Google's business model is built around privacy invasion and data collection.
Mozilla's business model is built around Google.
Firefox's market share has done nothing but decline for decades --- and Google still pays.
The fact that Mozilla are failing at their business model doesn't mean that's not the model.
So my argument stands.
Mozilla's current deal with Google is good through 2023 and is worth around $400-$450 million per year.
Every deal Mozilla has made with Google has payments increased --- even as Firefox's browser share has decreased.
https://www.androidheadlines.com/2020/08/mozilla-firefox-goo...
This article [0] from 2018 suggests an uptick, but it justifies it as "a deal to get paid for Google search traffic in parts of Europe" - so, actual market expansion.
I'm not saying you're wrong, only that I haven't seen evidence that you're not.
[0] https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/google-firef...
Google does not care about Firefox's market share. Google only cares that there is an appearance of competition in the browser market.
This is their own data on the matter... https://data.firefox.com/dashboard/user-activity
They've lost about 50 million users between 2019 and 2023 - roughly 20% of the 2019 totals.
In my opinion - Google pays because having a well known name that they can claim is still competing in the browser space is beneficial to them with regards to antitrust and monopoly laws. The ad revenue from the Firefox user base helps to make that cost manageable.
In the same way you reconcile Mozilla's privacy concerns with the fact that every Firefox install gets tagged with a unique digital fingerprint and keeps a persistent websocket connection open in the background.
I don't think that's fair, especially since they have already dropped it.
> In the same way you reconcile Mozilla's privacy concerns with the fact that every Firefox install gets tagged with a unique digital fingerprint
I'm not sure what you're on about here. Care to elaborate?
> and keeps a persistent websocket connection open in the background.
Hadn't heard of this one before. Do you have sources?
Dropping it doesn't change the duplicity that existed for almost 2 decades.
Hadn't heard of this one before. Do you have sources?
https://borncity.com/win/2022/03/22/firefox-installer-weist-...
It was dropped in 2015, 17 years after Google's foundation. Are you saying they were evil from the beginning? I couldn't tell but at least for their first decade or so they seemed to be trying to do good. In any case, it's very different to be Google and evil vs. Mozilla/Firefox having a unique ID in some downloads.
Why do I say some downloads? Because that ID is assigned when you click the link on their website's downloads page. If you get it from your package manager, which I suspect a very large portion of their user base does, you don't get uniquely identified. If you download from any mirror or otherwise free software download store, you don't get uniquely identified.
What you are downloading in most cases is just an installer executable -- no software included. The installer pulls the actual software from Mozilla's server. Each copied served is given a unique ID and is unlike any other -- easily proven by hash or checksum (Mozilla calls this a "dltoken", see my reference above).
- https://mozilla-firefox.fileplanet.com/ - Indeed it downloads a download manager.
- https://download.cnet.com/Mozilla-Firefox/3000-2356_4-102085... - Downloads an installer. It's for an older version but shouldn't have the unique ID, and it should be able to update itself but I haven't tested.
- https://techviral.net/firefox-offline-installer/ - Also the installer, and for the latest version.
That's 2 out of 3 without an unique ID.
You have also conveniently glossed over the package manager angle, which I suspect is a pretty large slice of their user base.
Firefox install fingerprinting: https://www.ghacks.net/2022/03/17/each-firefox-download-has-...
Persistent web socket connections: https://www.scss.tcd.ie/Doug.Leith/pubs/browser_privacy.pdf (page 8-9)
In both cases this "telemetry" is something that the user did not ask for or authorize, nor is it disclosed prominently.
That's fair, but "the right thing" for whom? If it's for their shareholders, which apparently by law is in fact not only the right thing but a requirement, then it's hard to argue they're not good on their word.
> Firefox install fingerprinting: https://www.ghacks.net/2022/03/17/each-firefox-download-has-...
I commented on the sibling. This is only true if you download it directly from their website. Firefox is acquired from many other sources - package managers, FTP sites, other free software distributors...
> Persistent web socket connections
Thanks, this does seem less than ideal. There seems to be zero evidence of any breach of anonimity via this mechanism though. Just to be clear, I agree that it shouldn't be this way.
> In both cases this "telemetry" is something that the user did not ask for or authorize, nor is it disclosed prominently.
No argument here. I both agree with your assessment and that this is a bad thing.
Mozilla business model is entirely built around their market share. As such, they are in a much more difficult situation than Google's Chrome team. If Mozilla has a difficult time (financially), they are more likely to do shady things than the Chrome team which has no such pressure. For example, the Chrome team would never accept any cryptocurrency deal; something that I have no difficulties imaging Mozilla to do.
Obviously, Chrome will not actively hurt Google's other businesses (specifically ads), but Chrome's primary goal is to make the web a better place. The worst case scenario for Google is that the web (and thus their revenue stream) disappears.
For the sake of children, to defeat the terrorists... :)
What do you reckon: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...