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.

  • Lampshade@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    153
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    Based on their 2022 report, only half of their expenses were on software development costs - around $220m, and it’s not clear what portion of that was on Firefox vs other projects.

    https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2022/mozilla-fdn-2022-fs-final-0908.pdf

    In terms of revenue: around $100m was from sources other than Google.

    Therefore, it seems plausible to me that Firefox development could still be funded with $100m of annual revenue. At a smaller level no doubt, but still in existence nonetheless.

    • Dojan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      91
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      5 months ago

      Given that they are focusing on initiatives like intrusive adverts and machine learning BS, I’m okay with them cutting that kind of nonsense off; Firefox still doesn’t have a native vertical tab bar.

      • dan@upvote.au
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        52
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        Firefox still doesn’t have a native vertical tab bar.

        At least the extension APIs are powerful enough to have an extension that does a decent job (or even a great job, in the case of extensions like Sidebery), plus there’s a way to hide the regular top tabs. That’s not the case with Chrome - all the Chrome vertical tab extensions feel kinda janky and the regular top tabs are still visible.

        You could also use a Firefox fork like Floorp that has native support for tree-style tabs.

      • egerlach@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        23
        ·
        5 months ago

        Firefox still doesn’t have a native vertical tab bar.

        That is only mostly true now. There is an about:config setting you can turn on in FF 129 (released this week) which will let you have native vertical tabs. The implementation is only about half done, but it’s good enough for me to use alongside Sidebery Tabs.

        You can track progress on vertical tabs in Bugzilla. They are also working on tab groups, but that work is at an earlier stage.

        All in all, I think we’ll see vertical tabs in the next 6 months or so? As a devout Firefox user and resister of the Chromium monopoly, I am really excited.

        • Excrubulent@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          Why have I never considered vertical tabs before? The screen is way too wide for normal pages, you can fit a bunch more information sideways per tab, and way more tabs vertically than horizontally. You could even double-stack them with all the space available.

          This is such an obvious change to make.

        • Dojan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          5 months ago

          That is only mostly true now. There is an about:config setting you can turn on in FF 129 (released this week)

          That’s also the one with the intrusive, facebook-endorsed, opt-in advertising system, isn’t it? I use LibreWolf, because Mozilla doesn’t truly care for privacy.

        • Vanon@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          5 months ago

          Agreed. A real PITA to organize, some unintuitive and hidden options, but very basic. I’ve used sync and organized on desktop. (But now I do NOT sync desktop bookmarks at all, it has messed them up too many times.)

          Not a huge problem, but annoying. Like some newer non-removable toolbar buttons on desktop. Lack of JXL support. I’m a huge Firefox and Mozilla fan, used non-stop for years, but it has annoyances. The team also used to quickly cater to user feedback, but that seems to have slowed.

      • uranibaba@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        5 months ago

        Firefox still doesn’t have a native vertical tab bar.

        What’s up with everyone obsessing this? I tried Floorp and vertical worse.

        • Dojan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          5 months ago

          I have an ultrawide. Vertical works a lot better on ultrawide than on more narrow screen ratios. Though ultimately it’s just a matter of preference. I personally dislike dark mode.

    • unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      46
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      This is the way. Mozilla is bloated to fuck as a company. They need to be forced to get back on their main goal: Building a fucking Browser.

      No ad deals, no stupid cloud features, just actual browser and privacy features.

      There is no fucking way all that money is actually being spent on maintaining core firefox functionality.

      • merc@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        Mozilla is bloated to fuck as a company

        On one hand, I think people underestimate how difficult it is to build a cross-platform browser in 2024. Just think about all the things that you now do through a web browser that used to require their own separate programs. A browser has to act as the UI for a word processor, a spreadsheet, online games, banking apps, etc. And, it has to work on multiple operating systems with different screen sizes etc. And, this is with constantly evolving web standards. Those web standards are things that Mozilla / Firefox has to participate in too, otherwise Google (the only other browser manufacturer) is going to steer them however it wants and do things like make ad-blocking impossible.

        On the other hand, I completely agree that every sign points to Mozilla being ridiculously bloated. Being gifted half a billion dollars per year no matter what you do (as long as it doesn’t displease Google) is going to lead to massive inefficiencies. The CEO’s salary is an obvious red flag. But, it’s a lot more than that. Why did Mozilla buy an advertising company? Why did they buy Pocket? Why are they getting into AI? Why do they sell VPN subscriptions?

        Also, what’s up with this weird structure where a non-profit (Mozilla Foundation) owns a for-profit (Mozilla Corporation). How can that not be a conflict of interest? I understand that there are some things that non-profits can’t do. But, why don’t they have two separate companies and have the for-profit one pledge to donate X% of profits or revenues to the non-profit?

        It would be a bad thing if the result of the money spigot being turned off is that it was no longer possible to pay people to work on Firefox, resulting in Chrome being the one and only browser. On the other hand, it really does seem like Mozilla needs to be slimmed down and focused on a core mission of making an open source web browser (and hopefully their email client Thunderbird too).

  • TheJack@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    101
    arrow-down
    19
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    I have written this elsewhere many times and I know it’s extremely unpopular with FOSS crowd but truth needs to be told in here once again:

    Everyday I use Debian, Ubuntu and Windows 10/11/Servers.

    I’m an “IT guy” and have installed Firefox on literally hundreds of computers over a decade. I also install and setup extensions like uBlock Origin (with few comprehensive ad & malware blocking lists) , Dark Reader, Auto Delete Cookies, Crypto blocking and many more… but I have given up on Firefox 2016 onwards.

    You could give Mozilla 10 billion per year just to develop Firefox but Mozilla can and will decide that they wanna spend only 1 or 10 percent of that money on actual Firefox development.

    They will spend most of their money on anything but Firefox.

    I mean I love world-peace, and cancer and aids free world too but with the money Mozilla get in a year, none of that gonna happen.

    Mozilla couldn’t stop Russia attack on Ukraine; neither were able to solve Israel Palestinian conflict nor hunger and migration from African countries to Europe…

    Then what are they spending money on?

    What they could have done successfully is to spend all the money they made from Firefox towards Firefox development alone. But this is the thing Mozilla do not want to do and are open about it.

    Now I don’t want Mozilla to stop developing Firefox either but because Firefox needs money from Google, Google must be allowed their monopoly on search… is utterly insane thinking.

    If Mozilla cannot survive without Google monopoly, so be it.

    I would say some open source/ Linux foundations/ Linux distros needs to fork Firefox and let Mozilla die peacefully.

      • mke@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        I’m sorry, I don’t think that’s entirely correct:

        Servo aims to provide an independent, modular, embeddable web rendering engine source - About Servo

        I think it’d be better to say they’re working on becoming a modern, easy to use alternative to the likes of Gecko and Blink, the engines powering Firefox and Chrome, respectively.

        I saw nothing about plans to become a fully featured web browser, even in the roadmap. Do you have anything else to share that supports the browser idea?

    • MCasq_qsaCJ_234@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      5 months ago

      There is already the Ladybird project, which is a fork of the SerenityOS browser. We can say that it is a spiritual successor, although its license is more permissive than the Firefox browser.

      • ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        5 months ago

        Ladybird is in a prime position if they keep up their steady progress, I really hope they succeed.

        • PrivateNoob@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          I would be happy to seem them being open to use already working solutions, and not doing everything by themselves, since it just slows development speed by a lot, but it’s understandable.

      • mke@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        Once again, note that if you’re the kind of user who shuns Brave because the CEO says stupid stuff every once in a while, you’ll probably not look fondly upon Ladybird’s project lead and main developer being scared of pronouns.

        See the issue on github.

        If you don’t care about that, it’s an interesting project. Can’t say I approve, though.

        Posting this to inform people and let each one decide what to do on their own. Don’t harass anyone, please.

  • Bluefruit@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    69
    ·
    5 months ago

    While I do want competition in the web space, its a good thing that Google could get told to stop doing stuff like this.

    I dont want Mozilla to die of course but companies need to be held responsible for all the shit they pull. I’d imagine if Mozilla wasnt able to maintain firefox anymore it would fall to the open source community like they said in the article and I’d probably still use it.

    No one company should own the internet.

    • floofloof@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      36
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      Who in the open-source community would pay what it costs to develop Firefox? I hope some organization would, but it’s a huge and expensive project to run.

      • Bluefruit@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        25
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        Great question that I dont have an answer for. Maybe one of the foundations that supports Linux development? This is just my hope though. No idea what it would really take to maintain Firefox at this point. Maybe if it was scaled down or something it’d be ok in the hands of just the open source community as a whole but I’m not well versed in programming or development so i dont know.

        I gotta try and be optimistic about this kinda stuff because i forsee a future where Google just ruins more and more of the internet and i hate the thought of that.

        • MCasq_qsaCJ_234@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          Servo is now being looked after by the Linux Foundation in Europe, but is only maintained by volunteers. But another project has arrived that is not based on Chromium, Webkit or Firefox, which may be a hope in this somewhat confusing situation.

        • bufalo1973@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          I’m thinking of governments using it and helping. They could have their computers running without Google sticking its nose.

      • brucethemoose@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        In before Meta buys Mozilla, lol.

        Zuckerberg is on a “spoiling other tech giants with Facebook money” streak.

      • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        Not all their revenues come from Google and other sources are enough to cover Firefox development… But that would mean giving up on all the useless shit no one asked for they’re working on…

        • Emily (she/her)@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          Mozilla’s next largest source of revenue is subscriptions and advertising (source 2021 financial report), by a wide margin. That “useless shit” is their other revenue, and they’re investing in it because they know they need to diversify revenue to fund Firefox. You’re suggesting they kill it because it’s not their core (unprofitable) business?

    • ShepherdPie@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      5 months ago

      I wonder if this ruling over search engines could spook them with browser development as well considering they nearly have a monopoly with chromium too. Perhaps they’ll release control of it and stop pushing anti-consumer updates like removing your ability to block ads.

  • Affidavit@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    64
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    5 months ago

    I wonder how much of their income actually goes towards development. At a glance, it seems a great deal of unnecessary administrative bloat has been added to Mozilla.

    I honestly don’t see why a browser company needs to be so large (>700 employees).

    Not that I want people to lose their jobs, it just seems unnecessary.

    • SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      Well, a browser is a massive piece of software, especially if you include the development of a render engine as Firefox does

      Web standards evolve constantly, you need to keep up somehow, together with optimizations, bug fixing, patching of security vulnerabilities, etc

      • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        Indeed. People severely underestimate how complex and costly developing a browser and web renderer is.

        In many ways it’s far more complex than OS development.

        Firefox cannot get by on user donations alone. Mozilla needs a way to generate revenue, but nobody wants Mozilla to commercialise in any way. They’re stuck between a rock and a hard place.

    • barsoap@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      Mozilla is not a browser producer, it’s a general internet charity that earns money by producing a browser. Most of their income goes to charity and reserves of which they have about 1bn – roughly four times as much as wikipedia just for a sense of scale, wikipedia doesn’t do any business deals to get at cash but instead does annoying donation drives.

      They could scale down significantly while still keeping firefox development ongoing, they probably wouldn’t have much issue finding enough donations to fund development, but the strategy seems to be building reserves and diversify commercial income, things like the revenue share they get from pocket for sending people to ad-ridden pages.

      When you’re currently donating to Mozilla you’re not donating towards Firefox: Mozilla-the-company can’t receive funds from Mozilla-the-foundation, those donations are going to charity work.


      And, to make this clear: None of this is a grand revelation, or new, or outrageous, it’s basically always been like that and it’s always been a perfectly proper way to run a charity. Most of the recent pushbacks comes from people hating that Mozilla funds stuff like getting women into STEM, being outraged that the wider Mozilla community is not keen on having a CEO which opposes gay marriage (very staunchly so), etc.

    • stoly@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      5 months ago

      They do more. They are also a vpn, and they are standing up new services.

    • Cornelius_Wangenheim@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      There’s a reason why every other browser maker has given up and adopted Chromium. It’s not easy to support a browser and rendering engine across half a dozen OSes while keeping it secure, performant and stable.

  • SamB@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    51
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    It’s strange how the Internet has been flooded by this news. Like leave Google alone or Firefox gets it. Very strategic use of the media might I say.

  • erwan@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    49
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    Good, Baker can go find an other x millions salary elsewhere because it’s necessary for her family (as she said in an interview), and Firefox can become a community project again that still pays salary to actual developers but without the expensive bullshitting C-suite.

  • bighi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    45
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    Mozilla gotta do something.

    And based on their actions on recent years, that something is probably going to be: 1) firing more developers, and 2) increasing the compensation of their CEO.

  • aggelalex@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    40
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    5 months ago

    Everybody forgets that if chrome and chromium breaks away from Google because of this ruling, it’s going to have the same issues as Firefox, if not worse because it’s an arguably worse product. The ruling has been pronounced, but what will happen because of it is yet to be defined.

    • Tyfud@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      ·
      5 months ago

      That’s not it at all. The issue is funding Mozilla. Having it as the default search engine is something google currently pays them for the right for. If the DOJ says that’s anti-trust practices, then Google stops paying Mozilla for that right, and 80% of Mozilla’s funding dries up overnight.

      • Scrollone@feddit.it
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        5 months ago

        I feel like the real problem is Google paying Apple, since they’re both major players, not Google paying Mozilla. Firefox is not a major player at all (unluckily…)

      • Scrollone@feddit.it
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        I feel like the real problem is Google paying Apple, since they’re both major players, not Google paying Mozilla. Firefox is not a major player at all (unluckily…)

    • ShepherdPie@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      5 months ago

      Why would Chrome/chromium break away? Isn’t this just about the search engine side of things? There’s no need to dump Chrome if all they need to do is drop themselves as the default search engine.

  • cmysmiaczxotoy@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    5 months ago

    I needed, I would pay $5 per month in perpetuity for access to Firefox. Fuck google

    • kakito69@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      5 months ago

      You’d need a hundred million people sign up for that $5 subscription to make up for Google’s bribe.

      • deleteme@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        5 months ago

        Your math is off. It would take 8.5 million people donating $5 a month, to equal the 510 million a year from Google.

        My math (please correct me if I am wrong):

        $510 million / 1 year

        $ X / 1 month?

        $510 million / 12 months = $42.5 million / 1 month 

        $42.5 million / $5 per person a month = 8.5 million people a month

        • uranibaba@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          Is it not

          5 x 12 = 60

          $510 000 000 / $60 = 850 000

          $60 is one year of subscription for if user.

          850 000 users need to pay 60 dollar per year to amount to $510 000 000.

          (Or 510 000 000/5 = 10 200 000 users per month to reach the same amount monthly.)

  • magic_smoke@links.hackliberty.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    5 months ago

    If were going to go after them for a monopoly, shouldn’t it be for chromium? At least with search there are actual viable alternatives that don’t get 86% of their money from a direct competitor…

    • odium@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      I don’t think they pay others to use chromium tho. Other browsers independently decided to use it. That makes it a lot harder to argue that this is a monopolistic practice than when they explicitly pay people to make them the default.

      • anyhow2503@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        26
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        That’s not entirely accurate. Google’s influence on the web has grown even beyond the web browser engine majority share (which is bad enough in itself). They offer one of the most popular web frameworks and run several of the most popular websites. There is almost no way to compete when the market leader is simultaneously the developer and the major user of new features. Of course everyone else is going to switch to using your browser engine. What else are they gonna do? There are even websites now that just check the user agent string and refuse service if you don’t use a chromium based browser. Shit’s fucked.

  • zecg@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    5 months ago

    I use only Firefox / Fennec, but fuck Mozilla. The obscene amounts they paid their CEO for stupid decisions, their shitty Pocket acquisition, regressions such as saving page as pdf simply disappearing on mobile. Let that rotten corporation die, the code is open source, someone will do a Gecko browser.

    • Supermariofan67@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      5 months ago

      I don’t think it’s quite as simple as someone just forking it. Realistically, a browser is an extremely complex piece of software that requires a lot of organizational effort to maintain, deal with security issues, etc. Pretty much every other piece of software on a similar scale I can think of (the kernel, KDE, Blender, Libreoffice) has some sort of organization behind it with at least some amount of officially paid work. All the major forks of Firefox or chromium follow quite closely to upstream for this reason (which is also why I’m skeptical of Brave’s ability to maintain manifest v2 long term, despite their probably genuine best efforts to do so).

      I do wish that Firefox were developed and funded by an organization specifically dedicated to developing it. This could of course happen if Mozilla dies. But that’s going to require someone starting it, which is not at all a small or cheap task.

      I could also see a future where Oracle or IBM buys it 😂🤡

  • LouNeko@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    5 months ago

    I would stand behind the idea of splitting Google in it’s seperate branches with no shared assets. Basically Google search becomes is seperate corporation, Google AI, Google Webservices, Google Ad Services, YouTube. etc… This will hopefully undo some of the webs enshitification since now the essentially most powerful company on the web has to actually offer good product for profit instead of compensating bad product with more profitable one.

    • BrightCandle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      5 months ago

      That doesn’t produce any practical competition however. Some vertical splitting of the search business seems reasonable so we end up with multiple companies doing search out of it.

    • Obi@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      5 months ago

      If if wasn’t American, I’d say nationalise it. Maybe at some point we’ll need some kind of international version of nationalising.

  • Cyber Yuki@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    5 months ago

    It’s a threat to the Mozilla CORPORATION, not the Mozilla Foundation nor the browser.

    Nothing to be really scared about. Move along.

    • bloup@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      5 months ago

      why do you think the Mozilla corporation losing 86% of their revenue wouldn’t hurt the Firefox browser?

      • Tja@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        5 months ago

        There was a well sourced video a few months ago that showed where the money is going. Long story short, not into development, for the most part.

      • SturgiesYrFase@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        Well, only way I can figure it wouldn’t effect the foundation, is that the corporation is a wholly owned subsidiary of the foundation, presumably this is to protect the foundation financially and legally from anything that might happen to the corporation.

  • katy ✨@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    5 months ago

    if you only do a monthly donation of $5 a month that’s still $60 a year and i urge you do do it. i have a recurring donation for firefox, thunderbird, and wikipedia because i believe they’re essential to the internet.

  • The Hobbyist@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    I can very much imagine this being a short to medium term issue (and still an existential threat to Mozilla), but hopefully, this improves the situation to the point that there is no future company like google who artificially maintains control over browsers and search engines, rendering competitors dependent on these massive contracts? I mean, this is what got them there, right?