Slashdot Mirror
Mozilla Contemplates a Future Without Google
An anonymous reader points out a story at Business Week which begins:
"Mozilla Chair Mitchell Baker says the Chrome browser is making the foundation behind Firefox rethink its reliance on revenues from Google. Since Google introduced its own Web browser, Chrome, the prospect that Google may not re-up the three-year contract set to expire in 2011 has Mozilla considering other search partnerships and ways to generate revenue, Baker said. 'There are probably other search engines that would pay us more money,' Baker says. Yahoo! and Microsoft's MSN, Google's two main search rivals, come to mind, but Baker says smaller search engines wouldn't be discounted should such a situation arise. One player Baker won't identify 'offered a blank check to replace Google,' she says. Set to launch on certain Nokia phones in late spring, Fennec is the first Mozilla browser optimized for mobile platforms. If it gains traction with enough handset makers and mobile users, Fennec could represent another way to draw revenue from a partnering search engine."
Blank check = bestest browser evar?
Sent from your iPad.
The most likely future for Mozilla is a continued partnership with Google. If Google ends its deal with Firefox, Google would be cutting itself off from the only viable challenger to IE. After all, Chrome only recently passed 1% in share of browser use.
Google needs Mozilla to keep putting the bones to Redmond.
One player Baker won't identify 'offered a blank check to replace Google,' she says.
Looking at the ocean of limping or necro-corps, there seemeth to be only one company that has the pocket to stomach carte blanche...
Could you imagine Live! Search being the default search engine of Firefox? Hiss! The thought near gives me the willies.
We're all hypocrites. We all have hidden parts, it's the contrast between them that make us more a hypocrite than others
I can't believe Google will let the contract expire. If for no other reason because it would take one of their competitors and probably at least double their market share. And that's not even counting the loss of the incredible branding they get from Mozilla.
Before you mod me funny, think, perhaps I was insightfully funny?
I find this quite confusing. Is this story implying that Mozilla will trash the Firefox search capabilities if someone comes up with enough money to merit the demolition? If I were Google, and wanted Chrome to replace Firefox, I might be willing to pay Mozilla myself to remove Google search from the product.
Could this be a good way for Yahoo to gain some ground in the search engine market again? Or is it more likely that Mozilla will find a smaller party to latch on to?
Either way, I think Google was a significant player in making Mozilla much more successful, especially with Firefox. They did promote it initially after all.
'There are probably other search engines that would pay us more money,' Baker says. Yahoo! and Microsoft's MSN, Google's two main search rivals, come to mind
Well, MSN doesn't really come at least to my mind when I think of a search engine that could sponsor Firefox development.
As a state gets corrupt, its laws multiply; the most corrupt states have the most numerous laws. (Tacitus, Annales 3:27)
I would be surprised if Google would not want to stick with Mozilla. I have always viewed Chrome as Google's attempt to push browser technology. More ways to get to Google Search makes them more money. Dumping Mozilla and replacing them with a fledgling browser does not.
it's like watching your two children fight. why can't we all just get along?
...but only if they call it something besides 'Fennec'. Jesus.
For most of those search engines, most people would simply never have heard of them.
Switching the default search could really hurt Mozilla if Chrome matures by 2011.
If the linux devs working on firefox were to seriously fork it, and get away from mozilla proper, so that any future releases had *nothing* to do with the windows version, and they renamed it so there was a distinct and clearcut difference when talking about "firefox", I'd pay for the thing yearly, some reasonable sum, say 10 or 20 bucks. I'd like a REAL *quality* open source browser that had nothing to do with a closed source operating system. For me, and probably millions of other people, the internet browser is "the killer app", and as such is worth something and worth support.
of getting into bed with people simply to be in position to stab them in the back while they sleep.
The only way I see Google dropping funding for Firefox is when Firefox starts fumbling to the point where they are no longer relevant.
What would the purpose be? Just because Google has their own browser now, it has no where near the marketshare of even FireFox. And you know that any severing in ties between Mozilla and Google will result in a backlash, regardless of the reasons for the break.
When the landscape is down to just FireFox and Chrome as the 'relevant' browsers, then I'd worry. But right now? Google isn't as short sighted as Microsoft, they don't pull that sort of petty shit.
Your page was from 2007 (and highly suspicious anyway). Let's try a 2008 page and a couple of 2009 sites.
msn!!
It seems to me that Google supports Mozilla to get it's search at the default for Firefox and to make Google the default search for as many people as possible. The fact that they are making their own browser doesn't effect this.
The only reason Google would stop supporting Mozilla is if Firefox where to have a dramatic loss in market share to some other browser, not necessarily Chrome.
Google would be silly not to renew.
1. Firefox users make up a huge market of potential revenue.
2. Chrome users + Firefox users make up an even bigger market.
3. Chrome users make up a much smaller market than Firefox users.
4. It may put hurt on the Mozilla foundation, which may effectively kill a great standards based browser. That doesn't mesh well with what I understand to be the goals of Google.
If they do, I can't imagine the majority of Firefox users leaving the default search in place. Rather, they would set it to Google anyway. So, unless the new default is really compelling, Mozilla won't benefit much, anyway (unless they get paid JUST for having it as default, not based on how many queries are run).
Mozilla is irrelevant. iPhone runs on WebKit. Android runs on WebKit. Palm Pre runs on WebKit. Nokia might someday use mozilla, but today they're also involved in WebKit.
I'm going to throw it out there, but FireFox is in trouble unless another big corp comes to the rescue. Open source is fine for cobbling together systems made of tiny little programs all doing their own thing, but a web browser is a giant and monolithic application that requires an enormous investment in time and money to execute well. Without it, FireFox will sputter off and die.
The thing is, Google is now paying for two browsers. While right now, analysts might look at this and forgive them somewhat, if their earnings suffer, one of those browsers will have to go and its not going to be Chrome. Chrome is Google's ground up baby and its a strategic investment.
Who else has the kind of money it takes to fund FireFox? There's not that many players. You basically are looking at somebody like a Nokia, an IBM or, Yahoo. Of the three, only Nokia and IBM have the credibility to really pull off owning a web browser, and I could almost see IBM grabbing a browser because it leverages their service business and server offerings, and, just a smattering of good old fashioned revenge against Microsoft.
This is my sig.
Not renewing a contract isn't stabbing someone in the back. Google isn't bound to Mozilla permanently legally, ethically, or morally.
Google does have a record however of doing things half ass and then leaving them adrift.
why is it that the slashdot hordes makes excuses when google does the same thing microsoft did as it clawed its way to power by betraying its business partners?
please note: its not 2002. google is not a darling upstart anymore. it has done, and is doing, and will do, plenty of shady things. luckily they have kneejerk sycophants like you to explain away their sleaze as perfectly acceptable. the same sleazy moves you would pillory microsoft for
i can't believe this tripe i am responding to is currently marked +5 insightful
from people who pride themselves on being immune to prejudice and propaganda, comes a mental turd sandwich of both
all aping the trendy status quo: "google gooood! microsoft baaaad!"
mindless sheep
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Yahoo search is not bad. From search.yahoo.com, you can actually get to it.
Yahoo Search and Firefox make lots of sense as a pairing, along the lines of Live Search + IE and
Chrome + Google.
If nothing else, it would give Mozilla a chance to get more money from Google, which can go toward development.
http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/03/10/1942232
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
Exactly. Google will do the profitable thing, which is to stay with Mozilla. It doesn't matter that Chrome now exists; Firefox most likely generates more revenue for Google than Mozilla makes from all sources combined.
There is nothing stopping Chrome and Google's deal with Mozilla from coexisting. As long as all web browsers lead to Google's search engine, Google will be happy. It is Internet Explorer they want to destroy. And they have been successful, Chrome apparently is stealing more users from IE (http://www.inquisitr.com/3031/chrome-internet-explorer/)
Open source experts on Slashdot.org have been assuring us for years that open source projects can make a profit, so I'm sure that a popular application like FireFox can survive without being propped-up by Google.
Google pays Mozilla because they want to increase competition against Microsoft. The more competition they can encourage, the more they can offer powerful services through the browser.
They don't care whether it is their browser, Mozilla, or even IE - as long as it supports the standards that let them push MS out of the way.
They built chrome to help that push, and to focus a bit more on javascript performance (again, so they can push against MS).
They don't see Mozilla as competition against chrome - but as an ally against MS. I'm sure they know that they are getting a powerful dose of worldwide browser improvement for not much cash. I'm quite sure they won't be stopping that cheque.
VLC Remote for iPhone and Android
Just imagine-- using software whose developers don't feel they have to be constantly finding new features to add to it in order to keep their revenue stream going. Releases might just become stable enough that for a change, they aren't introducing new security flaws with every update. Sounds pretty sweet, actually.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4645596.stm
google uses immortal cookies
it records absolutely everything
its toolbar is spyware
it has extensive server logs that last years (all the better to track you)
it has a monopoly on so much of the internet and all communication, and wants ever more
etc., etc. all off the top of my head
it is, by definition, completely natural not to trust a company with so much power. or at least it should be. you seem perfectly trusting of something which seeks to be so omniscient in your life, and is rapidly achieving exactly that. you, go ahead, pillory microsoft, as their power wanes as a builder of the land barge os vista, while the world goes mad for ubuntu netbooks. and you, go ahead and make excuses for google as they dominate ever more and more of the web and your private communication
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/03/04/1932247
http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/03/12/1254241
there's nothing to worry about, right? nothing at all. they say "don't be evil" so they are perfectly trustworthy, right? hey, all doublespeak catchphrases are 100% true in this world, right?
so please, you worry about dying old microsoft. you know what? i'm going to worry about google. their power is vast, every day they seek to extend their reach into every crevice of your searches and communications, and they have a legion of obedient boot lickers like yourself to tell us they are perfectly harmless and reasonable
their goal is to search and know everything there is. this is the company's goal. it is explicitly stated. go search for any number of quotes by brin and page. and they are doing exactly that, explicitly. this is vast unfathomable power they are consolidating. and the incredible lie, that collosal fools like yourself swallow, is that google, with all this vast power, will always be a benign force in your life
i'm not a paranoid schizophrenic. there is no plot, no conspiracy here. sergey brin, larry page, they seem perfectly nice people. i'm sure the entire management of the company are well-meaning and good natured and ethical folks. but why do you believe this tremendous edifice which explicitly desires to be all knowing will always be in the hands of well-meaning people? the nuclear bomb was also built by men who were basically decent folks. the issue is not the people building the company, or how they build the company, but what it is they are BUILDING. google, the company, will always be in the hands of nice guys?
hey, i wish i could lobotomize myself too. a company seeks to know everything about everybody. it explicitly states this repeatedly and makes coherent incremental steps to do exactly that. and its a force for good in the world?
please! pass me some of what you are smoking!
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Yahoo and MSN have search engines? No, seriously, I didn't even notice.
-- I was raised on the command line, bitch
Google is currently the superior search platform. It would be stupid to replace them as the default search option just because they stop handing out free money.
yeah, except that if they make the browser for mobiles as "optimized" as it is for linux, then i`d say "gtfo, me wants another browser"
Why should a web browser be so monolithic / try to do everything?
There's really no reason at all for the same application to handle, for example, interacting with a web page AND bookmarking that page
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
Maybe Mozilla guys should read slashdot more often... if they /. just a couple of days agao, they would have been able to recognize a business opportunity http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/03/10/1942232
Now, could I be the one to have brokered this deal and collect a few million$?
At the very least this is a nice bargaining chip for Google in negotiating with the Mozilla guys -- a play stolen from the Microsoft playbook?
of getting into bed with people simply to be in position to stab them in the back while they sleep.
Well, they gotta start somewhere.
SpellingBird Sqwaws:
You meant "teeming" masses, as in lots of them. I am fairly sure you didn't mean "Teaming Masses", which would be lots of nice PHB's visualizing integration of their dynamics.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Is it just me or this this exact methodology sounding suspiciously similar?
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Microsoft's MSN ?
wtf!!!!
???????
somebody take his chair please!
was he drunk?
{Xmen}
"This is the Google Juggernaut. If it gets *any* momentum at all, it cannot be stopped".
{/Xmen}
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
I'll stick to my original theory: Google wants to support Chrome and Firefox. They want the market evenly shared between WebKit, Gecko and Trident (or whatever replaces Trident in the future) because that would make standards support more important (no more of the "if it works in IE, it works for 90% of the public" argument).
Not for altruism, not to make the Internet a better place. Simply because a major part of their business is web applications, which are much easier to develop with standards.
I updated at home, downloading directly, and it asked me to install Yahoo Toolbar.
I updated at work, pushed out corporate, and it asked me to install MSN Toolbar.
Anyone know why the difference?
Either way I think it completely sucks. As a Java developer who tries to maintain a professional image, I don't like having to ask my clients to install software that comes bundled with crapware.
when microsoft's (rapidly disapearing) domination of the OS bother you so much?
you know what, i'm perfectly fine with people who trust google implicitly when they record everything they possible can about you and your world
but then i expect this blindly blissful person to also accept microsoft's domination of the os with similar peace and tranquility ...or, distrust google, AND distrust microsoft (as i do)
but what i don't understand are people who freak out about microsoft... and are perfectly comfortable with google
that makes ZERO sense to me, form the point of view of the principles involved
so all i can conclude is that the average slashdot denizen has this huge blind bias
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Q: Why is starting a comment in the Subject: line annoying?
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
for, microsoft could even pay you more for msn search.
its not the money, its the ally that counts. google has been a prominent ally in the war for internet freedom in numerous occasions, especially in the network neutrality attack at&t et al made 1-2 years ago. since then they joined numerous alliances.
we need cohesion more than we need money. for neither of the players we talk about here can defend the internet as we know it alone.
and you are a damned foundation. your ideals should be put before your desire to make profit for god's sakes. if you go and ally with a shitface source to make more money, you'll lose my and thousands of other developers' support in the process. so choose wisely.
Read radical news here
Somehow I doubt their web servers are the same machines as their development servers...
a guy murders another guy to make a gun. this bothers you
another guy serenely and publicly assembles a pound of ricin. this doesn't bother you
you don't really care about what is being made, you just care about how its being made
like i said, the guys on the manhattan project: groves, oppenheimer, breit, manley, etc.: all decent fellows
except for the fact they built the atomic bomb
again, that doesn't bother you. all you care about is the character of the guys involved
so: google is going to know everything, survey all knowledge, track everything about you
but because brin and page are decent fellows, so your mind is at ease, right?
meanwhile, me: i'm some sort of weird paranoid schizophrenic rambling on right?
their multiply stated business goal is to know everything about you, track all human knowledge. i don't have to embellish their fundamental business purpose. i simply have to state it. no paranoid conspiracy theory need be involved in my cause for concern. no leap of logic, no absurd conclusions. i am simply telling you what you already know about what they are doing, but you apparently haven't even thought about, because you like the guys doing it, right?
and when these nice chaps die or retire, here you have this massive information reaping machine. who gets the keys to that?
you see no potential for abuse here?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
CUIL!
trust google: fine
distrust microsoft: fine
but you either:
trust google & trust microsoft
or
distrust google & distrust microsoft
in order to remain logically coherent
feel me now?
the two following positions are logically impossible, according to any set of coherent principles you can present me:
trust google, distrust microsoft
distrust google, trust microsoft
of course
trust google, distrust microsoft
remains plausible, if you have some sort of illogical bias
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Chrome makes Google no money. The purpose of Chrome is to spur on the other browsers to do a little innovation. As far as Google is concerned, it's perfectly okay if Chrome gets left behind in the dust just as long as other browsers render Google's pages correctly.
So far, Apple got the message. The JavaScript handling in the new beta version of Safari is much improved with the new Nitro engine (previously called SquirrelFish Extreme) replacing the older SquirrelFish engine. According to some benchmarks, the new engine is faster than Google's V8 engine.
Nor, is Google even contemplating ending its relationship with Mozilla. Firefox makes Google money. Chrome doesn't make Google money. Google will make a deal with any half decent browser that uses Google as its default page. Google also has deals with Safari, Opera, and OmniWeb.
What Mozilla is really pissed about was Chrome's use of WebKit instead of Gecko for its page rendering. This is really where the true browser battle is taking place. WebKit is the main browser engine in the mobile market and other browsers are feeling the pressure to adopt it.
If that happens, web developers will start writing pages that work best on WebKit and not Gecko.
Google creates Chrome to embrace web browsing.
Google creates functionality that only works on Chrome, extending functionality of the web to google.
Firefox gets extinguished, because Chrome in a lot of ways is just as good as Firefox, but Chrome has this little extra bit
Google has a dominant market share in the web search market... DO NOT put this past even the likes of Google. Watch them incredibly close. The moment they cross, a public outcry should go out to the DoJ to start an investigation right away.
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
I see your point about the distributions needing to have the money to chip in, but do they really have it? FireFox is a tremendously expensive product, and even Novell is barely a billion dollar company. I would wonder if they could afford it.
The notion that it doesn't really matter what operating system people run Google on is a two way street. If everyone ran Windows, versus Linux, Google would still get the same advertising. To some extent, Firefox doesn't accomplish anything.
This is my sig.
Primarily mindset at this point, then if it happened, I would look forward to better code. The originator of FF is a windows user and mozilla concentrates on windows releases. I think microsoft is rich enough to do their own work, and I have never accepted the theory of browser as a 'gateway" for people to adopt open source operating systems, on the contrary, it just goes to keep people on windows, and the linux adoption stats prove that, because it has been years now and you barely can measure any increase of linux adoption, even with firefox..
And frankly,. it got old a long time ago to be reading about some firefox exploit when it turns out to be a windows-firefox exploit, and stuff like that there, they can't even be assed in the headlines or summaries to differentiate, whereas a true different name and product would eliminate that obvious screw up.. Here's our bad meme car analogy. If I hear about a recall on ground pounder trucks, I don't want to have to huint to see if it is a ford, chevy or dodge "ground pounder". Why they can't even use a different name for a different product is beyond me, but they do, and I think it's just lame. Yes, they would all be trucks, and share four wheels and an engine, but that doesn't make them identical just because they are given *the same name*
I run an open source operating system on purpose for both practical and social reasons, I don't "dual boot" to run video games or for any other reason, I don't really want to use or support what I deem to be a very questionable in the ethics department corporation, even one step removed like moz is to MS, and I would therefore *prefer* a decent browser that didn't share space and name and mindset with a microsoft windows program. Dang cooties, I don't even want it touching it. I was going to switch to Konqueror for that reason, until the KDE folks decided they were going to port to windows as well....
I think it is dilution of open source mindshare and emphasis and philosophy, a crutch, an enabling effort that is erroneous in design, and would just prefer a true fork or another decent quality browser option, where the *primary and only* purpose was an open source browser designed and built for an open source operating system, not a redheaded step child effort.
Now this is an *opinion* I have, nothing more, but like I said, I so much believe in that opinion I would gladly pay 10 or 20 bucks a year for it (or pay for a new distro based around a new open source browser), and the whole thread was about mozilla and funding and so on, that is, money. Google is the same way, windows first always, so I have no desire to even try chrome when and if it goes to linux. I want linux (really FOSS in general) first, not third after microsoft and apple, and that won't happen as long as things like mozilla keep making Microsoft products. If there was a credible alternative or a start up effort to go in that direction, I'd switch, simple as that, and also support the effort with a paid subscription. I don't code myself, or I would already be doing just that.
Mozilla Foundation gets paid for every search that is done using their default, right? So what happens when they switch to something other than Google for a higher per search revenue, and people start setting Google as their default manually? They get a lot less money, right? So in their search for more money, they could potentially be severely hurting their own revenues.
Of course, Mahalo is the company that offered a blank cheque.
But with Firefox, Google has to share revenue with Mozilla. With Chrome, Google gets everything.
Clever signature text goes here.
Mozilla needs to make its own search engine, that'll put the willies up em.
I could see Microsoft paying big money to distribute firefox with an MSN default search box and msn.com for the homepage, and ditching IE. Probably would include a proprietary active x plugin for firefox, so stuff didn't break too severely.
If i would be at MS there i'd happily jump into financing mozilla. An easy way to draw more people towards the own online products. Finance mozilla, help them more with moonlight and pack firefox to every windows sold.
What the AC replied to you looks to be it. I was meaning they-linux devs "they" who are working on FF or seamonkey now- took the code at some point in time, then stopped taking code from mozilla and went on and did their own thing. No tracking, following, shadowing or anything. I guess it is semantics, but the idea of calling icecat a shadow rather than a true fork seems more appropriate and as such doesn't fit what I could consider to be a true fork. Or even better if they just started a new linux/FOSS browser program from scratch that had nothing to do with making a windows or mac version. Sort of like a FOSS variation of what the guy who does iCab does for mac (which is a decent browser project actually), he does *just* mac, nothing else, and has no intention whatsoever of doing a windows or linux version. No dilution or loss of focus in other words from his POV.
Anyway, I would really like to see and then $upport such a project, especially if the browser component was the main driving factor around a new linux kernel based desktop centric (not server or "enterprise") operating system with as much gpl3 as possible to it. Moz and google are just way too microsoft windows focused for my tastes at this point. MS has threatened open source over and over and over again for years, so why they want to keep supporting MS is beyond me, it makes no sense if you have a medium or long range goal. Comes a time you have to fish, cutting bait constantly by making windows better by doing MS job for them will just keep people on windows, and that is what all the website stats say at this point, linux adoption has stagnated on the desktop, because the browser made for windows by moz just encourages people stay on windows instead of looking at a true alternative. Yes, a lot of this is socially political and I admit that, but you either support FOSS as the better idea in all of computer-dom, or you do not. MS is and has been and shows all inclinations to contiue to be a clear and present danger to FOSS, and they have not changed, so why help them *at all*? That is where I am coming from. I would say I have the same exact opinion about OO.org at this point.
They have an app publication platform already,why not build an app store?