3 ms·

Expected, but this makes it clear that Mozilla's morality is dictated by where their paychecks are coming from. They're basically saying that they need to be pa

Expected, but this makes it clear that Mozilla's morality is dictated by where their paychecks are coming from. They're basically saying that they need to be paid by Google to challenge Google. That's not what Google is paying you for. The hilarious part is that there's no alternate proposal, and nothing (here) addressing Google in terms of antitrust at all. It's just a plea for half-billion dollar yearly checks from their competitor, for reasons. They want to be paid by Google so they can continue to challenge Google, but don't challenge Google in any way, right here, right now. The reason Google spent billions on Firefox is for this letter, not for hits from a browser with 5% market share that 100% uses adblockers. edit: also, how far has Netscape fallen? This is embarrassing for me to read, it had to be embarrassing to write.

cosmic_cheese 2y ago
The lack of of an alternative proposal jumped out at me as well. While it’s not explicitly required the post feels incomplete without it. I think they’re also underselling WebKit a bit. Under Linux it's not too far behind macOS/iOS and work to bring the Windows version up to parity is underway[1]. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43305344 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43305344
- bagacrap 2y ago
  You are overselling webkit. It's not at parity, and even if it were, just maintaining parity costs $$$ per year. Anyway, the obviously implied alternative proposal is: disallow search deals with major players like Safari, not minor players like Mozilla, or find some completely different way to address the search monopoly. The most obvious prior art is the browser choice dialog that was imposed on MS/windows. The DOJ doesn't want that because everyone would pick Google anyway.
ggm 2y ago
Yes, there is a lot of that message in this. We like to think of Mozilla/Firefox as "the alternative" but it's a bit of window dressing to Google, which allows them to show regulators aywhere they tried to foster independent code paths and browser diversity. Maybe the answer is to donate Chrome to Mozilla along with seed money to invest in the markets, and fund continual development. Mozilla can continue to do the work we need, but independent of the advertising/adblock warfare. And a trickle of the money behind Chrome can be fed to Firefox as usual
- oguz-ismail 2y ago
  >Maybe the answer is to donate Chrome to Mozilla And end up with two shitty browsers instead of one? I don't follow
  - ggm 2y ago
    The judge says they have to divest. Mozilla says hey we exist and need funding. Google also point to Mozilla and say "look look we value diversity in browser" So it's a mechanistic way to get out from under and meet social obligations. Obviously if you don't like either browser it does nothing for you.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
charcircuit 2y ago
The alternative is doing a rev share with another search provider who will not be able to pay as much per user as Google. Or for Mozilla to buy or make their own search egnine which is a lot of work and risk. Mozilla is trying to compete against Google's browser and not their search engine. I don't see why Google wouldn't be paying for their search traffic as opposed to just letting Microsoft buy it.
- bagacrap 2y ago
  This point, that Google is able to pay the most per user because it has the most economically productive search, is why I think their behavior is not anti competitive. Search is not a loss leader by any means.

cosmic_cheese 2y ago

The lack of of an alternative proposal jumped out at me as well. While it’s not explicitly required the post feels incomplete without it. I think they’re also underselling WebKit a bit. Under Linux it's not too far behind macOS/iOS and work to bring the Windows version up to parity is underway[1]. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43305344 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43305344

bagacrap 2y ago
You are overselling webkit. It's not at parity, and even if it were, just maintaining parity costs $$$ per year. Anyway, the obviously implied alternative proposal is: disallow search deals with major players like Safari, not minor players like Mozilla, or find some completely different way to address the search monopoly. The most obvious prior art is the browser choice dialog that was imposed on MS/windows. The DOJ doesn't want that because everyone would pick Google anyway.

ggm 2y ago

Yes, there is a lot of that message in this. We like to think of Mozilla/Firefox as "the alternative" but it's a bit of window dressing to Google, which allows them to show regulators aywhere they tried to foster independent code paths and browser diversity. Maybe the answer is to donate Chrome to Mozilla along with seed money to invest in the markets, and fund continual development. Mozilla can continue to do the work we need, but independent of the advertising/adblock warfare. And a trickle of the money behind Chrome can be fed to Firefox as usual

oguz-ismail 2y ago
>Maybe the answer is to donate Chrome to Mozilla And end up with two shitty browsers instead of one? I don't follow
- ggm 2y ago
  The judge says they have to divest. Mozilla says hey we exist and need funding. Google also point to Mozilla and say "look look we value diversity in browser" So it's a mechanistic way to get out from under and meet social obligations. Obviously if you don't like either browser it does nothing for you.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

charcircuit 2y ago

The alternative is doing a rev share with another search provider who will not be able to pay as much per user as Google. Or for Mozilla to buy or make their own search egnine which is a lot of work and risk. Mozilla is trying to compete against Google's browser and not their search engine. I don't see why Google wouldn't be paying for their search traffic as opposed to just letting Microsoft buy it.

bagacrap 2y ago
This point, that Google is able to pay the most per user because it has the most economically productive search, is why I think their behavior is not anti competitive. Search is not a loss leader by any means.