The Google antitrust ruling could be an existential threat to the future of Firefox | Financials show 86% of Mozilla's revenue came from the agreement keeping Google as Firefox's default search engine
The Google antitrust ruling could be an existential threat to the future of Firefox | Financials show 86% of Mozilla's revenue came from the agreement keeping Google as Firefox's default search engine
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...
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.
You're viewing a single thread.
I have written this elsewhere many times and I know it's extremely unpopular with FOSS crowd but truth needs to be told in here once again:
Everyday I use Debian, Ubuntu and Windows 10/11/Servers.
I'm an "IT guy" and have installed Firefox on literally hundreds of computers over a decade. I also install and setup extensions like uBlock Origin (with few comprehensive ad & malware blocking lists) , Dark Reader, Auto Delete Cookies, Crypto blocking and many more... but I have given up on Firefox 2016 onwards.
You could give Mozilla 10 billion per year just to develop Firefox but Mozilla can and will decide that they wanna spend only 1 or 10 percent of that money on actual Firefox development.
They will spend most of their money on anything but Firefox.
I mean I love world-peace, and cancer and aids free world too but with the money Mozilla get in a year, none of that gonna happen.
Mozilla couldn't stop Russia attack on Ukraine; neither were able to solve Israel Palestinian conflict nor hunger and migration from African countries to Europe...
Then what are they spending money on?
What they could have done successfully is to spend all the money they made from Firefox towards Firefox development alone. But this is the thing Mozilla do not want to do and are open about it.
Now I don't want Mozilla to stop developing Firefox either but because Firefox needs money from Google, Google must be allowed their monopoly on search... is utterly insane thinking.
If Mozilla cannot survive without Google monopoly, so be it.
I would say some open source/ Linux foundations/ Linux distros needs to fork Firefox and let Mozilla die peacefully.
Servo is working on becoming a standalone browser.
I'm sorry, I don't think that's entirely correct:
Servo aims to provide an independent, modular, embeddable web rendering engine source - About Servo
I think it'd be better to say they're working on becoming a modern, easy to use alternative to the likes of Gecko and Blink, the engines powering Firefox and Chrome, respectively.
I saw nothing about plans to become a fully featured web browser, even in the roadmap. Do you have anything else to share that supports the browser idea?
There is already the Ladybird project, which is a fork of the SerenityOS browser. We can say that it is a spiritual successor, although its license is more permissive than the Firefox browser.
I think Servo, not the Ladybird project would be the rightful successor to Firefox
Ladybird is in a prime position if they keep up their steady progress, I really hope they succeed.
I would be happy to seem them being open to use already working solutions, and not doing everything by themselves, since it just slows development speed by a lot, but it's understandable.
Once again, note that if you're the kind of user who shuns Brave because the CEO says stupid stuff every once in a while, you'll probably not look fondly upon Ladybird's project lead and main developer being scared of pronouns.
See the issue on github.
If you don't care about that, it's an interesting project. Can't say I approve, though.
Posting this to inform people and let each one decide what to do on their own. Don't harass anyone, please.
What improvements would you like to see through development?
Semi-TLDR: Improvements under Mozilla? None.
They do not even want to develop a better (than Chrome) browser... they wanna "build a better Internet".
Mozilla Foundation is making US$ 300-400 millions for many, many years (US$ 593 in 2021-22). If they could not develop a better Firefox all these years, it's not happening __ with or without Google money __ ever.
When Mozilla /Firefox developers don't even care/do not listen to feedback for simple things like ability to differentiate between active and inactive tab colors (why everyone that uses Firefox must play around with css to make Firefox usable?), expect them to develop something better or comparable to Chromium based browser is out of question.
Longer, rant version:
According to the Mozilla Foundation’s 2021–2022 financial statement, which is the most recent one published, $510 million out of its $593 million in revenue came courtesy of Google’s search payments.
The fundamental issues as I see are:
Complete lack of vision. Utterly worthless CEOs. Spending money on everything else but development of Firefox.
Especially when Firefox made them US$ 510 million in 2021-22.
Instead of spending millions on worthless CEOs, why not spend millions on developers so people would use Firefox on their own, instead IT guys like me forcing friends & family to use it.
I try to find annual cost of developing & maintaining Linux kernel but could only find articles and PDFs from 2008/2017 mentioning total worth etc but not actual annual cost.
Just as a thought experiment, imagine every Firefox (desktop, mobile etc) stops working all of a sudden... IMO, the world and internet will not come to a full stop.
Now imagine what would happen if every computer, server, router, switch, phone, tablet, stops working completely at once, that runs on Linux kernel.
So if Linux kernel can be developed for $510 million (assuming its below this mark), why can't Firefox be?
I'm trying to figure out why US$ 510 million is not able to develop something better or comparable to Chromium based browsers.
Then there are issues related to lack of vision and no importance/urgency towards finishing a product.
Why only few extensions were allowed on Firefox mobile for many years without any explanations. Even developers of major extensions were not able to figure out the criteria to make their addon available on Firefox mobile.
What was the rationale behind it... Driving people away who were using Firefox mobile? If the product was not ready, do not fucking release it.
You need highly talented and additional developers to release product sooner... hire more, pay more. You got $510 mil just from Firefox.
I do not see any future for Firefox under Mozilla.
Only if some real big names (like Linux foundation etc) from FOSS world hard fork the Firefox, it might have a future.
I think, with real big name sponsors (pro-open source companies), search revenue will not be an issue.
IMO, the new organization (of course with big sponsors) of new fork must have one, single mission/goal... develop a great browser. New org must not have a mission statement written by MBAs:
"We’re building a better Internet"
Source: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/mission/
Something people will use it on their own for its merit.
I'm going to go eat now, so I'll just respond to the short version:
Yes, the CEO is overpaid, but I do not get you at all.
active and inactive tab colors
The colors are perfectly distinguishable? Whatever's active has a giant white background and border and shadow.
expect them to develop something better or comparable to Chromium based browser is out of question.
It's already better than Chromium. For example, not only is it a bit less resource-heavy, it also has features that allow uBlock Origin to function much better even before all the Mv3 stuff.
Regarding tab colors, I'll post screenshot from my Debian machine later tomorrow.
If something is better (or at least perceived as better) people will use it on their own. Default or not.
Examples: VLC player. Microsoft Office
Even if LibreOffice is free, why people are paying for Microsoft Office?
I have to spend 10 times more time on LibreOffice on Debian/Ubuntu than on Microsoft Office on Windows. Same with simple touch ups in GIMP vs Microsoft Paint.
Firefox market share in 2024: 3.36%
If something is better (or at least perceived as better) people will use it on their own. Default or not.
Wait until you learn about how monopolies work.
Most people are lazy. They don't switch until some major thing happens. VLC doesn't even have as much market share as you think it has; most people just use whatever comes with their system.
On how many computers (not your own and not as a part of your job) you have installed Firefox yourself?
On how many phones you have installed Firefox personally?
How many calls you have attended to solve Firefox related issues?
How many childhood friends you have fought (verbally) insisting to use Firefox? Not just one time but for years.
You didn't comment on usability points I've mentioned of GIMP or LibreOffice... Ohh that's right, you could not.
As per your logic, how apple was able to sell even a single iphone when Windows Mobile was there already?
With a better product or some unexplainable magic?
That's exactly what Chrome did initially. They built a better product, when apparently Mozilla/Firefox executives were in deep cryogenic sleep.
Why Chrome was able to beat internet explorer. Android was not a thing back then, hence no monopoly/no default installations.
Why people are paying many times more on apple/samsung phones when far cheaper options are available in hundreds?
Can you name a single country on earth, where only apple/samsung phones are allowed to sell... so they can be called duopoly/monopoly.
In August of 1997 Bill Gates invested US$ 150 million to save apple, at a time when sony had market cap of US$ 34.86 and apple had just US$ 1.68 billion.
So, why apple was able to beat sony (which was dominant player in portable music) in music player business with ipods and hence started its meteoric rise?
Sources:
https://companiesmarketcap.com/sony/marketcap/
https://companiesmarketcap.com/apple/marketcap/
What monopoly is at play with VLC player?
You didn't mention any VLC installation numbers. Well it can be installed from many places on Android but here's just one source, play store.
It's over 100 million.
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.videolan.vlc&hl=en_US
As per your view, why people even use VLC?
What monopoly was at play when Firefox had 32.21 percent market share?
Source: https://www.enterpriseappstoday.com/stats/firefox-statistics.html
https://blog.mozilla.org/metrics/2008/12/01/firefox-surpassing-50-market-share-in-more-regions/
What monopoly was at play when Google launched in 1998? Yahoo was there already. Why people chose Gmail, when Hotmail, Yahoo and many others were there already.
Why small, medium or large device makers use Linux kernel? I've never read Linus Torvalds paying billions to corporations.
I can go on but I have to catch a flight.
I'm not gonna argue with you anymore as I find your worldview incredibly narrow/selective.
I think this is why Mozilla is at 3.36 % marker share as Mozilla might be surrounded by people/publications that keep repeating, "Everything is fine, no need to change anything at all".
I do not like walls of text, so I'll answer half before I go to sleep.
If you exclude my own, then 0. I am not in tech support.
Re: GIMP & LibreOffice: I often use these and have trouble recognizing why people hate them. The latter defaults to a worse interface for some reason while tabbed view is hidden behind a simple and great toggle. I feel like the hate on GIMP is because people try to impose proprietary paradigms and do not realize that a "find action" mennu exist.
how apple was able to sell even a single iphone when Windows Mobile was there already?
Windows Mobile was never there. Additionally, iPhone had charisma and massive marketing. Charisma is the thing that propels many things good and bad. There's even an entire book about this called "The Charisma Machine".
Microsoft was also facing federal prosecution around this time for monopolizing. The result of the case was forcing Microsoft to advertise other browsers, including Firefox and Chrome and Maxthon and two others, all of which gained significant market share. This reset the market, and eventually Firefox emerged as the victor by a bit, and then Chrome beat that bit. If that court case didn't happen, we'd still all be using some kind of Internet Explorer.
Why people are paying many times more on apple/samsung phones when far cheaper options are available in hundreds?
Because they are paying for the far cheaper options. While Apple and Samsung attract with big bucks on marketing and charisma, the 3rd largest phone seller worldwide is Xiaomi, the budget option.
why apple was able to beat sony
I'm noticing a pattern here of you bringing up examples of leaps and bounds/cross-generational products. If someone builds a browser comparable to the iPod, I doubt we'd even call it a browser anymore. Unless you have a next-gen product, people will remain on the default option.
You didn't mention any VLC installation numbers. Well it can be installed from many places on Android but here's just one source, play store.
It's over 100 million.
These are rookie numbers compared to the number of android phones sold worldwide. Subtract that by 100 million, and that's mostly all people who use the default option.
Diversifying into non-firefox stuff people can pay for is the way they try to get some extra revenue in case something catastrophic happens.
I don't think diversification gonna help with the mindset Mozilla Foundation have.
For my take on Mozilla, please read the reply I've just posted:
https://lemmy.world/comment/11639087
Thanks.
How about... AI instead?