3 ms·

Mozilla is funded by Google. Mozilla doesn't seem to have much of a clue what it ought to be doing, either. I use Firefox, but I wouldn't trust anything else to

Mozilla is funded by Google. Mozilla doesn't seem to have much of a clue what it ought to be doing, either. I use Firefox, but I wouldn't trust anything else to last unfortunately.

berkes 3y ago
> Mozilla is funded by Google You aren't saying it, but it is implied or can easily misread as such. But Google is not directly funding Mozilla. Mozilla gets its funds from many places, and one of them is Google; paying for being the default search engine. It's by far the largest amount. But not the only, nor a direct funding.
- eganist 3y ago
  > But not the only, nor a direct funding. Being paid directly for a service by a company (Google paying for the privilege of being the default) is to be directly funded by that company. You're right that it's not the only source of revenue, but it's absolutely a direct source of funding.
  - malfist 3y ago
    If I go buy a box of crackers at Walmart, am I funding Walmart? Is Walmart now beholden to me?
    - 1over137 3y ago
      Does your cracker purchase represent the majority of Walmart's revenue? Not the same thing.
    - smashed 3y ago
      No but if Walmart distributes 81% of the production of that particular cracker brand, it could suddenly find itself in a huge crisis if Walmart decided to cease distributing it and fill the shelves with great value crackers.
    - eganist 3y ago
      > Is Walmart now beholden to me? They owe you a box of crackers. Once you've departed with it, they're no longer beholden to you.
    - mozempthrowaway 3y ago
      It would be if you were willing to pay an ungodly amount for that box of crackers that not only made Walmart a viable business but was also an amount no one else was willing to pay. Mitchell got Google to pay nearly double what Yahoo was willing to pay and has gotten Google to pay more each year for a dwindling user base. If someone was going to Walmart and paying millions for a box of crackers, you’d be right in assuming the transaction wasn’t about the crackers.
  - IshKebab 3y ago
    I approximately is their only source of revenue actually. It's over 80%.
    - eganist 3y ago
      You're entirely right. I was mostly just picking nits at op saying the funding wasn't direct. But it's functionally both direct and exclusive in that if Google pulls out, even if e.g Bing comes in with a bid it'll likely be drastically less, and Mozilla would be stuck restructuring pretty substantially in order to survive.
  - berkes 3y ago
    I've worked at many startups and companies where 80% of the revenue comes from 1 or 2 companies. That's still "just" a B2B relation and not "that one company is funding is". Now, I'm not arguing about how good this situation is (it's bad, for a startup it's actually worse) just that it's not "funding".
- rglullis 3y ago
  > It's by far the largest amount. Without Google funding, Mozilla wouldn't be able to maintain its operations. That is more than enough to treat the "Mozilla is funded by Google" statement as objectively true.
  - jsnell 3y ago
    Without Google, Mozilla would be selling their default search setting to the next highest bidder instead. They've done so in the past (selling the US search box to Yahoo). It's a bit of an odd market, since there aren't that many buyers or sellers, and since Firefox users are about the least valuable user segment. But that should already be reflected in the money Firefox is making from Google. And just back of the envelope it doesn't look like Google is overpaying Firefox compared to other browsers where they buy being the default search engine. We know from the recent lawsuit that Google paid Apple $26B in 2021. We also know from Mozilla's financials that the Firefox deal pays only about $400M/year. Microsoft should definitely be interested in this, based on the statements their execs made under oath about the value of economies of scale and of query/click streams just last year. DuckDuckGo is already more than happy to pay Apple for being a non-default search (i.e. they pay Apple, and rather that complain about it being unfair they tried to keep it secret). There's no reason why Firefox couldn't get in on that action too.
    - rglullis 3y ago
      Doesn't matter. As it is, "Mozilla is funded by Google" is true. If Microsoft outbid Google, we would say "Mozilla is funded by Microsoft". We can try to justify one way or another but that's just the current reality.
      - jsnell 3y ago
        Of course it matters! It means Google doesn't actually get to say how Mozilla runs Firefox. They have a contract for a service ("make us the default search for the next N years, and we'll pay you X% revenue share on those searches"), Mozilla fulfills their part of that contract, and that's it. Google can't, for example, demand that Firefox must support some web standard proposal as a condition of being paid. If they tried making such demands, Mozilla would just sell their service to somebody not making such unreasonable demands. And the reason people keep parrotting this idea on HN is to imply that there is some kind of wrongdoing and malicious use of funding as leverage going on. But that idea only works if this isn't a normal commerical arrangement with multiple potential bidders. Another way it matters is that the utterly moronic ideas people throw around for this being an antitrust figleaf. Paying for default search engine placement is just how that business works, and worked before Chrome even existed.
Devasta 3y ago
> Mozilla doesn't seem to have much of a clue what it ought to be doing, either. They know exactly what their purpose is: to provide a figleaf that Google can point when facing allegations that they control the browser market.
- echelon 3y ago
  This is the only purpose for Mozilla: a convenient ruse for distracting regulators. If Google thought they didn't need this ploy, Mozilla would be snuffed out.

Mozilla is funded by Google. Mozilla doesn't seem to have much of a clue what it ought to be doing, either. I use Firefox, but I wouldn't trust anything else to last unfortunately.

berkes 3y ago

> Mozilla is funded by Google You aren't saying it, but it is implied or can easily misread as such. But Google is not directly funding Mozilla. Mozilla gets its funds from many places, and one of them is Google; paying for being the default search engine. It's by far the largest amount. But not the only, nor a direct funding.

eganist 3y ago
> But not the only, nor a direct funding. Being paid directly for a service by a company (Google paying for the privilege of being the default) is to be directly funded by that company. You're right that it's not the only source of revenue, but it's absolutely a direct source of funding.
- malfist 3y ago
  If I go buy a box of crackers at Walmart, am I funding Walmart? Is Walmart now beholden to me?
  - 1over137 3y ago
    Does your cracker purchase represent the majority of Walmart's revenue? Not the same thing.
  - smashed 3y ago
    No but if Walmart distributes 81% of the production of that particular cracker brand, it could suddenly find itself in a huge crisis if Walmart decided to cease distributing it and fill the shelves with great value crackers.
  - eganist 3y ago
    > Is Walmart now beholden to me? They owe you a box of crackers. Once you've departed with it, they're no longer beholden to you.
  - mozempthrowaway 3y ago
    It would be if you were willing to pay an ungodly amount for that box of crackers that not only made Walmart a viable business but was also an amount no one else was willing to pay. Mitchell got Google to pay nearly double what Yahoo was willing to pay and has gotten Google to pay more each year for a dwindling user base. If someone was going to Walmart and paying millions for a box of crackers, you’d be right in assuming the transaction wasn’t about the crackers.
- IshKebab 3y ago
  I approximately is their only source of revenue actually. It's over 80%.
  - eganist 3y ago
    You're entirely right. I was mostly just picking nits at op saying the funding wasn't direct. But it's functionally both direct and exclusive in that if Google pulls out, even if e.g Bing comes in with a bid it'll likely be drastically less, and Mozilla would be stuck restructuring pretty substantially in order to survive.
- berkes 3y ago
  I've worked at many startups and companies where 80% of the revenue comes from 1 or 2 companies. That's still "just" a B2B relation and not "that one company is funding is". Now, I'm not arguing about how good this situation is (it's bad, for a startup it's actually worse) just that it's not "funding".
rglullis 3y ago
> It's by far the largest amount. Without Google funding, Mozilla wouldn't be able to maintain its operations. That is more than enough to treat the "Mozilla is funded by Google" statement as objectively true.
- jsnell 3y ago
  Without Google, Mozilla would be selling their default search setting to the next highest bidder instead. They've done so in the past (selling the US search box to Yahoo). It's a bit of an odd market, since there aren't that many buyers or sellers, and since Firefox users are about the least valuable user segment. But that should already be reflected in the money Firefox is making from Google. And just back of the envelope it doesn't look like Google is overpaying Firefox compared to other browsers where they buy being the default search engine. We know from the recent lawsuit that Google paid Apple $26B in 2021. We also know from Mozilla's financials that the Firefox deal pays only about $400M/year. Microsoft should definitely be interested in this, based on the statements their execs made under oath about the value of economies of scale and of query/click streams just last year. DuckDuckGo is already more than happy to pay Apple for being a non-default search (i.e. they pay Apple, and rather that complain about it being unfair they tried to keep it secret). There's no reason why Firefox couldn't get in on that action too.
  - rglullis 3y ago
    Doesn't matter. As it is, "Mozilla is funded by Google" is true. If Microsoft outbid Google, we would say "Mozilla is funded by Microsoft". We can try to justify one way or another but that's just the current reality.
    - jsnell 3y ago
      Of course it matters! It means Google doesn't actually get to say how Mozilla runs Firefox. They have a contract for a service ("make us the default search for the next N years, and we'll pay you X% revenue share on those searches"), Mozilla fulfills their part of that contract, and that's it. Google can't, for example, demand that Firefox must support some web standard proposal as a condition of being paid. If they tried making such demands, Mozilla would just sell their service to somebody not making such unreasonable demands. And the reason people keep parrotting this idea on HN is to imply that there is some kind of wrongdoing and malicious use of funding as leverage going on. But that idea only works if this isn't a normal commerical arrangement with multiple potential bidders. Another way it matters is that the utterly moronic ideas people throw around for this being an antitrust figleaf. Paying for default search engine placement is just how that business works, and worked before Chrome even existed.

Devasta 3y ago

> Mozilla doesn't seem to have much of a clue what it ought to be doing, either. They know exactly what their purpose is: to provide a figleaf that Google can point when facing allegations that they control the browser market.

echelon 3y ago
This is the only purpose for Mozilla: a convenient ruse for distracting regulators. If Google thought they didn't need this ploy, Mozilla would be snuffed out.