Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

New Search Strategy for Firefox

blog.mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 352 posts

Re: New Search Strategy for Firefox

#91

Post by dragonwriter »

throwawaymoz wrote: post #82
dragonwriter wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For the record, Google made billions off being Firefox's default search engine. They paid Firefox $300mil a year for three years, but that was only a small fraction of how much Google profited from Firefox searches. Not sure if it's still true, but three years ago they made more from Firefox than they did from Chrome. Google doesn't really make money from Firefox or Chrome (the browser), per se (except insofar as C…

Don't forget that Chrome users are more tech savvy on average than Firefox users, meaning they click ads less.

> Don't forget that Chrome users are more tech savvy on average than Firefox users

I somewhat doubt that. They're both mostly non-default browsers where they are used (and the places where Firefox is default probably have more technically savvy users than those where Chrome is default), Chrome has far and away more current mindshare and is, therefore, probably more likely to be a crowd-inspired (rather than technically-inspired) choice as a non-default browser. I suspect that there was a time when your statement was true, but I don't think its true now. (Though inertia in both camps may make it true even when its less likely to be true for new users.)

Re: New Search Strategy for Firefox

#92

Post by kibwen »

throwawaymoz wrote: post #67

(throwaway account) While I believe the party line is probably true ("Mozilla decided not to go with Google"), it's also disingenuous. Mozilla chose not to go with Google because Google wasn't willing to pay what they were before. They straight up told Mozilla this 3 years ago when they signed the billion dollar contract; Mozilla had 3 years to become profitable. That's why they switched focus to FirefoxOS; they thou…

Philosophy doesn't put food on the table, so I have no doubt that this deal was motivated by more than a desire to increase choice. But that doesn't necessarily mean that philosophy and financial strategy are in opposition, or that decisions cannot be sought which strike a balance between both (although generally I wouldn't begrudge them if they favored the latter; see my first sentence).

In any case, Mozilla is a public nonprofit and releases public financial statements every year. Even if the numbers regarding this deal aren't public now, they will be by the end of the next fiscal year.

Re: New Search Strategy for Firefox

#93

Post by Osmose »

andreastt wrote: post #75
Osmose wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're separate posts, I hadn't seen that one until you shared it. I think it's a better article than this one, and would be happy if a mod changed the link and title. :D

Oh, my mistake entirely.

The original link is now redirecting to the better link anyway, so I've changed the title to match the new article.

Re: New Search Strategy for Firefox

#94

Post by dec0dedab0de »

dragonwriter wrote: post #65
chuhnk wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But for how long? They've reached the mid-point on the Bing deal. Yahoo has been working on two search projects internally. They want to own search once again.

> They want to own search once again. Yahoo! never owned search before. The brief period where Yahoo! Search was an independent, rather than provided by a third party, was after Google became dominant (and Google was the last exclusive provider of Yahoo! Search before that independent period, which ended with the most recent Bing deal.) Before Google, Yahoo! Search was Inktomi (who was later bought by Yahoo! after Ya…

I remember both AOL, and Prodigy defaulted to Yahoo, when you had to list your site with Yahoo to be returned in results. When they called themselves a Directory. It was not quite search, but it was their own results, and they dominated the market.

Edit: type-o/clarity.

Re: New Search Strategy for Firefox

#95

Post by Yoric »

ihuman wrote: post #71

Haven't they done something like this before? I remember Yahoo promoting a Yahoo-branded Firefox. It's default search and homepage were Yahoo, and every titlebar had "Firefox and Yahoo" at the end instead of just "Firefox."

Yeah, there was an experimental Firefox + Yahoo distro, for download on Yahoo's servers. There was also a Firefox + Bing distro, iirc.

Re: New Search Strategy for Firefox

#98

Post by mbrubeck »

huhtenberg wrote: post #17

Here's the option to suppress the change - http://i.imgur.com/HwHqQU9.png

I'm not sure that will affect this. I believe that's for updates to user-installed search engines, which are distributed and updated separately from the browser. Default search engines are part of the browser code itself, so they update when the application does.

Note that Google will still be included as an option, so all you need to do is click on the search box icon to choose it.

(I'm an occasional Firefox contributor and I once worked on the search engine and add-on manager code a little bit, but I'm not an expert so take this with a grain of salt.)

Re: New Search Strategy for Firefox

#99

Post by Yoric »

callahad wrote: post #36
[deleted] wrote: post #10

[deleted]

I suspect many Mozilla engineers are actually cheering this partnership. I certainly am. To wit, disrupting hegemony is how we got our start, and I'm proud to see Mozilla striving for a competitive, open Internet.

I am a Mozilla engineer, and yeah, I think it's a good thing to do.

Re: New Search Strategy for Firefox

#100

Post by gcp »

dragonwriter wrote: post #73
gcp wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

if Google is offering less, its likely because Chrome eclipsing Firefox -- and by some measures IE -- has reduced the value of default search placement in Firefox Yahoo is looking at the same marketshare numbers, so that actually can't be the reason.

> Yahoo is looking at the same marketshare numbers, so that actually can't be the reason. It certainly can be the reason that Google's offer isn't as strong -- the value of default search place in the third-place-with-continuing-declining-share browser is conceivably quite different to a party that owns what is, depending on which measure you look at, either the first- or second-place browser and a party that doesn't…

I don't see how that follows. Why would it? That x% of users represents X amount of users who click ads, which means y% of lost revenue. Why would the monetary value of that y% be so different to another search engine vendor?

Either it's scaling effects (owning a few percent makes you more known, which drives new users) or Yahoo is better at selling ads through those users. Note that in the former case, there's even more incentive for Google to block. And if the second is true, oh boy, they certainly have a problem at G...

Post reply on HN