Mozilla is ~83% funded by Google. That’s right- the maker of the dominant Chrome browser is mostly behind its own noteworthy “competitor”. When Google holds that much influence over Mozilla, I call it a false duopoly because consumers are duped into thinking the two are strongly competing with each other. In Mozilla’s effort to please Google and to a lesser extent the end users, it often gets caught pulling anti-user shenanigans. Users accept it because they see Firefox as the lesser of evils.
Even if it were a true duopoly, it would be insufficient anyway. For a tool that is so central to the UX of billions of people, there should be many more competitors.
public option
Every notable government has an online presence where they distribute information to the public. Yet they leave it to the public to come up with their own browser which may or may not be compatible with the public web service. In principle, if a government is going to distribute content to the public, they also have a duty to equip the public to be able to consume the content. Telling people to come up with their own private sector tools to reach the public sector is a bit off. It would be like telling citizens they can receive information about legislation that passes if they buy a private subscription to the Washington Post. The government should produce their own open source browser which adheres to open public standards and which all the gov websites are tested with.
I propose Italy
Italy is perhaps the only country in the world to have a “public money → public code” law, whereby any software development effort that is financed by the gov must be open source. So IMO Italy should develop a browser to be used to access websites of the Italian gov. Italy can save us from the false duopoly from Google.
Web engines are so insanely complex that you can’t just create a new viable competitor without millions on fundings. They’re practically as complex as operating systems themselves.
Millions = mere peanuts, for developed countries. That price tag is also a good reflection of the degree of privacy people are being forced to compromise in order to finance the development and maintenance of Google Chrome. A gov has a duty not to subject its people to arbitrary privacy abuses. Yet some govs are designing web services for Google Chrome and then forcing people to access those services online by removing the offline option.
Wait until you find out how much effort and money Microsoft spends to make sure Windows and Office remain the only option in public administrations and schools around the world…
it often gets caught pulling anti-user shenanigans
I’m not aware. Can you list a few?
Receiving funding doesn’t necessarily mean serving. Google is interested in funding to keep it’s position. Mozilla still provides alternatives and regularly criticizes Google.
I’ve not been tracking them because I tend to only collect dirt on the greatest of evils. What comes to mind:
- default search engine: Google (this is what that Google money is for officially)
- Mozilla gave the boot to a lot of plugins and imposed some kind of control-freakish trust mechanism. Plugins/extensions were evicted from the plugin repository and they made it hard for plugin creators to distribute their plugins. I lost several very useful plugins when Mozilla took this controlling protectionist stance.
- MAFF ditched. Mozilla abandoned a good format for archiving websites. I had a lot of content saved in *.maff files which Mozilla dropped direct support for and at the same time they blocked MAFF plugins.
- Without Firefox, Google would be easily targeted with anti-trust actions. Google props up Mozilla just enough to be able to claim they have “competition”. Google can be most dominant when it has a crippled competitor under its influence.
- Google killed the free world JPEG XL format. When a browser as dominant as Chrome withholds support JPEG XL, there is then no reason for web devs to use that format. Google did this because JPEG XL competes with a proprietary Google format. Firefox does not support it out of the box either, likely because of Google’s influence. Firefox users can enable it by going through some config hoops, so if Chrome alone did not kill it, that certainly would.
I vaguely recall a slew of Mozilla actions that were anti-thetical to privacy and user interests which caused me to move them from “a decent browser” to a “lesser of evils”. Hopefully others have better records of Mozilla’s history.
update May 2024
- Mozilla uses data abuser Cloudflare for their exclusive access-restricted blog
- Mozilla has decided to add more tracking to their browser to collect people’s search activity.
Most of this is self referencing. Like the default search engine is not an example of Google’s control, it’s Mozilla’s revenue model.
The remainder sounds like personal gripes that you’re misconstruing as evidence of nefarious intent.
There’s also plenty of evidence to the contrary, total cookie protection to name but one.
Additionally, beurocratic processes produce terrible software. Log in to any govt website as a refresher.
Finally, browsers are incredibly complex, if this model worked you’d use it for much simpler projects first.
Like the default search engine is not an example of Google’s control, it’s Mozilla’s revenue model.
It’s both, of course. Mozilla’s revenue enables Google control. If Mozilla changes the default search to one that is not in Google’s interest, they will lose their revenue.
The remainder sounds like personal gripes that you’re misconstruing as evidence of nefarious intent.
It’s both. I’m a user so I notice when Mozilla makes an anti-user move. Businesses serve their customers. Mozilla’s customer is Google, not me. So Mozilla serves Google, not the users. W.r.t evidence, I gave no evidence. I did not say “this is evidence”. If you want to challenge a claim because you can’t find the evidence on your own, you can ask for the evidence.
And as I said, I did not keep track of all Mozilla’s anti-user shenanigans over the years. So you’re not looking at a complete list of issues. It’s disingenuous to treat it as if it were.
There’s also plenty of evidence to the contrary, total cookie protection to name but one.
I did not mention anything about cookies, so which of my points do you think cookie protection counters what I’ve said?
Additionally, beurocratic processes produce terrible software.
Nonsense.
First of all, capitalism produces terrible software when you’re the product rather than the customer. It’s often shit even when you are a paying customer. The best quality software is produced outside of capitalistic structures.
I’ve worked on both gov and commercial environments. The gov process was superior for quality. On a commercial gig I was actually told not to fix bugs as they were spotted because it was important for the customer to discover the bug & report it so the supplier could charge them extra for the bug fix. The whole commercial work environment was rife with chasing profit (of course) which means cutting corners to cut expenses. If a developer produces something high quality in a fortune 500 company, they get back-roomed for “gold plating” (which means they’ve invested more in quality than necessary for the consumers). That doesn’t happen on gov projects.
It’s also wrong to attribute bureaucratic processes strictly to government projects. You may have a shit-ton of bureaucracy in the governance outside of the project which leads to: “build a Mars rover”. How bureaucratic the processes are within the organization is independent of whether it’s a commercial project or not. Fortune 500 corps are inefficient due to their bureaucratic structures. I could not reuse code from one project to another within the same company because there were rules about one project benefiting from another internal pot of money. So a piece of code had to be rewritten from scratch on the other project which means more bugs than you would have if the audited code could have been reused.
Finally, browsers are incredibly complex
Precisely why lack of competition is problematic.
I don’t really agree with anything you just said but I will just talk about JPEG XL
Google killed the free world JPEG XL format. When a browser as dominant as Chrome withholds support JPEG XL, there is then no reason for web devs to use that format. Google did this because JPEG XL competes with a proprietary Google format. Firefox does not support it out of the box either, likely because of Google’s influence. Firefox users can enable it by going through some config hoops, so if Chrome alone did not kill it, that certainly would.
Firefox never supported it because it’s still experimental. Until september 2023 not a single browser supported it. Now that Safari supports it, the chances for Mozilla to spend time and resources to implement JPEG XL properly increases substantially.
And of course it matters what chrome supports since it’s the dominant browser by far. It’s maybe not worth while to do something if no one will use it because chromium is extremely dominant while Firefox is very small in comparison
Web standards usually takes a while to get supported and especially to be on by default.
Btw webp isn’t proprietary.
For example as I recall some people are complaining about Pocket because it’s not privacy friendly in some way. Idk about specifics of this, my only complaint about Firefox is that the CEO absorbs huge amounts of money to herself despite the shrinling userbase of Firefox YoY.
The reason why firefox and chrome work so well, is that they literally have been in development for over a decade. In Firefox’s case, it’s actually over two decades now.
Instead of trying to reinvent the wheel, why not support some currently existing alternative browsers that look promising? You have servo, you have webkit, and you even have a ladybird now. That’s three potential browsers.
All three are under somewhat active development. Servo, in my opinion, looking the most promising, that shares a lot of dependencies with Firefox still, which means maintenance cost is not super high. It’s easy to hack on, and of course it’s rust. who doesnt love rust
The reason why firefox and chrome work so well, is that they literally have been in development for over a decade. In Firefox’s case, it’s actually over two decades now.
Firefox’s legacy goes all the way back to Mosaic from the early 90s.
And yeah, browser engines are hard. I mean, I get wanting Mozilla to be more financially independent, but without the money they get from Google for the search deal, they basically wouldn’t exist. It’s a really shit situation we’ve reached.
Sounds like a great idea, so long as Servo has not sold out to Google in any way. If Servo is really an independent browser govs would do right by the public to make that browser officially supported by all web services by the gov and do the necessary to ensure the Servo project is funded.
The reason why firefox and chrome work so well, is that they literally have been in development for over a decade.
How can you say they work well?
Basic functionality is still crippled. For example, when images are disabled in Chrome, animated GIFs are still downloaded and played. Chrome does not even have the option to disable animations. When both images & animations are disabled in Firefox, animated GIFs are also still downloaded (wasting the credit of those on fixed bandwidth plans and thus defeating the purpose for those who would use the feature)… but they are simply not played automatically. Great.
These are not just bugs… these are the sort of blunt stark defects that do not reflect the quality of mature projects. I mean shit, still today cannot disable animations in Chrome despite bug report 14 years ago. WTF. That is not “working well” when it can’t do something that basic.
I never said they worked perfect. The fact that they work at all is a goddamn miracle. Have you ever read some of the specs for all the things they have to support? It’s absolutely absurd.
Them working good is relative to literally anything else. I could go on for list for days about issues on almost anything. Linux, Windows, OSX, Gnome, KDE. It doesn’t matter whether something has problems or not. What matters if they’re the best that you can get.
Literally, no other browser is remotely close to Firefox and Chrome in terms of how well they actually work. Not a single one. Full stop. End of story. Forks excluded for obvious reasons.
If only there was another open source web engine, like some kind of kit to develop a web browser, with privacy in mind.
I don’t know, maybe I’m just daydreaming.
You would have to go on a long Safari deep in the mall to find something like that… Look for the bitten fruit from the forbidden tree.
I also heard about a gnome that might hold the secret to find it. He stand in line with us but he doesn’t cook.
If a gov were to take that kit and create a public option which is then compatible with all web services deployed by that gov, I would applaud that for sure. Would be much better than govs being subservient to tech imposed by tech giants, constraining citizens to the will of a US corporation, and allowing the private sector control so Google can cancel things not profitable for Google (like JPEG XL). The public sector should serve the public people, not the private sector corps of other countries.
Finally: Pasta Browser
