I don't follow your logic. It'll be even more important for them to get exposure through Firefox if they lose control of Chrome, not less.
this post was submitted on 22 Nov 2024
75 points (85.7% liked)
No Stupid Questions
35881 readers
3676 users here now
No such thing. Ask away!
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Google search is not the same thing as google Chrome. Search still sees a benefit in paying to be the default search provider in Firefox.
Part of the DOJ ask is that the Google search business should be enjoined from paying for preferential default status on other platforms.
They want to prohibit the Firefox arrangement as part of the anti trust matter.
Which is justified in all fairness, firefox is too dependent on monopoly for support to be competitive going forward
Google literally only pays firefox so it can point at firefox and go "Look, see, not anti-competitive/monopoly!"
The main reason of Google's financing is probably because they don't want to be accused of a browser monopoly. So this will stop, leaving Firefox with very little income.
I'm not sure if the reason you said is enough for them to keep paying.
Google search is not the same thing as google Chrome
I never said that
Google has been paying Firefox since before Chrome existed.
And the reason has to stay static?
Google pays Firefox to have Google Search as the default search engine. Chrome is not the major money maker. It doesn't even earn any money.
It doesn't even earn any money.
Neither do the rotisserie chickens at the store. Or Costco's $1.50 hot dog and soda combo.
Chrome isn't intended to make money, it's a loss leader.
It's a side point, but the costco hotdogs do absolutely turn a profit. $1.50 seems unreasonably low because of how much we're used to paying for food these days, but its hotdogs and a fountain drink, the cost of ingredients is next to nothing.
It still takes way more than a $1.50 to produce the bun, dog and drink. They're selling them for absolutely no profit, and have been even before the recent bout of inflated prices.
Sorry, you're correct - I should have said they do not make a loss on the sales (turn a profit is obviously a bit of a stretch) since they use their existing infrastructure to offset the operational expenses, and the actual ingredient cost is literally pennies per unit.
Yeah, and that's exactly what a "loss leader" is defined by. They make no profit off the hotdog combo itself but the hotdog combo may be enough of an incentive for someone to come to Coscto in the first place and end up buying more shit that does make a profit.
Poor chicken.
You're missing the point as to why Google is paying Firefox and @dysprosium said it
The main reason of Google's financing is probably because they don't want to be accused of a browser monopoly
Chrome is there to collect data in order to target adds, sell them, and show them. It's a vehicle.
Currently, Google pays Firefox's bill by having them set their default search engine to Google.
This will no longer be when Chrome is in the hands of another party. DOJ is currently advocating for this forced sellout.
Why does Alphabet not controlling Chrome mean Alphabet would suddenly stop paying Mozilla to make Google Search the default search in Firefox? That's totally unrelated.
(Saying Alphabet instead of Google to help differentiate between Google and its products.)
It's another clause in the anti trust case that paying FF and Safari for being the default search engine is anticompetitive
Then say that in the post lmao
The opposite. Google won't be able to leverage chrome to drive website design and Internet policy anymore and it'll give smaller companies an opportunity to get a better foothold in the market. That's the whole point in breaking them off from Google in the first place.
Well, depends on who buys it and what happens to Chromium, the open source thing that is not chrome.
Even if Google stopped paying Mozilla, the organization has enough in savings to operate for several years. That’s plenty of time to cut back on spending and find other revenue sources. My only concern would be that they cut back on Firefox development rather than what I would consider a side project.
But the cost here is that, whatever Mozilla cuts, is going to hurt Firefox at some capacity. Mozilla recently had made cuts to where, they don't have a voice to advocate for open internet, for example. Which waters down what stand that they have to be an influence.
The majority cost of Firefox is engineering.
Any cutbacks will negatively affect the ability for Firefox to keep up and will probably start a slow decline towards collapse and irrelevance.
Quite the opposite. The death of Mozilla Corp will drive the community to greater heights. I expect to see Floorp, Librefox, and even Basilisk/Pale Moon having a voice in the conversation of post-MozCo Firefox.
I've got to say, Librewolf has been a breath of fresh air. It even is compatible with Firefox sync with a little poking around.
I switched to it some time ago. Took a while to find all the dials to turn to get some (trusted) sites to work, but the fact that it’s free of telemetry and has Ublock makes it worth it.
Please Mozilla Corp, just die already and leave Firefox to the community.
They were doing fine before they started taking money from Google, I'm sure they'll do okay after they stop.
Is there even a "before"? The very first release of Firefox was in 2004. Google started paying Mozilla in 2004. The only time there was no funding from Google was 2014-2017. In that time Yahoo took over that part.
There was however the 2 year period from 2002 - 2004 when Firefox was still "Phoenix" which was mostly funded by AOL.
To my knowledge, there is not a single moment in the life of Firefox when it has had to get by completely without external funding. And 95% of that time, it was Google.
Mozilla existed before Firefox.
Well kinda. The Mozilla "Project" goes back to 1998. The Mozilla "Foundation" to 2003. As said, Phoenix was released in 2002 and then renamed to Firefox in 2004.
But in that 4 years they worked on the Netscape code to make Phoenix, they were as well funded by AOL, or not?
FFs user base is at a bad place already. I suspect it will live, maybe have some healthy shrinkage in the feature set