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

Firefox Features Google as Default Search Provider in the U.S.

blog.mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 154 posts

Re: Firefox Features Google as Default Search Provider in the U.S.

#81

Post by nonsequitarian »

indubitable wrote: post #52

Things like this illustrate why it's a bit disingenuous to praise the nonprofit status of Mozilla as some huge distinguishing factor. Not only do the executives pay themselves more than generous salaries (1m for chair, 874k for director, 908k for treasurer) but nonprofit doesn't mean free from commercial concerns. They still need to make money to pay those salaries and support their projects. It seems wiser to judge…

While it's true that Mozilla pays its people well (necessary, to compete for high end tech talent) and we (I work for Mozilla) are in no way free from commercial concerns, I think you're missing a big piece of why being a nonprofit is a distinguishing factor: Mozilla doesn't have the insane pressure for growth that most startups and all publicly traded companies have to reckon with. Any company that has gone public, wants to go public, or wants to get acquired has a never ending pressure for user and/or revenue growth at all costs. Mozilla doesn't have that pressure for growth. Of course we need to maintain enough market share to stay relevant, and we'd love to have more and more and more users, but ultimately as long as we can make enough money to pay for our operations then we're golden. This gives us a lot more freedom of choice when making decisions about what and how to make money.

Re: Firefox Features Google as Default Search Provider in the U.S.

#82

Post by jcrawfordor »

pessimizer wrote: post #73
kalcode wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why can't people get rich while making a difference? These same people could be working for other companies who are not fighting for our privacy and an open web. I agree that what is considered high paying salary is completely insane these days with wealth inequality and the idea that such sum of money if more than an individual will ever have use for. But that is a different topic. A non-profit status doesn't always…

A company's priorities are defined by how it spends its money. Very high salaries are a sign that a company is prioritizing the personal enrichment of particular people. > A non-profit status doesn't always mean charity. Many unambiguous charities have salaries just as high, and the same rationalizations.

I think it only takes a small amount of experience working with or in charities and nonprofits to discover that offering noncompetitive salaries makes it near impossible for nonprofits to succeed in many sectors.

Nonprofits need experienced and skilled people to be successful, and experienced and skilled people demand high salaries. To take the stance (which I disagree with) that nonprofit administrators should be willing to sacrifice their salary to work in the nonprofit sector (consider that this means, basically, asking them to donate the difference in salary) just doesn't seem to work out well for technical employees in particular, with just about every nonprofit I've worked with seriously struggling with high turnover and low skill level amongst technical staff.

Re: Firefox Features Google as Default Search Provider in the U.S.

#83

Post by amelius »

fenwick67 wrote: post #63
s17n wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty sure Google doesn't circumvent incognito so what's the point?

Google certainly tracks people by their IP address, so your privacy is lesser with Google as your search engine than DDG.

Not only that, but it also raises awareness of private search engines with the general audience.

Re: Firefox Features Google as Default Search Provider in the U.S.

#84

Post by fgonzag »

goptimize wrote: post #48
CoryG89 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not 'one day', the majority of Mozilla's funding has always come from 'search royalties'. Wikipedia says initial funding first came from AOL in 2003, then they had a deal with Google from 2004-2014. In 2014, it says they signed a deal with Yahoo. This is nothing new. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Foundation#Financing

even more it is a joke to talk about being financially strong=independent, it is a puppet / outsourced browser organization

and yet it was the only browser that really opposed EME, and only backed down once not only every browser had implemented the extension, but many major media providers too. Basically once the browser became useless for media consumption because of it.

Re: Firefox Features Google as Default Search Provider in the U.S.

#85

Post by s17n »

fenwick67 wrote: post #63
s17n wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty sure Google doesn't circumvent incognito so what's the point?

Google certainly tracks people by their IP address, so your privacy is lesser with Google as your search engine than DDG.

Are you sure? I thought they didn't do this.

Re: Firefox Features Google as Default Search Provider in the U.S.

#86

Post by ovao »

ams6110 wrote: post #2

Makes sense I guess. Nobody wants Yahoo search as a default.

And, to be fair, most users probably want Google to be their default.

Considering how heavily Mozilla’s been recently touting Firefox as the privacy-oriented alternative to Chrome (in Facebook ads, and probably elsewhere), to me it makes Mozilla appear flippant.

Re: Firefox Features Google as Default Search Provider in the U.S.

#87

Post by carussell »

kibwen wrote: post #80
carussell wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you look at the lifetime of Firefox, in the second half there's a negative correlation between (product popularity + contributor experience) and (revenue + company size).

A fellow adherent to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, I see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster#Pirat... . Praise His noodly appendage!

You realize I'm addressing the premise introduced by the person I responded to, right? That I'm not the one introducing it?

Also, it's possible to really believe in something but still be honest about its faults. I mean, I formed my harshest criticisms of Mozilla when I was still involved. I point this out, because there's another trend I've noticed, which is the one where you show up in tons of threads that are critical of Mozilla, usually with some flippant non-retort to the topic being discussed (just like you've done here).

Re: Firefox Features Google as Default Search Provider in the U.S.

#88

Post by floatboth »

brador wrote: post #65
fedups wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe Santosh83 means even if you leave it on, it will be anonymized performance data

You can't anonymize data in transit since it requires a sender IP which makes the sent performance data susceptible to interception and analysis by intermediaries.

It's boring data, encrypted in transit (HTTPS). About the only thing intermediaries can learn is that someone used Firefox at the time of the request.

Re: Firefox Features Google as Default Search Provider in the U.S.

#89

Post by moz23 »

nonsequitarian wrote: post #81
indubitable wrote: post #52

Things like this illustrate why it's a bit disingenuous to praise the nonprofit status of Mozilla as some huge distinguishing factor. Not only do the executives pay themselves more than generous salaries (1m for chair, 874k for director, 908k for treasurer) but nonprofit doesn't mean free from commercial concerns. They still need to make money to pay those salaries and support their projects. It seems wiser to judge…

While it's true that Mozilla pays its people well (necessary, to compete for high end tech talent) and we (I work for Mozilla) are in no way free from commercial concerns, I think you're missing a big piece of why being a nonprofit is a distinguishing factor: Mozilla doesn't have the insane pressure for growth that most startups and all publicly traded companies have to reckon with. Any company that has gone public,…

> This gives us a lot more freedom of choice when making decisions about what and how to make money.

I'd argue the opposite. Mozilla seem too scared to try anything substantial because they're scared of losing the money they do get (because they aren't actively going after other sources and not trying to grow into new revenue sources). Think of e.g. tracking protection - Apple are the ones actually making moves there, not Mozilla. I wonder why...

Re: Firefox Features Google as Default Search Provider in the U.S.

#90

Post by moz23 »

orthecreedence wrote: post #74
indubitable wrote: post #52

Things like this illustrate why it's a bit disingenuous to praise the nonprofit status of Mozilla as some huge distinguishing factor. Not only do the executives pay themselves more than generous salaries (1m for chair, 874k for director, 908k for treasurer) but nonprofit doesn't mean free from commercial concerns. They still need to make money to pay those salaries and support their projects. It seems wiser to judge…

They just switched from Yahoo as the default. So it's not like there's only one company paying the bills (and pulling the strings). > It seems wiser to judge the ethos of a company based on their actions and decisions instead of their corporate tax status. I do. I judge them based off the tools they build and the fine line they walk between making boatloads of money and actually providing services for people who care…

If Mozilla fold, you could still use chromium. Effectively no privacy difference between chromium and firefox tbh. (Unless you use tracking protection in private browsing, but extensions let you do the same in chromium.)
Post reply on HN