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."
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?
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.
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.
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).
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.
IceWeasel isn't a fork of Firefox. It's a version of Firefox that's been rebranded so that it doesn't have the trademark and copyright issues that Firefox has.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
MS Firefox is more likely.
MS has no inherent interest in propping up IE, which is a widely disliked, cruft-heavy bit of software that provides no revenue for them but batters their public image.
I think it quite likely that the big check that was offered to Mozilla came from Microsoft - and that they're thinking of taking it. In some ways, Firefox is a better fit for Microsoft than for Google: Microsoft doesn't rely on ad revenues, so the fact that it is much easier to block ads on Firefox than on Chrome isn't an issue for them.
If and when that happens, I look forward to watching a million heads explode.
The major Linux distributions, like Red Hat, would probably chip in. Part of the reason that Linux has any desktop market share at all is because Firefox runs on it, and many major sites support it. If people couldn't access their banking sites, YouTube, etc. with their Linux browser, they would replace their Linux desktop with Windows. Or, in the case of netbooks, buy the Windows version instead of the Linux one.
======
In X-Windows the client serves YOU!
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.
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.