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.

So will Firefox be no more after that?

  • JackbyDev@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    15 hours ago

    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.)

  • Chainweasel@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    ·
    18 hours ago

    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.

    • PlexSheep@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      9 hours ago

      Well, depends on who buys it and what happens to Chromium, the open source thing that is not chrome.

  • Godort@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    94
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    20 hours ago

    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.

    • mkwt@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      29
      ·
      edit-2
      12 hours ago

      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.

      • Squizzy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        15 hours ago

        Which is justified in all fairness, firefox is too dependent on monopoly for support to be competitive going forward

        • A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 hours ago

          Google literally only pays firefox so it can point at firefox and go “Look, see, not anti-competitive/monopoly!”

    • dysprosium@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      20 hours ago

      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

      • ElPussyKangaroo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        20 hours ago

        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.

        • halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          20 hours ago

          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.

          • Warl0k3@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            18 hours ago

            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.

              • Warl0k3@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                12 hours ago

                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.

        • atro_city@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          17 hours ago

          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.

  • jaycifer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    14 hours ago

    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.

    • douglasg14b@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 hours ago

      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.

    • NeoToasty@kbin.melroy.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      9 hours ago

      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.

  • Endymion_Mallorn@kbin.melroy.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    20 hours ago

    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.

    • The Snark Urge@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      19 hours ago

      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.

      • CarbonatedPastaSauce@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        19 hours ago

        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.

    • atro_city@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      17 hours ago

      Please Mozilla Corp, just die already and leave Firefox to the community.

    • Metz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      11 hours ago

      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.

        • Metz@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          10 hours ago

          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?

  • sexy_peach@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    20 hours ago

    FFs user base is at a bad place already. I suspect it will live, maybe have some healthy shrinkage in the feature set