4 ms·

This recent Mozilla stuff has got me wondering if one could fork Firefox, strip out the AI/adware code, then sell the binaries. How much would people pay (who w

This recent Mozilla stuff has got me wondering if one could fork Firefox, strip out the AI/adware code, then sell the binaries. How much would people pay (who would pay for a web browser)? Just Firefox, minus the crap. Would it generate enough revenue to cover the maintenance costs? Etc, etc.

paulryanrogers 2y ago
Arguably that's what Librewolf, Waterfox, and Palemoon are doing, except via donations. Considering how quickly Netscape died once IE appeared, I think the market is so small that sites will never test against them and they'll never get a seat on a standards board.
mmooss 2y ago
If you take enough users from Firefox, who will do the expensive, hard work of updating and maintaining a browser engine?
- pjerem 2y ago
  If you take so much users from Firefox but they are paid users then you basically have the money to do the expensive hard work.
  - mmooss 2y ago
    It costs over $200M per year. That's a lot of paying users.
    - gkbrk 2y ago
      "Mozilla spends $200M on it per year" does not mean it costs $200M per year. Considering Mozilla overspends on everything else, it's not a stretch to think they might be overspending on this too.
      - mmooss 2y ago
        > Considering Mozilla overspends on everything else That something is repeated endlessly does not make it true. In fact, it's a signal of disinformation (which doesn't make it false). And when words are used like "everything", it suggests 'nothing' specific is really known. And even to the degree it's true, the inference is weak; the question is, how much does web browser development cost? $200M seems reasonable to me. Comparisons I've seen make it quite a bit less than estimates of Google's costs, for example.
- immibis 2y ago
  That bridge will be crossed when we get to it. Thunderbird improved substantially after Mozilla stopped maintaining it. Thunderbird was held back by Mozilla.
  - mmooss 2y ago
    Thunderbird began improving, as far as I know, after multiple post-Mozilla iterations, including returning to the Mozilla fold in a different relationship, which is where it is now. Its improvement was not correlated with the Mozilla breakup. Mozilla and the Thunderbird teams knew, however, that a breakup was needed for both Thunderbird and for Firefox (Thunderbird compatibility requirements were holding back Firefox). The reason was that Thunderbird was a low priority for an organization that has a much more successful application in Firefox. Low priority projects don't do well; the organization naturally structures, invests in equipment, hires, manages, etc. for the high priority. You want to be a high priority wherever you are - better to be the big app in a small org than a small app in a big org (as a very general statement). If you don't know these things, why make up sh-t about Mozilla? What do you get out of it?

paulryanrogers 2y ago

Arguably that's what Librewolf, Waterfox, and Palemoon are doing, except via donations. Considering how quickly Netscape died once IE appeared, I think the market is so small that sites will never test against them and they'll never get a seat on a standards board.

mmooss 2y ago

If you take enough users from Firefox, who will do the expensive, hard work of updating and maintaining a browser engine?

pjerem 2y ago
If you take so much users from Firefox but they are paid users then you basically have the money to do the expensive hard work.
- mmooss 2y ago
  It costs over $200M per year. That's a lot of paying users.
  - gkbrk 2y ago
    "Mozilla spends $200M on it per year" does not mean it costs $200M per year. Considering Mozilla overspends on everything else, it's not a stretch to think they might be overspending on this too.
    - mmooss 2y ago
      > Considering Mozilla overspends on everything else That something is repeated endlessly does not make it true. In fact, it's a signal of disinformation (which doesn't make it false). And when words are used like "everything", it suggests 'nothing' specific is really known. And even to the degree it's true, the inference is weak; the question is, how much does web browser development cost? $200M seems reasonable to me. Comparisons I've seen make it quite a bit less than estimates of Google's costs, for example.
immibis 2y ago
That bridge will be crossed when we get to it. Thunderbird improved substantially after Mozilla stopped maintaining it. Thunderbird was held back by Mozilla.
- mmooss 2y ago
  Thunderbird began improving, as far as I know, after multiple post-Mozilla iterations, including returning to the Mozilla fold in a different relationship, which is where it is now. Its improvement was not correlated with the Mozilla breakup. Mozilla and the Thunderbird teams knew, however, that a breakup was needed for both Thunderbird and for Firefox (Thunderbird compatibility requirements were holding back Firefox). The reason was that Thunderbird was a low priority for an organization that has a much more successful application in Firefox. Low priority projects don't do well; the organization naturally structures, invests in equipment, hires, manages, etc. for the high priority. You want to be a high priority wherever you are - better to be the big app in a small org than a small app in a big org (as a very general statement). If you don't know these things, why make up sh-t about Mozilla? What do you get out of it?