this post was submitted on 07 Aug 2024
192 points (95.7% liked)

Firefox

17857 readers
21 users here now

A place to discuss the news and latest developments on the open-source browser Firefox

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Mozilla has a close relationship with Google, as most of Firefox's revenue comes from the agreement keeping Google as the browser's default search engine. However, the search giant is now officially a monopoly, and a future court decision could have an unprecedented impact on Mozilla's ability to keep things "business as usual."

United States District Judge Amit Mehta found Google guilty of building a monopolistic position in web search. The Mountain View corporation spent billions of dollars becoming the leading search provider for computing platforms and web browsers on PC and mobile devices.

Most of the $21 billion spent went to Apple in exchange for setting Google as the default search engine on iPhone, iPad, and Mac systems. The judge will now need to decide on a penalty for the company's actions, including the potential of forcing Google to stop payments to its search "partners completely," which could have dire consequences for smaller companies like Mozilla.

Its most recent financials show Mozilla gets $510 million out of its $593 million in total revenue from its Google partnership. This precarious financial position is a side effect of its deal with Alphabet, which made Google the search engine default for newer Firefox installations.

The open-source web browser has experienced a steady market share decline over the past few years. Meanwhile, Mozilla management was paid millions to develop a new "vision" of a theoretical future with AI chatbots. Mozilla Corporation, the wholly owned subsidiary of Mozilla Foundation managing Firefox development, could find itself in a severe struggle for revenue if Google's money suddenly dried up.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ssm@lemmy.sdf.org 105 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (4 children)

So instead of fucking over google with an antitrust ruling like they very much deserve, we're going to fearmonger about how much it might hurt the ✨ sole saviors of the web ✨ Mozilla, who's finances are apparently entirely dependent on the company primarily responsible for ruining the web. Looks like a narrative, smells like narrative, to get the public to turn against the antitrust ruling.

[–] Syntha@sh.itjust.works 15 points 3 months ago

This has been well known for years. Just because it's news to you doesn't mean it's a conspiracy.

[–] MeowZedong@lemmygrad.ml 8 points 3 months ago (1 children)

While we're at it, we should add Microsoft to the antitrust case...again.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] WldFyre@lemm.ee 7 points 3 months ago (1 children)

"sole saviors of the web"

Lol I mean that's also a strong narrative you're pushing

[–] ssm@lemmy.sdf.org 34 points 3 months ago (1 children)

apparently that needed a /s

[–] WldFyre@lemm.ee 9 points 3 months ago

Haha apparently, my bad

[–] timestatic@feddit.org 64 points 3 months ago (4 children)

Honestly, I'd like if the browser could become truly independent from google ad money. Then mozilla devs would have to focus on the browser and come up with a donation program like thunderbird for example instead. I'd prefer to pay and know how the money is used. I absolutely hate the google dependence

[–] twinnie@feddit.uk 27 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Nobody donates to these things.

[–] pipariturbiini@sopuli.xyz 17 points 3 months ago

Yeah. 99% of users click nag screens off right away. I do too, unless I use that application/service extensively.

[–] nasi_goreng@lemmy.zip 12 points 3 months ago

You should read Thunderbird donation statement.

They got 6 million USD of donation back in 2022.

https://blog.thunderbird.net/2023/05/thunderbird-is-thriving-our-2022-financial-report/

[–] grandel@lemmy.ml 6 points 3 months ago

There might not be any devs without that sweet google funding.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] okwhateverdude@lemmy.world 47 points 3 months ago (3 children)

Mozilla corp is trash and deserves to fail. The non-profit Mozilla however, can remain and steward Firefox and friends just fine.

[–] LWD@lemm.ee 19 points 3 months ago (11 children)

I support the things that the Mozilla Foundation puts on its website, even their manifesto. Even, begrudgingly, the insistence that we must balance the needs of human beings against the needs of corporations.

Even if those things contradict what Mozilla Corporation is doing with their browser.

But the Foundation is just a thin wrapper for the Corporation, so I'm not sure how that would work.

[–] YeetPics@mander.xyz 4 points 3 months ago

balance the needs of human beings against the needs of corporations.

I support this if it is a 1:1 scale.

Corporation can be human, but each corporation only counts as 1.

We can balance 9,000,000,000 people against a few thousand corps no big deal.

[–] okwhateverdude@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago

TIL. Super disappointing. Thanks for the additional info. I've changed my mind. Mozilla can just go poof completely.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] Vincent@feddit.nl 9 points 3 months ago (4 children)
[–] tetris11@lemmy.ml 32 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Open source existed before money. Corporate backers came in because the product was successful, not because they thought it was a sinking ship.

[–] AllNewTypeFace@leminal.space 13 points 3 months ago (1 children)

So the proverbial one guy in Nebraska and a few dozen like him can work on Firefox in addition to their day jobs?

[–] tetris11@lemmy.ml 5 points 3 months ago (2 children)

so the worldwide open source community can actually take over the project, in the full knowledge that their pull requests will actually be merged.

[–] Rose@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago (1 children)

That can work for small improvements but not for active development at the pace of Chromium and its forks.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Carighan@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

That is that one guy in Nebraska. Yes.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] sunzu@kbin.run 16 points 3 months ago (3 children)

They could cut their overpaid clown executive team jfc... these parasites are everywhere, leeching.

FF will survive, it is open source lol

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 15 points 3 months ago (2 children)

jfc do you have any idea how fast the web evolves? Firefox already struggles to keep up with changing web standards and operating system features. It took them until December 2019 to implement one particular feature Chrome had since 2010 with a vendor prefix and since early 2016 as a fully-released feature. It took them until 4 weeks ago to implement an OS feature that existed since 2019 and which Chrome added that same year, and Edge had by 2022 at the latest.

You cut their budget, they'll necessarily lose developers. Yes, maybe they can minimise how many developers they lose by becoming more lean, but it's a fantasy to think that becoming "more lean" could actually prevent them from losing paid developers. And any volunteer developers are also necessarily going to be spending less time and effort on their contributions than a full-time paid employee would.

Cut their budget by 86% and they go from "barely keeping up" to "utterly falling behind".

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Vincent@feddit.nl 4 points 3 months ago

OK cool, let's conservatively say every C-suite member gets 10 million. I don't know how many of those there are, but let's conservatively say 10. That only leaves us with a funding gap of 400 million. Any idea how to close that?

[–] Bitrot@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 3 months ago

The foundation staff pay is public, and not that high. The corporation pays corporate wages.

[–] okwhateverdude@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Not all software needs to be backed by money. Money helps, of course, and I would support a non-profit financially that is focused purely on browser development. Right now, the only game in town doing that is Ladybird. But honestly, I think building upon a firefox fork makes more sense than starting from scratch.

[–] Vincent@feddit.nl 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

You're saying Firefox could exist, and keep up with security updates and website compatibility, without being backed by money? (Or based on a couple of donations?) Any convincing evidence that could make us trust that that's possible too?

[–] okwhateverdude@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Many such pieces of software exist both backed by non-profit foundations, and not. Before the Linux kernel was running the world, it was primarily maintained by volunteers. Also consider the myriad of Linux distributions that don't have corp overlords. Or pick a *BSD. Or anything you watch video content with: ffmpeg, vlc, mpv. Or even various programming languages such as ECMA Script, Python, Ruby, C, C++, etc. Hell, even Lemmy fits into this category. There literally is a whole slew of software not directly backed by money and still maintained that literally runs the world.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] SailorMoss@sh.itjust.works 5 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Perhaps it could be state funded? It worked for PBS for a time and it still mostly works for the BBC. Why not a browser? A truly independent steward for the open web is important and it doesn’t seem like Google is capable of that.

[–] Vincent@feddit.nl 4 points 3 months ago

I'd absolutely be in favour of that, preferably funding from several states. But I'd prefer getting that in place before losing the main source of income.

[–] MeowZedong@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 3 months ago

Seems like a good idea except for how often these states already force their own spyware and backdoors onto projects. Ideally, the state would fund it, but given their history, I'd prefer costs were covered by user donations as the interests of the users are the only interests I trust. We are the only group that is truly independent of competing interests.

Crowd funding and donations obviously have their own drawbacks. Maybe we can find a work around to avoid the privacy violations of states in the future, but I don't have a simple answer for how to accomplish this. The way the FOSS community operates is currently the best alternative I've seen, but I'm sure it's not always lucrative for developers. People need to be compensated for their labor and our current systems tend to put development interests at odds with user interests.

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 months ago

Seriously, the right time to burn the phoenix was ten years ago.

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 28 points 3 months ago

Force Google to separate from Chrome and it'll be less of an issue.

[–] _sideffect@lemmy.world 12 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Isn't it open source?

Won't random Devs that care about Firefox just keep working on it?

[–] thirteene@lemmy.world 16 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Yes and no, if Firefox org falls, open source community will continue to develop necessary features like security updates, but features will drag behind. Eventually a new player will emerge and we will bury it out back with Netscape, ie and aol explorer.

[–] Bitrot@lemmy.sdf.org 8 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Mozilla org isn’t the concern. Mozilla Corp, the for profit company, makes Firefox and has to worry about things like revenue for the most part. Mozilla org used to develop it and could fold it back in if it went really bad, it would definitely hamper development but being the premier browser is more of a Corp goal than an org one. Most likely the corp will just find a different search partner again (Google hasn’t always been default).

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] sunzu@kbin.run 11 points 3 months ago

lol yes... if we don't let google to keep its monopoly they will take FF from us

[–] TriflingToad@lemmy.world 11 points 3 months ago

taking down a 90% monopoly will have side effects? impossible.

[–] Tippon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 3 months ago

86% of Mozilla's revenue came from the agreement keeping Google as Firefox's default search engine

That explains a lot. I've only recently switched back to Firefox after Chrome took the throne years ago. I still use Google's services for now, so wanted their home page as my new tab page.

The only way I could find to do that was by using an extension, but every so often I get a warning from FF that my new tab page has been changed, and it gets reset. I looked up a way to stop the warnings, and found a Mozilla blog post with comments from staff claiming that it's a security feature.

Apparently the only reason that you might not want to start with the FF start page is because you've been hacked 🙄

[–] ampersandcastles@lemmy.ml 7 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I have one of those anti-capitalist takes where if taking down one company takes down another company, then the system is probably broken.

Which we know it is, but not enough know it is.

[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

That isn't really a anticapitalist take. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the tech industry isn't super healthy.

In fact we probably need more competition

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] themurphy@lemmy.ml 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

They probably "only" need to break the deal with Apple. I think that's the big one being a problem.

Mozilla could be overlooked in the grant scheme of things, and Google would want to get as many users as possible.

[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 4 points 3 months ago

I doubt the judge will want to kill Chromes only alternative. They aren't going to make the monopoly stronger

[–] frauddogg@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 3 months ago

Goddammit no, I'm not going back to fuckin Chrome

load more comments
view more: next ›