This 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…
> This is why Google built Chrome.
Seriously? Do you remember what browsers were like before Chrome?
I thought that Google was still far and away their main revenue source?
It has been for the last three years, but Mozilla decided to go with Yahoo/Yandex/Baidu rather than renew the deal with Google. So Yahoo (and others) will replace Google as the main revenue source.
Have they disclosed the new financial terms of the agreement though? I'd be interested to see how the numbers have changed.
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 technical…
> I somewhat doubt that
Ask anybody that runs ads and they'll tell you Chrome ranks last in CTR. See also:
Yahoo will only respect DNT for Firefox users. This is because DNT was essentially ruined after Microsoft turned DNT on by default in IE. Since it didn't represent an explicit user choice, it carried much less weight. It is an explicit choice in Firefox.
What if, and this is crazy I know, you needed an explicit action to track me instead of relying on users not knowing such a thing exists to avoid.
Mozilla is making some major moves these days. They've ditched Google as their main revenue source, partnering with Tor and Yahoo. Yahoo is angling to be a digital magazine, which I like as a business model much more than Google's. Firefox is making a strong case for itself as the privacy centric browser. I still remember when Firefox started gaining market share. Even non-tech-savvy people were getting firefox, beca…
Yahoo is angling to be a digital magazine, which I like as a business model much more than Google's.
This 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…
> Every intermediate layer that Google does not control is a risk to their business. Every intermediate layer that Google does control is also an opportunity for lock-in. Which is seriously starting to piss me off, as they are increasingly turning their back on open standards.
As a Googler who cares very much about open standards, I don't think that assessment is fair or accurate.
I thought that Google was still far and away their main revenue source?
Not any more. That's exactly what this story is about! :)
But the story mentions no $ numbers. Yahoo getting the default for US searches is clearly a big thing. Is that bigger than the rest-of-world searches? I really have no idea and seeing the figures would be very interesting.
This 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…
> This is why Google built Chrome. Seriously? Do you remember what browsers were like before Chrome?
Maybe your memory is failing you, but FF and Safari were still great browsers when Chrome first came out. Chrome took over slowly because of constant improvement, it wasn't much different except for some technical details and clean UI.
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.
I always wondered why no one tried lawsuit on that topic in Europe for iOS devices? It is arguably worse than the IE situation (you used IE just once to get a real browser), but right now Safari is only game in town for no technical reason and everyone is cool with that. No addons, no adblock ...
> Anyone have any insights into this? From the outside it looks like Mozilla is parting ways with Google because of Chrome. Looks more like Mozilla is parting ways with Google because of money -- whether Yahoo! offering more than Google has in the past or Google offering less. (Though, looking at historical usage share measures, there's a good argument that if Google is offering less, its likely because Chrome eclips…
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 has a ton of cash it didn't have until recently and a CEO who wants growth and is willing to overspend.