4 ms·

This could be bad for Mozilla?

by sva_ 2y ago

leotravis10 2y ago
Yes it could very well be although I expect Google to appeal this ruling.
2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
Yes. And seat belt laws are bad for hospitals and undertakers.
- notatallshaw 2y ago
  Can you please expand or explain on this analogy. I'm struggling to connect how Google's last major browser engine competitor potentially losing it's funding due to a separate monopoly issue is similar to laws being passed to reduce death and hospitalizations.
  - aednichols 2y ago
    The DOJ is concerned with moving the needle on one specific issue (search monopoly a.k.a. seatbelts) and is not concerned about the side effects on related entities (Firefox a.k.a. undertakers).
  - cvhc 2y ago
    FOF ¶ 334. Google’s default placements on Firefox generate 80% of Mozilla’s overall operating revenue, demonstrating that the vast majority of query volume on Firefox goes through defaults. Ref: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/25032745/045110819896.pdf https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/25032745/045110819896...
  - bagels 2y ago
    The analogy is: Sometimes the one negative outcome (Mozilla & hospitals losing money) is a price well paid for another positive one (regulating monopolies & reduced deaths).
  - zelphirkalt 2y ago
    Not using a seatbelt is unhealthy. Using Google search as the default is unhealthy as well.
  - account42 2y ago
    They are not Google's competitior, they are their partner in crime.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
repelsteeltje 2y ago
Bad for Firefox, which still relies exclusively on Google sponsorship. Thunderbird, on the other hand, takes user donations.
- JohnFen 2y ago
  > Thunderbird, on the other hand, takes user donations. And it depends on Firefox, sadly.
  - repelsteeltje 2y ago
    Fair enough. In any case, now would probably be a good moment for Mozilla to reconsider user donations on Firefox. Just my €50 of course isn't going to change the future by itself. But I'd happily give it to them if they'd let me. (And I don't even mind manually removing Google and replacing it with DDG.)
    - JohnFen 2y ago
      I've long been baffled at the inability to contribute to Firefox development. It seems crazy to me that this isn't possible.
    - mozempthrowaway 2y ago
      Just so you know, the money users donate goes towards political causes not towards Firefox. When you are donating, you are donating to the Mozilla Foundation (which is a non-profit). All Firefox development is done through Mozilla Corporation (which is a for profit entity). There is no way to donate to Firefox.
  - zbentley 2y ago
    Do you mean it depends on Firefox for money and staff from Mozilla inc/fdn? Or that it uses a Firefox-based browser engine for HTML emails? If the latter, I don’t imagine this will have too terribly much impact. Email clients often lag behind browsers in what they can display.
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> could be bad for Mozilla? Just skimmed the ruling [1]. A pillar appears to be that “Google’s distribution agreements are exclusive.” So if Mozilla e.g. auctions off the next N installs default-search engine designation, it might work? (Also, the ruling doesn’t ban exclusive distribution agreements in general.) [1] https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/25032745/045110819896.pdf https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/25032745/045110819896...
dwallin 2y ago
IMO, this is the best think that could happen for Firefox. Mozilla as an organization has been thoroughly corrupted by huge buckets of money being thrown at them by Google. "The Resource Curse" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse) doesn't only apply to countries.
yesco 2y ago
While they are certainly dependent on Google funding, I believe this dependence is a net negative for the long term health of Firefox development. It implicitly skews the incentives of Mozilla leadership, making them comfortable with getting lots of money they didn't really work for and giving them some funny ideas on where their priorities lie. Presumably a proper non profit would be more incentivized to stick to the projects ideals so they can brag about it in their fundraising activities (with perhaps a little too much of that money going into administrator pockets on the down low). Meanwhile Google's funding creates a status quo where it's pretty much fine with anything so long as Firefox continues to exist as a scarecrow to anti-trust suits. It effectively muscles out all the potential well meaning donors which could have helped steer things in a more positive direction, and acts like a sword of damocles floating over Mozilla's head, engorging the organization in addictive cash they don't deserve, and implicitly discouraging them from ever stepping on Google's toes lest the money hose gets turned off. These days I'd call Firefox "good enough" from a privacy & open source perspective. It checks the boxes, and while I'm actually pretty open to the UI changes they have made over the years, I've gotten the sense that top Mozilla leadership don't really care about Firefox anymore, even distancing themself from it in certain respects. These days Firefox doesn't really seem to be going anywhere, it does the bare minimum by implementing web standards but all efforts to distinguish it from Chrome seem to be gradually extinguished. I wouldn't even be surprised at this point if they eventually turned off Mv2 support in a few years from now, despite all promises to the contrary, citing complexity or perhaps even "security" like Google's been doing as the reason. If in the "worst" case Mozilla shutters down or abandons Firefox development after losing their money hose, perhaps the mindshare of the community they have been hoarding away all these years will coalesce around a healthier fork with an organization structure closer to the Linux foundation, maybe then Firefox would actually have a future again. One can only dream.

This could be bad for Mozilla?

by sva_ 2y ago

This could be bad for Mozilla?

leotravis10 2y ago

Yes it could very well be although I expect Google to appeal this ruling.

2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago

Yes. And seat belt laws are bad for hospitals and undertakers.

notatallshaw 2y ago
Can you please expand or explain on this analogy. I'm struggling to connect how Google's last major browser engine competitor potentially losing it's funding due to a separate monopoly issue is similar to laws being passed to reduce death and hospitalizations.
- aednichols 2y ago
  The DOJ is concerned with moving the needle on one specific issue (search monopoly a.k.a. seatbelts) and is not concerned about the side effects on related entities (Firefox a.k.a. undertakers).
- cvhc 2y ago
  FOF ¶ 334. Google’s default placements on Firefox generate 80% of Mozilla’s overall operating revenue, demonstrating that the vast majority of query volume on Firefox goes through defaults. Ref: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/25032745/045110819896.pdf https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/25032745/045110819896...
- bagels 2y ago
  The analogy is: Sometimes the one negative outcome (Mozilla & hospitals losing money) is a price well paid for another positive one (regulating monopolies & reduced deaths).
- zelphirkalt 2y ago
  Not using a seatbelt is unhealthy. Using Google search as the default is unhealthy as well.
- account42 2y ago
  They are not Google's competitior, they are their partner in crime.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

repelsteeltje 2y ago

Bad for Firefox, which still relies exclusively on Google sponsorship. Thunderbird, on the other hand, takes user donations.

JohnFen 2y ago
> Thunderbird, on the other hand, takes user donations. And it depends on Firefox, sadly.
- repelsteeltje 2y ago
  Fair enough. In any case, now would probably be a good moment for Mozilla to reconsider user donations on Firefox. Just my €50 of course isn't going to change the future by itself. But I'd happily give it to them if they'd let me. (And I don't even mind manually removing Google and replacing it with DDG.)
  - JohnFen 2y ago
    I've long been baffled at the inability to contribute to Firefox development. It seems crazy to me that this isn't possible.
  - mozempthrowaway 2y ago
    Just so you know, the money users donate goes towards political causes not towards Firefox. When you are donating, you are donating to the Mozilla Foundation (which is a non-profit). All Firefox development is done through Mozilla Corporation (which is a for profit entity). There is no way to donate to Firefox.
- zbentley 2y ago
  Do you mean it depends on Firefox for money and staff from Mozilla inc/fdn? Or that it uses a Firefox-based browser engine for HTML emails? If the latter, I don’t imagine this will have too terribly much impact. Email clients often lag behind browsers in what they can display.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> could be bad for Mozilla? Just skimmed the ruling [1]. A pillar appears to be that “Google’s distribution agreements are exclusive.” So if Mozilla e.g. auctions off the next N installs default-search engine designation, it might work? (Also, the ruling doesn’t ban exclusive distribution agreements in general.) [1] https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/25032745/045110819896.pdf https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/25032745/045110819896...

dwallin 2y ago

IMO, this is the best think that could happen for Firefox. Mozilla as an organization has been thoroughly corrupted by huge buckets of money being thrown at them by Google. "The Resource Curse" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse) doesn't only apply to countries.

yesco 2y ago

While they are certainly dependent on Google funding, I believe this dependence is a net negative for the long term health of Firefox development. It implicitly skews the incentives of Mozilla leadership, making them comfortable with getting lots of money they didn't really work for and giving them some funny ideas on where their priorities lie. Presumably a proper non profit would be more incentivized to stick to the projects ideals so they can brag about it in their fundraising activities (with perhaps a little too much of that money going into administrator pockets on the down low). Meanwhile Google's funding creates a status quo where it's pretty much fine with anything so long as Firefox continues to exist as a scarecrow to anti-trust suits. It effectively muscles out all the potential well meaning donors which could have helped steer things in a more positive direction, and acts like a sword of damocles floating over Mozilla's head, engorging the organization in addictive cash they don't deserve, and implicitly discouraging them from ever stepping on Google's toes lest the money hose gets turned off. These days I'd call Firefox "good enough" from a privacy & open source perspective. It checks the boxes, and while I'm actually pretty open to the UI changes they have made over the years, I've gotten the sense that top Mozilla leadership don't really care about Firefox anymore, even distancing themself from it in certain respects. These days Firefox doesn't really seem to be going anywhere, it does the bare minimum by implementing web standards but all efforts to distinguish it from Chrome seem to be gradually extinguished. I wouldn't even be surprised at this point if they eventually turned off Mv2 support in a few years from now, despite all promises to the contrary, citing complexity or perhaps even "security" like Google's been doing as the reason. If in the "worst" case Mozilla shutters down or abandons Firefox development after losing their money hose, perhaps the mindshare of the community they have been hoarding away all these years will coalesce around a healthier fork with an organization structure closer to the Linux foundation, maybe then Firefox would actually have a future again. One can only dream.