I'm pretty sure that the main reason Google funds Mozilla is to be able to avoid claims of monopoly on browsers. I don't think we can have it both ways.
this post was submitted on 11 Mar 2025
373 points (93.7% liked)
Technology
66067 readers
5320 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Pathetic.
If anyone else was confused by the typo, difficult > default.
I'm not sure what to think. On one hand, yes, Google is of course slimy. But if Mozilla loses it's big source of funding (and crumbles as a result), that may put things in a worse place?
Then again, it's a shame that the only major competing browser engine is funded by the dominant browser's company. Maybe Mozilla can be fine without it?
The one good thing I could think of is that Firefox could come under new management. But then again, how that management will be funded I don't know. Likely they will run in to the same problem as Mozilla.
How is chrome going to be funded if it's broken off?
Oh no.
Mozilla has been taken over from within by google parasites...
Frankly its days are numbered and we will need a solution how to keep the engine development going.
I think they just got too comfortable with the Google money coming in.
Very said it is time for Firefox to go its own way.
It is Mozilla the non-profit I want gone, along with their wholly owned for profit company that controls firefox.
100%. Firefox would be better off, I suspect, by focusing on the browser, solely, and with a distributed global team that didn’t need a fancy SF office and fancy SF comp packages.
I wish there was a better way to do it but sadly right now this is it. If you want independent browsers to continue they need funding from somewhere.
They can take the salary of the CEO to fund the browser, they can ask for donations that go directly to the browser, they can make subscriptions with useful services. So many ideas that they didn't try in the past 10 years. But it's easier to get free money from Google and do nothing.
I'd love to live in whatever fantasy land selfless compassionate CEO's come from, sadly it's just a fantasy.
I think most people would be happy if the Mozilla CEOs "only" got a few hundreds of thousands of dollars per year. The current pay is literally millions.
I don't think it matters whether the person is compassionate or selfless. It should be a position with a low fixed salary and a bug bounty. That way if the CEO wants to get paid, they have to directly contribute to the browser. Create the job and the compensation around your ideal candidates.
honestly I don't see the thing here. unless its about edge being a respin of chrome. all macs come with safari, all windows edge, ironically its a few linux distros that come with chrome while others use a default foss browser. I feel like their biggest monopoly is windows giving up and using their core rather than making their own.