Bit of a weird thought, but I wonder also if they see Mozilla as a sort of controlled opposition too? As in, keep Firefox around so they don't get in trouble over antitrust or something like that?

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 55 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Mozilla.org is the corpse of Netscape that Google keeps animated so that it looks like they have competition when they really don't.

The existence of Firefox is something they can point to to say they're not a monopoly. The fact that 80% of the revenue Firefox receives is from Google means that Google effectively controls them. Mozilla has to weigh every decision against the risk that it will cause Google to withdraw their funding. That severely restricts the choices they're willing to consider.

Firefox is only 5% of browsers, so it really doesn't matter to Google if that 5% of users considers using a different search engine. Because of the Firefox user base, many of them will have already switched search engines, and because Google is such a dominant player, many others would switch back to Google if the browser used a different default. So, maybe 10% of that 5% would permanently switch search engines if Google stopped paying. Is that really worth billions per year? Probably not. But, pretending like you have competitors in the browser space and using that to push back on antitrust, that's definitely worth billions per year.

[–] SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca 17 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Google makes something like $100 Billion a year in search ad revenue. 5% of that is $5 Billion.

It's odd that people think Google is incredibly worried about having too large of a market share in the browser market (which they don't make any money from) yet their 92% market share in searches is not concerning at all in terms of the potential for regulation.

The truth is nobody does anti-trust anymore (though they definitely should) and the big corporations aren't worried at all about it. Google makes Chrome, Android, and pays Mozilla because they want to maintain dominance in the search market. Which is the thing they make money form. What they pay Mozilla is a drop in the bucket compared to what they pay Apple to be the default search engine on their devices.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Google doesn't directly make money from their browser, but controlling their browser means they lock in the thing that drives their revenues. They can always test it out against all their ads and make sure it works, putting out a fix if it ever doesn't. We've also seen recently how they're trying to make it so people can't run ad blockers, something they could only consider if they lock down the entire browser market.

[–] DogMuffins@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 1 year ago

I disagree.

Google doesn't "control" mozilla in that way.

They can always test it out against all their ads and make sure it works, putting out a fix if it ever doesn’t.

They could do this even if they weren't funding mozilla. Ad's aren't exactly reliant on bleeding edge web standards anyway. You're thinking about tracking tech, which they don't have any input in for firefox.

We’ve also seen recently how they’re trying to make it so people can’t run ad blockers

Well yes, and mozilla was quite vocal in their opposition, demonstrating that Google doesn't have much control over them.