There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

The Google antitrust ruling could be an existential threat to the future of Firefox | Financials show 86% of Mozilla's revenue came from the agreement keeping Google as Firefox's default search engine

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.

Petter1 ,

I hope some governments and EU see the need of a foss browser engine alternative from a non-profit and stuff some Money there

Sorgan71 ,

good. Maybe firefox will die like it should have long ago

Lampshade ,
@Lampshade@lemmy.sdf.org avatar

Based on their 2022 report, only half of their expenses were on software development costs - around $220m, and it’s not clear what portion of that was on Firefox vs other projects.

…mozilla.net/…/mozilla-fdn-2022-fs-final-0908.pdf

In terms of revenue: around $100m was from sources other than Google.

Therefore, it seems plausible to me that Firefox development could still be funded with $100m of annual revenue. At a smaller level no doubt, but still in existence nonetheless.

dojan ,
@dojan@lemmy.world avatar

Given that they are focusing on initiatives like intrusive adverts and machine learning BS, I’m okay with them cutting that kind of nonsense off; Firefox still doesn’t have a native vertical tab bar.

YurkshireLad ,

And their bookmark manager on android is absolute crap.

vanontom ,
@vanontom@lemmy.world avatar

Agreed. A real PITA to organize, some unintuitive and hidden options, but very basic. I’ve used sync and organized on desktop. (But now I do NOT sync desktop bookmarks at all, it has messed them up too many times.)

Not a huge problem, but annoying. Like some newer non-removable toolbar buttons on desktop. Lack of JXL support. I’m a huge Firefox and Mozilla fan, used non-stop for years, but it has annoyances. The team also used to quickly cater to user feedback, but that seems to have slowed.

dan , (edited )
@dan@upvote.au avatar

Firefox still doesn’t have a native vertical tab bar.

At least the extension APIs are powerful enough to have an extension that does a decent job (or even a great job, in the case of extensions like Sidebery), plus there’s a way to hide the regular top tabs. That’s not the case with Chrome - all the Chrome vertical tab extensions feel kinda janky and the regular top tabs are still visible.

You could also use a Firefox fork like Floorp that has native support for tree-style tabs.

kokofruits_1 ,

The translation tool is pretty good though

mke , (edited )

Local translations, heck yeah! I know it’s not the case for everyone, but I’ll even take worse translations in the short-term if it means being able to ditch google and friends.

egerlach ,

Firefox still doesn’t have a native vertical tab bar.

That is only mostly true now. There is an about:config setting you can turn on in FF 129 (released this week) which will let you have native vertical tabs. The implementation is only about half done, but it’s good enough for me to use alongside Sidebery Tabs.

You can track progress on vertical tabs in Bugzilla. They are also working on tab groups, but that work is at an earlier stage.

All in all, I think we’ll see vertical tabs in the next 6 months or so? As a devout Firefox user and resister of the Chromium monopoly, I am really excited.

Excrubulent , (edited )
@Excrubulent@slrpnk.net avatar

Why have I never considered vertical tabs before? The screen is way too wide for normal pages, you can fit a bunch more information sideways per tab, and way more tabs vertically than horizontally. You could even double-stack them with all the space available.

This is such an obvious change to make.

dojan ,
@dojan@lemmy.world avatar

That is only mostly true now. There is an about:config setting you can turn on in FF 129 (released this week)

That’s also the one with the intrusive, facebook-endorsed, opt-in advertising system, isn’t it? I use LibreWolf, because Mozilla doesn’t truly care for privacy.

mke ,

Hey, I think it’s possible you’re misunderstanding how the system you’re referring to works, as well as its purpose. It’s happened a lot.

I’d like to try to help by answering any questions I can and clarifying things, if you’re willing to talk.

Kecessa ,

And profiles work like shit, at least they announced they were gonna get to it…

uranibaba ,

Firefox still doesn’t have a native vertical tab bar.

What’s up with everyone obsessing this? I tried Floorp and vertical worse.

dojan ,
@dojan@lemmy.world avatar

I have an ultrawide. Vertical works a lot better on ultrawide than on more narrow screen ratios. Though ultimately it’s just a matter of preference. I personally dislike dark mode.

uranibaba ,

I only use a laptop, having vertical took too much screen real estate.

dojan ,
@dojan@lemmy.world avatar

Yeah I can see that. My work computer is a laptop, with an ultra wide external monitor. I never use the browser on the laptop screen because with vertical tabs it just takes up too much space. Otherwise vertical tabs give you an easy overview of what you have open if you like me tend to leave a tonne of tabs up.

dan ,
@dan@upvote.au avatar

Coincidentally, I just saw this article: howtogeek.com/mozilla-firefox-vertical-tabs-test/

unexposedhazard ,

This is the way. Mozilla is bloated to fuck as a company. They need to be forced to get back on their main goal: Building a fucking Browser.

No ad deals, no stupid cloud features, just actual browser and privacy features.

There is no fucking way all that money is actually being spent on maintaining core firefox functionality.

merc ,

Mozilla is bloated to fuck as a company

On one hand, I think people underestimate how difficult it is to build a cross-platform browser in 2024. Just think about all the things that you now do through a web browser that used to require their own separate programs. A browser has to act as the UI for a word processor, a spreadsheet, online games, banking apps, etc. And, it has to work on multiple operating systems with different screen sizes etc. And, this is with constantly evolving web standards. Those web standards are things that Mozilla / Firefox has to participate in too, otherwise Google (the only other browser manufacturer) is going to steer them however it wants and do things like make ad-blocking impossible.

On the other hand, I completely agree that every sign points to Mozilla being ridiculously bloated. Being gifted half a billion dollars per year no matter what you do (as long as it doesn’t displease Google) is going to lead to massive inefficiencies. The CEO’s salary is an obvious red flag. But, it’s a lot more than that. Why did Mozilla buy an advertising company? Why did they buy Pocket? Why are they getting into AI? Why do they sell VPN subscriptions?

Also, what’s up with this weird structure where a non-profit (Mozilla Foundation) owns a for-profit (Mozilla Corporation). How can that not be a conflict of interest? I understand that there are some things that non-profits can’t do. But, why don’t they have two separate companies and have the for-profit one pledge to donate X% of profits or revenues to the non-profit?

It would be a bad thing if the result of the money spigot being turned off is that it was no longer possible to pay people to work on Firefox, resulting in Chrome being the one and only browser. On the other hand, it really does seem like Mozilla needs to be slimmed down and focused on a core mission of making an open source web browser (and hopefully their email client Thunderbird too).

Affidavit ,

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.

stoly ,

They do more. They are also a vpn, and they are standing up new services.

SkyeStarfall ,

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

TheGrandNagus ,

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.

mke ,

And a JS engine! Firefox uses Mozilla’s SpiderMonkey, unlike every other (Blink/chrome-family) browser which uses Google’s V8.

barsoap ,

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.

mke ,

Oh my, could you share more information about the homophobic CEO thing?

barsoap , (edited )

Search for Brendan Eich, nowadays he’s running the Brave browser.

mke ,

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.

Cornelius_Wangenheim ,

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.

ulkesh ,
@ulkesh@lemmy.world avatar

So Mozilla will find other forms of funding. That’s how this works.

FerroMeow ,
@FerroMeow@lemmy.world avatar

I guess they read the room and this is why they started delving into the ad business

OldWoodFrame ,

On the other hand, might also be good for Firefox to not be 86% funded by the maker of its top rival (Chrome).

Johnmannesca ,
@Johnmannesca@lemmy.world avatar

Right? Great knowing there wouldn’t be an adblock killswitch waiting for us all like the sword of damocles

Etterra ,

Good. Open source that shit.

TheGrandNagus ,

I’m not sure what you mean, Firefox is already open source?

explodicle ,

Well then double open source it! No excuses!

Mwa ,
@Mwa@thelemmy.club avatar

ngl they can still get funding from donations but it only makes a little bit of their revenue

cmysmiaczxotoy ,

I needed, I would pay $5 per month in perpetuity for access to Firefox. Fuck google

cybersandwich ,

There are dozens of us!!

LoKout ,

At least 2, at the moment.

stoly ,

Three

ThePancake ,

Four… maybe even $10/mo after the manifest v3 chaos hits in full force.

MadBigote ,

Exchange rate is a bitch, but id chime in and do my part as well.

kakito69 ,

You’d need a hundred million people sign up for that $5 subscription to make up for Google’s bribe.

brad_troika ,

You mean 510 million divided by 12. That’s “only” 42.5.

deleteme ,

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

kakito69 ,

You’re right. My European ass sees revenue and salaries as monthly

uranibaba ,

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.)

theherk ,

510 / 60 = 8.5

uranibaba ,

I see that I missed a zero (510000000/60=8 500 000). That numbers didn’t seem plausible when I did the calculation.

sugar_in_your_tea ,

Yup, and I could do $5/month, perhaps more if they really seemed to need it. I don’t know if there are 8-9M, but maybe.

They really should be working on improving their revenue streams. I think they should work on privacy-friendly transactions, like a Mozilla Pay where I put money into some kind of bucket, then purchases are paid out of that bucket. The system would work on something like GNU Taler, and they’d take a small cut for money going into and out of the system (or transactions within the system). I could use those funds to pay for online services, avoiding ads, tips to people online, or Mozilla services.

merc ,

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.

yuki2501 ,
@yuki2501@lemmy.world avatar

It’s a threat to the Mozilla CORPORATION, not the Mozilla Foundation nor the browser.

Nothing to be really scared about. Move along.

bloup ,

why do you think the Mozilla corporation losing 86% of their revenue wouldn’t hurt the Firefox browser?

SturgiesYrFase ,
@SturgiesYrFase@lemmy.ml avatar

Well, only way I can figure it wouldn’t effect the foundation, is that the corporation is a wholly owned subsidiary of the foundation, presumably this is to protect the foundation financially and legally from anything that might happen to the corporation.

Tja ,

There was a well sourced video a few months ago that showed where the money is going. Long story short, not into development, for the most part.

JoMiran ,

$510MM out of $593MM?!? WTF Mozilla?

AnUnusualRelic ,
@AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world avatar

The problem is: who is going to hive money for a web browser?

They got a one of a kind deal with Google, which ended up being problematic, but where else are they going to find the same thing?

Asking for donations will get you chump change.

TheGrandNagus ,

This. Web engines cost a tremendous amount to develop.

Donations won’t raise hundreds of millions per year, unless they get serious commitment from the enterprise sector, which has already settled on Chromium unfortunately.

They’re in a tough position.

brucethemoose ,

Mozilla management was paid millions to develop a new “vision” of a theoretical future with AI chatbots

Is this llamafile?

The thing about LLMs is that no one knows how to write the ultra low level optimizations/runtimes, so they port others (llamafile largely borrows from llama.cpp AFAIK, albeit with some major contributions from their own devs).

Performance is insanely critical because they’re so darn hard to run, and new models/features come out weekly which no sane dev can keep up with without massive critical mass (like HF Transformers, mainly, with llama.cpp barely keeping up with some major jank).

So… I’m not sure what Mozilla is thinking here. They don’t have many of those kind of devs, they don’t have a GPU farm, they’re not even contributing to promising webassembly projects like mlc-llm. They’re just one of a bazillion companies that was ordered to get into AI with no real purpose or advantage. And while Gemma 2B may be the “first” model that’s kinda OK on average PCs, we’re still a long way away from easy mass local deployment.

Anyway, what I’m getting at is that I’m a local LLM tinkerer, and I’ve never touched or even looked at anything from Mozilla. The community would have if anything of theirs was super useful.

barsoap ,

From what I’ve heard the general idea is to run AI search on your browsing history, which is a very useful feature. I’m not deep into AI tech at all but to me it looks like that would involve local finetuning, ingesting all that history during inference sounds like a bad idea. It also wouldn’t be necessary to generate stuff, only answer “Can you find that article about how nature makes blue feathers” and it’s going to spit out previously-read links that match that kind of thing. Also, tl;dr-bot it.

Oh and there’s already AI, as in ML, in firefox, in the form of machine translation. Language detection seems to be built-in, translating requires downloading a model per language pair, 16M parameters. Trained on workstations with 8GPUs. Which is all to say: You don’t need gigantic GPU farms if you aren’t training gazillion parameter models on the whole internet.

brucethemoose ,

It shoudn’t be finetuning, if anything it should be RAG with an embeddings model + regular inference.

This is kinda cool, but it still doesn’t seem to justify bogging down a machine with a huge LLM. And I am speaking as a massive local LLM enthusiast who uses them every day.

MCasq_qsaCJ_234 ,

Don’t worry, we have a possible replacement for Mozilla, meet Ladybird

aviation_hydrated ,

This project looks very cool, I hope it comes to be

FierySpectre ,

2026 though…

demizerone ,

That’s a pretty good date. Browsers are monstrous software projects. I just wish it was written in a memory safer language. Oh well.

doodledup ,

So who’s going to fund that who can’t fund Mozilla Foundation?

MCasq_qsaCJ_234 ,

Do you mean the other software projects or the other non-software projects?

If the former, there is the Open Technology Fund (OTF), but it is affiliated with USAGM which is part of the government.

demizerone ,

At least with this project when you donate it goes to direct development.

xavier666 ,

Zuckerberg : Heyyy…

coolmojo ,

Ladybird can set Google search as the default for a donation from Google. /s

Bluefruit ,

While I do want competition in the web space, its a good thing that Google could get told to stop doing stuff like this.

I dont want Mozilla to die of course but companies need to be held responsible for all the shit they pull. I’d imagine if Mozilla wasnt able to maintain firefox anymore it would fall to the open source community like they said in the article and I’d probably still use it.

No one company should own the internet.

floofloof ,

Who in the open-source community would pay what it costs to develop Firefox? I hope some organization would, but it’s a huge and expensive project to run.

brucethemoose ,

In before Meta buys Mozilla, lol.

Zuckerberg is on a “spoiling other tech giants with Facebook money” streak.

zkfcfbzr ,

Oh hey, you managed to think up the one scenario that would make me abandon Firefox

Bluefruit ,

Great question that I dont have an answer for. Maybe one of the foundations that supports Linux development? This is just my hope though. No idea what it would really take to maintain Firefox at this point. Maybe if it was scaled down or something it’d be ok in the hands of just the open source community as a whole but I’m not well versed in programming or development so i dont know.

I gotta try and be optimistic about this kinda stuff because i forsee a future where Google just ruins more and more of the internet and i hate the thought of that.

MCasq_qsaCJ_234 ,

Servo is now being looked after by the Linux Foundation in Europe, but is only maintained by volunteers. But another project has arrived that is not based on Chromium, Webkit or Firefox, which may be a hope in this somewhat confusing situation.

bufalo1973 ,
@bufalo1973@lemmy.ml avatar

I’m thinking of governments using it and helping. They could have their computers running without Google sticking its nose.

Kecessa , (edited )

Not all their revenues come from Google and other sources are enough to cover Firefox development… But that would mean giving up on all the useless shit no one asked for they’re working on…

EmilyIsTrans ,
@EmilyIsTrans@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

Mozilla’s next largest source of revenue is subscriptions and advertising (source 2021 financial report), by a wide margin. That “useless shit” is their other revenue, and they’re investing in it because they know they need to diversify revenue to fund Firefox. You’re suggesting they kill it because it’s not their core (unprofitable) business?

ShepherdPie ,

I wonder if this ruling over search engines could spook them with browser development as well considering they nearly have a monopoly with chromium too. Perhaps they’ll release control of it and stop pushing anti-consumer updates like removing your ability to block ads.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines