this post was submitted on 18 Dec 2024
119 points (96.9% liked)
Technology
60033 readers
2895 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 another!
- 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, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
They didn’t “build” their business model on it so much as “clung desperately onto the only lifeline in existence to avoid drowning in debt”.
There really isn’t a plan b, it’s not like they’re refusing to switch to the obviously better business models out there that could replace their search money. There just aren’t many business models that can maintain the development costs of a web browser and engine.
Mozilla could solicit donations for the development of Firefox while also still being able to rely on commercial funding sources if they restructured the Firefox project so that the core technologies underlying it (stuff like Gecko and SpiderMonkey) were actually developed by the Foundation instead of the Corporation, while the Corporation could package all of those pieces together into a complete software product with branding. The way things are now, though the entire browser is developed by the Mozilla Corporation and so its development can only be financially supported by Mozilla Corporation selling products or engaging in business deals.
There are plenty of plans B. They simply want to both have Google-like politics and money literally from Google, while calling themselves independent. In Russia that's called "to both eat a fish and sit on a d*ck", same as "eat your cake and have it too".
They can break with mainstream standards represented basically by Chromium only, simplify and improve and don't track Chromium bug-to-bug anymore. That'll both reduce pressure and attract people.
They can rely on donations more, which will also have the clearly positive effect of users' opinions mattering on their further development.
They can have useful paid services, working best with their browser. Say, those "free speech" extensions adding comments to every webpage didn't fly well, because there were many of those extensions, and those comments were nuts. If you pay with some Foxcoin for every comment, then this won't have the spam problem.
So many ideas.
You mean Mozilla? Developing a browser doesn't cost 300 million a year.
Which doesn't mean that browser engines are not inefficient and overcomplex monsters.
Making it appear that they are the only alternative - does