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."
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.
Given the situation Bing is in, even a 1% search share increase for a $100 million cost is nothing. Firefox has 500 million users and maybe 20% of them won't change the default from Bing.
This space for rent.
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
This guy's gunning for Troll of the Year.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
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
Finally Microsoft found a way to kill Firefox: pay it to use Bing!
While Google, as Firefox's sugar daddy and major technical competitor, could put the hurt on FF, I just don't see the logic behind their doing so:
FF still has a pretty significant chunk of marketshare, so being the default search engine is still valuable; plus they are likely a convenient PR antidote to Google's ongoing issues with venturing into being-accused-of-monopoly-abuse territory: they are an independent 3rd party, developing a competing product with competitive marketshare(Hey FCC, look at that, see that robust competition?); but(unlike say Microsoft) they have neither a search product worthy of note or a non HTML5/JS development environment worthy of note(I've seen a few XUL-based tech demos; but that ranks well behind Silverlight, much less Win32, as anything resembling a threat...)
They just seem more valuable alive than dead, to Google. Unlike some of the other competitors, even a sudden surge of unmitigated dominance, with the Gecko slaughtering all before it, would pretty much just require Google to switch from webkit to Gecko and feel absolutely no pain in the areas where it actually makes money. As it is, they have the convenient property of being 'independent and competitive'; but also sharing basically all of Google's goals for web-based applications and the general advancement of web stuff not tied to a specific platform. Why mess with such a convenient 3rd party?
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Google-Wir-unterstuetzen-Firefox-weiter-1390401.html (google translate http://translate.google.de/translate?hl=de&sl=de&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.heise.de%2Fnewsticker%2Fmeldung%2FGoogle-Wir-unterstuetzen-Firefox-weiter-1390401.html)
Basically, Google denied all rumors.
For the very reason that Google wouldn't want to give Bing any sort of leg up on their own search engine. I think Mozilla could come out ahead if there happens to be any backroom bidding wars to keep that 3rd place browser out of the other big guy's hands.
How has this changed? Seriously, clean installs of Phoenix 1.0 and Firefox 11.0 are largely equivalent in terms of UI being presented (browser, bookmarks, history, tabs.) What "cruft" has been added that wasn't removed in the initial split from Seamonkey?
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.
Microsoft paying money to pay a competitor to use a Microsoft product?
Now where have I seen this pattern before?
Microsoft gives for two reasons - they want control (maybe not today, but eventually) or it keeps them looking like a monopolist (like their investment in Apple, to prop them up before Apple overtook them in Market Capitalization.)
Keeping Firefox/Mozilla going is really in Google's best interests for avoiding the Monopoly concern. Better to have a few friends who can defend you from assertions of Mighty Evil Master of Monopoly than none.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Free market for the win
And text a little bit contradictory.
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.
In my mind, the ideal functions of a free market are where N competing products vie for marketshare. The 'one browser to rule them all' mentality is, in my opinion, an antithesis to the free market concept. And what's more bizarre is that your post ends with an acknowledgment that IE has enjoyed an abnormally long run incorrectly as the leader. Don't you fear that if Firefox died tomorrow we would be one browser closer to the old system where IE stagnated and just got crappier and crappier with no competition in sight?
Products do die in a free market, I just haven't seen Firefox deserve this and given the barrier of entry into the browser market we should really cherish what we have for options.
I agree that chrome is the better browser -- though not in all categories. As such, I wish to see Firefox remain healthy and would enjoy them to improve upon areas that Chrome has gained on them. Not to 'fragment' the market (we grow closer to actual HTML standards everyday) but instead to keep these guys on their toes, moving forward and trying to win me over. When I saw Arcade Fire's music video in HTML5 on Chrome, that won me over. That was it. I don't want Firefox to die, I want Firefox to pull a similar move.
My work here is dung.
Does anyone know where the money they get from Google goes? Aren't they a non-profit that's freely distributing a community-developed piece of software? If so, why does this cost anything more than a couple million a year? That's what their financial statements from 2009 (latest available from their website) talk about: 10 people and ~ $1.5M in budget. That seems pretty reasonable to me to run a product with as broad a user base as Firefox.
But $100M??? Assuming an average salary of $100K, that's 1000 people. Are there really 1000 people working at Mozilla? If so, what are they doing?
Or are they really spending as much as Nike and Coke on marketing? Do they have a big pile of cash in bank? Can someone help me understand, cause right now I don't see how the math adds up...
That's completely false. Bing didn't copy any result from Google. Bing's toolbar just captured (if they had opted in) what users searched on any site of the internet and where they go next. It's a good assumption too - if user searches for something and then chooses that site over something else, there's a good change it's relevant. However, it was only small part of Bing's algorithm but since Google's engineers used made up words, there wasn't any other page to compete with those words. This resulted in Bing assigning those made-up keywords to those sites.
You could get the same effect in Google by bombing it with links that have some made up word as anchor text.
Yes.
Microsoft really didn't get what it wanted out of Internet Explorer. The point of the browser was was to dominate the market so they could push their own standards. To make browsing the World Wide Web a windows only thing, in order to Push Active X and other technologies that tied people to windows. It didn't happen.
1. Active X security model was flawed on day 1. I remember hearing about Active X and going ARE YOU INSANE! Microsoft overestimated the self restraint the average user will have with their computer. An Alert Box saying are you sure Means they will almost always click Yes. Java Applets are far more secure because they didn't allow writing to the Clients PC drives. Or really direct access to most of their hardware. This created a new set of security problems for Microsoft where any good IT person would stop that Technology from being deployed. Thus web developers will not depend on this technology as it will be blocked and there would need to be instructions and headaches to try to get the user to enable it.
2. Flash: Small, Light, Secure and Visually Appealing (at least compared to JavaApplets or Active X) and worked on different browsers and OS's and Hardware Platforms.It seemed more like a Toy Plugin then a real threat to Microsoft so they let it slip until it was too late.
3. Javascript: In order to get market share with IE they had to embrace Javascript. That allowed developers to put put code if IE do this otherwise follow the standards. So more and more websites were cross browser compatible.
4. Safari: Microsoft dropping IE for Mac and Apple pushing Safari was a big mistake. Web Developers (many used macs) made sure their code worked on their macs first then fixed it for IE. For a business case it is hard to say you will be dropping all your mac clients. As 3% of them were Macs at the time. So if you got 3 million hits. That is 30,000 complaints.
5. Apache: Unix/Linux server based web server running most of the web sites, as Windows Servers were not big enough for enterprise level serving. So most web shops had Linux/Unix boxes around and many of them used it for workstations. So IE was the second option.
6. Windows Long Horn/and Vista. IE releases are more or less tied with the OS Releases IE 6 for XP, IE 7 for Vista IE 8 for Windows 7 IE 9 for Windows 8. Yes they are not directly tied but there is a coralation between release time of the browser and the OS. Microsoft was stupid to integrate the OS with the Browser so. As Microsoft lingered in trying to get Vista out then having Vista being a failure. IE 6 stayed around for Far too long. Thus allowing Firefox and other browsers to get a good foot hold as people are eager to get a browser that meets the needs of their faster computers with faster internet connection and want to do the cool new things well.
So IE lost their foot hold in controlling the standard. So Microsoft Bing has to gain from getting Firefox support by default. That means more traffic to their site. IE is more or less a free as in beer product so they are not making money off of it. And they lost the standards war so they cannot use their huge market share to leverage their own products that IE was suppose to enhance.
Now Google produced chrome as a browser that will run their standard compliment services faster and better then the other browsers. So they are giving away chrome as to push their own services. And they are keeping competitive with their competitors to make sure they have the best experience without pissing off the other browsers as they are welcomed to use their services too and should get a good experience as well, but having their own dominate browser allows them to raise the bar on what they can do faster then having to wait for the other browsers to support it.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
I hope Google doesn't pull the plug on Firefox - that would result in less choice, and fewer people would be happy with their browsing experiences. The more browsers the merrier, I say.
I really like Firefox, and the last time I tried Chrome I couldn't find any way to customise it to suit my needs. Also, does Chrome, (or will it ever), have an add-on equivalent to Flashblock? (No, the recent addition of similar functionality to NoScript isn't a viable replacement). What about "Long URL please", "FontFinder", "Add 'n' Edit Cookies", "Tab Mix Plus", or "Video Download Helper"?
I generally don't like bloat, but Chrome is way too spartan for my needs. With Firefox, I gladly suffer a little bloat to get the ultimate in customisability. I have no confidence that Chrome will ever be as flexible.
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
How many damn times do people need telling?
How many times do people need to read the follow-ups to that story to realize that it was wrong? Even Dan Sullivan who were central in driving the original story went back on this claim in a follow-up blog post after he learned more about it.
Re any version of IE beyond 8, you forgot the obligatory "As long as you're still not running Windows XP" -- which many in the corporate world still are doing, and not by choice. The days when PCs (and, therefore, Windows verisons) were regularly refreshed every three or four years are long-gone for many financially hard-pressed businesses.
Discussion System prefs link: http://slashdot.org/users.pl?op=editcomm
I honestly wish people would cut it out with this "free market" crap. The simple fact is, there is no such thing as a "free market". It doesn't exist, and it probably never will. As long as you have some kind of physical limitation on things, it's impossible for a free market to exist, as one player will have a natural advantage in some way. One obvious example of the impossibility of a free market: real estate. No two properties can ever be identical. The guy who gets property in an advantageous location is going to do better than the guy who gets property in a bad location (far from customers, not on the "main drag", etc.), and it's impossible for two competitors to occupy the same property.
Is there a hosts file to block APK spam posts?
Honestly, the idea of a massive hosts file just to do what NoScript does by default seems... silly.
Firefox isn't all that great (showing how not that great the competing and mostly inferior browsers are). What does Firefox do in a year that costs $100M? It seems that a company with $5M in revenue could have done what Firefox has done in the past year, and that includes 3 "major version numbers".
If you gave me $100M I could pay a team that not only wrote an HTML4 browser (and HTTP/FTP/whatever protocol) from scratch, but also HTML5, and probably a JVM, too.
--
make install -not war
Yeah, Google might as well keep giving money to Firefox to avoid the monopolist label (which some places are already starting to level at them; didn't the EU raise some monopoly concerns about Google recently?), in exchange for FF making Google the default search engine. Many users are already abandoning FF for Chrome, so it's not like they need to resort to other means (besides user choice) to get people to use their browser.
Finally, why does Google care if people use their browser anyway? How do they make money off that? It seems to me they make money mainly from people using their search engine, and seeing ads (and clicking on them). If they use Chrome, then obviously the default browser is Google, so they make money that way. But if they use Firefox, and the default browser is still Google (which it probably will be unless Google dumps them and they switch to Bing to get MS money), then they still make their money. The only way Google doesn't make money is when people use IE and use IE's default browser, which is Bing. It seems like anything Google can do to keep people away from Bing will guarantee their profitability, and dumping FF will only succeed in harming their profitability, by pushing more people into IE (if FF dies, some users will switch to Chrome, a few to Opera, and many to IE).
Anyone who can read, use the web, and cares probably does, since they publish their audited financial statement on their website.
From the information in the report cited below, they are a non-profit "that exists to provide organizational, legal, and financial support for the Mozilla open-source software project", and whose "purpose is to develop open source, standards compliant, free Internet applications that will be useable free of charge to tens of millions of users" and "to develop foundational technologies that will be used by content and software developers to develop standards compliant online content and open source internet software."
The latest financial statement available on their website is the consoldiated report for 2010 on 2009. And it has, for 2010 (2009 in parens) $123M ($104M) in revenue and $87M ($61M) in expenses, $63M ($40M) of which is software development, $12M ($13M) of which is general and administrative expense, $10M ($7M) of which is branding and marketing, and $2M ($1M) of which is program services (all figures rounded to the nearest million.)
I have no idea where you got the $1.5M in 2009 budget from.
First, they don't have $100M in expenses, they have $123M in revenue and only $87M in expenses. Expenses include things besides just personnel costs, and personnel costs themselves include more than just salary (if you estimated personnel costs as twice salary, you'd be a lot closer than if you estimated, as you have, at the salary itself.)
Unless Nike and Coke spend $10M or less per year on marketing, no.
Very good swearing. All that swearing must mean that your point is valid.