Hacker News Reader

Comment by joejohnson | Hacker News Reader

I don't understand Google's game here. I thought Mozilla was being showered with cash from Google? If Google is now betting on Chrome, are they going to continue supporting Mozilla? Mozilla is a pretty small-budgeted non-profit and I think they rely heavily on Google's support.

View on HN

I know a lot of people in the Green Party here in Germany who deliberately use Firefox because they deem it to be the most politically correct browser. My impression is that a lot of them neither realize that Firefox is indeed primarily sponsored by Google (which they consider evil), nor that Chrome/Chromium is open source, just as Firefox. They prefer Firefox for touchy-feely, not technical reasons.

So there's a market niche for a browser which comes from a sort-of neutral entity, and I think Google recognizes that and that's why they continue to pour money into Mozilla. Mozilla looks like a neutral entity, dedicated to the good, while in fact it's almost a wholly-owned subsidiary of Google.

There's a little bit of truth to it. As far as I know, Mozilla is not actually directed to do anything by Google in exchange for the money. I'm sure if they had too many missteps that Google would begin reducing their funding, but in general they don't have profit as a driving factor in development and Chrome still does.

For example, it took a very long time for any really effective adblock extension available in Chrome, and (this has likely been fixed) for a while even when it blocked ads it actually still loaded them so the ad producers couldn't tell difference.

It was because of technical limitations in the capabilities of chrome extensions. Considering adblock plus has nearly double the #2 most used firefox extensions, and nearly 6x the number of users as the #3 most use firefox extension, it seems like the design for extensions should almost be done specifically with enabling adblock in mind.

I'm no conspiracy theorist and I use chrome, but it seems to me that at least in the above case, Google put their bottom line as an advertising company above what the users wanted or what made the best browser experience. Not that it is too much of a bad thing, but I think saying that Google has the same kind of control over the direction of Firefox is silly.

I'm sure you could find plenty of charities that are nearly entirely funded by Microsoft's Charity branch or something, and I'm sure those charities don't go around badmouthing Microsoft but they don't exactly take orders from them either.

I don't think you understand their motives. Yes Mozilla takes money from Google, it does not make Mozilla Google does it? Mozilla has no share holders, no one to report to, and certainly they do not report to Google. Google pays Mozilla for the default Google search page index and if no one would load that page anymore then Mozilla would get no money.

Do you think Google also own every single adsense user then?

Chromium (NOT CHROME) is open source, but it does not fight for freedom or general public interest. It fights for bringing Google even more control and user base. In fact Chrome woulnd't even exist if it wasn't for Mozilla.

THAT is the reason why they still use Firefox. If Firefox globally falls behind 20% global market share, Mozilla won't have much weight when doing things such as forbidding h264 support, pushing true open standards, etc.

Until and unless I see clear signs of Mozilla behaving at Google's behest, I'm not going to worry.

Google wants strong competition in spaces where they don't make money (in fact this is how all well-run corporations operate)... so throwing some pocket change at one of their "competitors" in the browser space is very good for their business (it keeps other competitors like Microsoft busy).

Google even mentioned (I remember this from 2003 or so) they want competition in their profitable areas (search) since being a monopoly is a) soul-damaging and b) invites government regulation.

Chrome is closed source.

Wow, people from the Green Party really consider Google evil? I wonder what they would say, were Google not to invest in renewable energy, and in reducing energy consumption * ... I can see how some people might be concerned about privacy, but there are many more companies I would consider evil before Google.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Energy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google.org#Renewable_energy

http://www.google.com/green/

*: reducing their energy expenditure is obviously not entirely altruistic. Powering data centers is costly. But still...

Good point. A lot of Green activists also abhor Apple even though Apple's hardware products are best of breed with regards to avoiding eco-hazardous materials (BFRs, arsenic in glass, etc). Their views are obviously not entirely rational. :-)

My understanding is that the money that Google forks over to Mozilla is simply to keep Google as the browser's default search engine, not to sustain Firefox as a competing browser. If Google ceased that "funding", I'm sure some other search engine would step up to the plate.

(Note: I've got no sources for this; just a cursory understanding.)

MS has tried and will try again to pry this spot from Google for their own engine Bing.

I would bet that Google wouldn't let this happen unless Chrome superceded Firefox's market share by a very significant margin -- but then again, the asking bid price for the default search engine is probably directly proportional to Firefox's market share, so at that point, why wouldn't Google hang on to the privilege (it wouldn't cost much).

Does Opera have a default search engine?

Yes, Opera has a default search engine. In fact Opera is very good at monetizing that, they basically get all search engines to bid for it.

With much smaller market share than Firefox, Opera still makes a lot of money from the default search engine.

The money Google pays Mozilla is a split of the ad revenue. Google keeps renewing the contract because it's profitable for Google! They also don't want 25% of the web switching to use a different default search provider.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Google would rather prop up Mozilla (all the while making money--it's a split of AdWords money IIRC) than allow Microsoft to gain in search and/or browser market share.

> I don't understand Google's game here. I thought Mozilla was being showered with cash from Google? If Google is now betting on Chrome, are they going to continue supporting Mozilla?

The game isn't browsers. Google makes no money from Chrome.

Google makes a ton of money from online ads. For that, it doesn't need to have the top browser. Having a great browser is very useful, but winning the browser war would be self-defeating.

Compare to Microsoft, which also makes no money from IE. But Microsoft actually does want to win the browser war, since marginalizing other browsers is good for Windows (like opposing anything cross-platform is).

Google's game is to make money. Not supporting Mozilla, while Mozilla is useful to it, would be counterproductive. Stopping to support Mozilla would help Chrome's marketshare, but hurt Google's income. I expect Google to continue to do the rational thing here as it always has.

Keep Microsoft and Apple on their toes? The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Google (nominally) have several mutually aligned interests with Mozilla, namely the Open Web.

My impression is that Google wants web browsers to be better in general. When people have a fast powerful browser, they're more willing to use rich web apps, and they spend more time online, both of which benefit Google. The primary purpose of chrome is to drive innovation in browsers, and to mitigate the downside risk of some company controlling the whole market and shutting Google out entirely.

The less any one company controls the direction of the Internet, the better off Google is. Firefox fights Internet hegemony just as well as Chrome does.

Google pays for the right to be the default homepage & search engine. They aren't paying to support Mozilla they are also doing it, to prevent other SE's (BING) from holding this right - Chrome is a way to reduce this cost as well as, a few other things for Google.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com