Mozilla Extends its Google Search Deal (zdnet.com) 100
Mozilla and Google have extended their search deal for another three years, news outlet ZDNet reported Wednesday, citing sources familiar with thee matter. Mozilla confirmed the news. From a report: The new search deal will ensure Google remains the default search engine provider inside the Firefox browser until 2023 at an estimated price tag of around $400 million to $450 million per year. Mozilla officials are expected to announce the search deal's extension later this fall, in November, when the organization is scheduled to disclose its 2019 financial figures. Terms of the new deal were leaked to this reporter after Mozilla announced plans to lay off more than 250 employees on Wednesday in a move that had many users fearing for the browser maker's future, as Mozilla's current Google search deal was scheduled to expire at the end of the year. However, several sources have confirmed that the organization is sound financially, and the layoffs were part of a restructuring of its core business, with Mozilla moving away from its current role of internet standards steward and experimental approach to its product catalog to more commercially-viable offerings that generate revenues on their own.
Anyone know what they're doing (Score:5, Interesting)
I get that browsers are complicated, e.g. they're practically Operating Systems, but this seems like it should've been enough that they didn't need layoffs.
Re: (Score:1)
There seems to be an endless FUD campaign against Firefox; every misstep is amplified or even worse, fabricated. People posting ad-nauseum about some change and throwing their hands in the air saying that's it, firefox is finished I'm moving to chrome.
And chrome gets a pass "lol it's google what did you expect". What a fucking joke.
Because (Score:2, Insightful)
They are making mistakes...and not fixing them. They have moved to rapid release schedule. The massive advantage of that is you fix it.saying It'll be right when you have lost 80% of your userbase.
hold on (Score:4, Interesting)
You have got the wrong guy. I think Firefox's engine in wonderful. I use Android to get full Firefox. The engine is still as you describe...but they put the old usable interface in the bin and replaced it with unusable...confusing garbage. Look at Firefox's high Play store start to drop. Look at the latest reviews people hate it...that's when you stop rolling out your product and look at the problem. Don't take my word read the reviews it's a bloodbath. It's not my opinion it is the general consensus. I am not posting because I don't like Firefox, but because I do. I don't think things get fixed by having my eyes closed...but MozillaS CEO does.
Re: (Score:2)
Brave (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
It's the lack of a decent mobile browser that is killing them. A lot of browsing is on mobile now and people expect all their passwords and bookmarks and stuff to sync with desktop.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
There seems to be an endless FUD campaign against Firefox
Not FUD.
For several years now, Mozilla has been on a campaign to make Firefox worse and worse. And their market share numbers show that its working. They are more concerned with retarded SJW bullshit than making a good product.
Re: (Score:2)
Criticising one thing doesn't imply endorsement of something else. Honestly, this level of discourse is pretty dire.
Re: Anyone know what they're doing (Score:2)
Re:Anyone know what they're doing (Score:5, Insightful)
In the past two years most of Firefox's "improvements" have been missteps.
Every "improvement" usually goes like this:
-Developers change something that needed no change; change for the sake of change because some $200k/yr UI/UX employee with an art degree decided that she needs to justify her salary so she needs to make herself look busy once in a while.
-result is useful functionality that existed for years is removed or nerfed by default
-majority of ff users complain
-Developers ignore complaints and/or respond with "this change is complete and will not be rolled back"
-In the subsequent release developers then remove setting from UI that reverted the change.
-In the following release developers then remove setting from about:config that reverted the change.
I cannot remember the last time I installed a new FF version and said "Wow look at all of these improvements!", but I am know it was more than five years ago.
Quantum's engine is an improvement, but they slapped a rigid non-customizable UI on top of it. Another improvement misstep.
I dread to install the next ESR and to be subjected to another batch of Firefox's "improvements"
One sad fact is most users like myself that continue to use FF only use it because it is not Google, not because FF is so much better.
Another sad fact is that FF right now is getting quite close to a walking dead state. They've gone from 35% to 7% market share and Mozilla is doing nothing about it. In a couple years FF's market share will drop below 5% and once below that happens testing on Firefox and fixing incompatibilities will not be a high priority. In two years unless Mozilla's culture changes, that is, unless Mozilla start taking user's feedback seriously and designing a browser for the users, like it was in the first decade of Firefox, that could be the end.
Re:Anyone know what they're doing (Score:5, Informative)
Not a direct answer to what you're driving at, but for anyone interested in the financials, here's what is basically their 10-K as a non-profit (2018 is the latest report):
https://assets.mozilla.net/ann... [mozilla.net]
Page 7 breaks down expenses.
Re: (Score:3)
Thanks for the link.
Reading that only confirmed what I already expected before opening it:
the vast majority of their costs go to salaries and benefits.
In my experience, there's lot's of money (and non-pecuniary benefits) to be made working at a non-profit.
Re: (Score:2)
Am I reading that correctly? Are they are spending $277M in software dev per year? That chart is in thousands, and it says 277,767 for 2018. If true that means they spent a 1/4 billion dollars last year on dev. If that number is correct then I would seriously want to know how that breaks down.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Anyone know what they're doing (Score:5, Insightful)
Competing against Google with a free product ain't cheap. I suspect that the only reason Google has maintained this deal with Mozilla is the same reason that Microsoft worked with Apple in the 90s—they're afraid of antitrust suits. They need some token opposition.
Also, people forget that Mozilla does more than Firefox. Rust, Thunderbird (which could really use a facelift), Pocket, etc.
Re: (Score:3)
Google are in fear of the majority of people realising exactly what kind of hypocritical arseholes they are. Pretending to be all green, whilst being the number one promoter of mass comsumption, burning the planet to the ground in an orgy of consumptions, the exhortation, no matter how much of the planets resources are consumed, no matter the pollution generated, buy, Buy, BUY, more, always more, buy it, you need it, else you are a loser, buy more now. The religious high priests of mass consumption, whilst
Re: Anyone know what they're doing (Score:3)
Are you kidding me, why are you spamming this post seriously Google are putting Billions behind the environment https://sustainability.google/... [sustainability.google] I don't believe they are doing it for any philanthropic reasons, but at their economies of scale it is just profitable, big tech needs to be called out for all kind of immortal behaviour, but the environment not so much.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think that was GP's complaint. GP's complaint is that Google isn't promoting his anarcho-communist ideology, and possibly stands in the way of it.
Re: Anyone know what they're doing (Score:4, Funny)
I don't think that was GP's complaint. GP's complaint is that Google isn't promoting his anarcho-communist ideology, and possibly stands in the way of it.
I read that as arachno-communist ideology, and that gave me the shivers. Watch out for those eight legged socialists with fangs.
Re: (Score:2)
Watch out for those eight legged socialists with fangs.
Oh yeah, I saw that movie [imdb.com] too!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Whenever I see this, I really wonder what you're searching for. I've used nothing but DuckDuckGo for 5+ years now, and it's fine.
Obviously, everyone's use-case is different, but WTF are you searching?
Re: Anyone know what they're doing (Score:2)
For personal stuff I usually use DuckDuckGo and it is fine. But, I must admit that when I do esoteric research for work that I sometimes have to resort to Google.
Not competitors but enablers (Score:2)
Competing against Google with a free product ain't cheap.
...except that Google's "products" are "free" too. Google doesn't earn a penny on Chrome, Chrome OS or any other software.
Instead, they make a metric fuckton of money by marketing the shit out of their "users" and uterly fucking their data privacy.
The software is just a way to attract eyeballs.
I suspect that the only reason Google has maintained this deal with Mozilla is the same reason that Microsoft worked with Apple in the 90s—they're afraid of antitrust suits. They need some token opposition.
The situation is slightly different. Microsoft made money back then by selling their software, and they had a monopoly on the IBM PC-compatibles.
They needed to keep this quasi monopoly, because that earns them money (
Re: (Score:2)
...except that Google's "products" are "free" too. Google doesn't earn a penny on Chrome, Chrome OS or any other software.
Instead, they make a metric fuckton of money by marketing the shit out of their "users" and uterly fucking their data privacy.
Google lets you set all the stuff they gather on you to go away after 3 months (there might even be a shorter interval available). I figure that's a reasonable compromise. I mostly (except when it's eerily creepy) like that their search engine 'finishes my sentences'. It's handy. I don't like them storing my browsing history, etc. And I have it set to auto-delete relatively quickly. But they provide a useful service, and I think giving them that info for the short term makes the service better and mo
Re: (Score:3)
Also, people forget that Mozilla does more than Firefox. Rust, Thunderbird (which could really use a facelift), Pocket, etc.
I haven't forgotten that Mozilla bought Pocket for $20M, which nobody asked for, while fucking up functionality that extensions were using, like Scrapbook+. So instead of capturing pages to a local disk store, I'm supposed to capture them to TEH CLOUD, where the Moz foundation can see what I'm capturing. PROGRESS!
The fact that Mozilla does more than Firefox is a problem.
Re: (Score:1)
Competing against Google with a free product ain't cheap. I suspect that the only reason Google has maintained this deal with Mozilla is the same reason that Microsoft worked with Apple in the 90s—they're afraid of antitrust suits. They need some token opposition.
Also, people forget that Mozilla does more than Firefox. Rust, Thunderbird (which could really use a facelift), Pocket, etc.
Indeed Mozilla Corporation and Foundation are much more than Firefox. But for Thunderbird from a financial and management standpoint Thunderbird is not particularly one of them. While the Foundation is supportive of Thunderbird, it is in a completely separate arm, is not part of Mozilla Corporation, receives none of the search and other Firefox revenue, and has it's own governance and developer group - ref: https://www.thunderbird.net/en... [thunderbird.net]
Re: (Score:2)
If I'm not mistaken at this point in the game only 3 web engines remain: Chrome's one (used also by Microsoft Edge and some other browsers, Firefox's and Apple's.
Good news (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Good news (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: Good news (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously overstaffed! 1000 people for a browser is so stupid,palemoon has 1 main developer.
And updates are slow, and compatibility is an increasing problem.
Re: (Score:1)
Obviously overstaffed! 1000 people for a browser is so stupid,palemoon has 1 main developer.
Comparing a years-old fork of Firefox is ridiculous.
Re: (Score:1)
As the article says, they over-staffed. On that budget they can sustain around 1k employees, but they had around 1.3k-1.4k at the start of the year. Hence the two firing sprees (70 in Jan, and 250 now).
Actually, it says "over-staffing in areas the organization was *not planning to prioritize going forward*.", but that's not a statement in a vacuum - this wouldn't be happening were it not for the current financial upheavals. Where do you read "they had around 1.3k-1.4k at the start of the year" ? AFAIK the starting point was about 1k.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a continuation of the past agreement. That money was already coming in and not enough to sustain the company.
Before you go on harping on about executive bonuses why not read Mozilla's financial statement. The ones that say their expenses are higher than 450million a year.
This is the right decision (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Getting money from Google to support a product that competes with Google's own isn't a sound business model.
Each time I hear about Google keeping Mozilla on life support, I can't help but think they're luring them into a false sense of financial security and complacency, to better kill them off when they finally pull the plug.
Re: (Score:3)
Does it compete with Chrome if it defaults to google (ie, it acts the same as Chrome)? Why should Google care, when it's basically a stand in for Chrome. Chrome brings in revenue to Google nearly the same way Firefox does .. it probably keeps Chrome developers on their toes to have Firefox around. And besides, nobody stepped in to save the day for Mozilla. I didn't see Duckduckgo or bing show up to help.
Re: (Score:2)
If they had sense, they would invest the bulk of that money and then they could sustainably employ a large team pretty much indefinitely. Their problem is frittering that cash on many hundreds of pointless positions that do nothing for their long-term strategic position.
It's a stupid one. (Score:2)
To restructure themselves, rather than focus on their core product, is hard. But it's market share is literally sinking. I think it's great that they try related products in its key area with staff they have built up.
They need to fix their browser and rebuilt customer satisfaction.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, every browser needs a tiny bit of Chrome in it... Edge, why not Firefox?
Damn, the whole thing sounds so... scammy, a shell game, like where used car dealers rotate inventory amongst themselves to look like they're making sales, and to avoid paying property tax on it.
Wow, the bullshit is strong there (Score:5, Interesting)
I dunno where I read this but they hired more UX people? Really?
400k per employee is nothing to sneeze at, why lay offs? And why fire engineers actually working on the product while hiring more UX folks when they only have only on real product? A team of a dozen should be more than enough for this one UI, no? Especially when they have been on a spree to "simplify" their single product (they kicked out Thunderbird) for many years now. Sooner or later there is nothing to simplify anymore, since the product has vanished after it got too "simple". When I read on the blog entry for this firing "From combatting a lethal virus and battling systemic racism to protecting individual privacy" then wtf am I reading? They write software, they don't combat any virus unless it's written in JAVASCRIPT!
They don't battle racism either, they are a SOFTWARE company, not a NGO or political party! And if they battle racism, it's certainly not done in Silicon Valley.
And the privacy of their users they invade with mandatory cloud shit like Pocket.
Maybe their CEO should write less prattle like this where she has no clue, and hire more programmers instead, making them crank out good code instead of battling racism and plagues. If they cannot do that with 400k per employee since they must live in SF, then maybe, just maybe their location policy is wrong and not their too high headcount.
Re: (Score:2)
It hasn't gotten any simpler. They've mostly created deep hierarchies of clicks to do anything, so the main window can have as little as possible visually. Cf. the hamburger menu craze.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe rather than postulating about how Mozilla works in the form of a question you should read their financial statements instead. Then you'd realise they actually have more than $450million in yearly expenses.
Mozilla isn't some shitty github project with a bunch of programmers just working on one thing with zero operating expenses beyond salaries.
Re: Wow, the bullshit is strong there (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
First thing they should do is kill of non browser related stuff and not fire their security and incident team. Or people working on their next gen browser engine. Maybe Some VPs could be let go instead?
Re: (Score:2)
I dunno where I read this but they hired more UX people? Really?
You heard it on Slashdot and no, not really.
Firefox VR (Score:2, Interesting)
Well I hope with this money they can continue to develop Firefox XR (a web brower for use in VR and/or AR). There's a lot of potential in it.
Firefox VR AR (Score:3)
Why would anyone care? Apple is thowing money at AR and has nothing to show for it, and VR is failing everywhere. Love both technologies, we even have the computing power for both. Why would you buy this product from a failing browser.
Re: (Score:2)
I remember really being into VR when it was on the cusp of being really good, in 1996. I was so excited when I won a VR headset, I made a 3D clone of Microsoft Paint.
Re: (Score:2)
Such as?
Shock and Awe (Score:3)
Mozilla has taken a beating in market share under the stewardship of CEO Mitchell Baker who earns 2.5 million USD. It's latest nonsense is destroying it's mobile platform with the worst interface change since Windows 8 or Gnome 3... or Desktop Firefox. It is impossible to get people to get people to change in the computer market, but somehow Mozilla manage it by doubling down on unpopular decisions, not responding to them rapidly.
We see that the original statement about the bug being the problem...although we all suspected Google simply giving them less money now they are a fifth of their market share. It all looks so suspect. Google are literally drowning the company in money. I can't decide whether Google is buying competition, or destroying them with money. Either way they are laughing.
The one thing that is certain in CEO Mitchell Baker needs to be removed.
Re: (Score:2)
with the worst interface change since Windows 8 or Gnome 3
As voted by whom? Technical people who make up a pittance of the possible market?
Shock and Awe (Score:2)
Who is voting...users with their feet. Right now there is a mass revolt of Users, read the reviews on Google Play. Pretending this in a problem just some users is a nonsense. The fact is the UI is truly broken, and ironically because it's confusing while destroying existing functionality... seriously use it.
Re: (Score:2)
Who is voting...users with their feet
Did you ask them why they were voting? As for the "mass revolt" it's just not reflected in the numbers. Mozilla's market share hasn't even moved a percent in the past year.
Pretending this in a problem just some users is a nonsense.
It's not. It's a problem of general possible user base. One that must be appealed to. It seems you on the other hand are hell bent on appealing to only a tiny niche of the possible market. Yeah with you at the reigns we may actually have seen their marketshare fall even more.
Re: (Score:2)
I've been testing the beta of the new Firefox Mobile for a while and the UI is good. They moved the address bar to the bottom where you can reach it more easily, and made extensions more accessible.
They just need to fix the layout issues and it will be a good mobile browser. Maybe the best mobile browser.
Shock and Awe (Score:2)
They have updated the browser a few days ago. It is no longer a beta anything. The awesome bar can go either top or bottom...I just don't care, but I would default it to the top rather than force changes on users. As I said in my other posts I don't about the extension. I welcome the change...but they didn't fix what was there with a smooth migration path. Pissing off Developers and Users alike. ...but none of these is really the problem. People have hidden their bookmarks and their workflow of using them f
Re: (Score:2)
They moved the address bar to the bottom where you can reach it more easily
You mean where I can hit it accidentally, and it fights with the button bar for real estate? There's a reason why it's at the top.
Forcing unwanted changes on people while ignoring long-standing bugs is how they got a reputation for not listening to users.
Re: Shock and Awe (Score:1)
Why layoffs? (Score:4, Interesting)
They had only 1000 employees. With $400 million a year they could have easily paid each developer an average of $250k and still have $150 million for miscellaneous expenses such as running the website, rent, hosting etc.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
With $400 million a year they could have easily paid each developer an average of $250k a
If you include employment tax, that's how much competent developers cost these days.
Re: (Score:1)
If their developer team is not developing, they have no reason to keep them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Dunno, rather than asking questions why not read their financial statements. I mean if $450million was their only income they would have lost money last year. Why? Well their financial statements are 27 pages so not too difficult to read.
Firefox DuckDuckGo addon is awesome (Score:2)
Firefox DuckDuckGo addon is awesome (Score:3)
Firefox Android has burnt all add-ons apart from 6. I don't even think in the scheme of things this is the worst part. Especially since they have long ago treated this successful selling point as so unimportant. They have been virtually impossible to install.
Re: (Score:2)
It's temporary while they sort out the mobile UI for add-ons. No browser has a decent UI for add-ons on mobile, but Firefox is getting close.
All the key stuff is there, uBlock etc. It's going to be a bit painful for a while but most other extensions barely worked on mobile anyway due to UI issues.
So long as I can delete Google.. (Score:2)
Threat/Detection response staff gone (Score:2)
https://nitter.net/MichalPurzy... [nitter.net]
They killed entire threat management team. Mozilla is now without detection and incident response.
Tristan, Alicia, Lucius, even our new director are gone
---
This is per their former Staff Security Engineer.
This is bad.
Re: Threat/Detection response staff gone (Score:2)
It's in the article linked.
Yesterday's layoffs reflect this plan, with Mozilla shuttering its threat management security team, software engineers working on Mozilla's experimental Servo browser engine, developers curating the Mozilla Developer Network portal, and the team behind Firefox's developer tools.
Damn (Score:2)
Wow, so let's break this down.
On the one hand, now I know where the Mozilla foundation is getting so much of their money from. Also, let this be a lesson to any other companies out there: if your web browser can get around 5-10% market share, it's worth $450 million a year to Google!
On the other hand, Google wouldn't spend this much money if they weren't profiting from it. Doing some quick calculations, using this offhand statistic that there's currently 250 million users that use Firefox regularly [techcrunch.com], that
Oh good, they can keep paying the boss millions (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
So you completely cut 100% of the boss's pay and you can do what, employ 15 people?
I guess you think being in charge of 1000 employees should be done out of the kindness of someone's heart. Mozilla's CEO remuneration is not much. $2.5m is a pittance when there's no possibilities for stock options or other investment based pay.
Re: (Score:2)
$2.5m is a pittance
I see where we disagree. Also, if your leadership drives a product into the ground, it should not be rewarded with that kind of pittance while the developers are let go. It is no surprise that the CEO wants to focus on "commercial success", which I guess is her way of saying that she brought in the millions from Google, not the free stuff the developers produce.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, if your leadership drives a product into the ground
Citation Needed. Firefox as a product was plummeting long before the CEO took over. But let's compare the current financials to those in 2014. Mozilla's asset worth has almost doubled (the non-profit equivalent of net profit). Cash flow is much higher than it was back then. The number of employees has almost doubled in that time (though after the cut of 400 it will only be 30% higher), and even with the extra expenses the company's financials look healthy enough.
If you judge a CEO's worth by the market shar
Re: (Score:2)
Mozilla's incompetently useless CEO doesn't deserve $0.25M.
I know $2.5M is a pittance. It would be difficult and a struggle, but I think I could probably live off that pittance.
Re: (Score:2)
How incompetent and useless is a CEO who has doubled the value of their non-profit over their tenure?
I take it you also judge a CEO by the fact that Firefox no longer has a separate search bar. boo hoo?
Rust team? (Score:1)
google is getting sloppy (Score:2)
google maps is sometimes inaccurate and gotten people lost
google chrome & chromium extensions are often infiltrated with malware
google playstore is often peppered with malware
google needs to get their shit together, i am already in the process of abandoning google's products & services because of the poor quality. i have switched firefox to using alternative search engines
Will google earn $400m per year (Score:1)
Control (Score:2)
With that kind of money, Google will certainly control more than just the chose of default search engine. Mozilla won't want to damage a relationship with a company that provides that kind of income. This will impact decisions they make about things like limiting tracking and advertising, among other things, because these are tools that Google relies on to do business. Money talks, and large amounts of money talk with a very loud voice.