Google & Firefox's Relationship

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."

Google + Firefox

[Aggrazel]

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.

gBrowser on the way

[szlevente]

Maybe Google will just take over Firefox and turn it into gBrowser, fully integrated with Gmail, Desktop Search and other stuff.

If google support FF...

[gimpimp]

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.

A Google goodwill or is it just smart business

[Gopal.V]

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.

No worries there

[Laurentiu]

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.)

Re:I'd be

[SilentChris]

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:A Google goodwill or is it just smart business

[L.Bob.Rife]

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.

Re:A Google goodwill or is it just smart business

[Stevyn]

"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.

Impressive use of the budget...

[ttys00]

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.

Gmail and Browsers ...

[Pat__]

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.

Re:I'd be

[trewornan]

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

[oil]

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.

Details?

[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-profits required to publicize some of their financial records?

Desktop Search

[robstamack]

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.

Re:javascript

[Jussi K. Kojootti]

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 elaborate.

Re:javascript

[Mant]

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 tons of new code.

Got any examples? You can do some neat stuff with DX filters in IE, but that is Windows machines only, and I'm not aware of a coding equivilent you could do on another browser.

Still, 80% is a massive overstatement. I find FireFox JavaScript works fine on the vast majority of pages I visit.

Google/ Firefox Need To Start Full Disclosure

[cannuck]

One has to question the business ethics of Google and Firefox. According to Consumer Reports web site - 60% of www users using search engines don't realize that businesses are paying money to show up on the search page results. Google now makes 250 million profit per year from advertising. Yet nowhere on a Google search page result - does Google explain that Google accepts advertising money from businesses - enable those business web sites to show up in the search page results. Nor does Google explain that showing up first in a search - doesn't mean best. Nor does Google explain how the results happen. If you do a search with Google you will notice has just one vague word to tell the user that businesses are paying advertising fees - "sponsor". You will also notice that the layout and text colour is the same for the advertisers as the those web sites in the search results to the left. And just a faint blue - grey line separates the advertisers from the other results.Why is Google doing this? My allegation is that Google wants to pretend that searching on the web is just like going into an encyclopedia. But it is not. Google needs to: a) have a clear full disclosure statement on every page about the advertising b) have a clear disclosure statement about how the results appear - and that first doesn't mean best. c) that the "Sponsored Links" label be changed to "Paid Advertising" (just like newspapers and magazines). d) that the paid advertisers be in a red lined box. e) that all paid advertisers be shown in red text. f) disclose that other search engines use Google to place advertisers directly in the search results. Naturally Firefox needs to have a clear disclosure statement built into the header - explaining the relationship between Firefox and Google - with a link to a page that goes into the financial details between Google and Firefox. Here is a web page with a study that covers it all http://www.consumerwebwatch.org/dynamic/search-rep ort-disclosure-abstract.cfm

Re:Competition is GOOD!

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you are confusing corny slogans with an actual argument. The OS Integreation doesn't really cause security problems -- IE bugs don't depend on buffer overflows in COMCTL32.DLL.

IE's real security problem is the total and repeated failures of the "security zone" system. Any other Windows program could be equally braindead and poorly implemented.

This could be solved by redefining how IE interacts with ActiveX controls -- at the cost of breaking intranet applications that depend on elevated rights. So they probably will need to make two IE binaries - one for "safe" use and one for all the legacy crap that invites remote code in your browser.

Re:I'd be

[civilizedINTENSITY]

"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.

Re:javascript

[ad0gg]

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: ).

Why the restrictions? What they should be doing...

[josh drvsh]

I'd like to see what the logic is behind the local build restrictions, it doesn't on the face of it, make sense to me.

Personally, I'm looking forward to the Firefox plugin which will allow the user to select inside any web based search field to be included in the toolbar drop down menu for specific searches, ala Icab. (http://www.icab.de) In this way the user can use every kind of google search there is,(and others) right from the toolbar.

Re:I'd be

[Anonymous Coward]

> 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.

Am I the only one who asks why the paranoia is suddenly forming around Google but hasn't been here before? That this whole "They're good now, but they could use Gmail against you" attitude seems too little, too late?

Why didn't anyone say this with Hotmail/MSN? Or AOL? Or Yahoo? Amazon or Visa or TRW? Or how about your ISP logging what DNS lookups you make?

We've been giving away our privacy on the internet for years and years. The only difference is that Google started capitalizing on targeting you by tagging keywords in your emails AND TOLD YOU THAT WERE DOING IT. Who knows what other companies are already doing behind the scenes and not telling you about.