Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Mozilla The Internet

Google & Firefox's Relationship 392

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the you-may-kiss-the-browser dept.
sebFlyte writes "More news from FOSDEM, this time about the depth of support for Firefox from Google. According to this article on ZDNet, Firefox' growth and Mozilla's staffing costs have been underpinned by the Foundation's tie-ins with Google, but they promise not to go the same way as Netscape by selling 'every bookmark and link'... and don't forget that the lead programmer (among others) is directly in Google's employ."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google & Firefox's Relationship

Comments Filter:
  • I'd be (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Digital Warfare (746982) on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @09:36AM (#11811714) Homepage
    .. very happy if Google funded me. A very respected company that just works and keeps it that way. Keep the relationship Mozilla :)
    • Re:I'd be (Score:5, Interesting)

      by SilentChris (452960) on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @09:53AM (#11811815) Homepage
      A very respected company that just works and keeps it that way.

      This'll likely be judged as a troll, but I'd like to add the likely caveat "for now". Every company the tech community has taken a liken to at one point (Microsoft, Apple, RedHat, etc) has squandered that trust over time (antitrust, excessive litigation, leaving the base community for corporations).

      I'm not saying Google will do this, but I can't think of a single, not-for-profit tech company that hasn't done some morally or ethically reprehensible thing at one point in its history. Can you?
      • Re:I'd be (Score:4, Insightful)

        by smitty_one_each (243267) * on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @10:02AM (#11811869) Homepage Journal
        No. Your requirement exceeds the limits of flesh.
        Sorry.
      • Re:I'd be (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Daytona955i (448665) <flynnguy24@yahoo . c om> on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @10:06AM (#11811888)
        I would have to agree. At one point Red Hat was a favorite of the open source community. Now with their subscriptions service an all, they are no longer favored.

        I don't know if Microsoft was ever really thought of as a respected company. But I think they definately represent what Google has the potential to become, only more so. I mean think of all the data that passes through Google every day. I for one hope they remain moral and ethical and don't decide to sell out.

        Also on the integration, I think it can be a good thing. I love my google toolbar in the upper right corner and I love most of the extra services that google is providing besides searching. It will be interesting to see if they integrate them in a non-obtrusive manner.
        • Re:I'd be (Score:4, Insightful)

          by ShieldW0lf (601553) on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @10:36AM (#11812104) Journal
          I don't know if Microsoft was ever really thought of as a respected company. But I think they definately represent what Google has the potential to become, only more so. I mean think of all the data that passes through Google every day. I for one hope they remain moral and ethical and don't decide to sell out.

          They already did. They became a publicly traded corporation. As such, they are legally bound to act in the financial best interest of the shareholders. When the time comes that they have choose between the big money and those portions of their morals and ethics that extend beyond the law's requirements, they've already committed to their course.
          • Re:I'd be (Score:5, Insightful)

            by Dan Ost (415913) on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @11:18AM (#11812441)
            I don't believe this. It is not the responsibility of a public company to
            maximize profits. It is, instead, the responsibility of a public company to
            maximize the value of the company (which, in the long run, is better for
            shareholders than simply maximizing profits). Good will, happy
            customers, and a reputation for practicing enlightened ethics all add value
            to a company that management can point to if they ever need to defend their
            actions against a shareholder lawsuit.

            Such things may not prevent shareholder lawsuits, but they do provide a solid
            defense them.
            • Re:I'd be (Score:4, Interesting)

              by civilizedINTENSITY (45686) on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @12:10PM (#11812913)
              "I don't believe this. It is not the responsibility of a public company to maximize profits. It is, instead, the responsibility of a public company to maximize the value of the company (which, in the long run, is better for shareholders than simply maximizing profits)."

              Well I've just started an MBA program this semester, and I keep hearing "maximize shareholder wealth" as the corporate prime directive. Company profit is just a means to that end.
      • You were saying... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by jaaron (551839) on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @10:22AM (#11811991) Homepage
        I'm not saying Google will do this, but I can't think of a single, not-for-profit tech company that hasn't done some morally or ethically reprehensible thing at one point in its history. Can you?

        I'm not saying you'll do this, but I can't think of a single, self-aware human being that hasn't done some morally or ethically reprehensible thing at one point in his or her history. Can you?
        • by Mantorp (142371) <mantorp 'funny A' gmail.com> on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @10:39AM (#11812114) Homepage Journal
          I'm not saying you'll do this, but I can't think of a single, self-aware human being that hasn't done some morally or ethically reprehensible thing at one point in his or her history. Can you?

          Gimme a minute while I collect some stones.

        • Can you?

          No, I can't. All the more reason to not ascribe pure motives by default to anyone, especially "persons" built from legal constructs and run by committee like corporations.

          History may forgive me if my best friend, whom I've known for years, who's family I know well, etc, takes advantage of my trust and screws me over. However, trusting a corporation you know comparatively nothing about will get you nothing but people laughing at you (including me) for being so naive. The "corporation" has been
        • I can't think of a single, self-aware human being that hasn't done some morally or ethically reprehensible thing at one point in his or her history. Can you?

          Yes - Jesus Christ. :-) The key point is, though, that there aren't any others. He was unique.

          Gerv
          • I don't know, how about Buddha? Or Ghandi? Or Mother Theresa? Or a million others that we'll never know about? Why do you choose a long-dead person in a book and insist that there were no others? How do you know the homeless person who died on a street corner last week didn't live a morally spotless life?

            The problem with how some people accept religion in their lives is that it blinds them instead of opening their eyes.

            I betcha if Jesus was still alive, he'd smack you upside the head to wake you up, just
      • Re:I'd be (Score:2, Interesting)

        by trewornan (608722)
        Google is not without it's critics (ironically just try typing "google censorship" or "google civil liberties" into google). I personally quite like google but the whiter than white image they currently have is a bit misguided.
        • Re:I'd be (Score:3, Insightful)

          by teetam (584150)
          I know I'll get modded down for this, but in reality, only the government can censor. A private corporation or individual can never censor anything because you can always turn to someone else. At the same time, everyone has the right to publish or not publish what they want - Google has every right to do that as well!
      • Re:I'd be (Score:2, Interesting)

        by oil (594341)
        It's been said before, but publicly traded companies have an obligation to make a profit. Many people, especially in the open-source community tend to look down on that. It's the "we used to get that for free, you're evil for charging us" attitude.

        Google will probably get there, they can't give everything away. However, they seem to be trying to do things the right way and that's all we can ask for.
  • In related news... (Score:4, Informative)

    by Karpe (1147) on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @09:39AM (#11811725) Homepage
    Google Maps [google.com] is now supported by Safari. Way to go, Google!
  • by furrycod (521168) <furrycod AT hotmail DOT com> on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @09:39AM (#11811727)
    MSN Search actually funds Internet Explorer. With MSN Search getting over 30 hits / day, the ad revenue is more than enough to sustain active development, including the revolutionary "tabbed browsing" internet surfers everywhere are pining to try out.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @09:40AM (#11811734)
    Hopefully the relationship between Google and Firefox will continue to put pressure on Microsoft to build a better browser.
  • GoogleFox (Score:3, Funny)

    by anno1602 (320047) on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @09:41AM (#11811737)

    [...] saidMarkham "[...]Google was the default browser for Firefox before we even signed the deal."

    Google default browser for Firefox? Freudian slip, I say...

  • Google + Firefox (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Aggrazel (13616) <aggrazel@gmail.com> on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @09:41AM (#11811741) Journal

    All is well and good right now, google's still not evil.

    The chances of google remaining not evil however in the long term future are not good. Every big company turns evil sooner or later.. it is only matter of time.
    • by selderrr (523988) on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @09:49AM (#11811791) Journal
      define 'evil' please. First of all, there is evil such as microsft, evil such as SCO, evil like IBM , evil like PayPal, evil like Apple... Even charity organisations can turn evil...

      The chances are indeed big that Google will one day drop some of its ethics for cash. But the odds taht they'd drop all their ethics are small. And even if they do, it won't be overnight, so the community will have time to form a counterforce and make backups.

      Let's wait until they hire Carly... then we know they're evil :-)
      • evil like IBM

        Ah, but IBM started "evil" (in the 50's), it was not till recently that they have been turning to the "good".

        As for the rest of your list, yep evil as hell.
    • by n0dalus (807994) on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @09:50AM (#11811801) Journal
      Every big company turns evil sooner or later.. it is only matter of time.
      What about IBM? They used to be evil. Now they are helping the open source community and fighting off scum like SCO. They still have their own agenda, but they're not evil like it used to be.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @10:03AM (#11811873)
      I can't believe that this sort of talk continues on Slashdot. I thought people here were intellegent. You probably work for a corporation. Your computer was made by big corporations. You can't go shopping without some of your money going to corporations. If you have a problem with this "evil" in the world, move to the country and become a subsistance farmer.

      If you think the corporate focus on the bottom line is a problem for society, let's talk about that. (And don't think for a second that when IBM and Google support OSS that they don't have the bottom line in mind. They're hedging their bets against other corps like MS.) Until we address the issue of "more money equals better", we can't complain that corporations behave like corporations.

      Maybe when we focus our mental energy on redefining what businesses' responsibilities to the world are, and the evil you speak of can be held in check.
    • Re:Google + Firefox (Score:2, Informative)

      by mathmatt (851301)
      google's still not evil

      The inquirer reports that SEO Blog and others think they are evil because of their new AutoLink toolbar feature: http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=21470 [theinquirer.net]

      I don't thinks so. Google seems to have no desire to implement this feature in a firefox plugin, In fact, note that google recommends and links to the open-source Googlebar extension for firefox on the google toolbar download page. http://toolbar.google.com/googlebar.html [google.com]

      Google knows that if people are ready to click on wel
    • All is well and good right now, Aggrazel's still not evil.

      The chances of Aggrazel remaining not evil however in the long term future are not good. Every human turns evil sooner or later.. it is only matter of time.

      Come on people! What's with the massive, ignorant, I-didn't-think-before-I-hit-submit generalizations that get modded insightful around here?
    • by karakal (846584) on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @10:34AM (#11812083)
      Oh. This is soooo sweet! How many /.ers are here and rant about evil cooperations and so on. And how many of them are using a PC with IBM/Intel/AMD-CPU, from Dell/Apple/Sony/whatsoever and so on... This is sooo typical: On the one hand ranting about evil cooperations and on the other hand trying to feed from their hands....
  • by PoprocksCk (756380) <poprocks@gmail.org> on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @09:42AM (#11811744) Homepage Journal
    I don't think the Foundation should even break a sweat worrying about the fact that Google has an undeniable tie to Firefox. So many users already use Google anyway, and I'm sure those that do not are aware of how to change their browser settings to use a different home page/search engine by default.

    But I'm sure many people keep it as Google, just because it is a great start page, and loads really quickly.

    From TFA, they mentioned how localized builds are a problem... If Google were to host the Start Page in different languages, would the Foundation not be able to set a different language version of the page in their localized builds?
    • Anyway if you don't like it you can always change it

      Rus
    • by flumps (240328)
      If Google were to host the Start Page in different languages

      FYI Google DO host the start page in different languages and heres a couple o them:

      Google Netherlands [google.nl]

      Google France [google.fr]
    • "If Google were to host the Start Page in different languages, would the Foundation not be able to set a different language version of the page in their localized builds?"

      I thought this was kind of odd myself. You can gohere [google.com] and change your preferences. If you do then the default start page comes up in your language and it can be set to only find pages in your language.

      • Google does host the start page in different languages, and localisers use them. The report is wrong in that respect. Don't believe everything you read :-)

        Gerv
    • by mmcdouga (459816)
      From TFA, they mentioned how localized builds are a problem... If Google were to host the Start Page in different languages, would the Foundation not be able to set a different language version of the page in their localized builds?

      My impression was that there were non-Google search engines out there that were better for specific languages. Maybe Swahili speakers prefer some specific Swahili sw-search.example.com search page, but the Swahili Mozilla build still has to use http://www.google.com/intl/sw/ [google.com].

      T
  • gBrowser on the way (Score:3, Interesting)

    by szlevente (705483) on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @09:42AM (#11811746)
    Maybe Google will just take over Firefox and turn it into gBrowser, fully integrated with Gmail, Desktop Search and other stuff.
  • by spectrokid (660550) on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @09:44AM (#11811755) Homepage
    When Google will port Picasa to a web-interface, followed by a small word processor, and offer their customers 1 GB to store their data, they will need to have their fingers in at least one big browser. Not to pump it full with ads, but to make sure it is a good enough thin client for their purposes.
  • by gimpimp (218741) on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @09:44AM (#11811759) Homepage
    why are there no official extensions for it?* google's software is all Windows/IE, but nothing for Free software.

    *i know there are 3rd party ones.
  • by Gopal.V (532678) on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @09:47AM (#11811774) Homepage Journal
    As Gmail and Google Suggest has shown, client-side javascript is a VERY powerful and flexible tool (CGI::IRC [sourceforge.net] takes my pick for the best javascript app). It truly shows why Microsoft had to kill off Netscape by seeding the internet with incompatible standards - essentially wasting man hours which could have gone into true innovation.

    Google is our friend right now because favouring firefox would benifit their own shareholders by keeping Microsoft from introducing more divergent tandards. Whenever I think about Google as the Good Company, I am instantly reminded of a flash intro called EPIC 2014 [robinsloan.com].

    Google is good for FireFox now - and probably will remain good. The only question is about what we will have to pay (ie Free Software == open market for services). You see IBM playing the same card trying to commoditize software to knock Microsoft off the software market.
    • > CGI::IRC [sourceforge.net] takes my pick for the best javascript app

      I just checked the site. Amazing to see that David (dgl) is still working on that app. I used to help him with testing plus a bit of skinning quite a few years ago now. He's a clever lad and always willing to help.

      The app is also *brilliant*
    • by L.Bob.Rife (844620) on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @09:57AM (#11811837)
      If you want to get into the web-app business, then it is a smart move to support the open source browser that actually tries to comply to open standards.

      Everyone knows that if they started making all their web-apps based on activeX, or other MS specific browser hooks, then sooner or later MS would break it.
    • by Stevyn (691306) on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @10:05AM (#11811879)
      "Google is our friend right now because favouring firefox would benifit their own shareholders by keeping Microsoft from introducing more divergent tandards."

      I think you hit the nail on the head right there. Firefox is good for Google because it can take IE users away from Microsoft. Microsoft is a competitor to Google in (at the very least) the search engine area. Google is probably trying to get into other areas Microsoft holds a dominance in. So taking users away from Microsoft is good for Google. And funding a non-profit that creates a really good web browser is good for the community. The only people should worry about is if someday Google topples Microsoft and becomes the king of the internet, will they turn out to be just another evil monopoly?

      If that sounds crazy, just remember how IBM was evil once, and now people like them for their love for open source.
  • by potcrackpot (245556) on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @09:48AM (#11811783) Homepage
    ...given that refreshing slashdot half the time gives me no article text - and the games page has the side column (with the sections text etc.) overlapping with the main column.
  • No worries there (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Laurentiu (830504) on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @09:52AM (#11811811)
    I will start worrying when Google won't work in IE anymore. Which is as likely to happen as Windows being built on top of the Linux kernel. By supporting Mozilla.org, Google is ensuring that Microsoft won't be able to push through whatever formats and standards they like simply through the power of ubiquity. After all, there's nothing like healthy competition to promote inovation. (And absence of software patents, [nosoftwarepatents.com]but I digress.)
  • Clarifications (Score:5, Informative)

    by Gerv (15179) <gerv@gerv. n e t> on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @10:07AM (#11811897) Homepage
    Just to clarify: Google is just one of several search partners we have at the Mozilla Foundation, although (as is fairly evident from looking at the software) it is currently the one we have the closest ties with, by virtue of them hosting the home page.

    "Keeping the wolf from the door" is a bit too strong - we are establishing good relationships with a number of companies, all of whom are supporting the Foundation in different ways. My comments were merely intended to say that the Foundation is not going anywhere - we'll be around for the forseeable future.

    One further clarification: Firefox localisations can change to use a localised version of Google; they are not kept to using the en-US version, as the article implies.

    Gerv
    (the speaker on whose comments the article is based)
  • javascript (Score:2, Insightful)

    by rnd() (118781)
    For some reason the Mozilla developers decided to release an implementation of javascript that, while standards compliant, was not compatible with 80% of javascript code on the web.

    Note to Mozilla developers: Stop sitting there with your arms crossed insisting on a strict standards compliance! Build it, but don't force everyone to write tons of extra code because an innovative language feature that IE includes is not presently part of the standard!

    Firefox has been better on this front, but there is still
    • Re:javascript (Score:5, Insightful)

      by splanky (598553) on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @10:21AM (#11811989)
      Note to Website developers: Stop sitting there with your arms crossed and insisting on making sites that aren't in compliance with public standards. Instead support the idea that if we -all- agree on standards it removes the power from proprietary software --- and that the mindset of "well it's just one cool non-standard feature" is exactly the mindset that got us in this mess!
      • not exactly. If Moz had embraced 100% compatibility with IE5.0, it would have gained tremendous market share very easily. Firefox is successful because it just works (mostly) on what's out there on the web without forcing the end user to be a victim in some sort of wacko standards jihad.
        • He said standard, not defacto standard.

          Mozilla did embrace standards - and that's why it just works (mostly) with what's out there. Anything it's not working on is nonstandard* - which is what the grandparent said.

          * or a bug :)

          It's not the end user that has to stick to the standards, it's the developer - and if sticking to standards is some kind of holy war - then everyone but Microsoft is a 'terrorist'.
          • I'm a huge fan of standards, but you're right,... it's the de-facto standard that is important, not the published one, at least if you're trying to promote acceptance of a new browser.
      • Re:javascript (Score:3, Interesting)

        by ad0gg (594412)
        Ummm Google Maps, and gmail both use non standardized javascript. There's no way you can write a dynamic web application without picking a single browser or writing a bunch if statements to write behavior depending on the browser. Firefox even implements tags outside of w3c standards(ie: ).
    • Most of the ie-only features aren't innovative atall, and are just nonstandard ways of doing things that can also be accomplished by following standard methods too.
      Also the only way to support them, is for opensource developers to reverse engineer microsoft code which could be illegal in some places.
      No websites should use anything until it has been adopted as a formal standard and supported by atleast 2 reference implementations.
      • That's a valid theoretical point, but in the case of Javascript, the Microsoft extensions are intuitive and mostly object model improvements. Also, Microsoft spends millions teaching developers to use its approach, and so Moz and FF are better off using Microsoft's momentum for their own benefit (think jujitsu) and not trying to swim upstream in some sort of standards jihad that creates tons of extra work for the few developers who bother writing cross browser code.
    • Re:javascript (Score:3, Interesting)

      Actually the differences in javascript implementations are very few, maybe you are referring to DOM differences? Which ever the case, could you please point out the innovative language features Microsoft has added? I'm not interested in bashing MS here, I just think your comment has very little to do with reality.

      Also, how has Firefox exactly been better on this front? I know that there have been some changes in e.g. secretly handling document.all-calls, but that stuff is not Firefox-specific. Please elab

    • Re:javascript (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Mant (578427)

      I used to have to write cross platform JavaScript for IE4/Netscape 4. That was hellish.

      Mozilla and FireFox are really good for JavaScript. Most of the stuff is very close to IE6, it even support document.all now. The biggest problem is IE lets you drop the 'document' before a form name while FireFox doesn't.

      I'm trying to think of an innovative language feature IE has that is on standard. XMLHttpRequest is cool, but Mozilla browsers have that. IIRC you initialise it a little differently, but it isn't ton

  • by earthforce_1 (454968) <.moc.oohay. .ta. .1_ecrofhtrae.> on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @10:10AM (#11811911) Journal
    for Microsoft to hate Google.
  • Why worry? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nautical9 (469723) on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @10:15AM (#11811937) Homepage
    This can only be a good thing. Mozilla/Firefox is open source. Should Google suddenly turn "evil" as a lot of people are speculating, we can always fork a new one from the last untainted version and start from there. Until that day, if it comes, Firefox gains financial support and another big backer. So what's the problem?
  • by ttys00 (235472) on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @10:15AM (#11811939)
    From the article: He said that Mozilla Europe has carried out the majority of its marketing activity on "zero budget", having spent the majority of its $20,000 allowance from the Mozilla Foundation on a large booth at the NetWorld/Interop conference in Paris last year.

    They've managed a lot of marketing from "zero budget", which is impressive.

    IMHO, the booth at the conference was a waste of money though. Paying bounties for certain features (like Ubuntu does) might have been a better spend.
  • by Pat__ (26992) on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @10:17AM (#11811958)
    Google recently finished their simple HTML interface for Gmail so logging in with older browsers is now possible.

    I guess as long as Google support all browsers (even other non standard compliant older browsers) then great for them!

    And the Firefox people can't really "sell out" since anyone can provide modified versions without any google stuff if the official version gets sponsored I suppose we can't complain.

    • They did what now? I just tried logging on with links and was sorely disappointed (still needs JS). *sigh*

      (I wasn't surprised that it didn't work in Dillo, as there's presently no HTTPS support.)
  • Does anybody else think that underpin is a little to similar to undermine? I read the post, and I couldn't figure out why Google would want to be so mean to Firefox/Mozilla. They just hired the lead programmer, google is the homepage for firefox, so why would the be so mean, why google, why?!? Then I looked it up, and underpin is a positive not a negative.

    *sigh*, All is well.

  • Details? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    I'm pretty surprised nobody has quoted this bit yet:

    Following an agreement reached last year, Firefox includes Google as the default option for users wanting to search the Web directly, and also has its default start page hosted by Google. Markham didn't reveal full details of the Foundation's deal with Google.

    How open is "open source" when secret deals are made with corporations?

    And Open Source Applications Foundation (Mozilla's parent organization) is a 501(c)3 non-profit foundation. Aren't non-p

    • Re:Details? (Score:3, Informative)

      by Gerv (15179)
      I didn't reveal the full details because I don't know them :-) This is good, because I can freely speculate without giving anything away (which is what I was doing at FOSDEM).

      Having said that, "open source" doesn't have to mean "everything that goes on is public". We have private security bugs, private staff meetings and confidential business deals - often because the other party wants it that way.

      I'm sure the Foundation will publish all the financial records that it's required to.

      Gerv
      • I think people expect open source projects to be managed 'openly', too -- to have decisions discussed and publicized on mailing lists, even if there is a final arbiter.

        That's not Mozilla's approch, AFAICT. I don't think it's right or wrong, but it should be clarified to avoid giving volunteers the wrong idea about their relationship with the Mozilla.

        I've contributed many hours to Mozilla.org (though I'm certainly not among the top contributors). From my perspective, Mozilla.org operates more like a priv
        • I think people expect open source projects to be managed 'openly', too -- to have decisions discussed and publicized on mailing lists, even if there is a final arbiter.

          Deals like the ones we've made with search engines would not be possible without some degree of confidentiality in making them. These companies do not want their business strategies revealed to all and sundry. And, if a deal isn't reached, they don't want to be known as "the company which didn't get a deal to be in Firefox".

          You may say tha
      • Re:Details? (Score:3, Insightful)

        by guanxi (216397)
        Regarding the Google deal (I'm posting this separately because it's a separate issue):

        It may be a very good deal -- it's certainly seems like good business -- but the fact that a Moz feature was adware, no matter how popular, should have been disclosed:

        Mozilla has created the expectation that its software serves users' interests, not the financial or business needs of the manufacturer. It's a key point in differentiating the organization and its products.

        Many people have contributed to Mozilla.org on th
        • Re:Details? (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Gerv (15179) <gerv@gerv. n e t> on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @11:49AM (#11812741) Homepage
          a Moz feature was adware

          It's not adware. Adware is software which is installed to show you ads. What ads do you see in Firefox that you wouldn't see if we hadn't made the search engine deals? None. If you search using a search engine, you see that search engine's ads - but that's true whether that engine is built in, or the default, or you visit it by typing the URL.

          Mozilla has created the expectation that its software serves users' interests, not the financial or business needs of the manufacturer. It's a key point in differentiating the organization and its products.

          Absolutely. As I discussed in the talk I gave, there's a very fine balance.

          Google as the home page looks like a technical choice by Mozilla.org and an independent endorsement of Google.

          Anyone who thinks that wasn't paying too much attention. The home page is co-branded, and hosted on google.com. Obviously it's the result of a collaboration between the two organisations.

          Gerv
  • Desktop Search (Score:5, Interesting)

    by robstamack (786429) on Tuesday March 01, 2005 @11:04AM (#11812309)
    If Google and the Mozilla foundation are in bed together, why does the Google Desktop Search product support IE exclusively? If the Mozilla Foundation (or even Google) wanted to move users over to FireFox, they need to have guaranteed compatibility on most (if not all) applications.

    And while I wouldn't call Google Desktop Search a 'vital' application for the majority of casual web users, it's a given that many core users switched to a competitor's Desktop Search product (read Copernic) when migrating to FireFox.

"Silent gratitude isn't very much use to anyone." -- G. B. Stearn

Working...