Hacker News Reader

Comment by criddell | Hacker News Reader

Google sells ads, so no Chrome. Since they are the primary force behind Chromium, does that mean no Chromium-based browsers?

Apple sells ads, so that rules out Safari.

Microsoft sells ads, so no Edge or Internet Explorer.

Mozilla sells ads, so no Firefox.

Brave sells ads, so no Brave.

What’s left? Lynx?

View on HN

I feel like this line of thinking is unnecessarily binary.

Think of it this way: what percentage of the revenue of each of these businesses comes from advertising? Where can you put your (understandably) limited trust given the limited list of options?

There's a huge difference between the incentives of Alphabet and, _say_, Mozilla from the revenue source pov.

Isn't the main source of revenue for Mozilla Google? So what is the difference in their incentives from a revenue pov?

Not everything’s black and white. How much control does Google have over the feature set of FF[1] or Safari[2]?

^1 ca $400M paid to Mozilla for search partnerships by Google, per annum

^2 probably ca 10-15B paid to Apple, pa

How would you answer your own question?

I am not sure I understand. Mozilla is more dependent on those 400M than apple on 10-15B so (hypothetically) they are more willing to please Google or at least not to disturb them much, than Apple. So, purely from revenue pov Firefox is nearly as much concerned about google's bussiness as google is.

Ungoogled Chromium, LibreWolf, Iceraven, Bromite

He said owned by an advertising company. Read it again. None of the companies you listed are owned by an advertising company. Your post is written as if you work for Google and you need to defend them.

Get a VPN or use TOR.

> Apple sells ads

> Microsoft sells ads

> Mozilla sells ads

what?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com