- cross-posted to:
- firefox@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- firefox@lemmy.ml
Mozilla has a close relationship with Google, as most of Firefox’s revenue comes from the agreement keeping Google as the browser’s default search engine. However, the search giant is now officially a monopoly, and a future court decision could have an unprecedented impact on Mozilla’s ability to keep things “business as usual.”
United States District Judge Amit Mehta found Google guilty of building a monopolistic position in web search. The Mountain View corporation spent billions of dollars becoming the leading search provider for computing platforms and web browsers on PC and mobile devices.
Most of the $21 billion spent went to Apple in exchange for setting Google as the default search engine on iPhone, iPad, and Mac systems. The judge will now need to decide on a penalty for the company’s actions, including the potential of forcing Google to stop payments to its search “partners completely,” which could have dire consequences for smaller companies like Mozilla.
Its most recent financials show Mozilla gets $510 million out of its $593 million in total revenue from its Google partnership. This precarious financial position is a side effect of its deal with Alphabet, which made Google the search engine default for newer Firefox installations.
The open-source web browser has experienced a steady market share decline over the past few years. Meanwhile, Mozilla management was paid millions to develop a new “vision” of a theoretical future with AI chatbots. Mozilla Corporation, the wholly owned subsidiary of Mozilla Foundation managing Firefox development, could find itself in a severe struggle for revenue if Google’s money suddenly dried up.
You must log in or register to comment.
I wonder how much of their income actually goes towards development. At a glance, it seems a great deal of unnecessary administrative bloat has been added to Mozilla.
I honestly don’t see why a browser company needs to be so large (>700 employees).
Not that I want people to lose their jobs, it just seems unnecessary.
Mozilla is not a browser producer, it’s a general internet charity that earns money by producing a browser. Most of their income goes to charity and reserves of which they have about 1bn – roughly four times as much as wikipedia just for a sense of scale, wikipedia doesn’t do any business deals to get at cash but instead does annoying donation drives.
They could scale down significantly while still keeping firefox development ongoing, they probably wouldn’t have much issue finding enough donations to fund development, but the strategy seems to be building reserves and diversify commercial income, things like the revenue share they get from pocket for sending people to ad-ridden pages.
When you’re currently donating to Mozilla you’re not donating towards Firefox: Mozilla-the-company can’t receive funds from Mozilla-the-foundation, those donations are going to charity work.
And, to make this clear: None of this is a grand revelation, or new, or outrageous, it’s basically always been like that and it’s always been a perfectly proper way to run a charity. Most of the recent pushbacks comes from people hating that Mozilla funds stuff like getting women into STEM, being outraged that the wider Mozilla community is not keen on having a CEO which opposes gay marriage (very staunchly so), etc.
Oh my, could you share more information about the homophobic CEO thing?
Search for Brendan Eich, nowadays he’s running the Brave browser.
Oh, him. Thanks.
nowadays he’s running the Brave browser.
Yeah, that’s what I knew him from. Figures he would go on to lead a browser infamous for its controversies.
Well, a browser is a massive piece of software, especially if you include the development of a render engine as Firefox does
Web standards evolve constantly, you need to keep up somehow, together with optimizations, bug fixing, patching of security vulnerabilities, etc
Indeed. People severely underestimate how complex and costly developing a browser and web renderer is.
In many ways it’s far more complex than OS development.
Firefox cannot get by on user donations alone. Mozilla needs a way to generate revenue, but nobody wants Mozilla to commercialise in any way. They’re stuck between a rock and a hard place.
And a JS engine! Firefox uses Mozilla’s SpiderMonkey, unlike every other (Blink/chrome-family) browser which uses Google’s V8.
There’s a reason why every other browser maker has given up and adopted Chromium. It’s not easy to support a browser and rendering engine across half a dozen OSes while keeping it secure, performant and stable.
They do more. They are also a vpn, and they are standing up new services.
Chrome is the existential threat to FireFox.
Chrome is… Also Google.
Break up Google, make chrome competitive, and then we’ll stop seeing advertisers own the web standards and implement things like AVIF and ManifestV3, and instead embrace open solutions that favor users.
The JPEG XL vs AVIF thing still makes me mad.
Good, Baker can go find an other x millions salary elsewhere because it’s necessary for her family (as she said in an interview), and Firefox can become a community project again that still pays salary to actual developers but without the expensive bullshitting C-suite.
If were going to go after them for a monopoly, shouldn’t it be for chromium? At least with search there are actual viable alternatives that don’t get 86% of their money from a direct competitor…
I don’t think they pay others to use chromium tho. Other browsers independently decided to use it. That makes it a lot harder to argue that this is a monopolistic practice than when they explicitly pay people to make them the default.
That’s not entirely accurate. Google’s influence on the web has grown even beyond the web browser engine majority share (which is bad enough in itself). They offer one of the most popular web frameworks and run several of the most popular websites. There is almost no way to compete when the market leader is simultaneously the developer and the major user of new features. Of course everyone else is going to switch to using your browser engine. What else are they gonna do? There are even websites now that just check the user agent string and refuse service if you don’t use a chromium based browser. Shit’s fucked.
I would pay money to keep Firefox foss for other people who can’t afford to do so.
if you only do a monthly donation of $5 a month that’s still $60 a year and i urge you do do it. i have a recurring donation for firefox, thunderbird, and wikipedia because i believe they’re essential to the internet.
I will not donate anything to Firefox until Mozilla guarantees my money will be spent on Firefox.
But yeah wikipedia, archive.org, etc. Give them your money.
mozilla donations not going to firefox was probably the caveat to secure google’s funding. If google has to pull their bribes, mozilla might make donations go to firefox.
Or I could be completely wrong. We won’t know until we know.
Yeah, I’ll donate to Mozilla the moment they actually apply my donations to Firefox. I’m not going to pay for them to buy ad companies, donate to other charities, or put on charity events. I honestly just want to fund Firefox development.
That said, I’m okay with not 100% of it going to Firefox, as long as the bulk of it does. I understand there’s a lot of admin overhead they need to cover and whatnot, and I’m fine with my money going to that. But it seems most donations don’t make it to Firefox dev.
Mozilla doesn’t use their donations for Firefox, though that might change if they lose the Google money.
don’t forget archive.org!
i have a recurring donation for firefox, thunderbird, and wikipedia
So to Mozilla and the Wikimedia Foundation?
(weird that you list Firefox and Thunderbird as separate donations)
Cool. Mozilla is a corrupt, useless org anyway. Not much better than Google.
Mozilla isn’t and org. Mozilla Foundation is an org. And they get a fraction of that money. I don’t know what you’re talking about but you don’t either, it seems.
Tomato tomato
Everybody forgets that if chrome and chromium breaks away from Google because of this ruling, it’s going to have the same issues as Firefox, if not worse because it’s an arguably worse product. The ruling has been pronounced, but what will happen because of it is yet to be defined.
Why would Chrome/chromium break away? Isn’t this just about the search engine side of things? There’s no need to dump Chrome if all they need to do is drop themselves as the default search engine.
That’s not it at all. The issue is funding Mozilla. Having it as the default search engine is something google currently pays them for the right for. If the DOJ says that’s anti-trust practices, then Google stops paying Mozilla for that right, and 80% of Mozilla’s funding dries up overnight.
I feel like the real problem is Google paying Apple, since they’re both major players, not Google paying Mozilla. Firefox is not a major player at all (unluckily…)
I believe I remember reading that Apple gets a share of the money from google searches by their users, too. That’s an absurd amount of incentive to sit on your ass and never try anything different.
I’ll try to add a source here, later.
Edit: it is now later:
An expert witness for Google let slip that the company shares 36 percent of search ad revenue from Safari with Apple.
good. Maybe firefox will die like it should have long ago
On the other hand, might also be good for Firefox to not be 86% funded by the maker of its top rival (Chrome).
Right? Great knowing there wouldn’t be an adblock killswitch waiting for us all like the sword of damocles
I needed, I would pay $5 per month in perpetuity for access to Firefox. Fuck google
You’d need a hundred million people sign up for that $5 subscription to make up for Google’s bribe.
You mean 510 million divided by 12. That’s “only” 42.5.
Your math is off. It would take 8.5 million people donating $5 a month, to equal the 510 million a year from Google.
My math (please correct me if I am wrong):
$510 million / 1 year
$ X / 1 month?
$510 million / 12 months = $42.5 million / 1 month
$42.5 million / $5 per person a month = 8.5 million people a month
Also, Mozilla says that it spends only $220M on software development expenses, so if 100% of the money went to that it would only require 3.7 million people paying $5 per month.
But, IMO, if the Google money spigot is turned off, it might be that other companies that rely on web browsers (Apple, Amazon, Netflix, Microsoft, etc.) will want to spend at least a few tens of millions on Firefox. That would mean that end-users wouldn’t need to support the entire cost of developing it.
Right now, everyone except Apple uses Blink which is a Google project tied to Chrome. Since Google has been found to have been illegally abusing their monopoly, the status of Chromium / Blink has to be uncertain. It would be smart insurance for these companies to ensure that Firefox doesn’t go away in case something happens to Blink.
You’re right. My European ass sees revenue and salaries as monthly
Is it not
5 x 12 = 60
$510 000 000 / $60 = 850 000
$60 is one year of subscription for if user.
850 000 users need to pay 60 dollar per year to amount to $510 000 000.
(Or 510 000 000/5 = 10 200 000 users per month to reach the same amount monthly.)
510 / 60 = 8.5I see that I missed a zero (510000000/60=8 500 000). That numbers didn’t seem plausible when I did the calculation.
There are dozens of us!!
At least 2, at the moment.
Three
Four… maybe even $10/mo after the manifest v3 chaos hits in full force.
Exchange rate is a bitch, but id chime in and do my part as well.
#BreakThemUp
Specifically separate the browser side from the advertiser side. Get rid of that conflict of interest.
I would stand behind the idea of splitting Google in it’s seperate branches with no shared assets. Basically Google search becomes is seperate corporation, Google AI, Google Webservices, Google Ad Services, YouTube. etc… This will hopefully undo some of the webs enshitification since now the essentially most powerful company on the web has to actually offer good product for profit instead of compensating bad product with more profitable one.
If if wasn’t American, I’d say nationalise it. Maybe at some point we’ll need some kind of international version of nationalising.
Have a UN agency run it?
played a neat game that’s basically a choose your own adventure where you play as president Bernie Sanders. It has this as a possible thing to do.
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.molleindustria.demsocsim
In a perfect world
You’ve never worked with a UN agency it seems…
Ah yes, cos that would lead to stellar leadership in Mozilla.
That doesn’t produce any practical competition however. Some vertical splitting of the search business seems reasonable so we end up with multiple companies doing search out of it.
If Mozilla collapses for being too deeply intertwined with Google, I won’t mourn them.
Firefox is open source. We probably need to pass the torch to another maintainer anyway. Mozilla has been betraying their original mission a lot.
I’ll mourn them but now knowing this gross imbalance of funding it’s frustrating that CEO still has a job - and they will surely get a golden parachute while every other employee will just lose their job.
Why can’t Firefox use DuckDuckGo instead?
The problem isn’t the search engine - it’s the money.
The problem is would DDG pay them $500 million to be the default. That’s doubtful.
Firefox can do without Google being the default fine. What they can’t do without is all the money that Google pays them to make Google be the default.
