Last week the Department of Justice and some state attorneys general filed revised proposed remedies in the U.S. v. Google LLC search case. If the proposed
Does anybody expect them to say anything else? Web engine development is more costly than even OS development, we’re talking costs that often run into the hundreds of millions per year – it’s virtually impossible to fund unless you’re a giant like Google or being funded by someone with very deep pockets, like… er… Google.
Even MS bailed and ceded power to Google, because it simply didn’t make financial sense. Apple does it but they’re pretty meh in terms of implementing standards and such… there’s a reason 3rd party WebKit browsers are rare. They comparatively run it on a shoestring budget, and they’re Apple FFS - their wealth is practically limitless!
People aren’t going to start paying to use Firefox, and that money needs to come from somewhere. The community rejects giants paying Mozilla (understable sentiment), rejects paying for Firefox (also understandable), and rejects Mozilla selling data (definitely understandable). Some say donations, but be real, that won’t make hundreds of millions per year.
What is the solution here? I’m not trying to be contrarian I just don’t know what they can actually do. You’d hope that the Linux Foundation or something would chip in, but nope, they help Chromium instead. I worry for the future of web browsers.
That said, I’m also deeply uncomfortable with Google being able to pay to be default search on so many products. It gives them a huge advantage. I don’t want them to have that advantage. It’s anticompetitive and scummy as fuck.
Mozilla are definitely between a rock and a hard place here. I don’t like some of the decisions they make, but damn, I’m not sure I have the smarts to come up with better ones, given the position and market they’re in.
Web engine development is more costly than even OS development
Unfortunately, many applications that used to be desktop applications in the past are now programs that run in the web browser. It doesn’t matter anymore if they are a lot less effective than being native.
we’re talking costs that often run into the hundreds of millions per year – it’s virtually impossible to fund unless you’re a giant
That is the problem - the web needs to be a lot simpler, browser development should cost fractions of that. It got unnecessarily, absurdly complex.
I know I’m in the minority but I would pay yearly to use Firefox. Not sure how much I’d pay, but I am getting into the habit of purchasing software instead of allowing it to purchase me
I could but I’d still be getting the same Firefox which has a nagging incentive to cooperate with advertisers and google. The benefit of having to pay for software is that their revenue stream comes directly from me and not from a 3rd party. It’s not about supporting the developer for me, it’s about knowing that the product I pay for is the product I get
That’s rarely how donations work, though. Ultimately you need to have some level of trust that the people at the organisation you are donating to know a lot more about where, when and how your money can be effectively used than you do. Your pre-donation requirements/demands are extremely unrealistic and I’m not sure if people like yourself are genuinely delusional about this fact or if you just use it as some sort of moral bargaining tactic to never feel bad about the fact that you don’t donate any of your money to the causes you supposedly really want to.
For me it comes down to “do I want pay for this product so it sticks around?”. If yes then I have to trust the org that makes it to be reasonably sensible. They’re probably going to do a better job of putting the money in the right place to stay in business than I am.
The correct solution would have been for Mozilla to pursue alternative income a long time ago. Owning a browser gives you a lot of leverage. Instead they made a half-hearted attempt a few years back and half the products failed. I don’t know why FF fans were so comfortable holding them as the savior of the web when they were entirely funded by Google.
And now… well I don’t see a way forward either. Maybe it should just die then.
If I’m correct, the linux foundation took up development of the Servo engine when Mozilla dropped it. So they don’t focus entirely on Chromium, and may be the ones to take back after Mozilla for Firefox/Gecko engine if needed (you did not said that ofc, but i think it’s important to mention). There’s still a long way to go with new engines such as Servo and Ladybird, but that may be good alternatives in the future.
They started the whole thing. They invented and implemented a whole programming language to implement the thing. Then they integrated Stylo (Servo’s CSS engine) and a couple smaller bits into Firefox which made it a hell a lot faster. Then they set Rust free and shelved Servo because from the perspective of Firefox going forwards with rewriting more in Rust would’ve been a lot of investment for diminishing returns. Stylo was the big one, enabling before unseen parallelism in rendering.
Servo, even with FSFE funding, still has ways to go. Ladybird, I wonder why they even bother. If they want a C++ browser engine that hasn’t been touched by big money then there’s KHTML, Webkit/Chromium’s direct ancestor. There’s a reason KDE dropped development: It wasn’t worth the effort. Qt wasn’t willing to pick it up either.
I would legit pay $40+ for Firefox… it’s gotta make and keep some promises around security, compliance, configurablity and compatibility, etc. though. It also needs to be a decently long term purchase. I’m not doing it for every version they release, maybe a lifetime license or at least a 4-6 year cadence if it’s a bit cheaper.
Why doesn’t Mozilla just fork Chromium? Anything bad sneaks in, they rip it out. New feature? Develop it specifically without paying for the whole browser. From the user’s perspective, very little changes, but cost savings would be massive.
It would also be a good high profile tab of “bad things Chrome/Chromium is doing”
EDIT: It would also justify regulating Chromium like a monopoly, though I think that government ship has sailed.
Chromium is code that Mozilla is not familiar with and has a reputation for being poorly documented.
A fully divergent fork isn’t likely to make development any easier for Mozilla. And a soft fork puts them at the whims of Google’s development decisions. If Mozilla needs to pivot, joining with WebKit seems the more feasible option, though that would also likely be a battle to keep a Windows port maintained.
But they do have an interest in displacing Google’s monopoly, kinda like how they contribute to OpenStreetMaps with Apple Maps, or how Facebook finds llama.
Does anybody expect them to say anything else? Web engine development is more costly than even OS development, we’re talking costs that often run into the hundreds of millions per year – it’s virtually impossible to fund unless you’re a giant like Google or being funded by someone with very deep pockets, like… er… Google.
Even MS bailed and ceded power to Google, because it simply didn’t make financial sense. Apple does it but they’re pretty meh in terms of implementing standards and such… there’s a reason 3rd party WebKit browsers are rare. They comparatively run it on a shoestring budget, and they’re Apple FFS - their wealth is practically limitless!
People aren’t going to start paying to use Firefox, and that money needs to come from somewhere. The community rejects giants paying Mozilla (understable sentiment), rejects paying for Firefox (also understandable), and rejects Mozilla selling data (definitely understandable). Some say donations, but be real, that won’t make hundreds of millions per year.
What is the solution here? I’m not trying to be contrarian I just don’t know what they can actually do. You’d hope that the Linux Foundation or something would chip in, but nope, they help Chromium instead. I worry for the future of web browsers.
That said, I’m also deeply uncomfortable with Google being able to pay to be default search on so many products. It gives them a huge advantage. I don’t want them to have that advantage. It’s anticompetitive and scummy as fuck.
Mozilla are definitely between a rock and a hard place here. I don’t like some of the decisions they make, but damn, I’m not sure I have the smarts to come up with better ones, given the position and market they’re in.
Unfortunately, many applications that used to be desktop applications in the past are now programs that run in the web browser. It doesn’t matter anymore if they are a lot less effective than being native.
That is the problem - the web needs to be a lot simpler, browser development should cost fractions of that. It got unnecessarily, absurdly complex.
SASS has pushed the work their app developers should be doing onto the development teams of web browsers.
I know I’m in the minority but I would pay yearly to use Firefox. Not sure how much I’d pay, but I am getting into the habit of purchasing software instead of allowing it to purchase me
You can donate to software development freely right now. This and many others developers
As far as I can tell you can’t donate to Firefox specifically. I would if I could.
I could but I’d still be getting the same Firefox which has a nagging incentive to cooperate with advertisers and google. The benefit of having to pay for software is that their revenue stream comes directly from me and not from a 3rd party. It’s not about supporting the developer for me, it’s about knowing that the product I pay for is the product I get
Subscribe to their VPN. I don’t use it, but do it to support Firefox
Does the money for that go directly to the dev teams? I wouldn’t want it to be swallowed up by Mozilla bureaucracy.
I bet most of the money goes to Mullvad because they run the actual VPN service. Mozilla just does the front end and user management.
That’s rarely how donations work, though. Ultimately you need to have some level of trust that the people at the organisation you are donating to know a lot more about where, when and how your money can be effectively used than you do. Your pre-donation requirements/demands are extremely unrealistic and I’m not sure if people like yourself are genuinely delusional about this fact or if you just use it as some sort of moral bargaining tactic to never feel bad about the fact that you don’t donate any of your money to the causes you supposedly really want to.
For me it comes down to “do I want pay for this product so it sticks around?”. If yes then I have to trust the org that makes it to be reasonably sensible. They’re probably going to do a better job of putting the money in the right place to stay in business than I am.
I, too, would pay. Probably $200/year. What I don’t know is how much we need to keep up development.
The correct solution would have been for Mozilla to pursue alternative income a long time ago. Owning a browser gives you a lot of leverage. Instead they made a half-hearted attempt a few years back and half the products failed. I don’t know why FF fans were so comfortable holding them as the savior of the web when they were entirely funded by Google.
And now… well I don’t see a way forward either. Maybe it should just die then.
If I’m correct, the linux foundation took up development of the Servo engine when Mozilla dropped it. So they don’t focus entirely on Chromium, and may be the ones to take back after Mozilla for Firefox/Gecko engine if needed (you did not said that ofc, but i think it’s important to mention). There’s still a long way to go with new engines such as Servo and Ladybird, but that may be good alternatives in the future.
I don’t think Mozilla had any involvement in Servo.
They started the whole thing. They invented and implemented a whole programming language to implement the thing. Then they integrated Stylo (Servo’s CSS engine) and a couple smaller bits into Firefox which made it a hell a lot faster. Then they set Rust free and shelved Servo because from the perspective of Firefox going forwards with rewriting more in Rust would’ve been a lot of investment for diminishing returns. Stylo was the big one, enabling before unseen parallelism in rendering.
Servo, even with FSFE funding, still has ways to go. Ladybird, I wonder why they even bother. If they want a C++ browser engine that hasn’t been touched by big money then there’s KHTML, Webkit/Chromium’s direct ancestor. There’s a reason KDE dropped development: It wasn’t worth the effort. Qt wasn’t willing to pick it up either.
I would legit pay $40+ for Firefox… it’s gotta make and keep some promises around security, compliance, configurablity and compatibility, etc. though. It also needs to be a decently long term purchase. I’m not doing it for every version they release, maybe a lifetime license or at least a 4-6 year cadence if it’s a bit cheaper.
I don’t think $40 would support much use time. Maybe yearly would be fair. Idk what kind of money they need but it’s clearly a lot.
I’m paying for vpn 60 bucks per year, for storage 70, I’d give the same for a decent trustworthy browser.
And then there are heroes we don’t deserve, but sorely need: git.sr.ht/~bptato/chawan.
The solution is for Firefox to die and for all the payments to be paid to Servo instead.
Servo survived all the problems that got thrown at them without excuses.
Meanwhile Firefox seem to shot themselves every week by their own choice.
I mean who the hell thought that integrating AI into Firefox for example is a good idea.
Servo isn’t a functional browser. You’re not comparing apples to apples.
Removed by mod
Why doesn’t Mozilla just fork Chromium? Anything bad sneaks in, they rip it out. New feature? Develop it specifically without paying for the whole browser. From the user’s perspective, very little changes, but cost savings would be massive.
It would also be a good high profile tab of “bad things Chrome/Chromium is doing”
EDIT: It would also justify regulating Chromium like a monopoly, though I think that government ship has sailed.
Chromium is code that Mozilla is not familiar with and has a reputation for being poorly documented.
A fully divergent fork isn’t likely to make development any easier for Mozilla. And a soft fork puts them at the whims of Google’s development decisions. If Mozilla needs to pivot, joining with WebKit seems the more feasible option, though that would also likely be a battle to keep a Windows port maintained.
Apple could pitch in just for the sake of sticking it to Google.
Apple has the funds to maintain WebKit by themselves, and they wouldn’t want it to be cross-platform.
But they do have an interest in displacing Google’s monopoly, kinda like how they contribute to OpenStreetMaps with Apple Maps, or how Facebook finds llama.
Apple is already displacing Google’s monopoly.