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.
I support the things that the Mozilla Foundation puts on its website, even their manifesto. Even, begrudgingly, the insistence that we must balance the needs of human beings against the needs of corporations.
Even if those things contradict what Mozilla Corporation is doing with their browser.
But the Foundation is just a thin wrapper for the Corporation, so I'm not sure how that would work.
I support this if it is a 1:1 scale.
Corporation can be human, but each corporation only counts as 1.
We can balance 9,000,000,000 people against a few thousand corps no big deal.
Why would the foundation have members? It's not a coop, after all. It's not the Linux Foundation model, either, which is "bunch of companies get together and decide on how to spend their money". It's much closer to the Bosch or Zeiss model, "We're doing business but are owned by noone and instead of handing out dividends we throw money at some charitable stuff" -- though Mozilla is way more charitable than either of them.
The board is bound to the Foundation's statutes, and it can't just change them. They're required to steer the foundation such that its actions benefit the free and open web, if you think they're doing something else, sue them. Or get oversight bureaucrats to investigate or however that works in the US.
The board is the Corporation. Why would they be bound to the Mozilla manifesto? They seem to be destroying its spirit right now.
If "just sue them" is the only way to hold Mozilla accountable, how low they have fallen!
And an executive is suing them. For discrimination.
No.The board is the board, an organ of the corporate body, but not the corporate body itself.
Foundations are bound to their bylaws, as set out when they were founded. Why? Because law, that's why. It's what foundations are for.
According to you.
You can also complain. Like, with that Brendan Eich situation, the community complained and he left.
That seems to be standard corporate stuff: The two sides disagree over the reason for a non-promotion. Should Mozilla lose the case you can be quite sure heads will roll because unlike other boards, Mozilla actually has to give a fuck about stakeholder opinion. See, well, Brendan Eich.
OTOH, blanket "they're doing stuff wrong" "criticism" like yours will be ignored. That's like filing a bug report saying nothing but "Doesn't work fix noaw"
You seem to have incredibly low standards for Mozilla.
But for people who are not you, I want you to explain how the Mozilla Foundation manifesto is compatible with the Mozilla FakeSpot privacy policy that promises to sell browsing history, search history, and geolocation directly to advertisers.
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.
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?
Quoth the manifesto:
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 :)
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?
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.
TIL. Super disappointing. Thanks for the additional info. I've changed my mind. Mozilla can just go poof completely.