Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Saturday November 22 2014, @08:32PM   Printer-friendly
from the follow-the-money dept.

Chris Beard, CEO of the Mozilla Corporation, announced in his blog Wednesday, 11 November 2014, that they were ending their 10-year relationship with Google. As of December, they begin a five-year "strategic partnership" with Yahoo.

For those wondering why the switch, The Verge has an interesting take on it:

In tech, little things can have big consequences — in this case, a tiny search bar. Last night, Firefox made a surprising announcement: after 10 years with Google as its default search engine, it would be handing the tiny search bar over to Yahoo. On the face of it, it's a strange move. If you're looking for almost anything on the internet, Google is a much better way to find it than Yahoo is. But that small search bar isn't just a feature, it's a business. And it’s a business that reveals how Mozilla and Google could increasingly be at odds with each other.

[We touched on this in a recent story about Firefox's expanding search options, but this aspect seems significant enough to merit specific attention. -LaminatorX]

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 22 2014, @10:13PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 22 2014, @10:13PM (#118935)

    > Isn't the whole point of being a Foundation is to be free to rise above the often grubby requirements of "running a business" and "making a profit"?

    On what basis have you decided that switching to Yahoo was about "running a business" and "making a profit"?

    Surely not the announcement [mozilla.org] by Mozilla where they explicitly said, "In evaluating our search partnerships, our primary consideration was to ensure our strategy aligned with our values of choice and independence" and that all of the options available to them would bring in more money than before.

    Right? You did not read that and think "making a profit" did you?

    So what did you read that made you think that?

  • (Score: 1) by lentilla on Saturday November 22 2014, @11:28PM

    by lentilla (1770) on Saturday November 22 2014, @11:28PM (#118956)

    Well, they can't "make a profit" in the business sense because they are a foundation. I'm sorry if my post appeared to suggest they were doing so. It seems to me that instead of concentrating on making the world's best browser they are playing power games. I was trying to convey that they appear to have saddled themselves with all the downsides to running a business without any of the upsides.

    Reiterating that I'm not suggesting Mozilla is making a profit but also recasting your challenge "what did you read that made you think that?", there are a number of red-flag phrases that are peppered throughout the statement you linked. Gems such as "generate revenue", "agreement came up for renewal", "competitive strategy", "search partnerships" and "improved economic terms" amongst others.

    It seems to me like the business of running the Foundation has become an end to itself for Mozilla. I wonder if they might be so busy making strategies that them might have become distracted from producing the world's best browser.

    At the end of the day, that Mozilla has pre-chosen a default speaks strongest of all. If they were really about "promoting choice" (a direct quote from the linked statement) then they would simply let the user choose. Again, I'm not suggesting nefarious intent - only a case of "strategic distraction".

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 23 2014, @12:23AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 23 2014, @12:23AM (#118972)

      Reiterating that I'm not suggesting Mozilla is making a profit but also recasting your challenge "what did you read that made you think that?", there are a number of red-flag phrases that are peppered throughout the statement you linked. Gems such as "generate revenue", "agreement came up for renewal", "competitive strategy", "search partnerships" and "improved economic terms" amongst others.

      Clearly these "gems" mean something to you, but like all conspiracy theorists you think that your conspiracy is so obvious as to be self-evident.

      Loon.