51–60 of 74 posts
Can anyone who was kinda close tell a story about Netscape and Firefox? I was just a kid back then and it would be nice to hear a story from the olden days about the before of Navigator and the after of Firefox
https://blog.mozilla.org/press/files/2013/11/nytimes-firefox...
https://blog.mozilla.org/press/files/2013/11/nytimes-firefox...
Why are some of the names underlined? And why do I only get � when I try to copy names in that PDF? It's like it's not real text, makes it impossible to search for names I think should be there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google does not want to pay Mozilla less. They don't care about Firefox's market share, it's virtually 0. But in the moment Firefox disappears, Chrome will be undeniably a monopoly. As long as Firefox exists, Google can easily deflect such monopoly claims - they even "encourage and foster" competition on the browser market.
I've got to believe this is the phone call that saved Apple in the 90's too. For all the different interpretations of history and motivations that happened at that time it was clear to everyone that Microsoft stepped in because of the anti-trust investigations already happening and couldn't afford to have them expand beyond Internet Explorer, which would have definitely happened if the Mac disappeared. Google's in a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Chrome will be undeniably a monopoly Isn't Safari by existing at whatever market share still a counterexample to Chrome being a monopoly?
I can't use Safari on my HP Linux laptop and on my Android phone. Apple doesn't make it for those OSes. That's a choice like any other one. What I don't like is that deny other companies to run their own browser engines on iOS. They have to reskin Safari. Luckily this is going to change soon at least in the EU.
The team came out with several releases. In the first release my name was quite prominent in the nose of the fox but on the second or third release I got moved into the big white area. I wonder if those early releases are still available.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This argument is silly. Google buying the default search is currently being used as evidence in an antitrust case over Google search being a monopoly. Chrome only exists to make more money for Google search, there's no way that Google would risk their (alleged) search monopoly just to prevent a browser monopoly. Google genuinely believes the money they pay Mozilla and Apple is worth it.
If they wouldn't pay Mozilla, Firefox simply wouldn't exist - there would be no other browser where Google would have to buy the default search position. It would be one less problem for Google, if the goal of their payment would be really only to be the default search engine in Firefox. If that would be true, it would be silliest waste of money from them - worse than Google Glass.
Except Safari, which they already spend far more money on then Firefox.
And if Google wouldn't pay, some other search engine would. We've seen it before, when Yahoo offered more money than Google.
https://blog.mozilla.org/press/files/2013/11/nytimes-firefox...
Why are some of the names underlined? And why do I only get � when I try to copy names in that PDF? It's like it's not real text, makes it impossible to search for names I think should be there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why are some of the names underlined? And why do I only get � when I try to copy names in that PDF? It's like it's not real text, makes it impossible to search for names I think should be there.
This was one of my projects. The underlined names were people who got 10 other people to donate, sort of the super-donors.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If they wouldn't pay Mozilla, Firefox simply wouldn't exist - there would be no other browser where Google would have to buy the default search position. It would be one less problem for Google, if the goal of their payment would be really only to be the default search engine in Firefox. If that would be true, it would be silliest waste of money from them - worse than Google Glass.
>there would be no other browser where Google would have to buy the default search position. Except Safari, which they already spend far more money on then Firefox. And if Google wouldn't pay, some other search engine would. We've seen it before, when Yahoo offered more money than Google.
If the top search engine spot in Firefox would be so valuable, than there would be real bidding wars. $400M/year is nothing when it comes to BigTech. Frankly, anyone could pitch a business plan for an investment bank to get a few billions and outbid Google. If anyone cared... but being the default search engine in a browser that virtually nobody uses isn't worth a lot. But it's a fantastic decoy, if you have nothing better.
(Also, Yahoo offered more when both Firefox and Yahoo still mattered. Which is not the case anymore. The only viable search engine today is Bing, who stopped caring about search, as AI seems to be more lucrative for them. Marginalia is also here, but that guy has less money than MS, prolly)
Safari exists exclusively on iOS and MacOS. On Android, Windows and Linux Chrome has virtually 100% market share. Do you know why Google spends more money on Safari? Because on that platform they want to be the default browser. Safari doesn't depend on Google at all. Not like Firefox.
Firefox dies in 2 minutes once Google decides that it has outlived their usefulness, at which point all their users default to Chrome, where they don't have to pay to be the default search engine. And at the point they would have to pay only Safari, without any negative impact on their search traffic. But as it stands today, they would have no competitor on the vast majority of the consumer computing systems.