5 ms·

This is largely in anticipation of the devastating drop in revenue if Google can no longer pay them to be the default search engine. That's where they get 86% o

This is largely in anticipation of the devastating drop in revenue if Google can no longer pay them to be the default search engine. That's where they get 86% of their revenue [0]. [0] https://fortune.com/2024/08/05/mozilla-firefox-biggest-potential-loser-google-antitrust-search-ruling/ https://fortune.com/2024/08/05/mozilla-firefox-biggest-poten...

eigenspace 2y ago
Wouldn't that affect their for-profit company arm, not the non-profit Mozilla Foundation? Or does the for-profit arm fund the non-profit?
- riedel 2y ago
  >Revenue consists of the following: x Royalties - Mozilla provides the Firefox web browser, which is a free and open- source web browser initially developed by Mozilla Foundation and the Corporation. Mozilla incorporates search engines of its customers as a default status or an optional status available in the Firefox web browser. Mozilla generally receives royalties at a certain percentage of revenues earned by its customers through their search engines incorporated in the Firefox web browser. [0] https://stateof.mozilla.org/ https://stateof.mozilla.org/ Based on the audit numbers I a bit puzzled about the reported amount of staff. Maybe I am reading it completely wrong
deburo 2y ago
> ruled that the tech giant has illegally maintained a monopoly through the billions of dollars in annual payments it makes to partners Wow. Are they serious? that’s illegal?
- clipsy 2y ago
  Cutting the source off mid-sentence is disingenuous.
  - deburo 2y ago
    Fine, I thought the context was obviously Google's search engine monopoly. > ruled that the tech giant has illegally maintained a monopoly through the billions of dollars in annual payments it makes to partners to secure the default search engine position on popular web browsers and mobile phones It's still a stretch by the judge, and this article is a good hint that the ruling may be weak: https://itif.org/publications/2024/08/23/six-weak-spots-judge-mehta-google-decision/ https://itif.org/publications/2024/08/23/six-weak-spots-judg...
    - debacle 2y ago
      The same argument that they used against Microsoft 20 years ago is a "stretch?"
      - deburo 2y ago
        Google search is about to be made irrelevant by AI, and yes I believe it is a stretch to compare Google's search "monopoly" to Microsoft's browser monopoly of yore.
jowea 2y ago
I wonder if Firefox will even survive this. Maybe the main FOSS browser will be a Chromium fork so it's cheaper to maintain?
- openrisk 2y ago
  How about it becomes a squeaky clean non-profit, gets classified as a digital public good and gets funded by the widest collection of public sector / ngo's. We are talking about the literal window to the digital world, with potentially billions of users. Its a dysfunctional world that cant sort out funding for such a super-critical software piece and has let adtech have this charade and fig leaf of "browser competition" going on for so long. A chromium based solution would double down on the monoculture. If anything now is the time to envision what a users-first browser should be like, not what adtech wants it to be. From wasm to fediverse and (dare I say) AI, its a good time to snap out of the stagnation.
  - idunnoman1222 2y ago
    Checks welcome
    - yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago
      Are they? AFAIK there is still no way to fund Firefox the browser.
    - isaacremuant 2y ago
      Problem is that they've told for too long that they didn't want money or people who didn't align with one specific USA political party so I can understand if people don't come rushing in to try and contribute. It's unfortunate since Firefox is key to an open internet but at some point, they lost their true way and now it's going to take a lot of effort to regain it.
      - paulryanrogers 2y ago
        > ...didn't want money or people who didn't align with one specific USA political party... Was it ever about party? I thought it was more about executives who donated to bigoted causes.
TheRealPomax 2y ago
The foundation is not funded from the google money, you're thinking of the corporation.
- zamadatix 2y ago
  Doesn't the corporation fund the foundation as well though?
  - mbrubeck 2y ago
    Yes, the Mozilla Corporation paid US$19.1 million in trademark royalties to the Mozilla Foundation in 2022, per their most recent annual report. Also, the Corporation is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Foundation.
    - mossTechnician 2y ago
      I think that's page 61, 2.1 in this PDF. https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2022/mozilla-fdn-990-ty22-public-disclosure.pdf https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2022/mozilla-fdn-990... Do funds go from the Corporation to the Foundation exclusively, or is it ever bidirectional? Common knowledge is "If you donate to the Foundation, the Corporation will never see a penny of it for browser development."
    - TheRealPomax 2y ago
      And a lot of people don't realize that "wholly owned" is just a legal construction, it does not mean that they have any say over what the corporation does, how the corporation does that, or that they have any kind of access to any money in the corporation's accounts. The foundation owns the corporation, part of that ownership is that they can't run it. If they did, they'd no longer be a separate non-profit.
      - mbrubeck 2y ago
        But it does mean that the Corporation's dividends all go to the Foundation, its sole shareholder. It has paid such dividends in the past, though as far as I can tell, dividends have been replaced by royalty payments in more recent years.

eigenspace 2y ago

Wouldn't that affect their for-profit company arm, not the non-profit Mozilla Foundation? Or does the for-profit arm fund the non-profit?

riedel 2y ago
>Revenue consists of the following: x Royalties - Mozilla provides the Firefox web browser, which is a free and open- source web browser initially developed by Mozilla Foundation and the Corporation. Mozilla incorporates search engines of its customers as a default status or an optional status available in the Firefox web browser. Mozilla generally receives royalties at a certain percentage of revenues earned by its customers through their search engines incorporated in the Firefox web browser. [0] https://stateof.mozilla.org/ https://stateof.mozilla.org/ Based on the audit numbers I a bit puzzled about the reported amount of staff. Maybe I am reading it completely wrong

deburo 2y ago

> ruled that the tech giant has illegally maintained a monopoly through the billions of dollars in annual payments it makes to partners Wow. Are they serious? that’s illegal?

clipsy 2y ago
Cutting the source off mid-sentence is disingenuous.
- deburo 2y ago
  Fine, I thought the context was obviously Google's search engine monopoly. > ruled that the tech giant has illegally maintained a monopoly through the billions of dollars in annual payments it makes to partners to secure the default search engine position on popular web browsers and mobile phones It's still a stretch by the judge, and this article is a good hint that the ruling may be weak: https://itif.org/publications/2024/08/23/six-weak-spots-judge-mehta-google-decision/ https://itif.org/publications/2024/08/23/six-weak-spots-judg...
  - debacle 2y ago
    The same argument that they used against Microsoft 20 years ago is a "stretch?"
    - deburo 2y ago
      Google search is about to be made irrelevant by AI, and yes I believe it is a stretch to compare Google's search "monopoly" to Microsoft's browser monopoly of yore.

jowea 2y ago

I wonder if Firefox will even survive this. Maybe the main FOSS browser will be a Chromium fork so it's cheaper to maintain?

openrisk 2y ago
How about it becomes a squeaky clean non-profit, gets classified as a digital public good and gets funded by the widest collection of public sector / ngo's. We are talking about the literal window to the digital world, with potentially billions of users. Its a dysfunctional world that cant sort out funding for such a super-critical software piece and has let adtech have this charade and fig leaf of "browser competition" going on for so long. A chromium based solution would double down on the monoculture. If anything now is the time to envision what a users-first browser should be like, not what adtech wants it to be. From wasm to fediverse and (dare I say) AI, its a good time to snap out of the stagnation.
- idunnoman1222 2y ago
  Checks welcome
  - yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago
    Are they? AFAIK there is still no way to fund Firefox the browser.
  - isaacremuant 2y ago
    Problem is that they've told for too long that they didn't want money or people who didn't align with one specific USA political party so I can understand if people don't come rushing in to try and contribute. It's unfortunate since Firefox is key to an open internet but at some point, they lost their true way and now it's going to take a lot of effort to regain it.
    - paulryanrogers 2y ago
      > ...didn't want money or people who didn't align with one specific USA political party... Was it ever about party? I thought it was more about executives who donated to bigoted causes.

TheRealPomax 2y ago

The foundation is not funded from the google money, you're thinking of the corporation.

zamadatix 2y ago
Doesn't the corporation fund the foundation as well though?
- mbrubeck 2y ago
  Yes, the Mozilla Corporation paid US$19.1 million in trademark royalties to the Mozilla Foundation in 2022, per their most recent annual report. Also, the Corporation is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Foundation.
  - mossTechnician 2y ago
    I think that's page 61, 2.1 in this PDF. https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2022/mozilla-fdn-990-ty22-public-disclosure.pdf https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2022/mozilla-fdn-990... Do funds go from the Corporation to the Foundation exclusively, or is it ever bidirectional? Common knowledge is "If you donate to the Foundation, the Corporation will never see a penny of it for browser development."
  - TheRealPomax 2y ago
    And a lot of people don't realize that "wholly owned" is just a legal construction, it does not mean that they have any say over what the corporation does, how the corporation does that, or that they have any kind of access to any money in the corporation's accounts. The foundation owns the corporation, part of that ownership is that they can't run it. If they did, they'd no longer be a separate non-profit.
    - mbrubeck 2y ago
      But it does mean that the Corporation's dividends all go to the Foundation, its sole shareholder. It has paid such dividends in the past, though as far as I can tell, dividends have been replaced by royalty payments in more recent years.