this post was submitted on 26 Jan 2024
1337 points (99.0% liked)

Technology

58140 readers
4739 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Aux -4 points 7 months ago (2 children)

The difference is that Google had the capital and a monopoly itself. Mozilla doesn't have shit.

[–] zuch0698o 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Except and arguably better product in the browser space?

[–] Aux 0 points 7 months ago

Both Mozilla and Opera had better browsers.

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Mozilla has a regular income from Google.

[–] Aux 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, they're pretty much owned by Google, thus not a competitor.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Google paying Firefox explicitly to make Google the default search engine. That doesn’t mean they own Firefox in any way shape or form. Firefox routinely makes anti Google decisions, and acts against googles interest. It’s pretty clear they aren’t googles bitch.

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Most of the revenue of Mozilla Corporation comes from Google (81% in 2022). They have influence.

The excuse of search engine funding is a fig leaf for the US and monopoly laws.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Google pays every browser they can to make Google the default search engine. Including direct competitors, and companies that have a direct interest in going against Google. Companies like Apple, who butt heads with Google regularly.

That doesn’t mean they have influence.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

However, if Google decided one day to yank 80% of Mozilla's income...

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago

Yeah that would be problematic to an extent. But I doubt that’ll happen, and if it did I’m sure it would continue just in a slower/reduced capacity.

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Agreed. Those other companies don't rely on Google for 80% of their income. That's where the influence occurs.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Can you point to an example of Mozilla bending the knee, in the slightest, on a subject Google would want them to have a different opinion than normal on?

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

why doesn't Firefox adopt the features of AdBlock Plus and CustomizeGoogle

Google refuses to fix [a phishing enabling] flaw, as it believes that it is not a problem. Google also operates the Firefox phishing blacklist

https://www.cnet.com/news/privacy/a-dangerous-conflict-of-interest-between-firefox-and-google/

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

The first explicitly states its conjecture. In reality, it’s much more likely in my mind that Mozilla is not well suited to fast paced changes like the recent YouTube cat and mouse Adblock saga. Imagine if you were waiting not for an extension update, but a browser update.

The second isn’t even about Mozilla. They rely on Google for the anti phishing list. Is there a free and open alternative? I legitimately can’t find one. I can find paid alternatives, but I doubt users would be willing to pay.

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I believe these are reasonable examples of slightly bending of Mozillas knee to Google, as requested.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

The second one isn’t even Mozilla…

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Mozilla chooses to implement Google's phishing list.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)
[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Such as?

Like, you’re pretty clear about not using Google. The question is, what service exists that is within their ability to pay (free)?

“They shouldn’t use google” is a fine argument, assuming it’s possible to stop using google without incurring huge fees and/or removing the functionality completely.

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Why assume they won't pay?

Even for free they could support something like openphish.com and help it grow and maybe outclass Google.

The point is that we don't know the details of their agreement, nor the unwritten rules to guarantee continued support.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

openphish.com would very likely buckle under the load. They’ve had ~2 million urls per day in the past seven days. There are 181 times that many users of Firefox.

Again, I get where you’re coming from. There’s just literally no viable alternative.

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In 1 points 7 months ago

Maybe there's no viable alternative because Firefox users are not supplying the demand.

However, rather have the current arrangement than no Firefox. But I suspect that Mozilla are not as free from Google as they would like to be.