this post was submitted on 23 Nov 2024
191 points (91.7% liked)

Technology

59607 readers
3411 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The Justice Department's proposal to force Google to rein in and even sell off its Chrome browser business may seem like a win for competitors such as Mozilla’s Firefox browser. But the company says the plan risks hurting smaller browsers.

In their recommendations, federal prosecutors urged the court to ban Google from offering "something of value" to third-party companies to make Google the default search engine over their software or devices.

The problem is that Mozilla earns most of its revenue from royalty deals—nearly 86% in 2022—making Google the default Firefox browser search engine.

"If implemented, the prohibition on search agreements with all browsers regardless of size and business model will negatively impact independent browsers like Firefox and have knock-on effects for an open and accessible internet,” Mozilla says. “As written, the remedies will harm independent browsers without material benefit to search competition.”

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Potatofish@lemmy.world 4 points 9 hours ago

The comments are a who's who of anarchists. Watch them burn it all down and end up with Microsoft owning the dominant browser again. Idiots...

[–] lvxferre@mander.xyz 185 points 1 day ago (4 children)

May I be frank? I suspect that, in the long run, Mozilla not getting this money will actually benefit Firefox. Sure, so exec will get pissed as they won't get 5.6 million dollars a year, and Firefox won't get some weird nobody-asked-for feature that'll be ditched some time later; but I think that they'll focus better on the browser this way. Specially because whoever is paying the dinner is the one picking the dish, and with a higher proportion of their effective income coming from donations, what users want will stop being so neglected.

Just my two cents.

[–] irreticent@lemmy.world 7 points 7 hours ago

WTF‽

"The head of Mozilla earned roughly $5.6 Million during 2021."

[–] andrewrgross@slrpnk.net 47 points 1 day ago

I totally agree.

Frankly, Mozilla should be embarrassed to have released this statement.

It's basically 'Please don't harm our competitor for corruptly bribing rivals! We like those bribes very much!'

[–] ryper@lemmy.ca 58 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Firefox won’t get some weird nobody-asked-for feature that’ll be ditched some time later

Nah, the features nobody asked for will just be limited to ones that will provide a revenue stream.

[–] lvxferre@mander.xyz 15 points 1 day ago (1 children)

However once they lose the googlebux, a meaningful part of the revenue stream will be donations. And features implemented because of donators asking for them are, typically, things that we users desire.

[–] pelya@lemmy.world 6 points 19 hours ago

Donations are not sustainable. Many open-source projects tried them, and the only thing they can cover are server costs or conferences, developers are still working for free on their own time.

[–] lung@lemmy.world 22 points 1 day ago (4 children)

Yeah but in the short term the company will literally go out of business

[–] e0qdk@reddthat.com 21 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Not likely. Mozilla had $1,321,539,000 in total assets -- roughly half a billion dollars of which was in "cash and cash equivalents" -- in their last (2022) audited financial statement: https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2022/mozilla-fdn-2022-fs-final-0908.pdf

[–] lung@lemmy.world 12 points 1 day ago

Y'know, you're right & that's wild. I guess I should have known, but didn't assume that they have like 600m in unrelated investments. Though the burn rate is quite a lot too, so they probably would scale back browser dev a lot if it lost its profitability & become a pure VC kinda org

[–] SaharaMaleikuhm@feddit.org 10 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I care about Firefox and Thunderbird, not Mozilla. The software is open source and will persist.

[–] tb_@lemmy.world 12 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The way Mozilla can advocate for web standards will be sorely missed.

[–] Pika@sh.itjust.works 3 points 9 hours ago

To my knowledge they don't though, Chrome has had the overall market share for years. Most of the time them is a little project is tailing behind Chrome, because anything that they add to Chrome if the other browsers didn't follow suit they were left in the dust. I haven't seen the Mozilla project as a Trailblazer in years

[–] lvxferre@mander.xyz 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Perhaps.

Worst hypothesis the company gets completely bankrupt, but someone takes up the torch.

[–] lung@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago (2 children)

The thing is it's never been more expensive and time consuming to write a browser, it's bigger scope than a kernel in many ways. Stuff like Epiphany isn't even close, despite relying on Apple's webkit. Most distros just push people to Firefox now, despite a history of KHTML and all that. We would need something like the Linux Foundation to pick it up (which runs on corporate sponsorship for a shared resource)

[–] 2xsaiko@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 1 day ago

If Google is the only thing holding up the non-Apple web browsers, maybe then this will lead to scaling down the insane scope of the web standards so it becomes reasonable to implement and maintain a browser for non-megacorps.

Wishful thinking, but hey.

[–] theherk@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Bigger scope than a kernel? That’s a bold statement.

[–] lung@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Not only does it need to do everything from memory management to job scheduling, it also has all of the UI and graphics driver complexity blended in. Usually that's a different layer that the kernel historically didn't worry about, it would be as if GTK is part of Linux, along with the programming language. Then there's shit like WebAssembly and WebGL, databases, sandboxing, permissions, user management... A Brower is like a cross platform OS built to run on another OS

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ChairmanMeow@programming.dev 12 points 1 day ago

Not sure it's that bold even. Chrome has approx. 10% more lines of code than Linux, and even for Linux 60% is just drivers.

Flawed metric, sure, but it at least shows that they're probably similar in complexity.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] TheTimeKnife@lemmy.world 58 points 1 day ago

That's unfortunate, but it still needs to happen. Mozilla will adapt.

[–] ocassionallyaduck@lemmy.world 44 points 1 day ago (1 children)

"Listen, making the entire market dependent on one corporate benefactor just sothey aren't a 100% monopoly and only a 99% one is important"

Jesus Christ Mozilla, do you hear yourself?

[–] ayyy@sh.itjust.works 15 points 22 hours ago

Remember, Mozilla spends more on executives and their “outreach” programs than they spend on Firefox developers.

[–] astro_ray@piefed.social 128 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

what Mozilla is really afraid of is losing the over inflated bonus the execs get paid.

[–] prof_wafflez@lemmy.world 51 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Mozilla needs to ditch their CEO and maybe even their board. They’ve lost their way all because the leadership is greedy

[–] HailSeitan@lemmy.world 1 points 18 minutes ago

That’s mistaking a structural problem for a personal one. Zeynep Tufekci has a great argument about why that wouldn’t work:

It’s reasonable, for example, for a corporation to ponder who would be the best CEO or COO, but it’s not reasonable for us to expect that we could take any one of those actors and replace them with another person and get dramatically different results without changing the structures, incentives and forces that shape how they and their companies act in this world.

[–] Dariusmiles2123@sh.itjust.works 49 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I understand why Mozilla would want to keep the money coming from Google, but it might also be good for them to be less dependent from Google.

Nothing is preventing them from cutting deals with other search engines if they want to keep doing that.

[–] Diabolo96@lemmy.dbzer0.com 57 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (4 children)

I feel like Mozilla is a big money laundering scheme at this point. It only exist so chrome isn't a monopoly, and I pretty sure the CEO and several other workers are getting paid an obscene amount to do nothing all day while only 20% of the money actually goes toward working on the browser.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] SaharaMaleikuhm@feddit.org 11 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yeah, I don't care. Just do it.

[–] R3D4CT3D@midwest.social 28 points 1 day ago

tldr: but muh paycheck!

[–] jaxiiruff@lemmy.zip 16 points 1 day ago

Oh my fucking god Servo cannot get here soon enough.

[–] SeikoAlpinist@slrpnk.net 20 points 1 day ago (2 children)

There are other search engines. Maybe Firefox can partner with them.

[–] vk6flab@lemmy.radio 20 points 1 day ago (3 children)

I'm guessing that once Google is prohibited from providing incentives, the bottom will fall out of that particular market and those other search engines will likely pay less, if anything, for the privilege.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] mp3@lemmy.ca 15 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

It's certainly better than the status quo. Sure, Mozilla will hurt at first because they've put their revenue source in the same basket, but it's an opportunity to grow back.

[–] MajorHavoc@programming.dev 10 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

You've just given a great summary of the history of breaking monopolies, really. History says you are correct. For example, AT&T is still kicking.

[–] SaltySalamander@fedia.io 3 points 1 day ago (2 children)

The AT&T of today is not the same one from pre-breakup. That AT&T is decidedly not still kicking.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] stupidcasey@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Maybe force them to give it to Mozilla since they are the primary ones that are hurting from googlopoly?

[–] SomethingBurger@jlai.lu 14 points 1 day ago (3 children)

How will Mozilla fund development? Firefox only survives because Google pays them.

[–] Dekkia@this.doesnotcut.it 11 points 1 day ago

I guess they could start saving money by not paying their CEO millions/year.

[–] theherk@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago

I guess google would pay for search on chrome too, which is extra funny.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] nicomachus@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Mozilla will be fine. I'll literally pay them annually if worst comes to worst and I bet others would too.

[–] interurbain1er@sh.itjust.works 3 points 9 hours ago

Give them money so they can pay their CEO 83 times my salary ? Fuck no, never.

[–] rikudou@lemmings.world 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Not sure I would. Though I probably would for some high quality fork. At this point I don't have much faith in Mozilla.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Serinus@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Before or after they fire 90% of their staff?

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›