Mozilla is one of the parties most damaged by Google’s anti-competitive efforts, though. If Chrome had to be self-sufficient and couldn’t rely on paid promotion on Google sites, not to mention other Google apps “accidentally” having bugs or performance issues in Firefox, the browser market would be a lot more competitive. Mozilla has already been in a bad place since Google decided to keep them just viable enough to serve as an antitrust defense, breaking the stranglehold would be tumultuous but also the first chance of getting into a better position for the first time in years.

I also wouldn’t read too much into Bing’s first AI round. It’s better than Google Bard but neither is trustworthy and the search market isn’t going shift to treacherous chat bots. The general quality of the regular search has been improving, however, and they seem to be getting better at least as quickly as Google is making their service worse. When I’ve done side-by-side comparisons they’re a lot closer than used to be the case - Google updates their index notably faster, but has less spam control and neither is as good as Google was half a decade ago.

How can you ban cross promotion, though? It's such a common practice across most industries. Chains like CVS put their generic versions right next to the name brands on the shelf, and even have signs that say "compare to <product being copied>." And it would actually be terrible for consumers if that were banned.

> Google apps “accidentally” having bugs or performance issues in Firefox

I would bet everything I own that this isn't happening. Would not be remotely worth the risk to Google. Besides, these bugs are rare enough and small enough impact that I don't even really notice them, and have never considered switching off of Firefox because of them, and I am a software engineer who is much more likely to notice this stuff than 99% of users.

Re:cross promotion, I think the big thing would requiring it to be open to anyone and/or paid. When CVS says “compare to Tylenol” they still have the name brand right there and don’t pretend their generic is somehow better. The web is different but I think it’d be useful to have a rule that, say, they can’t put Chrome ads in Gmail unless Microsoft can buy the same spot at the same price for Edge ads.

> I would bet everything I own that this isn't happening

As a daily Firefox user they’re pretty common - there was a long period where Meet, and only Meet, dropped Firefox calls frequently, GCP would get stuck in a redirect loop at login if you used a browser other than Chrome, etc.

I would be surprised if there was a smoking gun “break Firefox” instruction - more that it’s not a testing priority, they jump use Chrome proprietary APIs as quickly as possible and delay switching to the standard versions (like they did with YouTube with that slow web component polyfill), etc.

Mozilla needs to outgrow its dependence on Google anyway—it cannot effectively guard against Chrome's monopoly in the browser space while being wholly dependent on Google, any more than Google can be a good search engine while being wholly dependent on ads—the monetary incentives are off.

Give me a Firefox subscription and I'll pay for it in a heartbeat.

> Give me a Firefox subscription and I'll pay for it in a heartbeat.

I want to do this but I can't support Mozilla until the board stops giving Baker raises at mind-boggling rates and make a commitment to never do anything like acquiring Pocket again, as well as generally make a strategic shift to lessen reliance on one competitor who is obviously massively overpaying them.

They need to call Baker's bluff about her saying that her compensation (now an eye-watering $5.6MM - $4.8MM of which is bonus for... something[0], I'm sure she's paid even more now) is under market value before she continues her mission of driving Mozilla's userbase down so much that the two do indeed match in her eyes. It was extremely obvious how vulnerable Mozilla was by having their primary competitor also be their main source of revenue from the moment Chrome released. It is now 15 years since then and Google are still[1] 75% (!) of their annual revenue.

2021 was a decent year for contributions for Mozilla, yet it would take 46 years of 2021-level contributions (excluding all other revenue streams e.g. VPN) to pay for 1 year of 2021-level (after significant layoffs) annual expenses at Mozilla. If we include subscriptions that goes up to a 'measly' 5.3 years at 2021 levels for 1 year of 2021 expenses. They've got assets, but not enough to keep a 9 figure annual burn rate for more than a few years.

I'm not entirely opposed to their VPN service as a way to generate money, it makes more sense than buying Pocket. What doesn't make sense is how they treat security researchers and deal with critical bugs[2], committing the fixes on GitHub before the patch goes live - always a great idea with sensitive applications[3].

I still use Firefox sometimes, I still prefer it on my phone, but it's clear there's a poisonous culture within the company that makes it simply not the company it was in the 00s. I want to see it back to its glory days, but at the moment all it takes is for Google to start the squeeze and it'll all be over.

I'm not ready to support Mozilla. I'm ready to support a Mozilla revolution.

[0]: https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2021/mozilla-fdn-990...

[1]: https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2021/mozilla-fdn-202... Total revenue $600MM, $450MM figure from https://www.androidheadlines.com/2020/08/mozilla-firefox-goo...

[2]: https://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2023/08/03/1

[3]: https://www.theverge.com/2022/2/3/22916111/wormhole-hack-git...

Neeva also failed because of their business model. Turns out, not many people want to "pay for search".

They also did almost no promotion - I’m assuming the plan was to push the product further ahead and then start a big campaign but the VC money drying up killed that.

I was disappointed Apple didn’t buy them out to contribute to Siri.