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."

23 of 200 comments (clear)

  1. Not bloody likely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Not bloody likely by Chyeld · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And 50% of the folk out there would install Chrome long enough to switch their gmail to forward to a new address, and start work finding another free webmail site.

      And 100% of the corps using Google Apps for Domains would tie up the support lines to rip Google's techs a new one.

      And the next day we'd be crowning Bobco, a division of Algamated Inc., the new King of the Internet.

    2. Re:Not bloody likely by billcopc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Or, you know, someone would create a 2-second Firefox add-on that spoofs Chrome, and Google would gain nothing.

      --
      -Billco, Fnarg.com
  2. Carte blanche? by Chabil+Ha' · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Carte blanche? by Chabil+Ha' · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If by 'us' you mean /.ers, no I'm not worried, but it's the teaming, mindless masses that accept as default whatever is placed before them. That's what Opera's (and now Mozilla's) hissyfit in the EU is all about with IE. Because people are not *presented* a choice they stick with the Big Blue E.

      On the flip side, I do congratulate Microsoft (heresy!) on the post-installation launch of IE 7 where it *asks* you if you want Live Search to be the default or choose from an extensive list of providers.

      --
      We're all hypocrites. We all have hidden parts, it's the contrast between them that make us more a hypocrite than others
  3. Google Won't Let this Happen by rel4x · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?
    1. Re:Google Won't Let this Happen by AresTheImpaler · · Score: 3, Insightful
      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.

      I agree.. Google has a strong iphone (and ipod touch) connection while still having android. Apparently they also pay apple to be the search engine of choice for safari. So, I'm pretty sure they will gladly pay Mozilla while continue working on Chrome.

    2. Re:Google Won't Let this Happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It may not be entirely in Google's hands - the Mozilla folks have a say as well.

      While breaking the partnership would cost a lot of market share for Google *now*, while they're the new browser in the block, that cost would be much smaller if they have *any* success with popularizing Chrome. If they're *really* successful (i.e.: they catch up or surpass Firefox' market share), subsidizing one of their main competitors will stop making sense at some point.

      Before getting to the point where Mozilla is at the mercy of a reluctant Google, they may want to leverage their strong market position into a better deal.

    3. Re:Google Won't Let this Happen by whyloginwhysubscribe · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes - that is what I originally thought. But Mozilla would rather be prepared for the situation happening rather than it taking them by surprise!

    4. Re:Google Won't Let this Happen by rel4x · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You do give them too much credit.
      Google doesn't give a flying rats hindquarters about making the internet better.
      They want informational sites to rise to the top of the results because informational sites often run adsense as a monetization method. Also, they know companies not ranking well will spend money on adwords to promote their site. As for their other services, they're all aimed around being able to collect more personal data on you, and (eventually) to try and connect online identities to real life ones.

      They're a business, not a benevolent carebear spreading love and sunshine.

      --

      Before you mod me funny, think, perhaps I was insightfully funny?
    5. Re:Google Won't Let this Happen by maxume · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If Google makes money on searches done through Firefox and on search done through Chrome, they aren't going to do things that alienate Firefox users. I guess if they make 10x on Chrome searches they might, but I bet the ratio is much smaller.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  4. my take is Chrome pushes the technology by Dan667 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:my take is Chrome pushes the technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You forget, firefox has adblock, chrome does not. Google used to be good, or at the very least, did no evil, until they released an IPO, now they're like microsoft, but with a better pr department.

  5. Re:MSN? Not bloody likely by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Well, MSN doesn't really come at least to my mind when I think of a search engine that could sponsor Firefox development...

    Really?

    *Embrace* , extend, extinguish? Stranger things have happened, and the IE engine dies with IE8.

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
  6. I call shenanigans by Rix · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  7. Unlike Microsoft, Google doesn't have a record... by Chyeld · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  8. Re:Linux fork by jamesmcm · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yeah, that's a good idea except for the loss in manpower might mean they can't keep up with developments.

    I could easily see it happening though, if MS sponsor Firefox and they change the search to Live Search.

  9. Silly For Both by somethinghollow · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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).

  10. Re:Linux fork by Drakonik · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm not trying to be snippy or sarcastic here...um, what about Firefox has something to do specifically with Windows? As far as my experience goes, everything in Firefox is completely cross-platform.

  11. Re:Unlike Microsoft, Google doesn't have a record. by DerekLyons · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Unlike Microsoft, Google doesn't have a record of getting into bed with people simply to be in position to stab them in the back while they sleep.

    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.

  12. It's all about standards. by Keyper7 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  13. so why doesn't any of this bother you by circletimessquare · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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
  14. Google Doesn't Care About Chrome by qazwart · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.