this post was submitted on 11 Mar 2025
68 points (95.9% liked)

Firefox

19024 readers
188 users here now

A place to discuss the news and latest developments on the open-source browser Firefox

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
k_o_t@lemmy.ml
68
Mozilla’s response to proposed remedies in U.S. v. Google | The Mozilla Blog (blog.mozilla.org)
submitted 1 day ago by that_leaflet@lemmy.world to c/firefox@lemmy.ml
34 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 34 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] fireshell@lemmy.ml 10 points 1 day ago (2 children)

independent browsers that exist due to agreements with search engines.

How independent are you if you take money from Google? Don't take money from Google and then maybe you'll become independent. But now you're looking at a kind of second-fresh independence. Maybe if it becomes the first, you will start attracting users instead of only repelling them and slamming doors. Because you got hooked on the needle of Google money and eventually lost all your users.

They fired a bunch of programmers. I sincerely wish them to go bankrupt and go to McDuck as waiters for 1.5 dollars an hour.

[–] ahal@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 day ago

Not taking money from Google means Firefox dies. Straight up. There's absolutely no amount of "focusing on the basics" or cutting executive salaries that would make up the deficit, not even close.

We all wish that wasn't the case, me especially. But that's the reality.

[–] that_leaflet@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Mozilla is independent. All the search deal really is is that Mozilla sets a default option to point to Google's URL and not another. In exchange, Mozilla gets millions of dollars.

The reality is that the majority of users would choose Google even if it wasn't the default. So Mozilla is both providing the most popular option as the default and benefitting from it.

Anyone who doesn't trust Google, such as me and presumably you, have the freedom to change the default.

[–] porcupine@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 22 hours ago

Mozilla is independent.

Firefox fund the development of their browsers mainly through search revenue––they require this revenue to survive

One company continuing to exist entirely at the whim of their direct competitor seems like the definition of dependency to me. Mozilla's current business model requires them to function as a de facto subsidiary of Google.

[–] mulcahey@lemm.ee 2 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

For the folks in here saying that Mozilla shouldn't depend on the Google search deal: how much would you be willing to pay for Firefox to make up that $450 million annually? Because that's your choice: either you pay, Google pays, or advertisers pay.

[–] ookiiBoy@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 20 hours ago

80 bucks a year.

[–] that_leaflet@lemmy.world 65 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (5 children)

Overall, I don't think Mozilla is wrong. Without the Google Search deal, Firefox will have less resources to build a competent browser.

But Mozilla has also done a poor job at becoming financially stable without this search deal. It also doesn't help that Mozilla's CEO's salary keeps going up in spite of the declining market share.

It would have been nice is Mozilla was able to fill a niche like Proton: building a suite of secure and private services. But instead they're moving towards advertising.

[–] Dirk@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 day ago

Overall, I don’t think Mozilla is wrong. Without the Google Search deal, Firefox will have less resources to build a competent browser.

The vast majority of the corporations income does not go to Firefox anyways. Their financial reports are publicly available, everyone can read them.

I have zero sympathy for the corporation and I hope they go bankrupt and that the devs forking the browser and develop it as a standalone product independent of the Mozilla-owned Firefox.

[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 16 points 1 day ago (1 children)

They keep jumping on some random buzz word and then abandoning it all together. They've dome everything from password managers to VR.

[–] Dirk@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 day ago

And nothing of that was done in a great way. The only Mozilla product that does not is Thunderbird - and Thunderbird is independently developed by the community.

(I am aware of the community theme, but I still stand my point here: Firefox is the only non-Chromium browser that does not completely suck, absolutely. But seen as a standalone product, Firefox is not a good browser.)

[–] LWD@lemm.ee 24 points 1 day ago (1 children)

FWIW, the Mozilla CEO salary actually went down in the last year we have records. From about $6.9 million to $6.2. (The base salary is still around $600,000, and the rest is a bonus.)

[–] XenGi@feddit.org 23 points 1 day ago (1 children)

As long as is it millions it's too much.

[–] LWD@lemm.ee 10 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I agree, but I've seen so many arguments that "you need to pay the CEO millions, otherwise you'll lose a CEO that's definitely worth millions." Not a great argument, but I think it's somewhat laid bare by breaking down their actual salary versus their bonus, which is... Over nine times their salary.

[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 10 points 1 day ago

I would make more sense if the CEO was doing a good job

[–] balsoft@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 day ago

I think the more realistic argument is that CEOs have an inherent incentive to take big risks. If they get lucky and succeed, they get credited for the win, can put it in their portfolio and then demand better pay or move on to another company which will pay them more. If they fail, they can quietly resign, take the golden parachute and move on to the next company after a year or two as though nothing has happened. A big salary incentivizes them to keep their job, thus disincentivizing them from taking risks.

[–] bleistift2@sopuli.xyz 19 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

Without the Google Search deal, Firefox will have less resources to build a competent browser.

Firefox has neglected their browser for years, pursuing vanity features like pocket instead of implementing web standards.

[–] davel@lemmy.ml 26 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] LWD@lemm.ee 10 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It's almost unfair that JWZ has to be grouped in with the same historical figures around Firefox as Netscape ghoul Marc Andreessen and JavaScript ghoul Brendan Eich. Firefox (and predecessors) aren't managed by the best people.

[–] FarraigePlaisteach@lemmy.world 1 points 20 hours ago

It’s easy to dismiss those things as vanity projects, But isn’t the reality that there is no money to be made in the web browser itself? All web browser builders seem to have things going on to get extra revenue so it seems unfair to criticise Mozilla here.

[–] epyon22@programming.dev 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Mozilla really needs the corporate ear. That’s what really did them in, google integrated into Active Directory group policy effectively making it a pretty good choice for corporate deployments. This would give leverage to have bigger donors. Outside of that is just to diversify but the vpn/privacy market is pretty saturated right now.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 day ago (1 children)

There's still a lot of room IMO for Mozilla to innovate in a privacy-respecting way.

For example, partner with/acquire Axate (or DIY), and do a big marketing push to get websites on board with "casual payments" in lieu of ads. I think Firefox users would love this, and they can work with uBlock Origin to expose an API so users can disable ad blockers on conforming websites.

But they're not going to do that, which sucks.

[–] Dirk@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

users can disable ad blockers on conforming websites.

We all know that this won't happen. In reality there are only two major groups of people: Those who do not use ad blockers and have accepted ads everywhere, and those who use ad blockers and accept ads nowhere.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago

I think that's looking at it the wrong way. I think there are three kinds of people:

  1. People who won't pay regardless
  2. People who will pay regardless
  3. People who will pay a reasonable price

Some in each group use ad blockers, and I think group 3 is quite large.

[–] Darkcoffee@sh.itjust.works 13 points 1 day ago (2 children)

The CEO salary being around 7 millions, plus the newly added executives... Yeah.

[–] Dirk@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 day ago

Grabbing the money while it's still there ...

[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It that uncommon? I think it is normal for the top brass to make big bucks.

[–] Darkcoffee@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 day ago (2 children)

In a struggling company that's trying to seem like a good nonprofit? Not usually, no. Or at least it's ill advised. When the Google money stops or goes down, and they're looking for donations... It'll be hard to get people on board with financing that salary.

[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 5 points 1 day ago

Yeah it also doesn't help that they've gone though a unusually high number of CEOs. Somehow I'm thinking there is more to the story. If the CEO was well liked people probably could overlook crazy pay. That's not the case here.

[–] Dirk@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 day ago

Absolutely. I highly doubt people are willing to donate for paying millions of Dollars to a CEO.

[–] KingThrillgore@lemmy.ml 3 points 23 hours ago

Of course Mozilla kisses the ring. If they cared about staying afloat, they would be on the phone with Startpage or DDG right now.

[–] aspensmonster@lemmygrad.ml 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Mozilla agrees that we need to improve search competition, but the DOJ’s proposed remedies unnecessarily risk harming browser competition instead.

The only one hurting browser competition is Mozilla. They want to keep sucking at the teat of BigTech. They don't want to be a non-profit with a focused mission, constrained by recurring and one-off revenues. They want to be an adtech company, bUt wiTH pRivAcY. The judge should absolutely rip the band-aid off. If Mozilla sinks, it sinks.

[–] Kristof12@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 day ago

Got addicted to google monies, hilarious that they could sign with search engine competitors but instead fed the google monopoly even more

[–] hal_5700X@sh.itjust.works 13 points 1 day ago

The Google money is gone. That's why they been upping the AI and advertising stuff. Mozilla knows the Google gravy train is dead.