3 ms·

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 insi

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.
    - jqpabc123 3y ago
      Detecting which browser you're using is not a real problem --- even with Javascript disabled. See for yourself here: https://www.whatsmybrowser.org/ https://www.whatsmybrowser.org/

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.
  - jqpabc123 3y ago
    Detecting which browser you're using is not a real problem --- even with Javascript disabled. See for yourself here: https://www.whatsmybrowser.org/ https://www.whatsmybrowser.org/