Baker’s testimony shows that Mozilla depends so much on its deal with Google for revenue that “the biggest loser of a DOJ win in the Google case would be Mozilla.”
Baker’s testimony shows that Mozilla depends so much on its deal with Google for revenue that “the biggest loser of a DOJ win in the Google case would be Mozilla.”
As a FF user: Mozilla has such a small market share now, they should experiment with search. Maybe don’t make another “deal” with another ad based search engine, but invent your own decentralized search or mozilla search or whatever.
The only reason that would work is if they used user search data to sell to advertisers or show ads themselves. That’s how Google search makes money, but it’s antithetical to everything Mozilla is trying to market themselves as: a privacy oriented browser.
I’d pay for a yearly subscription to a privacy focused search by Mozilla.
No you won’t. I mean maybe you, personally, will, but the majority of people won’t. People don’t want to pay for YouTube without ads, for fox sake.
Mozilla needs sticky viable income streams. Privacy focused search might be something they can sell to other businesses as a service. I would much rather see Mozilla become the next Red Hat than fade away forever.
The problem is that no one wants to pay money and no one cares about privacy. Privacy in general is a brand new concept which only started its existence about two centuries ago in Catholic countries and still doesn’t exist in many parts of the world. Privacy is a foreign concept for humans and paying for it is just silly.
That’s the core of the trial though, right? That through these deals and other things Google does to stay dominant, they stifle the market for competition. Ie Edge, Chrome, and every other Chromium-based browser pushes Google to the end users and FF pushes some unfamiliar search platform, then there’s an uphill, arguably unfair, battle for it to gain enough market share to be sustainable.