Is Mozilla the one to suffer the consequences of Google's antitrust defeat?

A

Alfonso Maruccia

Posts: 1,243   +347
Staff
A hot potato: 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.

Apple, one of the world's largest companies with many revenue sources, would likely withstand the financial hit if Google had to stop paying to get its search engine on Cupertino's devices. Conversely, Mozilla would not likely survive the hit, jeopardizing Firefox development. The open-source community could adopt the Red Panda browser for now, which has happened with other big, popular software projects.

For now, Mozilla is reviewing the court's decision and considering the potential impact on its business prospects. It says it has always championed competition in the search industry and will continue to offer a range of search options, including Google and its competitors. The court could also penalize Google in other ways, giving Mozilla at least a few more years of revenue and time to develop an exit strategy if it comes to that.

Permalink to story:

Is Mozilla the one to suffer the consequences of Google's antitrust defeat?

 
I absolutely love Firefox. It's been my primary browser for literally decades. Its behind the scenes performance is unparalled. But its days have been numbered for a long time. They do no advertising or outreach to try to engage users. None. I've begged them to do so, but with half a billion in cash flowing in with zero effort required, doing so has apparently been considered unnecessary. FF's portion of browser usage is down around 3%. And with that small a user base, sites are deciding - reasonably so - that coding to support it just isn't worth their trouble.

I also use Opera and occasionally Vivaldi, simply because more and more sites either completely refuse to function properly at all in FF, or they only partially support it. Open any article on the Washington Post in Firefox, and you get the first paragraph displayed, and it looks by all evidence as if it's just a very short article. Open same in Opera, you get the full article.

I'm resigned to the fact that eventually - probably sooner than later due to this - I'll have to abandon it altogether. Damn shame. Perhaps the developers, probably the only people in the organization who do actual work, will continue to support it even if it folds, if only to address the occasional security issue that needs fixing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Burty117 and Ephebus
I won’t think FF will be gone if Google stop paying them to use their search engine. But what that means is they need to look for alternative income and may start selling user data or advertising to do so.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zx8086
Seems to me the Judge's findings aren't about any abuse of monopoly at all. But rather that a monopoly is the natural outcome just because Google is trusted far more than all alternatives.
 
Well, can't they get Microsoft to pay them $500 million to use Bing as the default search engine. I use DuckDuckGo and that is powered by Bing and folks that it literally all there is other than Russian malware Yandex, no one will use.

It's stupid expensive to develop a search engine and our choices are between two of the biggest scumbag companies in Earth's history, with one being slightly less scumbaggish than the other IMO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 0dium and Mr Majestyk
user556 said:
Seems to me the Judge's findings aren't about any abuse of monopoly at all. But rather that a monopoly is the natural outcome just because Google is trusted far more than all alternatives.
Click to expand...
Google has definitely abused its position though by pushing Chrome via spammed "bundleware", ie, at the peak of its rise it was hard to find an .exe installer of a lot of popular software that didn't 'accidentally on purpose' just happen to have Chrome bundled to install and make default for your "convenience", pre-ticked for which you had to consciously opt-out. Same is true of paying OEM's, eg, Dell, HP, Lenovo, etc, for pre-installed Chrome on pre-builts - people didn't "chose" it the normal way you'd make a conscious decision to download Firefox or Vivaldi, it was 'chosen' for them before they even opened the box.
 
Last edited:
I love Firefox as well. Apart from the server-side components (like Firefox Sync/Mozilla Accounts), Firefox definitely does not need tons of money to stay afloat, open source communities can and would adopt it and maintain it. Mozilla has consistently tried and failed to turn privacy into a sustainable revenue stream for itself, frankly I don't trust their leadership's judgement on these matters. The best for-profit exit plan for them might very well be to partner or sell to a company like DuckDuckGo, but I don't think that will be necessary.

Simply put, while Judge Mehta might cut off Google-default search engine funding streams for other companies, it would not do to cut off the primary funding for one of Google's products competitors, as that would not serve to reduce the monopolistic power of Google any. There are many remedies that Mehta might impose, but any such remedies would be carefully considered as to if it even has the desired effect.

That is actually the thorniest part of the case: the monopoly power ruling focused on Google search, but Mehta will be forced to confront some of the other areas in which Alphabet has a monopolistic or near-monopolistic presence in the market: Google Chrome and Android being the obvious two with direct ties into search. How will Mehta make his ruling on breaking up the monopolistic power of Google Search whilst also considering these other products, which were not the primary parts of the monopoly ruling, will be interesting.
 
bclaymiles said:
I absolutely love Firefox. It's been my primary browser for literally decades. Its behind the scenes performance is unparalled. But its days have been numbered for a long time. They do no advertising or outreach to try to engage users. None. I've begged them to do so, but with half a billion in cash flowing in with zero effort required, doing so has apparently been considered unnecessary. FF's portion of browser usage is down around 3%. And with that small a user base, sites are deciding - reasonably so - that coding to support it just isn't worth their trouble.

I also use Opera and occasionally Vivaldi, simply because more and more sites either completely refuse to function properly at all in FF, or they only partially support it. Open any article on the Washington Post in Firefox, and you get the first paragraph displayed, and it looks by all evidence as if it's just a very short article. Open same in Opera, you get the full article.
Click to expand...

Ermmm, no? WaPo articles display just fine across the 6 different devices I use Firefox on.
 
Look up what Mozilla ACTUALLY spends their money on, rather than development of Firefox or anything else you would expect . . . If mgmt wants it, they'll have no trouble cruising along with the non-Google money.
 
1. There is no logical scenario where Googles money would "suddenly dry up". What's in it for Google to do this?
2. If other search engines got more market share there is no reason that Firefox could not get paid by them to promote their search engines along side Googles who would be paying them less.

The narrative here is logically incorrect and sensationalist.

The reason that Google has Chrome/Google search with market share (that Firefox is "losing" according to you) is for the reasons the Judge found but which has been known for decades - monopolistic practices. Google and Chrome used to be good (I was one of the many first users) before Google (Brin & Page) became monopolistic and put revenue above the needs/rights of the customers. S. Brin had the excuse that he is a Rus like V. Putin and the apple doesn't fall far from the tree but Page...........power corrupts and absolute power (a monopoly) corrupts absolutely - the point that I think the Judge was trying to make.
 
BSim500 said:
Google has definitely abused its position though by pushing Chrome via spammed "bundleware", ie, at the peak of its rise it was hard to find an .exe installer of a lot of popular software that didn't 'accidentally on purpose' just happen to have Chrome bundled to install and make default for your "convenience", pre-ticked for which you had to consciously opt-out. Same is true of paying OEM's, eg, Dell, HP, Lenovo, etc, for pre-installed Chrome on pre-builts - people didn't "chose" it the normal way you'd make a conscious decision to download Firefox or Vivaldi, it was 'chosen' for them before they even opened the box.
Click to expand...
And yet the court case is just about paying money to Apple? Something's broken there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Daniel Sims
Google is officially a monopoly: Company loses massive DOJ antitrust trial over search engine agreements
Replies
9
Views
126
urbanman2004
urbanman2004
zohaibahd
The Explorer 2025 is the first Ford to run its new Android infotainment system
Replies
6
Views
108
SRB
S
zohaibahd
Samsung announces mass production of "thinnest" LPDDR5x sticks for enhanced on-device AI
Replies
2
Views
83
toooooot
T

Latest posts

Back