effective the monopoly "shield" would be if Firefox continues slipping in market share. Maybe they just need it to exist?

cassianoleal 3y ago

It's been available as an extension for a while. Great that it's better integrated with the browser now though!

forgotpwd16 3y ago

>that extension for Google Translate was really clunky https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/traduzir-paginas-web/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/traduzir-pagi... This works exactly like the respective Chrome feature. >this is coming so late Because it isn't the same thing. This is done locally. (Not the linked extension but the Firefox built-in.)

tmpX7dMeXU 3y ago
A difference that doesn’t matter to most people most of the time. GP wants a translation service built in to the browser. Even if they appreciate it being local-only, coming back with “no, here’s some largely irrelevant technical difference that makes this better!” misses the point.
- samtheprogram 3y ago
  It's Mozilla, so most of their users do care. And if they don't, the extension with the same capabilities as Chrome already existed.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- capableweb 3y ago
  > A difference that doesn’t matter to most people most of the time. This seems to be about the first time I see Mozilla knowing its own users better than a random HN user know Mozilla's users. Mozilla/Firefox is meant for users who care about privacy, it's literally the first taglines you see when visiting the landing pages for Mozilla or Firefox. So, with this newfound knowledge about who is using Firefox and who is using other browsers like Google Chrome, maybe now it makes sense why Firefox wanted local translations instead of sending them off somewhere else?