8 ms·

Mozilla: Proposals in US vs. Google threaten vital role of independent browsers

64 points by botanical 2y ago

jqpabc123 2y ago
Is Mozilla independent? The undisputed reality is that Mozilla is almost wholly funded by the dominant (i.e. monopoly) search provider. This blog post as well as basic Firefox design decisions (compromised privacy by default) are fully conducive and reflective of this reality. In other words, this opinion was bought and paid for by Google.
- dralley 2y ago
  This opinion is fully consistent with Mozilla's self-interest, whether it is or is not in Google's interest is basically immaterial. I also have to say I find it difficult to take "Mozilla is Google by proxy" complaints seriously when the same people tend to simultaneously moan and complain any time Mozilla tries to branch out and cultivate independent revenue streams. It's unreasonable to on one hand whine about their financial dependence on the Firefox default search deal with Google and then on the other hand whine any time they make a little bit of revenue on a VPN partnership, or Pocket, or a Disney movie about a Red Panda.
  - romanows 2y ago
    I think those people are (1) worried about Google and also simultaneously (2) worried/annoyed by activities that they think will never be sufficient to replace Google funding and that distract from browser development.
    - kijin 2y ago
      Exactly. Mozilla is a seriously bloated organization. Most of its $500M+ budget goes toward activities that have little to do with Firefox development. (In another thread a couple of months ago, it was postulated that Firefox development accounts for at most $200M of the budget, and likely much less than that.) Basically, they are using Firefox search deals and other revenue streams to fund their political and educational campaigns. Not that I disagree with their ideals, but I really wish they left the activism to other orgs like EFF and just focused on making a browser.
  - shiomiru 2y ago
    > when the same people simultaneously moan and complain any time Mozilla tries to branch out and cultivate independent revenue streams. I don't know what "same people" you're talking about, but the criticism I see is typically about a) Mozilla's attempts to branch out which failed, b) Mozilla's "branching out" attempts that are just as bad as their reliance on Google (like how they bought an ad company and are pushing their form of "anonymous tracking" or whatnot.)
    - dralley 2y ago
      Hot take: Developing a privacy concious replacement for the current ad-surveillance-industrial-complex model is NOT a bad idea, it's probably a good one and consistent with their values. It's also one of the few ideas which could actually plausibly fund their operations. I liked their partnership with Scroll, before it got destroyed by the Twitter acquisition.
  - jqpabc123 2y ago
    This opinion is fully consistent with Mozilla's self-interest This opinion is fully consistent with Google's self-interest. Coincidence? I think not --- there are about $400M reasons for it.
  - registeredcorn 2y ago
    >I find it difficult to take "Mozilla is Google by proxy" complaints seriously when the same people tend to simultaneously moan and complain any time Mozilla tries to branch out and cultivate independent revenue streams. I don't wish to cause too much argument, but it might be worth to consider that not all naysayers are from the same cloth. It could easily be several different groups of people that might not overlap. Each might complain about Mozilla, but for different reasons. I.e. Group 1: "Mozilla takes money from google, and that's bad! They rely too much on Web Browsers!" Group 2: "Mozilla is too distracted by side projects! They need to focus on what they're best at!" Both of those groups might not agree with one another, but at other times there might be some overlap in complaints, too. I could see group 1 and 2 both complain that, for instance, "AI is an untested, trendy/gimmicky idea that they shouldn't be focusing on right now." I'm not terribly wrapped up with what Mozilla does, or does not do; Mozilla can do whatever they want...I don't work there, so I don't care too terribly. I do my best to judge ideas on its merits.
    - dralley 2y ago
      >I could see group 1 and 2 both complain that, for instance, "AI is an untested, trendy/gimmicky idea that they shouldn't be focusing on right now." If you think that Mozilla is too dependent on a search engine deal, would it not be wise to hedge against the fact that search itself may be less relevant in the future? Certainly Google, Apple and Microsoft are not ignoring AI as a browser supplement / replacement. But they're all incentivized to do it on their own proprietary systems, whereas Mozilla is incentivized to use local, open source, small models. That's potential differentiation.
      - registeredcorn 2y ago
        I was using an example of criticism I've heard regarding Mozilla. As I stated: >I'm not terribly wrapped up with what Mozilla does, or does not do; Mozilla can do whatever they want...I don't work there, so I don't care too terribly. I don't think GAI (generative AI), in the commercial sense that it has been marketed in the last year or two, has been around long enough to critique it with any verifiable wisdom or insight - ChatGPT for example only launched around mid 2022 - we aren't far enough removed from its hype to make any kind of neutral assessment. In more broad terms as a field of computer science ala machine learning, computer vision, deep learning, etc. it's far too niche an area for me to really assert any insight on - I'm at the kids table. As an overview, I typically favor optimism over the long-term (15-20 year) on technological advancements - spellcheck is in a better spot than it was in 2004 for example, however, I have also been exceedingly dismissive over some things: online video (YouTube), streaming (Netflix, Hulu, etc.), and microblogging when they were new. They, of course then became explosively successful several seconds after the words tumbled out between my lips. GAI is simply too new a technology in its current form to say if it is a: positive, negative, neutral, or somewhere in-between. And if it doesn't seem smart to speculate one way or another about GAI, it seems even more ill-advised to speculate whether it is profitable to invest in GAI.
  - r00fus 2y ago
    > whether it is or is not in Google's interest is basically immaterial. It's incredibly material to this discussion - as it's Google who is funding Mozilla.
    - spwa4 2y ago
      Well, sure, but you could also ask the question: let's say Mozilla loses this funding. Will the web, either as standards or as a marketplace, improve as a result? I think the answer is a pretty definitive "no way in hell". All browsers will start pulling "the old tricks" like replacing adverts on websites to fund themselves.
- briffle 2y ago
  In what way is Privacy in Firefox compromised by default? And how does that compare to Chrome, Edge, or Safari in their default privacy settings?
  - jqpabc123 2y ago
    https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2020/03/study-ranks-edges-default-privacy-settings-the-lowest-of-all-major-browsers/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2020/03/study...
  - autoexec 2y ago
    Mozilla is an adtech company now (https://www.theregister.com/2024/06/18/mozilla_buys_anonym_betting_privacy/ https://www.theregister.com/2024/06/18/mozilla_buys_anonym_b...) and by default they now collect everyone's browsing history, track what you're doing online, then give that information to third parties who use it to deliver reports to marketers.
- molticrystal 2y ago
  If anything, the funding has corrupted them, as they opted for web extensions instead of extending or re-implementing their XUL framework, thereby removing significant amounts of user control over the browser. We can now see the true intention behind web extensions, exemplified by Chrome's implementation of Manifest V3, which appears to be designed to make it challenging for web extension developers to keep up with the changes while maintaining privacy and user control, ultimately causing the extension ecosystem to fragment. This outcome could have been avoided if browsers had stuck to their own paths from the start. This trend has continued to this day, as evident in your mention of compromised privacy, where Mozilla may take some steps to protect users but then introduce subtle changes that include analytics and tracking. Additionally, the funding likely retained a lot of talent at Mozilla that could have otherwise contributed to the former SerenityOS's browser, now known as LadyBird, thereby diversifying the ecosystem.
zoezoezoezoe 2y ago
This is a reminder that Mozilla only exists because of google, in the Mozilla Foundation's 2021–2022 financial statement, Mozilla states to have made $593 Million, $510 Million of that came from Google. Mozilla is bitching because they dont exist without Google, and while they may claim to be independent or whatever, if the DOJ forces Google to end default search deals, Mozilla disappears.
- dsr_ 2y ago
  https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/annualreport/2024/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/annualreport/2024/ Yup.
  - mossTechnician 2y ago
    If I'm counting right, that page (minus header/footer) mentions Firefox three times, and AI 17 times. And one of the mentions of Firefox is practically pejorative: "Mozilla has been incorrectly thought of by many as 'the Firefox company.'"
    - jckahn 2y ago
      This is depressing. Firefox is the only browser I'm willing to daily drive because it's the only one that's good and built by a nonprofit. I love Firefox, but loving Mozilla gets harder every day.
      - Dalewyn 2y ago
        >only one that's good and built by a nonprofit. Firefox is developed by Mozilla Corporation, a for-profit.
        jckahn 2y ago
        I hadn’t realized that. :(
    - kstrauser 2y ago
erellsworth 2y ago
> We urge the court to consider remedies that achieve its goals without harming independent browsers, browser engines and ultimately without harming the web. Such as? I have no idea what the solution to this issue is and, it seems, neither does Mozilla.
- boxed 2y ago
  If you have a monopoly, the only way to handle it is to split the company down the middle. Give both full rights to all the contained IP except the name of the original company. Google.com would redirect to the two resulting companies randomly. Maybe after this split stabilizes you need to split the resulting companies again. Markets need to emulate evolution. Consolidation is emulating invasive clonal individuals that eventually crash. We need to emulate offspring and the death of the parent.
  - luma 2y ago
    …this might be the worst possible solution for all parties involved. How do I handle my own credentials when I have no idea which way a coin toss is going to go when I reach the site? How are certs handled? What would anyone gain from one Google becoming two, identical and indistinguishable Googles?
    - boxed 2y ago
      > How do I handle my own credentials when I have no idea which way a coin toss is going to go when I reach the site? You'll notice which one you got to after the redirect obviously. Reset credentials isn't a huge deal either, it happens after hacking attacks all the time. > How are certs handled? I don't understand this question. There are two different companies afterwards, with their own certs and their own name. No problem at all. > What would anyone gain from one Google becoming two, identical and indistinguishable Googles? Indistinguishable? No. They must rename. And they will diverge over time as they try to compete. You know.. like markets are supposed to work.
  - qzw 2y ago
    That’s an interesting idea. I would think that trying to do a second split would have significant challenges because the monopoly has already been turned into a duopoly, so now you have to do the work against two rich companies. Looking at the two most famous breakups of monopolies, Standard Oil and AT&T, where each was broken into multiple entities, I would argue that the resulting “children” were still far too powerful. Maybe these monopolies need to be broken into 10+ separate businesses for it to be truly effective.
bobajeff 2y ago
>Proposals in US vs. Google threaten vital role of independent browsers That's a creative way to put it considering there is only one independent browser (singular) that's being harmed by this. A more straightforward title world be `Proposals in US vs. Google threaten the only viable independent browser maker left`
- sdfhbdf 2y ago
  Hmm I think two, since Google pays (paid) Apple to be the default search engine on iOS, it could’ve been said that WebKit and Safari development might have been partially financed with this money. But I guess that falls apart when we treat Safari as dependent on Apple, which it is.
- thayne 2y ago
  It also harms any other browsers based on the gecko engine. Opera also has a search deal with Google.
registeredcorn 2y ago
Isn't Mozilla worth half a billion dollars? Perhaps they are "independent" in the sense that they are technically a different organization than google, but usually when I hear independent it evokes images of some "plucky upstart" looking to take on some giant superstructure. I'm talking about independent movie theaters, or independent coffee companies. Things like that. Calling Firefox an independent browser is kind of like calling Internet Explorer an "independent browser" - it very well may be a different organization, but Microsoft is hardly independent as some kind of thin, agile, and flexible upstart looking to "take on old man google".
johnorourke 2y ago
Article doesn't answer question... it vaguely talks about search, defaults, threats but you have to kind of infer and guess what is actually written in the judgement. I wanted to read "the judgement says xxx which means xxx will happen which causes xxx". I have more questions after reading than before!
jackbravo 2y ago
Why not mandate that each browser shows search options on first install, and then periodically ask again every... 6 months? Google could still pay to be the top sponsored option. Would Google still pay Mozilla in this case?
jimjimwii 2y ago
Sadly Mozilla is like a large dead tree husk, full of parasites, that deprives healthy tree saplings from sunlight. I know its harsh, but I say knock it down. Much better for the browser market.
qzw 2y ago
> As written, the proposed remedies will force smaller and independent browsers like Firefox to fundamentally reexamine their entire operating model. I think a lot of us Firefox users would see that as a good thing, or at least no worse than the status quo. Firefox is now a small slice of the market, and it seems Mozilla has lost the will to ever truly challenge Chrome again. Maybe removing the easy Google money would be, shall we say, motivating.
- unethical_ban 2y ago
  What do you think Mozilla should be doing to recapture market share from Chrome that they aren't doing now?
  - lukan 2y ago
    Stop doing weird campaigns, or rather anything unrelated to building a browser. Rehire the servo team. Focus on the devs. There was a time, when firefox with the firebug plugin was the dev tool for the web. So people made sure websites worked in Firefox. But since quite a while, chrome dev tools are superior in allmost every regard and the ff ones unusable to me. Oh and let go of the expensive management. The one that openly talks about privacy, but ships FF with tracking and advertisment integrated by default. Stuff like this burned my trust. So I still use FF, because chrome is not better in that regard, but that is the only reason.
    - jimjimwii 2y ago
      I'd also say they should listen to power users: allow any/custom add-ons and re-enable dev tools in Firefox for Android (like kiwi browser). A mainstream android browser with these two features would easily outclass chrome on android for most power users.
    - MiguelX413 2y ago
      So you basically think they should stop trying to make revenue streams independent from Google.
  - 2y ago
throwaway48476 2y ago
No one has figured out how to fund browser development because of ads. The siren call was too strong and drowned out alternate funding models.
djoldman 2y ago
> As written, the proposed remedies will force smaller and independent browsers like Firefox to fundamentally reexamine their entire operating model. > For the past seven years, Google search has been the default in Firefox in the U.S. because it provides the best search experience for our users. Isn't Google search the default because Google pays to be the default?
everfrustrated 2y ago
It's an absolute scandal that Mozilla gets HALF A BILLION $ PER YEAR from Google and Firefox isn't even technically or by market share the greatest browser in the market. How is it that despite this tremendous funding, no other company is using the gecko engine? How did Microsoft end up using Google's engine over Mozilla's? Mitchell Baker has a lot to answer for. She is single-handedly responsible for pillaging this opportunity. How she has lasted as the CEO for so long is criminal.
- Apocryphon 2y ago
  Zen also uses Gecko: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41303974 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41303974
pentagrama 2y ago
Doesn't the graph [1] in this article seem to be missing Safari at the start of the horizontal WebKit bar? [1] https://blog.mozilla.org/wp-content/blogs.dir/278/files/2024/12/image.png https://blog.mozilla.org/wp-content/blogs.dir/278/files/2024...
1vuio0pswjnm7 2y ago
"For the past seven years, Google search has been the default in Firefox in the US because it provides the best search experience for our users." And the fact that Mozilla is under agreement with Google to send search data to the company in return for hundreds of millions in revenue, without which Mozilla would allegedly cease to exist, is a fortuitous coincidence. We could could modify this statement to be more truthful as follows: For the past seven years, Google search has been the default in Firefox in the US in part because Mozilla believes it provides the best search experience for our users. As a longtime user since the Netscape Navigator days, I have yet to receive a user survey from Mozilla asking me what I believe "provides the best search experience". In fact, Mozilla never asks users what they think. Instead they attempt to spy on them through telemetry.
- wmf 2y ago
  Bing or Yahoo are also willing to pay.
iteratethis 2y ago
A case like this demonstrates that principles are as soft as butter when they are tested. Mozilla is all preachy about privacy but is in bed with the greatest private data hoarder in the world. They take the blood money and continue to enable the monopoly status quo. Mozilla is in favor of more competition to combat Big Tech, but as soon as an actual measure is taken that does that but has negative second order effects for themselves, it's...wait, not like that. Mozilla is looking out for all types of marginalized folks if you have to believe their activist blogs but in reality spent huge sums on leadership that failed to achieve any target at all for a decade in a row. Mozilla is the definition of woke capitalism. Hypocritical to the bone. This is an organization that ordinarily cannot exist. It is showered with money for doing nothing at all: just keep the search box pointed at Google. Half a billion to piss away at hobbies. There is zero accountability to any one or any thing. The only true principle Mozilla has is that it likes to continue this toddler organization. Free money, no accountability. All the do-good talk is a cover for this.

64 points by botanical 2y ago

Is Mozilla independent? The undisputed reality is that Mozilla is almost wholly funded by the dominant (i.e. monopoly) search provider. This blog post as well as basic Firefox design decisions (compromised privacy by default) are fully conducive and reflective of this reality. In other words, this opinion was bought and paid for by Google.

dralley 2y ago
This opinion is fully consistent with Mozilla's self-interest, whether it is or is not in Google's interest is basically immaterial. I also have to say I find it difficult to take "Mozilla is Google by proxy" complaints seriously when the same people tend to simultaneously moan and complain any time Mozilla tries to branch out and cultivate independent revenue streams. It's unreasonable to on one hand whine about their financial dependence on the Firefox default search deal with Google and then on the other hand whine any time they make a little bit of revenue on a VPN partnership, or Pocket, or a Disney movie about a Red Panda.
- romanows 2y ago
  I think those people are (1) worried about Google and also simultaneously (2) worried/annoyed by activities that they think will never be sufficient to replace Google funding and that distract from browser development.
  - kijin 2y ago
    Exactly. Mozilla is a seriously bloated organization. Most of its $500M+ budget goes toward activities that have little to do with Firefox development. (In another thread a couple of months ago, it was postulated that Firefox development accounts for at most $200M of the budget, and likely much less than that.) Basically, they are using Firefox search deals and other revenue streams to fund their political and educational campaigns. Not that I disagree with their ideals, but I really wish they left the activism to other orgs like EFF and just focused on making a browser.
- shiomiru 2y ago
  > when the same people simultaneously moan and complain any time Mozilla tries to branch out and cultivate independent revenue streams. I don't know what "same people" you're talking about, but the criticism I see is typically about a) Mozilla's attempts to branch out which failed, b) Mozilla's "branching out" attempts that are just as bad as their reliance on Google (like how they bought an ad company and are pushing their form of "anonymous tracking" or whatnot.)
  - dralley 2y ago
    Hot take: Developing a privacy concious replacement for the current ad-surveillance-industrial-complex model is NOT a bad idea, it's probably a good one and consistent with their values. It's also one of the few ideas which could actually plausibly fund their operations. I liked their partnership with Scroll, before it got destroyed by the Twitter acquisition.
- jqpabc123 2y ago
  This opinion is fully consistent with Mozilla's self-interest This opinion is fully consistent with Google's self-interest. Coincidence? I think not --- there are about $400M reasons for it.
- registeredcorn 2y ago
  >I find it difficult to take "Mozilla is Google by proxy" complaints seriously when the same people tend to simultaneously moan and complain any time Mozilla tries to branch out and cultivate independent revenue streams. I don't wish to cause too much argument, but it might be worth to consider that not all naysayers are from the same cloth. It could easily be several different groups of people that might not overlap. Each might complain about Mozilla, but for different reasons. I.e. Group 1: "Mozilla takes money from google, and that's bad! They rely too much on Web Browsers!" Group 2: "Mozilla is too distracted by side projects! They need to focus on what they're best at!" Both of those groups might not agree with one another, but at other times there might be some overlap in complaints, too. I could see group 1 and 2 both complain that, for instance, "AI is an untested, trendy/gimmicky idea that they shouldn't be focusing on right now." I'm not terribly wrapped up with what Mozilla does, or does not do; Mozilla can do whatever they want...I don't work there, so I don't care too terribly. I do my best to judge ideas on its merits.
  - dralley 2y ago
    >I could see group 1 and 2 both complain that, for instance, "AI is an untested, trendy/gimmicky idea that they shouldn't be focusing on right now." If you think that Mozilla is too dependent on a search engine deal, would it not be wise to hedge against the fact that search itself may be less relevant in the future? Certainly Google, Apple and Microsoft are not ignoring AI as a browser supplement / replacement. But they're all incentivized to do it on their own proprietary systems, whereas Mozilla is incentivized to use local, open source, small models. That's potential differentiation.
    - registeredcorn 2y ago
      I was using an example of criticism I've heard regarding Mozilla. As I stated: >I'm not terribly wrapped up with what Mozilla does, or does not do; Mozilla can do whatever they want...I don't work there, so I don't care too terribly. I don't think GAI (generative AI), in the commercial sense that it has been marketed in the last year or two, has been around long enough to critique it with any verifiable wisdom or insight - ChatGPT for example only launched around mid 2022 - we aren't far enough removed from its hype to make any kind of neutral assessment. In more broad terms as a field of computer science ala machine learning, computer vision, deep learning, etc. it's far too niche an area for me to really assert any insight on - I'm at the kids table. As an overview, I typically favor optimism over the long-term (15-20 year) on technological advancements - spellcheck is in a better spot than it was in 2004 for example, however, I have also been exceedingly dismissive over some things: online video (YouTube), streaming (Netflix, Hulu, etc.), and microblogging when they were new. They, of course then became explosively successful several seconds after the words tumbled out between my lips. GAI is simply too new a technology in its current form to say if it is a: positive, negative, neutral, or somewhere in-between. And if it doesn't seem smart to speculate one way or another about GAI, it seems even more ill-advised to speculate whether it is profitable to invest in GAI.
- r00fus 2y ago
  > whether it is or is not in Google's interest is basically immaterial. It's incredibly material to this discussion - as it's Google who is funding Mozilla.
  - spwa4 2y ago
    Well, sure, but you could also ask the question: let's say Mozilla loses this funding. Will the web, either as standards or as a marketplace, improve as a result? I think the answer is a pretty definitive "no way in hell". All browsers will start pulling "the old tricks" like replacing adverts on websites to fund themselves.
briffle 2y ago
In what way is Privacy in Firefox compromised by default? And how does that compare to Chrome, Edge, or Safari in their default privacy settings?
- jqpabc123 2y ago
  https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2020/03/study-ranks-edges-default-privacy-settings-the-lowest-of-all-major-browsers/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2020/03/study...
- autoexec 2y ago
  Mozilla is an adtech company now (https://www.theregister.com/2024/06/18/mozilla_buys_anonym_betting_privacy/ https://www.theregister.com/2024/06/18/mozilla_buys_anonym_b...) and by default they now collect everyone's browsing history, track what you're doing online, then give that information to third parties who use it to deliver reports to marketers.
molticrystal 2y ago
If anything, the funding has corrupted them, as they opted for web extensions instead of extending or re-implementing their XUL framework, thereby removing significant amounts of user control over the browser. We can now see the true intention behind web extensions, exemplified by Chrome's implementation of Manifest V3, which appears to be designed to make it challenging for web extension developers to keep up with the changes while maintaining privacy and user control, ultimately causing the extension ecosystem to fragment. This outcome could have been avoided if browsers had stuck to their own paths from the start. This trend has continued to this day, as evident in your mention of compromised privacy, where Mozilla may take some steps to protect users but then introduce subtle changes that include analytics and tracking. Additionally, the funding likely retained a lot of talent at Mozilla that could have otherwise contributed to the former SerenityOS's browser, now known as LadyBird, thereby diversifying the ecosystem.

zoezoezoezoe 2y ago

This is a reminder that Mozilla only exists because of google, in the Mozilla Foundation's 2021–2022 financial statement, Mozilla states to have made $593 Million, $510 Million of that came from Google. Mozilla is bitching because they dont exist without Google, and while they may claim to be independent or whatever, if the DOJ forces Google to end default search deals, Mozilla disappears.

dsr_ 2y ago
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/annualreport/2024/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/annualreport/2024/ Yup.
- mossTechnician 2y ago
  If I'm counting right, that page (minus header/footer) mentions Firefox three times, and AI 17 times. And one of the mentions of Firefox is practically pejorative: "Mozilla has been incorrectly thought of by many as 'the Firefox company.'"
  - jckahn 2y ago
    This is depressing. Firefox is the only browser I'm willing to daily drive because it's the only one that's good and built by a nonprofit. I love Firefox, but loving Mozilla gets harder every day.
    - Dalewyn 2y ago
      >only one that's good and built by a nonprofit. Firefox is developed by Mozilla Corporation, a for-profit.
      - jckahn 2y ago
        I hadn’t realized that. :(
  - kstrauser 2y ago

erellsworth 2y ago

> We urge the court to consider remedies that achieve its goals without harming independent browsers, browser engines and ultimately without harming the web. Such as? I have no idea what the solution to this issue is and, it seems, neither does Mozilla.

boxed 2y ago
If you have a monopoly, the only way to handle it is to split the company down the middle. Give both full rights to all the contained IP except the name of the original company. Google.com would redirect to the two resulting companies randomly. Maybe after this split stabilizes you need to split the resulting companies again. Markets need to emulate evolution. Consolidation is emulating invasive clonal individuals that eventually crash. We need to emulate offspring and the death of the parent.
- luma 2y ago
  …this might be the worst possible solution for all parties involved. How do I handle my own credentials when I have no idea which way a coin toss is going to go when I reach the site? How are certs handled? What would anyone gain from one Google becoming two, identical and indistinguishable Googles?
  - boxed 2y ago
    > How do I handle my own credentials when I have no idea which way a coin toss is going to go when I reach the site? You'll notice which one you got to after the redirect obviously. Reset credentials isn't a huge deal either, it happens after hacking attacks all the time. > How are certs handled? I don't understand this question. There are two different companies afterwards, with their own certs and their own name. No problem at all. > What would anyone gain from one Google becoming two, identical and indistinguishable Googles? Indistinguishable? No. They must rename. And they will diverge over time as they try to compete. You know.. like markets are supposed to work.
- qzw 2y ago
  That’s an interesting idea. I would think that trying to do a second split would have significant challenges because the monopoly has already been turned into a duopoly, so now you have to do the work against two rich companies. Looking at the two most famous breakups of monopolies, Standard Oil and AT&T, where each was broken into multiple entities, I would argue that the resulting “children” were still far too powerful. Maybe these monopolies need to be broken into 10+ separate businesses for it to be truly effective.

bobajeff 2y ago

>Proposals in US vs. Google threaten vital role of independent browsers That's a creative way to put it considering there is only one independent browser (singular) that's being harmed by this. A more straightforward title world be `Proposals in US vs. Google threaten the only viable independent browser maker left`

sdfhbdf 2y ago
Hmm I think two, since Google pays (paid) Apple to be the default search engine on iOS, it could’ve been said that WebKit and Safari development might have been partially financed with this money. But I guess that falls apart when we treat Safari as dependent on Apple, which it is.
thayne 2y ago
It also harms any other browsers based on the gecko engine. Opera also has a search deal with Google.

registeredcorn 2y ago

Isn't Mozilla worth half a billion dollars? Perhaps they are "independent" in the sense that they are technically a different organization than google, but usually when I hear independent it evokes images of some "plucky upstart" looking to take on some giant superstructure. I'm talking about independent movie theaters, or independent coffee companies. Things like that. Calling Firefox an independent browser is kind of like calling Internet Explorer an "independent browser" - it very well may be a different organization, but Microsoft is hardly independent as some kind of thin, agile, and flexible upstart looking to "take on old man google".

johnorourke 2y ago

Article doesn't answer question... it vaguely talks about search, defaults, threats but you have to kind of infer and guess what is actually written in the judgement. I wanted to read "the judgement says xxx which means xxx will happen which causes xxx". I have more questions after reading than before!

jackbravo 2y ago

Why not mandate that each browser shows search options on first install, and then periodically ask again every... 6 months? Google could still pay to be the top sponsored option. Would Google still pay Mozilla in this case?

jimjimwii 2y ago

Sadly Mozilla is like a large dead tree husk, full of parasites, that deprives healthy tree saplings from sunlight. I know its harsh, but I say knock it down. Much better for the browser market.

qzw 2y ago

> As written, the proposed remedies will force smaller and independent browsers like Firefox to fundamentally reexamine their entire operating model. I think a lot of us Firefox users would see that as a good thing, or at least no worse than the status quo. Firefox is now a small slice of the market, and it seems Mozilla has lost the will to ever truly challenge Chrome again. Maybe removing the easy Google money would be, shall we say, motivating.

unethical_ban 2y ago
What do you think Mozilla should be doing to recapture market share from Chrome that they aren't doing now?
- lukan 2y ago
  Stop doing weird campaigns, or rather anything unrelated to building a browser. Rehire the servo team. Focus on the devs. There was a time, when firefox with the firebug plugin was the dev tool for the web. So people made sure websites worked in Firefox. But since quite a while, chrome dev tools are superior in allmost every regard and the ff ones unusable to me. Oh and let go of the expensive management. The one that openly talks about privacy, but ships FF with tracking and advertisment integrated by default. Stuff like this burned my trust. So I still use FF, because chrome is not better in that regard, but that is the only reason.
  - jimjimwii 2y ago
    I'd also say they should listen to power users: allow any/custom add-ons and re-enable dev tools in Firefox for Android (like kiwi browser). A mainstream android browser with these two features would easily outclass chrome on android for most power users.
  - MiguelX413 2y ago
    So you basically think they should stop trying to make revenue streams independent from Google.
- 2y ago

throwaway48476 2y ago

No one has figured out how to fund browser development because of ads. The siren call was too strong and drowned out alternate funding models.

djoldman 2y ago

> As written, the proposed remedies will force smaller and independent browsers like Firefox to fundamentally reexamine their entire operating model. > For the past seven years, Google search has been the default in Firefox in the U.S. because it provides the best search experience for our users. Isn't Google search the default because Google pays to be the default?

everfrustrated 2y ago

It's an absolute scandal that Mozilla gets HALF A BILLION $ PER YEAR from Google and Firefox isn't even technically or by market share the greatest browser in the market. How is it that despite this tremendous funding, no other company is using the gecko engine? How did Microsoft end up using Google's engine over Mozilla's? Mitchell Baker has a lot to answer for. She is single-handedly responsible for pillaging this opportunity. How she has lasted as the CEO for so long is criminal.

Apocryphon 2y ago
Zen also uses Gecko: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41303974 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41303974

pentagrama 2y ago

Doesn't the graph [1] in this article seem to be missing Safari at the start of the horizontal WebKit bar? [1] https://blog.mozilla.org/wp-content/blogs.dir/278/files/2024/12/image.png https://blog.mozilla.org/wp-content/blogs.dir/278/files/2024...

1vuio0pswjnm7 2y ago

"For the past seven years, Google search has been the default in Firefox in the US because it provides the best search experience for our users." And the fact that Mozilla is under agreement with Google to send search data to the company in return for hundreds of millions in revenue, without which Mozilla would allegedly cease to exist, is a fortuitous coincidence. We could could modify this statement to be more truthful as follows: For the past seven years, Google search has been the default in Firefox in the US in part because Mozilla believes it provides the best search experience for our users. As a longtime user since the Netscape Navigator days, I have yet to receive a user survey from Mozilla asking me what I believe "provides the best search experience". In fact, Mozilla never asks users what they think. Instead they attempt to spy on them through telemetry.

wmf 2y ago
Bing or Yahoo are also willing to pay.

iteratethis 2y ago

A case like this demonstrates that principles are as soft as butter when they are tested. Mozilla is all preachy about privacy but is in bed with the greatest private data hoarder in the world. They take the blood money and continue to enable the monopoly status quo. Mozilla is in favor of more competition to combat Big Tech, but as soon as an actual measure is taken that does that but has negative second order effects for themselves, it's...wait, not like that. Mozilla is looking out for all types of marginalized folks if you have to believe their activist blogs but in reality spent huge sums on leadership that failed to achieve any target at all for a decade in a row. Mozilla is the definition of woke capitalism. Hypocritical to the bone. This is an organization that ordinarily cannot exist. It is showered with money for doing nothing at all: just keep the search box pointed at Google. Half a billion to piss away at hobbies. There is zero accountability to any one or any thing. The only true principle Mozilla has is that it likes to continue this toddler organization. Free money, no accountability. All the do-good talk is a cover for this.