Comment by mrweasel
23 days ago
Because Mozilla, at least from the outside appears to have been horribly mismanaged for the past 20-25 years and only survived because the ad money kept rolling in.
I'm not knocking Mozilla for taking money from Google, it was a smart move. Most users would use Google anyway, so Mozilla pocketing billions by making users preferred search engine the default didn't really hurt anyone. Some of that money should however have gone into a trust or some type of investment so that funding for browser development would be safe if the ad money ever dried up.
Maybe someone at Mozilla knows something I don't, but there doesn't seem to be much planning for the future.
There is a meme that Google financially supports Firefox development as some soft of strategy whereby having an "alternative" to Chrome gives Google some sort of "protection"
This does not make any sense and there is zero evidence to support it
Firefox's value to Google could be as a source for browser development. As part of the agreement between Google and Mozilla, perhaps Google gets more than just search traffic from Firefox, perhaps it also gets collaboration with Mozilla on software development. There is a history of such collaboration. Google CEO did not want competition from Mozilla on a browser. Chrome was originally written by ex-Mozilla developers using components of Firefox^1
1.
https://web.archive.org/web/20121018180015/https://www.compu...
https://web.archive.org/web/20200805000248/https://blogs.wsj...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_(politics)#Controll...
> the ad money kept rolling in
Why "ad money"? That's a very uncharitable interpretation and for anyone not aware of the situation it's misleading. They're not paid for ads or by ads, they're paid by Google to continue being a viable alternative to Chrome. Is every Google employee getting "ad money" every month, or a salary?
The payment is more accurately described as a protection tax.
In this particular context there really isn't any difference. Technically Mozilla isn't in the business of delivering ads, but their revenue is mostly supported by ad money from Google, and Google, being an ad giant, can simply cut that stream off. The common sentiment seems to be that this would spell a life and death situation for the company and for the browser as a whole, which essentially makes Firefox a hostage to the whims of an ideologically hostile corporate entity.
> Technically Mozilla isn't in the business of delivering ads
They weren't back then but are now: https://blog.mozilla.org/en/advertising/mozilla-anonym-raisi...
> Google, being an ad giant
Isn't Google also a cloud giant?
4 replies →
While the nuance is important, money from Google is ad money:
So yes, Google gives Firefox money for political reasons. Made from ads, so they can sell ads, including to Firefox users.
I'm with you on the first one and that's the closest reason why you could call Firefox payment "ad money". But the rest are not too strong. Google makes a lot of non-ad money too, even if it's a smaller portion than ads. You don't call airlines "banks" just because they make all of their money from currency-like "miles", and even fly at a loss [0].
What I want to say is that calling it "ad money" makes Firefox look bad when it shouldn't.
[0] https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/09/airlines-b...
5 replies →
Technically yes
Well thought out commentary... Let's dig deeper and at least we make it more interesting conversation, not a blurb.
Wouldn't it be technically no because Google's revenue isn't 100% from ads? They're making almost $120bn from cloud, subscriptions and devices for example. It could be cloud money. And if Google gets ad money so whatever it pays becomes ad money, then it's ad money all the way down.
3 replies →
> Is every Google employee getting "ad money" every month
Yes. You can think of it like "blood money".