Slashdot Mirror
Will Firefox Lose Google Funding?
SharkLaser writes "Mozilla's future looks uncertain. Last week Chrome overtook Firefox's position as the second most popular browser, the new versioning scheme is alienating some Firefox users, and now the advertising deal between Mozilla and Google, the one that almost fully funds Mozilla's operations, is coming to an end. One of Firefox's key managers, Mike Shaver, also left the company in September. 'In 2010, 84% of Mozilla's $123 million in revenue came directly from Google. That's roughly $100 million in funds that will vanish or be drastically cut if the deal is either not renewed or is renegotiated on terms that are less favorable to Mozilla. When the original three-year partnership deal was signed in 2008, Chrome was still on the drawing boards. Today, it is Google's most prominent software product, and it is rapidly replacing Firefox as the alternative browser on every platform.' Recently Mozilla has been trying to get closer with Microsoft by making a Firefox version that defaults to Bing. If Google is indeed cutting funding from Mozilla or tries to negotiate less favorable terms, it could mean Mozilla's future funding coming from Microsoft and Bing."
The problem is ultimately that Firefox was out-Firefoxed. Chrome is what Firefox was in its beginning, a pretty small and basic web browser without all the cruft. Part of the issue to my mind, or at least why I abandoned Firefox was simply that the developers refused to fix long-standing bugs, and basically began to ignore the community that used the browser. So far as I'm concerned, IE and Chrome have left Firefox behind.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
IE slowly killed Netscape.. Chrome slowly killed Firefox.
"It's because Chrome is the better browser. It shouldn't matter that it comes from a mega company like Google. If a better product comes out, that should be king. Now why people are still using IE is beyond me." - by gameboyhippo (827141) on Monday December 05, @01:04PM (#38268436)
If that's purely the case as you state it, Opera should have won long ago then as "top most used browser". Opera was technically superior on many grounds:
---
1.) Speed (for years & on most all fronts tested/testable)
2.) Built in features natively without having to use addons
3.) Features other webbrowsers or addon makers literally copied from Opera's playbook (and integrated into their own webbrowsers).
---
* Will Mozilla/FireFox die? No, doubt it - too good of a codebase built up for decades to just "die"... it'll live on (if in anything, WaterFox (very fast, I'm impressed in fact by it)).
APK
P.S.=> No, I think it has to do a LOT with who's backing you in this world (not just programs, but that same goes for individuals also (ala "it's not what you know, but who you know", though I think that's speaking TOO much in "absolutes" also)... in the end? It's a mix of both... imo @ least!
... apk
For the reverse look at this relationship, "How browsers make money, or why Google needs Firefox" - http://www.extremetech.com/internet/92558-how-browsers-make-money-or-why-google-needs-firefox
Flash blocking is built into the browser, and NoScript equivalents are available.
I agree with grandparent, though. The TFA is wrong; Chrome didn't overtake due to version numbering -- Chrome's own numbering is no less nonsensical. It overtook because it is a better browser. I am a power user who spends most of his day working through the browser, and who builds and configures his own machines. I was a Firefox user until Chrome came along, but I left the first chance I got because Firefox's developers refused to listen to its userbase.
Over and over, we were told that Firefox's poor memory usage wasn't a bug, it was a feature. The fact that if I opened a few browser windows and tabs, visited a few sites in each and ramped up memory usage in the process, then closed all but one single tab/window and memory usage barely reduced at all was what pushed me away from Firefox. I can't be spending all day long closing my browser every few hours because it's grown to consume multiple gigabytes of memory. Chrome is an absolute lightweight by comparison.
Note: I have no idea if Firefox ever got around to admitting and fixing this bug. That's the problem with ignoring your userbase. They tend not to come back.
I mean the reason this is a problem at all is that Mozilla is a non profit but still needs to cover operating costs. Since everything they make is free, they need to either monetize customer support (and who has ever heard of that with a browser or email reader) or have ad revenue.
The google deal was just a means to an end, that some fraction of the add revenue from google goes to mozilla because google was firefox default search. The reason its so dangerous for mozilla is because google has such monopolistic power over search they have no one else to turn to to get ad revenue from searching from, hence the inquiries at M$.
But do consider this - Google is paying 100 million a year, but in 2010 they had revune of 29 billion. In exchange, they go from having influence in a quarter of the browser market (Chrome) to half the market (Chrome + FF) and then they have majority influence. I imagine its something they want when pushing WebM video and standards compliance in browsers.
I use Firefox, and have tried Chrome, but as a developer, add on nerd, and moralist I can't give myself to the company whose adds are blocked by a plugin in their own browser. I have compared them, and run them against Sunspider, and the half a milisecond of delay in page loading doesn't make me want to ditch a fully open project for something Google has lordship over. Its the same thing with Android vs Ubuntu on tablets, I want to see Ubuntu succeed because it is an open development process, not just source wise. Google already close sourced Android 3 even though it was blatantly illegal to close source software built on Linux. So I'd rather stick with the open standard. Worst case scenario, I might find a few months to work on FF myself and try to fix some of the slowdowns if I really take issue with them. That's the benefit of open development.
imho, as an IT pro, most of my clients that have chrome and i asked them why they installed chrome... their answer was well it was on Google and the link said it makes browsing better.... no other reason. they like Google search, and click on things... not saying there is no reason but numbers wise this seems to explain a bit
I agree with you that Konqueror sucks, but I don't see what's wrong with Firefox. Everything renders well, it's plenty fast, etc. Now, the browser at work, IE 7, is even worse than Konqueror. I'm happy with Firefox and really don't give a rat's ass how they number the versions.
Besides, it is still GPL, anybody can keep it alive. To quote Twain, "reports of my death are greatly exaggerated." GPL software needs no big corporation to survive.
As to the "you can uncheck the boxes", I shouldn't have to uncheck anything. What Google is doing with Chrome is underhanded, sneaky, unethical, and... well, it should be opt-in like the supermarket stalking cards; having to opt out of being stalked is evil. Why is it that it's legal for Doubleclick to stalk people but illegal for a person to? Why do corporations have more rights than people?
Ban the opt out, everything should be opt-in, otherwise it's slavery. When Chrome makes its stalking opt-in, I'll try Chrome, but not a day sooner. I try to avoid helpng evil.
Free Martian Whores!