[deleted]
FWIW, Bing has looked similar to Google for a very long time.
New Search Strategy for Firefox
101–110 of 352 posts
Re: New Search Strategy for Firefox
#102(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…
Is there any monetary reason to pick many search providers instead of just Google? This is possible, your guess is as good as mine. Regardless, I believe that not going with Google is a very sound strategy. If Mozilla has the choice between an alliance with a competitor with overwhelming firepower and whose clear interest is making Mozilla obsolete and an underdog with an interest in growing along with Mozilla, why p…
I also see FirefoxOS as Mozilla's long-shot hedge against the spectre of walled gardens. With first iOS and then WinRT disallowing third-party browsers, a world dominated by locked-down platforms would be a death sentence for Firefox.
Re: New Search Strategy for Firefox
#103This is why Google built Chrome. Google's strategy has been to remove the layers between the user's intent to search and Google's own server. Every intermediate layer that Google does not control is a risk to their business. When viewed through these lens, many of the seemingly ancillary Google business units start to make strategic sense. Android (control the device), Chrome (control the browser), Fiber (control the…
If google didn't have chrome they would have just paid FF whatever was necessary to remain the main search partner.
Re: New Search Strategy for Firefox
#104Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
> 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.
Yeah, that was the pre-search strategy that Yahoo! (and others) pursued, and Yahoo! did own that for a while (I'd argue that their focus on such a curated list while search ramped up is what left them behind on search, leading to them relying on series of search providers -- which they kept buying up even after abandoning them as search providers), but they never caught up even when after those acquisitions they tried to go it alone.
So, sure, maybe they want to own search the same way they owned curated-directory-based web information, but that's different from wanting to own search again.
Re: New Search Strategy for Firefox
#105Some more details: * This is a new, more flexible partnership strategy. * Continuing the existing relationship with Google was an option, but Mozilla chose to end the Google relationship. * All the options Mozilla considered had strong, improved economic terms (but the concrete numbers are not public). Because all the options had improved economics, that allowed Mozilla to really consider the strategic outlook. * The…
How does promoting Yandex and Baidu in regions where they are already dominant (Russia and China, respectively) align with Mozilla's new mission? I'm not sure how entrenching their hold on their home markets promotes user choice, innovation, or privacy.
Re: New Search Strategy for Firefox
#106This is why Google built Chrome. Google's strategy has been to remove the layers between the user's intent to search and Google's own server. Every intermediate layer that Google does not control is a risk to their business. When viewed through these lens, many of the seemingly ancillary Google business units start to make strategic sense. Android (control the device), Chrome (control the browser), Fiber (control the…
If google didn't have chrome they would have just paid FF whatever was necessary to remain the main search partner.
It's also possible they'd be looking at a stronger and for them untouchable IE->Bing marketshare instead.
Re: New Search Strategy for Firefox
#107Some more details: * This is a new, more flexible partnership strategy. * Continuing the existing relationship with Google was an option, but Mozilla chose to end the Google relationship. * All the options Mozilla considered had strong, improved economic terms (but the concrete numbers are not public). Because all the options had improved economics, that allowed Mozilla to really consider the strategic outlook. * The…
How does promoting Yandex and Baidu in regions where they are already dominant (Russia and China, respectively) align with Mozilla's new mission? I'm not sure how entrenching their hold on their home markets promotes user choice, innovation, or privacy.
At least it provides diversity of income for Mozilla.
Re: New Search Strategy for Firefox
#108For me at least then moving away from google is a huge selling point. I think if they marketed themselves as a googless web experience it could be really good for them.
Re: New Search Strategy for Firefox
#109This makes me less likely to use Mozilla, but I was already a Chrome or Safari user (despite supporting the Mozilla mission). Seems like a bad decision for Mozilla.
Why would this be a bad decision, or make you less likely to use Firefox? Mozilla exists in large part due to the abuses that come with monopolistic control over the Internet. Google is dangerously close to that line. Choosing a different partner seems like the most mission-aligned option for Mozilla.
Making the product worse, from the perspective users care about, for ideals.
FF, for instance, made their multi-browser "sync" horribly complicated for users, to preserve zero knowledge, which is the opposite of what 99% of users wanted.
Chrome made it simple (and THEN added a fairly decent ZK option buried in advanced).
What makes Mozilla/Firefox relevant is having enough users that it can't be ignored. Mozilla is already increasingly irrelevant due to mobile (Firefox OS is nice promise, but Safari and Chrome are dominating the space); marginalizing their desktop product doesn't help.
Re: New Search Strategy for Firefox
#110Some more details: * This is a new, more flexible partnership strategy. * Continuing the existing relationship with Google was an option, but Mozilla chose to end the Google relationship. * All the options Mozilla considered had strong, improved economic terms (but the concrete numbers are not public). Because all the options had improved economics, that allowed Mozilla to really consider the strategic outlook. * The…
How does promoting Yandex and Baidu in regions where they are already dominant (Russia and China, respectively) align with Mozilla's new mission? I'm not sure how entrenching their hold on their home markets promotes user choice, innovation, or privacy.
Because it prevents the worldwide biggest search provider from eventually also taking over those remaining holdouts?