Linked by lemur2 on Sat 24th Dec 2011 10:05 UTC
Mozilla & Gecko clones After much speculation over whether Mozilla, the non-profit foundation, and Google, the search and advertising company, would renew their default search provision deal, Mozilla has announced that a new multi-year deal has been made. The deal will see Google continue to be the default search provider in the Firefox browser for "at least three additional years".
Order by: Score:
Comment by ephracis
by ephracis on Sat 24th Dec 2011 11:15 UTC
ephracis
Member since:
2007-09-23

Good for Mozilla!

Reply Score: 2

RE: bad html in the link
by lemur2 on Sun 25th Dec 2011 04:57 UTC in reply to "bad html in the link"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17



I originally tried to link two articles, one about the announcement of the deal, and another reporting the financial arrangements.

Here is the second link:

http://allthingsd.com/20111222/google-will-pay-mozilla-almost-300m-...

Google Will Pay Mozilla Almost $300M Per Year in Search Deal, Besting Microsoft and Yahoo

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: bad html in the link
by tomcat on Mon 26th Dec 2011 07:19 UTC in reply to "RE: bad html in the link"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

I originally tried to link two articles, one about the announcement of the deal, and another reporting the financial arrangements.


No sweat. We don't expect competence from you.

Reply Score: 1

v Good news
by djrikki on Sat 24th Dec 2011 15:56 UTC
Mozilla exists because of Google
by David on Sat 24th Dec 2011 18:12 UTC
David
Member since:
1997-10-01

If it hadn't been for Google's original search deal with Mozilla, which, as far as I know, contributes the majority of their funding, it wouldn't have been possible for Firefox to become the browser it is.

I'm very glad to see that now, even though Firefox is a competitor to Chrome, Google is continuing its relationship, even at a higher price. I hope it's not just to put its thumb in Microsoft's eye.

Reply Score: 0

Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

25% of all users use Firefox, it would be stupid not to have them use Google Search by default. It isn't charity.

Reply Score: 3

Mozilla exists because of AOL
by zima on Sat 31st Dec 2011 16:51 UTC in reply to "Mozilla exists because of Google"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Mozilla was around, able to make that initial Google deal, also thanks to the early support from AOL ...they were funding them for quite some time, basically also in the "formative" period of Phoenix/Firebird/Firefox (which BTW & IMHO, back then, was perhaps more "unspoiled" when it comes to what it was / what it wanted to become; the present incarnation did good when it comes to usage share, but some early ideals were lost)

Reply Score: 2

I wish mozila would less be arrogant
by reduz on Sat 24th Dec 2011 18:26 UTC
reduz
Member since:
2006-02-25

And accept that many of the things Chrome is doing are great and must be copied..
Sandboxig, PPAPI for plugins, Chrome Store, etc..

Reply Score: 2

Fergy Member since:
2006-04-10

And accept that many of the things Chrome is doing are great and must be copied..
Sandboxig, PPAPI for plugins, Chrome Store, etc..

You should have left the Chrome store out. It is a walled garden where webapps that can run in any modern browser are crippled to only run on Chrome.

Reply Score: 7

how are they spending the money?
by mtzmtulivu on Sat 24th Dec 2011 23:56 UTC
mtzmtulivu
Member since:
2006-11-14

Everybody talks about how much money mozilla gets but nobody seem to want to talk about how they are spending it.

Mozilla is a non profit organization and this means all the money they get get used somehow and none of it goes out to anybody as dividends.

How are they going to spend all that money?

How many paid developers does firefox have?, how much are they getting paid on average?

How much does firefox pay to host its infrastructure? Firefox infrastructure is made up of what exactly and why do they cost as much as they do?

What other projects does mozilla manage?, which ones costs most and which ones cost least? why?

There are a lot of questions to be asked, lots of answers to be given but nobody online seem to be curious about this.

Reply Score: 3

Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

Maybe people don't ask about Mozilla, because the information is right there ?:

http://www.mozilla.org/about/mission.html

http://www.mozilla.org/grants/
http://www.mozilla.org/about/organizations.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla.org#Donations

http://static.mozilla.com/moco/en-US/pdf/Mozilla%20Foundation~*...

Have to admit I'm not very good at reading financial reports, but there are many people who can.

Basically, it is one of the few organisations which is trying to keep the web secure, open, accessible for everyone (probably some things I forgot, like privacy ?).

Which is something Google, Microsoft, Facebook and many others do not care about.

Here is an article on which new projects Mozilla recently started thinks they can (help to) achieve this:

http://www.infoworld.com/d/open-source-software/mozillas-3-bold-bet...

It isn't easy, but IE also had a more than 95% market share when Mozilla started.

Reply Score: 7

Codester Member since:
2008-10-24

Good question.
They give money to the Parrot VM project, which doesn't seem to have any direct benefits to them. Maybe they fund other open source projects withe their excess?? But there certainly is a possibility that money could be spent on things besides open source development, but hopefully they give a full accounting somewhere.

Reply Score: 1

v It's a testament to Ballmer's cheapness
by Codester on Sun 25th Dec 2011 02:06 UTC
Valhalla Member since:
2006-01-24

Lol, well atleast they have confidence enough to use their own search algorithms, unlike Microsoft which has so little faith in their own capacity that they copy Google search results and present them in Bing.

Reply Score: 4

ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

Lol, well atleast they have confidence enough to use their own search algorithms, unlike Microsoft which has so little faith in their own capacity that they copy Google search results and present them in Bing.

You do realize how ridiculous that comment is, ......right?

Reply Score: 0

Valhalla Member since:
2006-01-24

No, please educate me. Microsoft was caught copying the search results directly from Google, the test was very carefully thought out. Google tied a hundred bogus search terms like 'sdjasdahss', 'xmncbbhsdld' etc directly to certain sites. They then searched using those terms through bing and voila, bing showed these totally unrelated sites which could only be tied together through Google's tailored search results. Microsoft tried to claim that it was due to them picking up searches from an opt-in toolbar which is laughable since the only way that would have worked is if the people who had installed that toolbar would have searched on Google for those hundred bogus terms, and triggered the special linking.

Reply Score: 4

ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

No, please educate me. Microsoft was caught copying the search results directly from Google, the test was very carefully thought out. Google tied a hundred bogus search terms like 'sdjasdahss', 'xmncbbhsdld' etc directly to certain sites. They then searched using those terms through bing and voila, bing showed these totally unrelated sites which could only be tied together through Google's tailored search results. Microsoft tried to claim that it was due to them picking up searches from an opt-in toolbar which is laughable since the only way that would have worked is if the people who had installed that toolbar would have searched on Google for those hundred bogus terms, and triggered the special linking.

Google has a great search engine. Microsoft used it as a tool, only a part of the search chain, and for comparitive purposes. It has nothing to do with lack of faith in their search engine. To say that Bing simply copies Google search results only shows you don't actually know how Bing works. Which is fine, it's not like assumption and misinformation is something new on the internet.

Reply Score: 0

m_pll Member since:
2009-07-16

Microsoft tried to claim that it was due to them picking up searches from an opt-in toolbar which is laughable since the only way that would have worked is if the people who had installed that toolbar would have searched on Google for those hundred bogus terms, and triggered the special linking.

That's exactly what Google did. From http://searchengineland.com/google-bing-is-cheating-copying-our-sea... :

20 Google engineers were told to run the test queries from laptops at home, using Internet Explorer, with Suggested Sites and the Bing Toolbar both enabled. They were also told to click on the top results. They started on December 17. By December 31, some of the results started appearing on Bing.

Reply Score: 1

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Neither does MS apparently since they also bid.

Edited 2011-12-27 04:53 UTC

Reply Score: 2

leos Member since:
2005-09-21

that Microsoft didn't get that deal. How can you have their billions upon billions and let Google outbid you when you are desperately trying to get Bing up with Google?


I think it would be less valuable for Microsoft if they had the default firefox search as Bing. Most firefox users I know would immediately change it to google. Some others would just switch to Chrome instead.

Reply Score: 3

ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

I think it would be less valuable for Microsoft if they had the default firefox search as Bing. Most firefox users I know would immediately change it to google. Some others would just switch to Chrome instead.

The average user doesn't consider the search engine they use as much as your friends do. All they really expect is to load their browser and see a search bar. They type in what they want, and expect to see results. Whether Google provides that, Bing, Yahoo, whatever, it doesn't really matter. The average user also doesn't care about all the integrated and/or extended capabilities either (Google+ for example). When you compare the entire user base vs. those who actually do more than search, it's very clear only a small percentage give a damn about that stuff. A small percentage of an enormous number is still a lot, but overall any search engine set as the default is going to benefit from being such.

Reply Score: 5

Kivada Member since:
2010-07-07

Not quite, Google gained popularity with the general public because their search engine actually WORKED. Do you not remember the days of Excite, AskJeeves, Lycros, Altavista, Yahoo etc.? Back in the old days everybody and their dog had a search engine and all of them sucked until Google came about.

Reply Score: 3

zima Member since:
2005-07-06

And yeah, if it works... well, it's almost all that matters - it can still be argued users don't care much about what's beyond basics & "good enough"

Reply Score: 2

sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

I would not put it past Mozilla to have chosen a lower dollar figure from Google just to snub Microsoft for being anticompetitive jerks.

Reply Score: 2

Unverified claim
by jacquouille on Mon 26th Dec 2011 08:58 UTC
jacquouille
Member since:
2006-01-02

The $X value of the deal is undisclosed, and has only been the subject of speculation so far; the All Things D article which claimed to reveal it didn't give any indication of how it knew it, aside from referring to unidentified 'sources'.

So I think that the phrasing in this story is a bit misleading, it should present it as only a claim made by 1 journalist (and then echoed by the news-hungry press).

Reply Score: 2

FF fills a vital niche!
by benali72 on Tue 27th Dec 2011 22:58 UTC
benali72
Member since:
2008-05-03

I hope this deal keeps Mozilla and Firefox humming along. I REALLY like having an alternative to browsers owned lock-stock-and-barrel by Big Vendors Google and Microsoft. Never was there a greater need for a viable competitor like Firefox.

Reply Score: 1

lemur2
Member since:
2007-02-17

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/12/28/google_mozilla/

Some people seem to think Google gave Mozilla a sweetheart deal when it renewed its search agreement for Firefox. At roughly $300 million per year, it will fund quite a bit of open-source development at Mozilla, but this isn't a case of Google going soft during the Christmas season. It is, as Mozilla veteran Asa Dotzler argues, simply a case of Google paying the going market rate for traffic to its ads.

Reply Score: 2