Slashdot Mirror


Mozilla Raking in Millions?

truthsearch writes "Internetnews.com wonders about the money Firefox is making in revenue thanks to Google. From the article: 'Mozilla gets paid a publicly undisclosed amount for each Google search query made from Firefox by a user.' This revenue is used to pay the recently formed Mozilla Corporation's 40 full-time equivalent employees and fund project and infrastructure development."

25 of 386 comments (clear)

  1. So what? by Indio_do_Xingu · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I really don't understand the question here. Is he implying that Mozilla pockets the money? Or do they want to audit the profits? Just because an Open Source company is making money pundits start to ponder what will the money be used for?

    They get the money from the search bar from gogle. Users benefit, google benefits, Mozilla benefits. Profits go to development of their current and future products. Want to know more? Why not contact them directly?

    1. Re:So what? by BeanThere · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Oh for God's sake what do you expect, that the Mozilla developers should be "pure" and "untainted" by commercial interests that might "bias" them towards pushing their solutions over others for reasons other than technical? Get over yourself, there just aren't enough programmers willing to live like paupers giving up their lives in some mother theresa style gesture doing volunteer development work while starving and living in the gutter ... you can't *make* software for free, programmers not only need money, they tend to demand a lot of it ... further it's a free market, the Mozilla Foundation have found a business model that allows them to make money off a free browser and there is nothing wrong with that ... if it was so terrible, then the free market would reject it and come up with alternate solutions. If their browser was shit nobody would use it no matter how much they astroturfed, and if they were raking in unjustifiable amounts of money and spending it on yachts then the free market would eventually find another cheaper way to make browsers. Nobody is forced to use FireFox and people are broadly capable of knowing whether the browser they are using sucks or not. Having more "motivation to market" (and money to do so) is a good thing, you speak as though marketing itself is some form of evil.

      Funny how it's always "other people" we expect to live to insanely idealised standards of devotion to ideologies of untainted technical purity, while for ourselves it's always OK to maximise the income we can earn from our own endeavours.

    2. Re:So what? by BeanThere · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Google was the most popular search engine long before FireFox ever had that search box. Thus even if Google weren't funding Mozilla at all, it would still be the most obvious and logical "default choice", provided one does not limit people from choosing others or making it difficult to do so (which they haven't). I mean, it (a) just wouldn't have made sense anyway to deliberately choose a less popular search engine and (b) choosing some other search engine would still be unfairly favouring one over another. Asking the user every time they run FF for the first time would be silly. No, the only clear choice is to please the most users by choosing the most popular search engine.

      I still don't agree that it's anything like the Skype situation. In the Skype situation, they had something they'd developed that worked on all platforms, and then they sat down and intentionally spent additional time and effort to deliberately break it on some platforms. In the case of the search box in FF, they started with nothing, i.e. no search box at all, and sat down and added a new feature that contains no limitations. It's like someone gives you a free ice-cream and you complain because it's not your favourite flavour. What Skype did takes something away from users, what FF have done has only added.

  2. The point of the article? by NekoXP · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sounds like they are playing the guilt-trip card.

    Of course it's publically undisclosed. Why do they need to disclose it? They have no obligation to, really, as a private entity (rather than being on the stock market or so).

    If they are raking in the money, great! Software developers need to get paid! :)

  3. Who else is contributing? by RLiegh · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Do they also get $ from searches on ebay, amazon, or yahoo (which are also listed on the toolbar)?

  4. Re:Phase 2? by sznupi · · Score: 4, Interesting

    They don't have much choice...Microsoft had essentially destryed "direct" market by driving browsers price to zero. And they need _some_ ways to fund their development.

    --
    One that hath name thou can not otter
  5. Help them make more... by The+Hobo · · Score: 5, Informative

    By using this link to get to the story ;-)

    Interesting to note the default "google" keyword for the address bar puts the sourceid=firefox in there

    As an aside, for those who want to make their own custom keywords (and don't know how to), here's an example: Bookmarks->Manage Bookmarks, click on any of the bookmarks under "quick searches", click new bookmark (top left), I made one for acronyms using acronym finder.

    Name: Acronym Finder
    Location: right click here, copy link location, paste (/. chews up the link)
    Keyword: af
    Description: You can put whatever you want here, it's optional


    Then you click ok. Now when in firefox you can just search for acronyms by typing af + the acronym, for example: af HTTP

    For other websites that use a link similar to the acronymfinder one, just insert %s where your query would go. In my example it's in Acronym=%s. You can also note the other default quicksearches that already exist (ex. slang for urban dictionary, dict for dictionary.com)

    --
    There is another kind of evil which we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good men. -- Boondock Saints
  6. How much ? by nocloo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Lets do some basic math and see how the numbers add up.

    - Of the 100 million downloads lets say 20% are daily/active users -> 20 2illion users.
    - Of the 20 million daily users, lets says 20% do make at least 1 search query. -> 4 million queries/day.
    - If google pays around 0.02c a query. They get 80k/day x 30 days = 3.2Mil x 12 months =~ 38 Mil right there. A conservative number ... but still A LOT MONEY !!

  7. With? by woolio · · Score: 4, Funny

    I salute them!

    With which finger?

  8. what a dumb article by sundru · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Some moron in an online editorial is curious what mozilla is doing with its money , why the heck should mozilla disclose how its using its money ? free software doesnt mean you have to account for every penny you earn , they built a heck of a browser let them reap the benefits of what they sowed. --- Must be a dull day for the editors @ /. Go home and have a beer fellas tis the weekend --

    1. Re:what a dumb article by matthewsmalley · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why should Mozilla disclose how its using its money? Because it's a California non-profit corporation. Here in the UK charities/ngo's/etc have to disclose their financials in order to continue receiving all the perks (tax exemption for donatees etc). Otherwise you end up with one big money laudering machine (in the government's eyes).

      Anyway I as a potential donater want to know what I'm donating to? (I don't think this is the case but...) If Mozilla's turned into a profit-hungry corporation, but is still trying to imply it needs my £10 a month to feed its hungry developers, then that's deception on a large scale, and I'm not interested.

      There's a conscious difference in most people's minds between donating to a company that's explicity not out to make a profit and buying product from one that is.

    2. Re:what a dumb article by Red+Alastor · · Score: 4, Informative

      If you give money to mozilla, you will give to the Mozilla Foundation which is a non-profit. If Google gives money to Mozilla, they will give to the Mozilla Corporation (corporations have less regulations) whose sole shareholder is the Mozilla Foundation.

      You can't really object to the Mozilla Corporation saying "Oh, they'll put all that money in the pockets of their shareholders" because the only shareholder they have is a non-profit entity.

      The corporation does not disclose how much they make and they pay taxes.

      --
      Slashdot anagrams to "Sad Sloth"
  9. This isn't the first time by The+Hobo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Firefox has been mentionned based on their search bars, a while ago the German version of Firefox was said to have "spyware"

    --
    There is another kind of evil which we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good men. -- Boondock Saints
  10. Excellent example by babbling · · Score: 4, Funny

    This is a great example of an open source program making money off its success. It wouldn't be impossible for other open source programs to do similar sponsorship deals with other companies.

    Maybe Linux could have a "You know, Windows has a lower TCO" message when it's booting up.

  11. Re:Google = "Rich Sugar Daddy"? by neonstz · · Score: 4, Informative
    Tetzchner was close to the truth. Apparently, the real sugar daddy is Google.
    Opera makes money on user searches too, and they did before they released the free version.
  12. But what if you don't count pr0n searches? by srhoades · · Score: 4, Funny

    Statistically speaking firefox users are more tech savy. Which therefore transaltes to more socially dysfunctionally people, which ends is a much more searches for pr0n. Remove the pr0n searches and Firefox employees are picking up cans after hours in the Google parking lot to subsidize their salary.

  13. Re:Google = "Rich Sugar Daddy"? by babbling · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Unless the anti-establishment mavericks in tech communities like SlashDot aggressively support Opera by buying commercial Opera-Software products, Opera just might disappear, being squeezed to death by the big 3 browers: Safari, Internet Explorer, Firefox.

    Do we care? Opera could have been Firefox if they had GPLed it. Mozilla saw their opportunity and now they're benefiting from their foresight.

    Opera could become an open source (as in "freedom") company any time they want, and they'd instantly see a jump in the number of people using their browser, because suddenly it would be included in Red Hat, Debian, Ubuntu, and so on. Instead they've decided to sell (via a third party) closed-source browsers for mobiles. Good for them, and if they ever decide to put the big "GPL" stamp on their software, then they can count on a sudden jump in the number of people using their software. You can only get that jump with GPL, though.

  14. Re:Spend some of that on disable-output-escaping? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting
    They can also spend it on fixing memory leaks. Spinning the issue is not fixing the issue. I'm about to switch to Opera if FF doesnt get their act together.
    I've already done that. I can live without a couple of extensions I used in Fx (it's hard, but I managed), but I can't live with the memory leaks. One day, I accidentaly left Fx running since morning, with just Slashdot open in one tab. When I got home that night, Fx was up to 870 megabytes of memory usage... That's far from nice, given that I have 512 MB RAM in my PC and can't upgrade it because of i815 chipset limitation.

    So now I'm on Opera 9.0TP2 and enjoying it. 84 MB of memory used after 12 days of Opera running, God knows how many tabs opened and closed and how many sites (incl. Flash and videos) visited. And I currently have 18 tabs open. *AND* it's a technical preview (not even beta software).

    The biggest insult added to injury was the "it's not a memory leak, it's a feature!" attitude from Mozilla.

    I don't plan on switching back to Firefox, ever.
  15. TFA says "millions" by john-da-luthrun · · Score: 4, Informative

    If you RTFA, a Mozilla board member says that the quoted figure of $72 million is too high, but "not off by an order of magnitude".

  16. Re:Phase 2? by Savage-Rabbit · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They don't have much choice...Microsoft had essentially destryed "direct" market by driving browsers price to zero. And they need _some_ ways to fund their development.

    Yup and it isn't as if there is anything morally wrong about OOS projects making money as long as it doesn't violate GPL and the profits go toward funding the project? Personally I don't mind, there are plenty of examples of non-profit organizations that have revenue streams so why get upset over the Mozilla project joining that group as long as the money doesnt' corrupt them?

    --
    Only to idiots, are orders laws.
    -- Henning von Tresckow
  17. Re:Google = "Rich Sugar Daddy"? by rm69990 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Google has a similar relationship with Opera, just to let you know.

  18. Bandwidth Fairies by Joebert · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Imagine that, Mozilla has income.
    Here all this time I thought the bandwidth to distribute 100 million coppies at 5 mb each & the occasional updates was being pulled out of the ass of bandwidth faries.

    --
    Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
  19. It's the GPL, silly! by TapeCutter · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "....to astroturf even. And I wonder if they are - they appear to have an unreasonable amount of support on sites like this...."

    They get "an unreasonable amount of support" because they use the GPL, there is no conspiracy, take away the GPL and they all look pretty much the same. In fact that is the whole point, they can't legally take away the GPL for code that has already been released. Rightly or wronly many "intellectuals" associate open source with freedom and indepenence.

    Money motivates and astroturf happens, but "on sites like this", the GPL stamp is what drives the genuine enthusiasim amongst people who do know their stuff. If you don't "do software" for a living the GPL may seem obscure, but trust me, the GPL is important not only to geeks, but also an ever growing number of corporations and governments.

    When I worked for IBM in the 90's, the then CEO, Lou Gerstner said: "All software has been written, it just needs to be managed". None of us geeks had a fucking clue what he was talking about and simply laughed at his seemingly bizzare pronouncments. Ironically I now make a good living by stiching software components together, many of them open source.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  20. Well, if it's this big supposedly by hey! · · Score: 4, Insightful

    it should be possible to confirm this to a reasonable degree of satisfaction.

    Non-profits, while they don't pay taxes, go through the same auditing process that private companies do. They also have to submit a "Form 990" to the Feds, which is roughtly equivalent except that it is public information. The first section of the form is gross revenues, under which income from contributions and program service revenue are different lines.

    So, if the line for program and service revenue is nearly 100 million, they're probably not getting it from giving backrubs.

    There may be additional state disclosures required, depending on where they're incorporated. For example, here in Massachusetts, it's possible to find out CEO salaries for non-profits. This is designed to prevent people from funneling estate money to their heirs through shell charities.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    1. Re:Well, if it's this big supposedly by ptbarnett · · Score: 4, Insightful
      On the 2004 return, "sponsorship revenues" were $4,422,674.

      In statement 7, the explanation is:

      Qualified sponsorshiop payments received as the result of agreements between various search providers and Mozilla. These arrangements facilitate the dissemination of the Foundation's Firefox browser, thereby increasing the accessibility of the internet. Mozilla receives payments for allowing the Internet search provider to occupy its default or primary search location, or for the opportunity to be included in the Firefox web browser.

      (Original is all caps. Lameness filter wouldn't let me post it that way)