Is Mozilla the one to suffer the consequences of Google's antitrust defeat?
www.techspot.com
United States District Judge Amit Mehta found Google guilty of building a monopolistic position in web search. The Mountain View corporation spent billions of dollars becoming the...

Mozilla has a close relationship with Google, as most of Firefox’s revenue comes from the agreement keeping Google as the browser’s default search engine. However, the search giant is now officially a monopoly, and a future court decision could have an unprecedented impact on Mozilla’s ability to keep things “business as usual.”

United States District Judge Amit Mehta found Google guilty of building a monopolistic position in web search. The Mountain View corporation spent billions of dollars becoming the leading search provider for computing platforms and web browsers on PC and mobile devices.

Most of the $21 billion spent went to Apple in exchange for setting Google as the default search engine on iPhone, iPad, and Mac systems. The judge will now need to decide on a penalty for the company’s actions, including the potential of forcing Google to stop payments to its search “partners completely,” which could have dire consequences for smaller companies like Mozilla.

Its most recent financials show Mozilla gets $510 million out of its $593 million in total revenue from its Google partnership. This precarious financial position is a side effect of its deal with Alphabet, which made Google the search engine default for newer Firefox installations.

The open-source web browser has experienced a steady market share decline over the past few years. Meanwhile, Mozilla management was paid millions to develop a new “vision” of a theoretical future with AI chatbots. Mozilla Corporation, the wholly owned subsidiary of Mozilla Foundation managing Firefox development, could find itself in a severe struggle for revenue if Google’s money suddenly dried up.

  • barsoap@lemm.ee
    21·
    3 months ago

    Don’t install it, then. There: Voila, manifesto fulfilled because it’s all opt-in. It’s still an extension, they bought it, they didn’t build it into the browser. How did anything change? Before the acquisition, people had to install the thing and agree to privacy terms, after the acquisition, people have to install the thing and agree to privacy terms.Find something relevant to complain about.

    • LWD@lemm.ee
      21·
      3 months ago

      Interesting. I asked you how Mozilla FakeSpot’s privacy policy adheres to Mozilla Foundation principles, and your answer is to tell me to avoid it.

      Is the privacy policy of Mozilla FakeSpot compatible with the Mozilla Foundation, yes it no?

      • barsoap@lemm.ee
        11·
        3 months ago

        Quoth the manifesto:

        Individuals’ security and privacy on the internet are fundamental and must not be treated as optional.

        Yes, it is. In fact that language is so generic and vague everything compliant with the GDPR should easily fulfil it.

        Also you don’t need to avoid FakeSpot, you can simply be blissfully unaware of it. As in not seek it out.

        Go iron your tinfoil hat it’s getting crinkly :)

        • LWD@lemm.ee
          2·
          3 months ago

          Oh, so you think the Mozilla manifesto sucks. Why do people like you hate Mozilla so much more than I ever could?

          And that, apparently, FakeSpot selling private data is the “fundamental” and “non optional” approach. Is that your interpretation of it?

          • barsoap@lemm.ee
            11·
            3 months ago

            According to their privacy notice you can opt out of that (the targeted advertising bit). Certainly legally required in the EU, if you’re not in the EU and they don’t give you the same option then I guess you have something to complain about.

            And, yes, I very much do think that the Mozilla manifesto is generic and vague and wishy-washy. If you disagree, I suggest you contrast it with this.