Linked by Howard Fosdick on Tue 6th Dec 2011 21:38 UTC
Google "In Mozilla's recently released 2010 annual report, the foundation indicates that 86% and 84% of royalty revenue came from one contract in 2009 and 2010, respectively. Mozilla separately confirms that Google is its largest contract." Evan Niu at Motley Fool then estimates that of Mozilla's last year royalty revenue of $121.1 million, $101.7 million came from Google. The article speculates that Google might eventually kill Firefox by withdrawing its financial support.
Order by: Score:
One ring?
by evert on Tue 6th Dec 2011 21:57 UTC
evert
Member since:
2005-07-06

They already tried One Ring to rule them all. Two rings is better.

Reply Score: 4

I can't live without Firebug
by adinas on Tue 6th Dec 2011 21:58 UTC
adinas
Member since:
2005-08-17

I can live without Firefox but I might as well retire from web development if Firebug goes away ;)

Reply Score: 4

RE: I can't live without Firebug
by ddc_ on Wed 7th Dec 2011 12:17 UTC in reply to "I can't live without Firebug"
ddc_ Member since:
2006-12-05

There still is WebKit with its WebInspector, and developers keep adding features there. I read somewhere that now they are comparable feature-wise.

Reply Score: 1

adinas Member since:
2005-08-17

Chrome's 'Inspect' just seems less clear when I'm trying to understand what affects the element being inspected and harder to dynamically update. Maybe I just need to get used to it.

Edited 2011-12-07 13:32 UTC

Reply Score: 2

miker Member since:
2009-07-08

Chromes developer tools are the reason I rarely use Firefox anymore. The inspector is faster, less buggy, and I never have to worry about a stable browser release breaking it.

It also features much more sophisticated tools for performance tuning and memory leak detection.

Reply Score: 1

Comment by Zifre
by Zifre on Tue 6th Dec 2011 22:01 UTC
Zifre
Member since:
2009-10-04

I don't think this would kill Firefox, but Mozilla would have to cut back a lot. They would no longer be able to fund cool projects like Rust.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Comment by Zifre
by WorknMan on Tue 6th Dec 2011 22:29 UTC in reply to "Comment by Zifre"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

I don't think this would kill Firefox, but Mozilla would have to cut back a lot. They would no longer be able to fund cool projects like Rust.


You say that like that's a bad thing ;) Before reading this article, I didn't even know what Rust was. Think they should just concentrate on the browser, and maybe Thunderbird as well.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by Zifre
by TechGeek on Tue 6th Dec 2011 22:36 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Zifre"
TechGeek Member since:
2006-01-14

No offence personally, but that kind of thinking is what holds us back as a society. Everything that ever was, was a twinkle in someone's mind before that. There is also a need for projects like rust. Just look at what Xerox Park produced. While Xerox failed to capitalize on it, they basically created the modern computer age.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by Zifre
by WorknMan on Tue 6th Dec 2011 23:08 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Zifre"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

No offence personally, but that kind of thinking is what holds us back as a society. Everything that ever was, was a twinkle in someone's mind before that. There is also a need for projects like rust. Just look at what Xerox Park produced. While Xerox failed to capitalize on it, they basically created the modern computer age.


Apparently, you missed my point. It's important that projects like Rust get worked on if they serve a purpose, but you (as a person or a company) really don't want to spread your resources too thin. There's always going to be a bunch of projects or ideas that seem really interesting, so it becomes a question of which ones are the most important to work on right now.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by Zifre
by reez on Wed 7th Dec 2011 10:37 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Zifre"
reez Member since:
2006-06-28

I think the problem is that there are a lot of these things are too fragmented.

CoffeeScript for example is awesome when it comes to syntax. It's clean, short and easily read- and writable, while it still doesn't enforce anything.

Falcon has a ton of nice stuff (short print function, nice extras on control structures, tons of paradigms) and when I found it I thought it was perfect because it pretty much combines everything there is. One can write in a lot of different style, but has the option to not do so. It won't be more complicated or anything. It also has Unicode support.

Then there are languages like Rust and Go that try to replace C and/or C++ by making things easier and more optimized for present times (where concurrency and stuff are important).

There are also other approaches, like functional programming, be it Haskell or one of those LISP-likes. For some reason functional programming appears to have a hard time to get and keep enough attention, which is awkward because it appears to solve way more problems than OO. Haskell still seems to do a very good job though.

Another thing people forget is that there already are some languages, like Ada, Eiffel, etc. that fix a lot of common problems when using C for things that require integrity. They also aren't too "hard" (or logic/different ;) ), like Haskell.

Reality is that people hype programming languages because of killer applications, like RoR or Node.js. I am not saying that Ruby or JavaScript are bad, but one has to be fair and say that both could have been implemented in any other language. See luvit, which is a faster Node.js in Lua and all the web application frameworks in other other language. Many of them are better than RoR (see Perl's Mojolicious).

So in the end everyone continues using C and a scripting language which currently is being hyped because they implemented some revived ancient concept. It isn't really a bad thing, but it means that most people are forced to learn lots of languages. This is good, but it usually tends to become bad when the reason is that the market demands it. It causes programmers to use language like they would program in C (or Java in these days) and not actually use the language's features. Money is a good motivator for you to write code, but a bad one when it comes to writing good code.

Reply Score: 2

Why stop funding?
by big_gie on Tue 6th Dec 2011 22:33 UTC
big_gie
Member since:
2006-01-04

I'm not sure google cares that much about firefox. What it cares is that people use its search engine.

Google developed Chrome/Chromium to have a BSD (-like) product they could use in closed ChromeOS. But again, ChromeOS is like Android: continue to have access to users' data even for emerging markets.

Mozilla receives millions because they have 1) a "large" user base and 2) setup google as default so users who don't care just use Google.

Now of course if Firefox's install base significantly drops Google might reconsider its founding. But until then, Google probably gains as much from this deal as it does from the beginning...

Reply Score: 3

RE: Why stop funding?
by _xmv on Tue 6th Dec 2011 22:39 UTC in reply to "Why stop funding?"
_xmv Member since:
2008-12-09

I'm not sure google cares that much about firefox. What it cares is that people use its search engine.

Google developed Chrome/Chromium to have a BSD (-like) product they could use in closed ChromeOS. But again, ChromeOS is like Android: continue to have access to users' data even for emerging markets.

Mozilla receives millions because they have 1) a "large" user base and 2) setup google as default so users who don't care just use Google.

Now of course if Firefox's install base significantly drops Google might reconsider its founding. But until then, Google probably gains as much from this deal as it does from the beginning...


Exactly.

Articles about Mozilla losing funding right now are either just to bring ad views (from Google, har har), or just made by people who have no single idea what they're talking about.

The key here is:
[quote]
But until then, Google probably gains as much from this deal as it does from the beginning... [/q]
[/quote]

and they sure do.

Chrome has been built to make sure Google keep the upper hand on the web control, long term.

Because if Firefox had 80%+ market share and switched to Bing overnight in new updates, Google would be fucked.

Every next step Google takes these days is toward the same goal: full, global web control. End to end.
If you're into this business, you can figure that out easily, between Dart, Chrome, various updates they do, etc.

I find it scarier than Microsoft ever was, because they're sneaky. Much more sneaky. Much more likely to succeed.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Why stop funding?
by vapier on Wed 7th Dec 2011 21:40 UTC in reply to "Why stop funding?"
vapier Member since:
2011-12-07

Google developed Chrome/Chromium to have a BSD (-like) product they could use in closed ChromeOS.


yeah, no, that isn't why Chrome was created. Chrome existed before Chrome OS was even thought of.

also, in what way exactly is Chrome OS "closed" ? anyone can download the source code, build their own, and even update their Chromebooks. the only way you could construe it to be "closed" is if you were talking about the Google services Chrome OS *optionally* utilizes. but that doesn't even really make sense since Chrome OS doesn't require Google services at all.

Edited 2011-12-07 21:41 UTC

Reply Score: 1

Counter opinion
by lemur2 on Tue 6th Dec 2011 23:11 UTC
lemur2
Member since:
2007-02-17

FTA:

The article speculates that Google might eventually kill Firefox by withdrawing its financial support.


Here is another article which speculates the reverse:

http://www.internetnews.com/blog/skerner/mozillas-google-deal-is-no...

Mozilla's Google Deal is NOT Dead.

"From the 'Don't always believe what you read' files:

There has been some 'confusion' in recent days about the status of Mozilla's relationship with Google. Some have speculated (incorrectly) that the deal is over, leaving Mozilla without its chief source of revenue.

That's simply not the case. Just ask Mozilla. They just released a new statement on the issue which will clear up some of the misconceptions.

'Our search relationship with Google remains positive for both of us. We are in active negotiations and have nothing further to announce at this time. We have every confidence that search partnerships will continue to be a strong and growing generator of revenue for the foreseeable future.'

No, that's not a formal announcement of a straight deal renewal, but it is a very strong indication that one will be signed."

The article goes on to explain why the Google/Mozilla deal is beneficial to both parties.

Reply Score: 6

Google's support of Firefox isn't charity
by JoeBuck on Tue 6th Dec 2011 23:45 UTC
JoeBuck
Member since:
2006-01-11

Rather, it is a mutually beneficial deal. In exchange for the money, the default search engine in Firefox is Google, which means that Firefox users generate ad revenue for Google, and lots of it.

Should Google cut off Firefox, Firefox would have to pick alternative search engines to make up part of the revenue, and Google's revenues would decline somewhat as a result. Firefox might also need to resort to including advertising, perhaps blocking some of Google's to make up for it.

It is of course true that Google is in the stronger position, and could probably force Mozilla to take less money. But cutting them off entirely wouldn't be good business.

Reply Score: 3

Comment by M.Onty
by M.Onty on Wed 7th Dec 2011 00:11 UTC
M.Onty
Member since:
2009-10-23

I dare suggest that there might be something other than pure finance driving Google's support of Mozilla. Reputation.

Firefox is considered a more 'neutral' browser than Chrome, and people remember it as the browser that opened up the market again after IE6. Google withdrawing the deal would seen as a deliberate attempt to squash Firefox, and that wouldn't do their image any good at all. After all, that sort of money is chicken feed for them.

Edited 2011-12-07 00:11 UTC

Reply Score: 4

Firefox is still too
by Kivada on Wed 7th Dec 2011 00:13 UTC
Kivada
Member since:
2010-07-07

Good a browser to lose to Chrome, as we all know, like Safari and Internet Explorer the only reason it has anything more then single digit usage rates is because it's the default browser on so many devices. while Firefox pulled in all of it's marketshare by being a competent browser. It's little wonder that when I show people their usual sites on my ad stripped Firefox that they instantly ask me to install it for them.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Firefox is still too
by lemur2 on Wed 7th Dec 2011 00:49 UTC in reply to "Firefox is still too"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Good a browser to lose to Chrome, as we all know, like Safari and Internet Explorer the only reason it has anything more then single digit usage rates is because it's the default browser on so many devices. while Firefox pulled in all of it's market share by being a competent browser. It's little wonder that when I show people their usual sites on my ad stripped Firefox that they instantly ask me to install it for them.


There was a longish period where Chrome had better performance than Firefox (but not better features). During that period, Chrome gained considerable market share, while Firefox's share declined slightly. With the release of Firefox 7 Mozilla has only recently re-gained the performance/features crown over Chrome.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/firefox-7-web-browser,3037-17.h...

Many, many people are not yet aware that Firefox has overtaken Chrome again.

Edited 2011-12-07 00:49 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE: Firefox is still too
by Morgan on Wed 7th Dec 2011 00:50 UTC in reply to "Firefox is still too"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

And yet there are ad-blocking extensions for all the major browsers. I'm sure you don't tell your friends about that though.

That said, I use Firefox under OS X, Windows and Linux, with the exception of my "fattened" thin client which uses Dillo2 to save precious storage space. On my portables (Nook Color with Android and HTC Arrive with WP7) I use the default browser.

Firefox is a great browser for the most part, but if I had to switch one day I wouldn't be heartbroken. Opera and Chromium run on all the x86 OSes I use except Haiku, and Linux has a few really good OSS browsers. Still, I hope the project can continue if Google does pull the plug financially.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Firefox is still too
by Kivada on Wed 7th Dec 2011 05:07 UTC in reply to "RE: Firefox is still too"
Kivada Member since:
2010-07-07

And yet there are ad-blocking extensions for all the major browsers. I'm sure you don't tell your friends about that though.


Thing is Google is part of the problem, Google frowns upon the use of ad blocking and anonymizing software is digging into their adsense data. Google collects too much data as it is.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Firefox is still too
by Morgan on Wed 7th Dec 2011 20:27 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Firefox is still too"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

I agree with you there. Google is the ultimate technology drug: Pretty much everyone dislikes their privacy practices and the staggering volume of information they glean from us, yet we can't stop using their services! If you have an Android phone, they see pretty much everything you do. Even the iPhone has a lot of Google tracking built in.

Microsoft has made some progress in offering the same level of web-based services and tight integration that Google offers, but is it any better that they get your data instead? In the end a large corporation has detailed metrics on you, enough to generate a profile with so much info that it would put the FBI and other government agencies to shame. Just one's search history alone provides deep insight into their thought patterns, interests and even fetishes. Combine that with the full contents of their Docs or Skydrive account, gTalk or Messenger logs, Google+ or Live profile, and so on...either company would know the person better than they know themselves.

And what is the alternative? These days if you forego the above services (and by that I mean no smartphone unless it's something cloud-agnostic like the n900 or a six year old Treo) you would be cut off, a digital pariah. We are right in the middle of any 80s cyberpunk novel, minus the gritty underbelly of the big city. It's gotten to the point that if you don't have the latest smartphone connected to its respective cloud service, pumping your vital data through its pipes minute by minute, you don't really exist.

And yes, I know that is all a bit overly dramatic. But when you stop to think about it, in the past five years we have catapulted ourselves into a socially networked sea of information, and we're drowning in it. I look at my dad, who is quite adept technologically but still refuses to have a smartphone or a social network account, and will not use Google unless it is by proxy. Despite his outsider status in the realm of modern social networking, we still manage to talk all the time and he is actually quite happy and at peace in his retirement.

Do I feel that I could forgo my connected life and do the same? Maybe, but to be honest I'm hooked. The Google machine has my cog firmly in place and is grinding away.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Firefox is still too
by Kivada on Thu 8th Dec 2011 04:47 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Firefox is still too"
Kivada Member since:
2010-07-07

I'm still in my 20's and I still refuse to use any social media services, Use bog standard basic smartphones that don't have an OS made by Google, MS or Apple. I use DuckDuckGo's SSL search plugin and have the addressbar search do the same in Firefox, have no Flash in the base OS, only in a VM for the few HIB games that require it. Just sucks theres no other service but Yuotube that hosts videos in an OSS format.

Shame the OpenMoko Neo FreeRunner phone never caught on, it looks like there isn't any US distributer still stocking them...

Reply Score: 2

RE: Firefox is still too
by vapier on Fri 9th Dec 2011 01:36 UTC in reply to "Firefox is still too"
vapier Member since:
2011-12-07

Good a browser to lose to Chrome, as we all know, like Safari and Internet Explorer the only reason it has anything more then single digit usage rates is because it's the default browser on so many devices.


huh ? ignoring ChromeOS, where exactly is Chrome the default browser on any device ? the browser you use in Android isn't Chrome.

Reply Score: 1

v Comment by Luminair
by Luminair on Wed 7th Dec 2011 01:04 UTC
RE: Comment by Luminair
by M.Onty on Wed 7th Dec 2011 01:57 UTC in reply to "Comment by Luminair"
M.Onty Member since:
2009-10-23

So all these releases and speed increases have been just so much air escaping from the corpse, I presume.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by Luminair
by lemur2 on Wed 7th Dec 2011 05:04 UTC in reply to "Comment by Luminair"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Mozilla and Firefox died some time ago. Sorry folks. There may be a vibrant fork some day, just like Firefox once was. Enjoy Chrome!


Here is, apparently, and excellent example of a person who is not yet aware that Firefox has recently overtaken Chrome (in terms of features and performance) again, thereby regaining its former position as the best browser available.

Why would anyone think that the best available browser has somehow "died"? Perhaps what Mozilla and Firefox needs is better advertising.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by Luminair
by Luminair on Thu 8th Dec 2011 02:58 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Luminair"
Luminair Member since:
2007-03-30

mozilla as you know it exists because of google money that it no longer gets. the firefox market share graph is a line pointing to the ground. they've gone from the innovator to copying the interface and development schedule of the competition. the organization has reorganized and it hasn't helped the products or the market share. the other mozilla products remain jokes. I think that is enough.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by Luminair
by Kivada on Thu 8th Dec 2011 04:58 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Luminair"
Kivada Member since:
2010-07-07

And who's browser got 90% of it's userbase in the same lame ass way that Internet Explorer does? Great job cloning Apple as well.

Reply Score: 2

went back to firefox from chrome
by stabbyjones on Wed 7th Dec 2011 02:49 UTC
stabbyjones
Member since:
2008-04-15

Chrome has made firefox a better browser.

If anything Google SAVED firefox.

Reply Score: 5

D'oh!
by marcp on Wed 7th Dec 2011 11:06 UTC
marcp
Member since:
2007-11-23

1. Firefox is cool, but not an only OSS browser out there
2. Firefox is OSS browser. It is already forked by many projects and it can be forked at any time
3. Limiting to only one source of funding seems kind of unreasonable

ad3 however, I can see the mechanism: "well, we already got almost 100% of what we actually need. Screw other funding sources. Let's not search for it".

Reply Score: 2

No, it can't
by ddc_ on Wed 7th Dec 2011 12:15 UTC
ddc_
Member since:
2006-12-05

Google's funding of Firefox is part of Google Ads business practices: Google pays searches that come from Firefox. Breaking the business practices will cost Google more then it can save on not paying Mozilla, as many clients will feel endangered and reduce their Google Ads usage.

Furthermore, if that actually happens, Mozilla is getting prepared. Eg., in Russia it ships Яndex-backed version and receives founding from Яndex. I believe some other similar projects exist in a wild. If Google decides to break its contact with Mozilla, it will just switch to Bing/Yahoo/DuckDuckGo or whatever else exists.

Reply Score: 1

Google manipulation
by Kebabbert on Wed 7th Dec 2011 12:20 UTC
Kebabbert
Member since:
2007-07-27

I really admire Google's manipulation of people and very subtile advertising. The marketing people at Google are very good and thought hard to come up with this simple sentence:

"Google is your friend"

Simply genius. Many people write it, and say it everyday without knowing that Google is doing. Google has been working hard to spread that sentence among common people. And people dont know they are spreading and instilling what Google want us to think of Google. Never mind all the espionage Google and Facebook does on us.

Why is google my friend? What friend? How is Google nice? Is Facebook also my friend? Should I give Facebook and Google access to all my personal data?

Reply Score: 4

RE: Google manipulation
by Kivada on Wed 7th Dec 2011 18:35 UTC in reply to "Google manipulation"
Kivada Member since:
2010-07-07

I really admire Google's manipulation of people and very subtile advertising. The marketing people at Google are very good and thought hard to come up with this simple sentence:

"Google is your friend"

Simply genius. Many people write it, and say it everyday without knowing that Google is doing. Google has been working hard to spread that sentence among common people. And people dont know they are spreading and instilling what Google want us to think of Google. Never mind all the espionage Google and Facebook does on us.

Why is google my friend? What friend? How is Google nice? Is Facebook also my friend? Should I give Facebook and Google access to all my personal data?



^This^

I don't get why anyone trusts Google, especially since those that show much love for Google are the same that go on and on about Microsoft, Apple, Oracle etc.

The only thing I like about Google is the "Summer Of Code" project and their releasing of VP8.

Reply Score: 3

perfect browser
by fran on Thu 8th Dec 2011 18:50 UTC
fran
Member since:
2010-08-06

The perfect browser would be.

one with the

Interface of Opera
Plugins of Firefox
Security of Explorer
Speed of Chrome

Reply Score: 2