|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

Firefox 129.0 released

Version 129.0 of the Firefox browser has been released. Changes include some improvements to the reader mode, tab previews, and use of HTTPS by default.

to post comments

Improvements to Reader View Appreciated

Posted Aug 7, 2024 3:08 UTC (Wed) by ryanduve (subscriber, #127786) [Link]

I've been copying userContent.css across devices for as long as I remember being able to customize the Reader View style. It is nice knowing in the future I can just click a button and set everything the way I want it to look.

The problem with the older method is having to Google which config flags have to be toggled and which location needs a `chrome/` directory created into it to allow the overrides to work.

Seems to me like we need much more open source developer involvement ?

Posted Aug 7, 2024 15:25 UTC (Wed) by Lennie (subscriber, #49641) [Link] (8 responses)

The scary part is Mozilla is still over 85% dependent on Google for their cash flow (browser search engine default deal).

Google has been found guilty by US for maintaining their monopoly with such deals.

Firefox browser is the biggest competitor with a small market share after the mostly monoculture of KHTML/WebKit/Blink.

Seems to me like we need much more open source developer involvement ?

Posted Aug 7, 2024 18:48 UTC (Wed) by atai (subscriber, #10977) [Link] (7 responses)

what's scary for Mozilla?

Google is not going anywhere. Google may lose up to 25% of their market but for Mozilla Google is still the Godzilla, just shrinking somewhat.

Seems to me like we need much more open source developer involvement ?

Posted Aug 7, 2024 21:20 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]

Google is not going anywhere but court may decide that kickback agreement between Firefox and Google is illegal.

Which would mean that in attempt to kill search engines monopoly court would kill the only viable alternative to Google's browser monopoly (well, technically Safari would survive, but only on Apple devices).

Seems to me like we need much more open source developer involvement ?

Posted Aug 8, 2024 0:03 UTC (Thu) by intgr (subscriber, #39733) [Link] (2 responses)

What's scary is that Google has a very strong negotiation position and Mozilla has little leverage.

Seems to me like we need much more open source developer involvement ?

Posted Aug 8, 2024 5:19 UTC (Thu) by zdzichu (guest, #17118) [Link] (1 responses)

Google probably needs to fund pet browsers to show that there is a competition and Chrome isn't a monopoly.

Seems to me like we need much more open source developer involvement ?

Posted Aug 8, 2024 14:19 UTC (Thu) by intgr (subscriber, #39733) [Link]

True. It's in their interest to fund Mozilla "just barely" while retaining influence, but preventing Firefox from turning into significant competition.

Seems to me like we need much more open source developer involvement ?

Posted Aug 8, 2024 0:46 UTC (Thu) by yeltsin (guest, #171611) [Link] (2 responses)

I think Mozilla would have taken a much stronger stance on user privacy and security (by e.g. introducing built-in high performance ad blocking — they could just use the one from Brave) if they did not depend on Google's money. There's a conflict of interest there and I personally believe that's the reason they've been somewhat underdelivering on that front. Not for any technical reasons, they have absolutely fantastic developers.

Did anyone do the math if that deal actually works out for Google? Feels like most of the money they give does not actually come from the acquired search revenue, but as an "insurance policy" of sorts. I may be way off base here.

Seems to me like we need much more open source developer involvement ?

Posted Aug 8, 2024 15:05 UTC (Thu) by rgmoore (✭ supporter ✭, #75) [Link]

Did anyone do the math if that deal actually works out for Google? Feels like most of the money they give does not actually come from the acquired search revenue, but as an "insurance policy" of sorts. I may be way off base here.

It's hard to know how much value the deal actually provides to Google because they're monopolists. Maintaining monopoly power in search lets them charge search advertisers more and cram search with more ads. That makes deals that help to maintain their monopoly power more valuable than you'd expect just based on the number of users, because they make existing users more profitable, too. Exactly how much is something they've tried really hard to hide because it's evidence of their monopoly power.

It's also important to remember that Google's monopoly power in search affects Chrome development. Just like Microsoft in the 1990s, Google is using monopoly profits to subsidize dominance in their browser because it helps to bolster their main monopoly. In effect, they're paying themselves to make Google search the default in Chrome, which should be classified as an illegal attempt to maintain their monopoly power. The massive subsidy to Chrome makes it very difficult for any competing browser, including Firefox, to compete.

Seems to me like we need much more open source developer involvement ?

Posted Aug 8, 2024 16:40 UTC (Thu) by excors (subscriber, #95769) [Link]

> Did anyone do the math if that deal actually works out for Google? Feels like most of the money they give does not actually come from the acquired search revenue, but as an "insurance policy" of sorts. I may be way off base here.

Google has given Mozilla about $5 billion in total, and currently around $500M per year. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Corporation#Finances)

Google's search revenue is about $200B per year. I don't think they say how much profit it makes, but operating margin is 32% across the whole company (not just search), so perhaps it's around $50B/year. (https://abc.xyz/assets/19/e4/3dc1d4d6439c81206370167db1bd...)

That means Mozilla is getting paid about 1% of Google's search income. Firefox's usage share is reportedly around 3% across all platforms (https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share; almost entirely desktop, negligible on mobile), and the recent Google lawsuit ruling says:

> Roughly 50% of all general search queries in the United States flow through a search access point covered by one of the challenged contracts. Of that 50%, 28% of those queries are entered into search access points covered by the Google-Apple Internet Services Agreement, 19.4% through Google’s agreements with Android OEMs and carriers, and 2.3% through search access points on third-party browsers, such as Mozilla’s Firefox.
(https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/gdpzmaxjx...)

So it's ~1% of Google's search income for ~2% of search queries. There's a lot of uncertainty in the numbers but it doesn't sound clearly unreasonable.

Incidentally, I noticed this bit in the ruling which sounds worrying:

> The link between the exclusive agreements and competition in the browser market is weak. It rests on the presumption that browser developers invest Google’s revenue share payments in improving their browsers. But, as discussed, no evidence shows how Apple uses its revenue share payments, and to the extent Mozilla uses them to improve Firefox, its share of the browser market is so low that it does not move the competitive needle.

i.e. if an attempt to increase competition in the search engine market incidentally destroyed Firefox, that would be acceptable to the court, because Firefox is not providing meaningful competition in the browser market anyway.


Copyright © 2024, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds