A significant part of Mozilla's revenue comes from their deal with Google. I don't think a project as big as a browser could survive without that revenue.
If Google wins, Google has a search monopoly. If Google loses, they will have a slightly smaller search monopoly and a browser monopoly.
on mobile the complaint says:
"The six “core” apps are Google Play, Chrome, Google’s search app, Gmail, Maps, and YouTube. Manufacturers must preinstall the core apps in a manner that prevents the consumer from deleting them, regardless of whether the consumer wants them. These preinstallation agreements cover almost all Android devices sold in the United States."
So chrome must be installed, prominently, and is not able to be deleted by the device manufacturers.
In absence of this, would device manufacturers install firefox and send them some support?
Dark pattern to scare users away from switching browsers.
Reread the relevant section: Chrome cannot be deleted by the device's user either.
Allowing users to delete "core apps" (and ensuring that doing so doesn't brick the phone) would go some way to leveling the playing field even if device makers were still required to preinstall them. It would either force many of the capabilities that have been migrated out of Android back into it, or would force releasing Play Store as open source to provide alternative implementations of those APIs. Maybe a bit of both.
This would undoubtedly complicate security and permissions, but it would be worth it.
There ought to be an exception, BTW: locking things down to prevent uninstallation should be acceptable in some contexts in return for restricting advertising and targeting, for example, on kids' phones.
I'm a fairly savvy user, and I am uncomfortable disabling anything that isn't very obviously carrier-added adware/bloatware.
For example, apple has built deep linking into their browsing pipeline (allowing phone applications to snoop and intercept registered URLs). For example, if the amazon app is loaded, any web/email/imessage activity to an amazon url gets sent to the app.
- It isn't actually that browser rendering anything, it's Safari under the covers (though Chrome does replace the networking stack with its own) - Every attempt to launch a browser other than Safari requires an extra selection on the user's part to approve it. Every time.
Don’t you find it a little strange that pro-business/anti-regulation conservatives are going after “big business”?
It's my understanding that this case will continue to evolve as it goes forward and so will the possible remedies. I think you are assuming the best case scenario in a loss for Google.
Mozilla doesn't factor into this for me. They have been making missteps for years. The fact that they have become totally dependent on Google rather than finding other partners and business models is on them. Live by Google, die by Google.
While Mozilla has made some progress on the browser quality, the reason they are loosing the browser market is 1) the browser just isn't as good as Chrome (I've tried to love Firefox) and 2) Google is spamming Chrome on all its platforms. This lawsuit may resolve #2, but only Mozilla can resolve #1.
How do you figure? Firefox is my browser of choice on both desktop and mobile.
Outside the work context, leisure time is regularly frustrated by FireFox struggling to render pages or load videos on Google owned YouTube.com as well as they do in Chrome. This seems to happen a few days each month for the past 8 years or so.
Therefore Chrome is clearly the better browser. /s
However, I don't think many would care if the world ends up on a single common browser as long as it doesn't consolidate power to a single entity. Microsoft has their own fork of Chromium, and if the possibility of building a browser business makes a comeback (thanks to any changes in Google), I'm sure many other companies will follow suit.
Of course, this all depends on what actually happens to Google as a result of this lawsuit. So we'll have to wait and see.
I'm not so sure weaponizing privacy against Google by breaking a good amount of websites embedding Youtube videos is really the best way to get market share though, so by that metric, Google losing would hopefully mean Mozilla could work just as well as other browsers by default and actually gain market share.
I think people forget how terrible browser compatability used to be. You had to use jQuery and worry about what you could and couldn't use. Pax Chromana in comparison is a dream.
It's possible that chrome stagnates like IE did. But I don't think so. Google is primarily a web company and so it's in their interest to keep innovating on the browser to make their websites better.
https://blog.samuelmaddock.com/posts/google-widevine-blocked...
And this bullshit even before "Pax Chromana". Imagine the things to come. It's like we've learned nothing.
Besides, "freedom activists" don't need to watch news clips or youtube?
Or are they so short-sighted they think DRM will remain limited to entertainment services like Netflix and Hulu?
Do "freedom activists" want to live in a world where you need Google's permission to compete with their browser? Is that the kind of freedom they're activisming about? Freedom from the tyranny of non-Google choices?
Sure, but that's like being one of the tribes of Europe before the Romans. When the tribes got crushed and everyone became Roman peace and prosperity (mostly) reigned. Having to use chrome if you don't want to sucks, but it makes things way easier for developers to have one browser to target.
Well, it didn't really go well for the tribes. About half of the gallic population was killed or enslaved. As for the romans, that war was started to reinforce the personal power of Caesar, and the power imbalance it generated led to the fall of the republic. I'm not sure your historic analogy makes a great case for your point.
> it makes things way easier for developers to have one browser to target.
What makes things easier for developers is standards. As for targetting one product present in a walled garden, it may be pleasant in the short term, but we have many cautionary tales about it, and Google is responsible for more than their fair share of them.
While you could be cynical, I think people using Wikipedia are way more numerous than people using Firefox.
I think it's inevitable that the future will be dominated by a Blink based browser. It's omnipresent on mobile and the desktop will probably just be Edge (a Blink derivative).
> inevitable
Well now that that's settled...
Google save $10B per year paying to Apple for the default search engine spot. User continue to use Google anyway as 98% of user simply dont go anywhere else. Their Chrome remain dominant and Firefox is dead.
The only possibility this is actually worst would be the incentive of Apple creating its own Search Engine. Likely without porn or whatever content they deem unfit and enter Web Curation. Of course they would be highly unlikely given the current Anti-Trust issues.
Mozilla has already written a blog post asking the court not to go after Google on this issue because it might hurt them. I am sure Google is all too happy to promote this angle, suggesting we should protect Chrome out of some misguided attempt to protect Firefox.
If Google is stripped of Chrome or prohibited from using various tactics to promote Chrome over alternatives, Firefox will benefit, massively. Revenue may drop in the short term, so it may not look great for Mozilla-the-company, but Firefox usage will soar, and revenue-generating strategies will follow thereafter.
It's sad Mozilla is hurting themselves here by coming to Google's defense, but that's how whipped Google has them right now.