Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Mozilla Contemplates a Future Without Google

Soulskill posted more than 5 years ago | from the don't-leave-baby dept.

Mozilla 200

An anonymous reader points out a story at Business Week which begins: "Mozilla Chair Mitchell Baker says the Chrome browser is making the foundation behind Firefox rethink its reliance on revenues from Google. Since Google introduced its own Web browser, Chrome, the prospect that Google may not re-up the three-year contract set to expire in 2011 has Mozilla considering other search partnerships and ways to generate revenue, Baker said. 'There are probably other search engines that would pay us more money,' Baker says. Yahoo! and Microsoft's MSN, Google's two main search rivals, come to mind, but Baker says smaller search engines wouldn't be discounted should such a situation arise. One player Baker won't identify 'offered a blank check to replace Google,' she says. Set to launch on certain Nokia phones in late spring, Fennec is the first Mozilla browser optimized for mobile platforms. If it gains traction with enough handset makers and mobile users, Fennec could represent another way to draw revenue from a partnering search engine."

cancel ×

200 comments

How about a future without Slashdot? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27168581)

Where their release process isn't interrupted and slowed down by a premature release announcement?

1 million dollars! (1)

Em Emalb (452530) | more than 5 years ago | (#27168587)

Blank check = bestest browser evar?

Re:1 million dollars! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27168611)

To hell with that! "One... trillion... dollars!" Though I guess the caveat is that you have to know how much to write down otherwise you get zilch.

Re:1 million dollars! (1)

French31 (1311051) | more than 5 years ago | (#27169393)

You can avoid the problem by asking to be paid in cash [gizmodo.com] . Not recommended, though.

Not bloody likely (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27168659)

The most likely future for Mozilla is a continued partnership with Google. If Google ends its deal with Firefox, Google would be cutting itself off from the only viable challenger to IE. After all, Chrome only recently passed 1% in share of browser use.

Google needs Mozilla to keep putting the bones to Redmond.

Re:Not bloody likely (1)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 5 years ago | (#27168757)

If Google ends its deal with Firefox, Google would be cutting itself off from the only viable challenger to IE. After all, Chrome only recently passed 1% in share of browser use.

Silliest statement ever.

Chrome isn't ready. But when it is, Google can change the numbers overnight.

Re:Not bloody likely (2, Interesting)

0100010001010011 (652467) | more than 5 years ago | (#27168895)

"GMail will no longer be available for your browser after July 10, 2009. Download the latest Chrome browser for the best operating experience."

I'd probably get Chrome for Gmail and Google Voice and keep FF/Safari for other stuff. But 90% of GMail's target audience wouldn't.

Re:Not bloody likely (1)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 5 years ago | (#27169041)

I'd probably get Chrome for Gmail and Google Voice and keep FF/Safari for other stuff. But 90% of GMail's target audience wouldn't

Which is why Google wouldn't do that. But they have the marketing power to push Chrome in the same way that they pushed FireFox. As well, Mozilla is fooling themselves: Whithout Google money, they will dry up and blow away.

Re:Not bloody likely (4, Insightful)

Chyeld (713439) | more than 5 years ago | (#27169075)

And 50% of the folk out there would install Chrome long enough to switch their gmail to forward to a new address, and start work finding another free webmail site.

And 100% of the corps using Google Apps for Domains would tie up the support lines to rip Google's techs a new one.

And the next day we'd be crowning Bobco, a division of Algamated Inc., the new King of the Internet.

Re:Not bloody likely (4, Insightful)

billcopc (196330) | more than 5 years ago | (#27169285)

Or, you know, someone would create a 2-second Firefox add-on that spoofs Chrome, and Google would gain nothing.

Re:Not bloody likely (1)

Dishevel (1105119) | more than 5 years ago | (#27169513)

Which is why I love FF even with its craptastic code. If you don't like somthing about FF....FIX IT!

Re:Not bloody likely (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27169379)

"GMail will no longer be available for your browser after July 10, 2009. Download the latest Chrome browser for the best operating experience."

I'll just use my email client.

Carte blanche? (4, Insightful)

Chabil Ha' (875116) | more than 5 years ago | (#27168661)

One player Baker won't identify 'offered a blank check to replace Google,' she says.

Looking at the ocean of limping or necro-corps, there seemeth to be only one company that has the pocket to stomach carte blanche...

Could you imagine Live! Search being the default search engine of Firefox? Hiss! The thought near gives me the willies.

Re:Carte blanche? (1)

nicolas.kassis (875270) | more than 5 years ago | (#27168791)

meh, live search is fine in itself. But I hope yahoo would take that deal. Yahoo is still a good tech company just needs some re-org.

Re:Carte blanche? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27169655)

We've had plenty of re-org thanks...

Re:Carte blanche? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27169939)

clearly you haven't used yahoo search recently

Re:Carte blanche? (4, Funny)

BlackSnake112 (912158) | more than 5 years ago | (#27168935)

If you use windows and have updated java did you notice that is asks you if you want to install the msn toolbar?

I actually took a screen shot of it. Then went to a window to see if the apocalypse was happening. Sun working with microsoft?!

 

Re:Carte blanche? (2, Informative)

despisethesun (880261) | more than 5 years ago | (#27169561)

Must be recent, because I updated Java on a machine earlier this week and it still asked about the Yahoo toolbar.

Re:Carte blanche? (1)

just_another_sean (919159) | more than 5 years ago | (#27170391)

That has been my experience. Maybe it checks your default browser? Yahoo for those with non-IE and MSN for IE?

Mind you that's just wild and unfounded speculation...

Re:Carte blanche? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27170629)

Sun working with microsoft?!

Yup, Jonathan announced in an internal Sun mail last year that Java is now going to be bundled with Live! toolbar. You can imagine the feelings of my fellow sunnies.

Not to mention Sun becoming a reseller of Windows 2003 Server...

Re:Carte blanche? (1)

Colonel Korn (1258968) | more than 5 years ago | (#27169581)

One player Baker won't identify 'offered a blank check to replace Google,' she says.

Looking at the ocean of limping or necro-corps, there seemeth to be only one company that has the pocket to stomach carte blanche...

Could you imagine Live! Search being the default search engine of Firefox? Hiss! The thought near gives me the willies.

These comments always surprise me. Why is it that people on slashdot have such a vested interest in the default behavior of various programs? Don't all of us know how to customize everything we use to suit our needs?

Re:Carte blanche? (2, Insightful)

Chabil Ha' (875116) | more than 5 years ago | (#27169697)

If by 'us' you mean /.ers, no I'm not worried, but it's the teaming, mindless masses that accept as default whatever is placed before them. That's what Opera's (and now Mozilla's) hissyfit in the EU is all about with IE. Because people are not *presented* a choice they stick with the Big Blue E.

On the flip side, I do congratulate Microsoft (heresy!) on the post-installation launch of IE 7 where it *asks* you if you want Live Search to be the default or choose from an extensive list of providers.

Re:Carte blanche? (0, Flamebait)

Julie188 (991243) | more than 5 years ago | (#27169815)

Looking at the ocean of limping or necro-corps, there seemeth to be only one company that has the pocket to stomach carte blanche...

Not sure if Redmond is smart enough to make the offer ... but Mozilla really got stabbed in the back by Chrome. Google is just as evil as any monopoly.

Re:Carte blanche? (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 5 years ago | (#27169873)

Could you imagine Live! Search being the default search engine of Firefox? Hiss! The thought near gives me the willies.

Why? I mean, once "it's not Google" is established, does it really matter what it's going to be?

Google Won't Let this Happen (4, Insightful)

rel4x (783238) | more than 5 years ago | (#27168673)

I can't believe Google will let the contract expire. If for no other reason because it would take one of their competitors and probably at least double their market share. And that's not even counting the loss of the incredible branding they get from Mozilla.

Re:Google Won't Let this Happen (5, Informative)

caffeinejolt (584827) | more than 5 years ago | (#27168923)

Re:Google Won't Let this Happen (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27169085)

Interesting chart - thanks for sharing the link. I agree that Google would be out of their mind to let this happen!

Re:Google Won't Let this Happen (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27170453)

That's the chart today. What about in 2011, when the contract actually expires?

Re:Google Won't Let this Happen (3, Insightful)

AresTheImpaler (570208) | more than 5 years ago | (#27169029)

can't believe Google will let the contract expire. If for no other reason because it would take one of their competitors and probably at least double their market share.

I agree.. Google has a strong iphone (and ipod touch) connection while still having android. Apparently they also pay apple to be the search engine of choice for safari. So, I'm pretty sure they will gladly pay Mozilla while continue working on Chrome.

Re:Google Won't Let this Happen (1)

FlyingBishop (1293238) | more than 5 years ago | (#27169181)

Google is more focused on making the internet better. I for one would probably replace MSN with Google if it switched out on my Firefox (and Google knows there are many who would.)

It's more a question of killing the abomination that is IE and ensuring all browsers are open source and coded to standards. But then maybe I give Google too much credit.

Re:Google Won't Let this Happen (3, Insightful)

rel4x (783238) | more than 5 years ago | (#27169551)

You do give them too much credit.
Google doesn't give a flying rats hindquarters about making the internet better.
They want informational sites to rise to the top of the results because informational sites often run adsense as a monetization method. Also, they know companies not ranking well will spend money on adwords to promote their site. As for their other services, they're all aimed around being able to collect more personal data on you, and (eventually) to try and connect online identities to real life ones.

They're a business, not a benevolent carebear spreading love and sunshine.

Re:Google Won't Let this Happen (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27170469)

Google doesn't give a flying rats hindquarters about making the internet better.

Maybe I'm nuts, but I actually think they want to do both.

Re:Google Won't Let this Happen (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27169283)

It may not be entirely in Google's hands - the Mozilla folks have a say as well.

While breaking the partnership would cost a lot of market share for Google *now*, while they're the new browser in the block, that cost would be much smaller if they have *any* success with popularizing Chrome. If they're *really* successful (i.e.: they catch up or surpass Firefox' market share), subsidizing one of their main competitors will stop making sense at some point.

Before getting to the point where Mozilla is at the mercy of a reluctant Google, they may want to leverage their strong market position into a better deal.

Re:Google Won't Let this Happen (2, Insightful)

maxume (22995) | more than 5 years ago | (#27169933)

If Google makes money on searches done through Firefox and on search done through Chrome, they aren't going to do things that alienate Firefox users. I guess if they make 10x on Chrome searches they might, but I bet the ratio is much smaller.

Re:Google Won't Let this Happen (2, Insightful)

whyloginwhysubscribe (993688) | more than 5 years ago | (#27169415)

Yes - that is what I originally thought. But Mozilla would rather be prepared for the situation happening rather than it taking them by surprise!

Objective to improve Firefox or promote Chrome? (1, Interesting)

Mostly a lurker (634878) | more than 5 years ago | (#27168705)

I find this quite confusing. Is this story implying that Mozilla will trash the Firefox search capabilities if someone comes up with enough money to merit the demolition? If I were Google, and wanted Chrome to replace Firefox, I might be willing to pay Mozilla myself to remove Google search from the product.

Re:Objective to improve Firefox or promote Chrome? (2, Interesting)

rel4x (783238) | more than 5 years ago | (#27168765)

Other search engines have similar user satisfaction ratings as Google.(Source) [searchenginewatch.com] .
Yahoo is just too incompetent as a company to leverage it (try to advertise on Yahoo, and you'll see what I mean).

I call shenanigans (2, Insightful)

Rix (54095) | more than 5 years ago | (#27168889)

For most of those search engines, most people would simply never have heard of them.

Switching the default search could really hurt Mozilla if Chrome matures by 2011.

Re:I call shenanigans (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 5 years ago | (#27168957)

If we are going to talk about most people, they don't know the difference between the search bar and the url bar, and they aren't going to freak out if they still get a list of web pages when they type stuff into the url bar.

A lot of people still set Google as their homepage, go there and type in stuff like 'http://www.yahoo.com' or whatever.

Some contrary statistics (2, Informative)

Mostly a lurker (634878) | more than 5 years ago | (#27169011)

Your page was from 2007 (and highly suspicious anyway). Let's try a 2008 page [searchengineland.com] and a couple of 2009 [searchenginewatch.com] sites [searchenginewatch.com] .

Re:Some contrary statistics (2, Informative)

pseudonomous (1389971) | more than 5 years ago | (#27170171)

The GP wasn't talking about market-share, the GP was talking about reported user satisfaction, which isn't neccessarily linked to market-share.

Re:Some contrary statistics (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27170335)

how is this informative? Mr Lurker didn't get GPs point at all.

Re:Objective to improve Firefox or promote Chrome? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27169385)

I think not. The head FF developer works for Google.

Yahoo? (4, Interesting)

MrCrassic (994046) | more than 5 years ago | (#27168741)

Could this be a good way for Yahoo to gain some ground in the search engine market again? Or is it more likely that Mozilla will find a smaller party to latch on to?

Either way, I think Google was a significant player in making Mozilla much more successful, especially with Firefox. They did promote it initially after all.

Re:Yahoo? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27169203)

Yay!

I've always been annoyed at how google has become a verb "google for blah blah" radio and television giving them all that free press (same with facebook..)

Hopefully, mozilla will drop google and go with something like yahoo... or even better, get rid of the "search toolbar" completely (and a few other things..)

I like firefox, it's great.. but it seems to me that removing a few features (and moving others to libexec) is one way they could get back to the lean browser it once was.

MSN? Not bloody likely (3, Informative)

rxmd (205533) | more than 5 years ago | (#27168751)

'There are probably other search engines that would pay us more money,' Baker says. Yahoo! and Microsoft's MSN, Google's two main search rivals, come to mind

Well, MSN doesn't really come at least to my mind when I think of a search engine that could sponsor Firefox development.

Re:MSN? Not bloody likely (2, Insightful)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 5 years ago | (#27168835)

Well, MSN doesn't really come at least to my mind when I think of a search engine that could sponsor Firefox development...

Really?

*Embrace* , extend, extinguish? Stranger things have happened, and the IE engine dies with IE8.

Re:MSN? Not bloody likely (1)

Xtravar (725372) | more than 5 years ago | (#27169811)

I think with Google being the dominant player on the block, Microsoft has been trying a lot of new things. I expect MS to be more and more friendly as the trend continues. Of course, there will always be the bad memories.

It's like they're finally waking up and realizing they can't control the market anymore, so they have to play nice.

Re:MSN? Not bloody likely (1)

geminidomino (614729) | more than 5 years ago | (#27170147)

the IE engine dies with IE8.

Let's be honest... the IE engine has been dead for years, they just forgot to bury it...

Re:MSN? Not bloody likely (1)

Ninnle Labs, LLC (1486095) | more than 5 years ago | (#27170483)

*Embrace* , extend, extinguish? Stranger things have happened, and the IE engine dies with IE8.

And being replaced by another of their own products.

my take is Chrome pushes the technology (4, Insightful)

Dan667 (564390) | more than 5 years ago | (#27168755)

I would be surprised if Google would not want to stick with Mozilla. I have always viewed Chrome as Google's attempt to push browser technology. More ways to get to Google Search makes them more money. Dumping Mozilla and replacing them with a fledgling browser does not.

Re:my take is Chrome pushes the technology (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27168843)

You forget, firefox has adblock, chrome does not. Google used to be good, or at the very least, did no evil, until they released an IPO, now they're like microsoft, but with a better pr department.

Re:my take is Chrome pushes the technology (1)

nicodoggie (1228876) | more than 5 years ago | (#27170651)

Ahh yes, but they've publicly announced that they'll add in an extension system. Something like Adblock would surely be one of the first ones to be made.

Re:my take is Chrome pushes the technology (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27168881)

Yeah, and you're right. Google has openly stated that Chrome was essentially their vision that they hoped major browsers would take parts of. Apparently it's being considered as serious competition, rather than a freebie from Google.

I would imagine that if Google was serious about making a browser it would already have all of Firefox's features, such as extensions etc.

Re:my take is Chrome pushes the technology (1)

troll8901 (1397145) | more than 5 years ago | (#27168977)

Dumping Mozilla and replacing them with a fledgling browser does not.

I feel Google will push Mozilla to develop Firefox at a very fast pace, to match up to Google's speed.

Re:my take is Chrome pushes the technology (1)

Radhruin (875377) | more than 5 years ago | (#27169417)

While I agree that that is partially the goal of the desktop version of chrome, let's not forget that Chrome is pretty important for Android, at least right now.

sad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27168771)

it's like watching your two children fight. why can't we all just get along?

Mozilla on a phone could be good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27168773)

...but only if they call it something besides 'Fennec'. Jesus.

Re:Mozilla on a phone could be good (1)

FlyingBishop (1293238) | more than 5 years ago | (#27169223)

Jesus sounds like a good name to me.

Re:Mozilla on a phone could be good (1)

redxxx (1194349) | more than 5 years ago | (#27169469)

Fennecs are small, and adorable, foxes that live in deserts(which tend to be warm).

It's a pretty fitting name for Mozilla's moble(small) browser.

It's also not the first mobile Mozilla based mobile browser. At the very least it is predated by the Maemo Browser, found on Nokia's n800 family of products.

Linux fork (1, Interesting)

zogger (617870) | more than 5 years ago | (#27168949)

If the linux devs working on firefox were to seriously fork it, and get away from mozilla proper, so that any future releases had *nothing* to do with the windows version, and they renamed it so there was a distinct and clearcut difference when talking about "firefox", I'd pay for the thing yearly, some reasonable sum, say 10 or 20 bucks. I'd like a REAL *quality* open source browser that had nothing to do with a closed source operating system. For me, and probably millions of other people, the internet browser is "the killer app", and as such is worth something and worth support.

Re:Linux fork (0)

just_another_sean (919159) | more than 5 years ago | (#27169123)

If the linux devs working on firefox were to seriously fork it, and get away from mozilla proper, so that any future releases had *nothing* to do with the windows version, and they renamed it so there was a distinct and clearcut difference when talking about "firefox", I'd pay for the thing yearly, some reasonable sum, say 10 or 20 bucks. I'd like a REAL *quality* open source browser that had nothing to do with a closed source operating system. For me, and probably millions of other people, the internet browser is "the killer app", and as such is worth something and worth support.

It's called Iceweasel and while it is a little behind Firefox in terms of version it works great. Running 3.0.6 right now with NoScript and User Agent Switcher extensions.

Re:Linux fork (3, Informative)

bunratty (545641) | more than 5 years ago | (#27169429)

IceWeasel isn't a fork of Firefox. It's a version of Firefox that's been rebranded so that it doesn't have the trademark and copyright issues that Firefox has.

Re:Linux fork (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 5 years ago | (#27169559)

Ice Weasel (now Ice Cat) isn't a serious linux-only fork, it's an out-of-date firefox with different artwork.

Re:Linux fork (2, Insightful)

jamesmcm (1354379) | more than 5 years ago | (#27169267)

Yeah, that's a good idea except for the loss in manpower might mean they can't keep up with developments.

I could easily see it happening though, if MS sponsor Firefox and they change the search to Live Search.

Re:Linux fork (3, Insightful)

Drakonik (1193977) | more than 5 years ago | (#27169375)

I'm not trying to be snippy or sarcastic here...um, what about Firefox has something to do specifically with Windows? As far as my experience goes, everything in Firefox is completely cross-platform.

Re:Linux fork (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 5 years ago | (#27169913)

As far as my experience goes, everything in Firefox is completely cross-platform.

Except for performance, apparently.

Unlike Microsoft, Google doesn't have a record... (5, Insightful)

Chyeld (713439) | more than 5 years ago | (#27168967)

of getting into bed with people simply to be in position to stab them in the back while they sleep.

The only way I see Google dropping funding for Firefox is when Firefox starts fumbling to the point where they are no longer relevant.

What would the purpose be? Just because Google has their own browser now, it has no where near the marketshare of even FireFox. And you know that any severing in ties between Mozilla and Google will result in a backlash, regardless of the reasons for the break.

When the landscape is down to just FireFox and Chrome as the 'relevant' browsers, then I'd worry. But right now? Google isn't as short sighted as Microsoft, they don't pull that sort of petty shit.

Re:Unlike Microsoft, Google doesn't have a record. (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27169115)

of getting into bed with people simply to be in position to stab them in the back while they sleep.

The only way I see Google dropping funding for Firefox is when Firefox starts fumbling to the point where they are no longer relevant.

What would the purpose be? Just because Google has their own browser now, it has no where near the marketshare of even FireFox. And you know that any severing in ties between Mozilla and Google will result in a backlash, regardless of the reasons for the break.

When the landscape is down to just FireFox and Chrome as the 'relevant' browsers, then I'd worry. But right now? Google isn't as short sighted as Microsoft, they don't pull that sort of petty shit.

Oh I really hate Microsoft!

Re:Unlike Microsoft, Google doesn't have a record. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27169405)

Mozilla is irrelevant. iPhone runs on WebKit. Android runs on WebKit. Palm Pre runs on WebKit. Nokia might someday use mozilla, but today they're also involved in WebKit.

Re:Unlike Microsoft, Google doesn't have a record. (2, Insightful)

DerekLyons (302214) | more than 5 years ago | (#27169453)

Unlike Microsoft, Google doesn't have a record of getting into bed with people simply to be in position to stab them in the back while they sleep.

Not renewing a contract isn't stabbing someone in the back. Google isn't bound to Mozilla permanently legally, ethically, or morally.
 
Google does have a record however of doing things half ass and then leaving them adrift.

listen to the bullshit rationalization! (0, Troll)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 5 years ago | (#27169471)

why is it that the slashdot hordes makes excuses when google does the same thing microsoft did as it clawed its way to power by betraying its business partners?

please note: its not 2002. google is not a darling upstart anymore. it has done, and is doing, and will do, plenty of shady things. luckily they have kneejerk sycophants like you to explain away their sleaze as perfectly acceptable. the same sleazy moves you would pillory microsoft for

i can't believe this tripe i am responding to is currently marked +5 insightful

from people who pride themselves on being immune to prejudice and propaganda, comes a mental turd sandwich of both

all aping the trendy status quo: "google gooood! microsoft baaaad!"

mindless sheep

Re:listen to the bullshit rationalization! (1)

Chyeld (713439) | more than 5 years ago | (#27169807)

why is it that the slashdot hordes makes excuses when google does the same thing microsoft did as it clawed its way to power by betraying its business partners?

please note: its not 2002. google is not a darling upstart anymore. it has done, and is doing, and will do, plenty of shady things. luckily they have kneejerk sycophants like you to explain away their sleaze as perfectly acceptable. the same sleazy moves you would pillory microsoft for

i can't believe this tripe i am responding to is currently marked +5 insightful

from people who pride themselves on being immune to prejudice and propaganda, comes a mental turd sandwich of both

all aping the trendy status quo: "google gooood! microsoft baaaad!"

mindless sheep

And what shady deals has Google done so far? I pray, do tell.

Here are the things that I remember Microsoft for, off the top of my head:

  • Illegally forcing the sale of MS-Dos with Windows, to kill off the other companies selling DOS.
  • Stealing the code for a disk compression software suite and releasing it with Windows 95 in an attempt to kill off the companies that were selling utility suites.
  • Publishing an API for Windows, which was subtly broken, allowing them to write programs that ran better than their competition through the pure virtue of using a hidden internal API rather than the published one.
  • Getting sued for that first bullet point, coping up to it, settling rather than going to court, with part of the settlement being them agreeing to never tie their products together again, and then turning around and doing the exact same thing with IE (and getting caught again).
  • "Buying" an ISO for their "Open" document format.
  • "Vista Ready"
  • "Play For Sure"

And here, I decide to stop. Not because there aren't many more perfectly good examples of Microsoft behaving badly, but because I think I've provided sufficent examples for you to base your own "Google exploits" list on.

So go ahead, let me know what horribly underhanded/illegal things have Google done to 'claw' their way to the start, my friend.

Or can it be the appolist actually you, and not I?

ok (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 5 years ago | (#27170251)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4645596.stm [bbc.co.uk]

google uses immortal cookies

it records absolutely everything

its toolbar is spyware

it has extensive server logs that last years (all the better to track you)

it has a monopoly on so much of the internet and all communication, and wants ever more

etc., etc. all off the top of my head

it is, by definition, completely natural not to trust a company with so much power. or at least it should be. you seem perfectly trusting of something which seeks to be so omniscient in your life, and is rapidly achieving exactly that. you, go ahead, pillory microsoft, as their power wanes as a builder of the land barge os vista, while the world goes mad for ubuntu netbooks. and you, go ahead and make excuses for google as they dominate ever more and more of the web and your private communication

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/03/04/1932247 [slashdot.org]

http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/03/12/1254241 [slashdot.org]

there's nothing to worry about, right? nothing at all. they say "don't be evil" so they are perfectly trustworthy, right? hey, all doublespeak catchphrases are 100% true in this world, right?

so please, you worry about dying old microsoft. you know what? i'm going to worry about google. their power is vast, every day they seek to extend their reach into every crevice of your searches and communications, and they have a legion of obedient boot lickers like yourself to tell us they are perfectly harmless and reasonable

their goal is to search and know everything there is. this is the company's goal. it is explicitly stated. go search for any number of quotes by brin and page. and they are doing exactly that, explicitly. this is vast unfathomable power they are consolidating. and the incredible lie, that collosal fools like yourself swallow, is that google, with all this vast power, will always be a benign force in your life

i'm not a paranoid schizophrenic. there is no plot, no conspiracy here. sergey brin, larry page, they seem perfectly nice people. i'm sure the entire management of the company are well-meaning and good natured and ethical folks. but why do you believe this tremendous edifice which explicitly desires to be all knowing will always be in the hands of well-meaning people? the nuclear bomb was also built by men who were basically decent folks. the issue is not the people building the company, or how they build the company, but what it is they are BUILDING. google, the company, will always be in the hands of nice guys?

hey, i wish i could lobotomize myself too. a company seeks to know everything about everybody. it explicitly states this repeatedly and makes coherent incremental steps to do exactly that. and its a force for good in the world?

please! pass me some of what you are smoking!

Re:listen to the bullshit rationalization! (1)

Anonymous Monkey (795756) | more than 5 years ago | (#27169831)

...luckily they have kneejerk sycophants like you to explain away their sleaze as perfectly acceptable. the same sleazy moves you would pillory microsoft ...

Not to be a troll, but are you saying that the Google of today is the Apple of tomorrow?

Re:listen to the bullshit rationalization! (1)

mcvos (645701) | more than 5 years ago | (#27170293)

why is it that the slashdot hordes makes excuses when google does the same thing microsoft did as it clawed its way to power by betraying its business partners?

Like what exactly? Microsoft has broken laws time and time again in order to build a monopoly. Remember how they forced PC builders to only sell PCs with MS DOS (and later Windows)? Remember how many times they've been involved in anti-trust cases? How many competing business they bought to kill them, or simply drove out of business? How much crap they keep forcing on us?

Google, on the other hand, provides a very good free service, gives lots of innovative software away for free, sponsors lots of Open Source development, and all of it voluntary without them demanding anything in return.

Well, except for our information. Privacy is pretty much dead because of Google, and then there's the Chinese censorship thing.

Google is by no means the shining saintly company that it pretends to once have been, but it's nowhere near the same league as Microsoft as far as evil is concerned. And they certainly don't have any moral obligation to keep giving tons of money to Mozilla.

(I can't believe you've been modded +3 interesting.)

Re:Unlike Microsoft, Google doesn't have a record. (2, Interesting)

rm999 (775449) | more than 5 years ago | (#27169635)

Exactly. Google will do the profitable thing, which is to stay with Mozilla. It doesn't matter that Chrome now exists; Firefox most likely generates more revenue for Google than Mozilla makes from all sources combined.

There is nothing stopping Chrome and Google's deal with Mozilla from coexisting. As long as all web browsers lead to Google's search engine, Google will be happy. It is Internet Explorer they want to destroy. And they have been successful, Chrome apparently is stealing more users from IE (http://www.inquisitr.com/3031/chrome-internet-explorer/)

one shocking move would be (1)

jlebrech (810586) | more than 5 years ago | (#27169111)

msn!!

No reason for Google to stop supporting Mozilla (1)

doconnor (134648) | more than 5 years ago | (#27169205)

It seems to me that Google supports Mozilla to get it's search at the default for Firefox and to make Google the default search for as many people as possible. The fact that they are making their own browser doesn't effect this.

The only reason Google would stop supporting Mozilla is if Firefox where to have a dramatic loss in market share to some other browser, not necessarily Chrome.

Silly For Both (3, Insightful)

somethinghollow (530478) | more than 5 years ago | (#27169279)

Google would be silly not to renew.
1. Firefox users make up a huge market of potential revenue.
2. Chrome users + Firefox users make up an even bigger market.
3. Chrome users make up a much smaller market than Firefox users.
4. It may put hurt on the Mozilla foundation, which may effectively kill a great standards based browser. That doesn't mesh well with what I understand to be the goals of Google.

If they do, I can't imagine the majority of Firefox users leaving the default search in place. Rather, they would set it to Google anyway. So, unless the new default is really compelling, Mozilla won't benefit much, anyway (unless they get paid JUST for having it as default, not based on how many queries are run).

tac=o (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27169343)

I've never 5eEn [goat.cx]

IBM FireFox? (1)

tjstork (137384) | more than 5 years ago | (#27169421)

I'm going to throw it out there, but FireFox is in trouble unless another big corp comes to the rescue. Open source is fine for cobbling together systems made of tiny little programs all doing their own thing, but a web browser is a giant and monolithic application that requires an enormous investment in time and money to execute well. Without it, FireFox will sputter off and die.

The thing is, Google is now paying for two browsers. While right now, analysts might look at this and forgive them somewhat, if their earnings suffer, one of those browsers will have to go and its not going to be Chrome. Chrome is Google's ground up baby and its a strategic investment.

Who else has the kind of money it takes to fund FireFox? There's not that many players. You basically are looking at somebody like a Nokia, an IBM or, Yahoo. Of the three, only Nokia and IBM have the credibility to really pull off owning a web browser, and I could almost see IBM grabbing a browser because it leverages their service business and server offerings, and, just a smattering of good old fashioned revenge against Microsoft.

Re:IBM FireFox? (3, Interesting)

Lemmy Caution (8378) | more than 5 years ago | (#27169651)

MS Firefox is more likely.

MS has no inherent interest in propping up IE, which is a widely disliked, cruft-heavy bit of software that provides no revenue for them but batters their public image.

I think it quite likely that the big check that was offered to Mozilla came from Microsoft - and that they're thinking of taking it. In some ways, Firefox is a better fit for Microsoft than for Google: Microsoft doesn't rely on ad revenues, so the fact that it is much easier to block ads on Firefox than on Chrome isn't an issue for them.

If and when that happens, I look forward to watching a million heads explode.

Re:IBM FireFox? (4, Interesting)

Knight2K (102749) | more than 5 years ago | (#27169717)

The major Linux distributions, like Red Hat, would probably chip in. Part of the reason that Linux has any desktop market share at all is because Firefox runs on it, and many major sites support it. If people couldn't access their banking sites, YouTube, etc. with their Linux browser, they would replace their Linux desktop with Windows. Or, in the case of netbooks, buy the Windows version instead of the Linux one.

Re:IBM FireFox? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27170013)

i'd hope so, anyway. posting becuase i accidentally modded you troll, sorry :/.

Re:IBM FireFox? (1)

witherstaff (713820) | more than 5 years ago | (#27170089)

Doesn't Google also pay for being the default search for Opera? Also it would seem 40 odd million a year would be enough for developing a web browser without needing a big blue to save them.

Re:IBM FireFox? (1)

pseudonomous (1389971) | more than 5 years ago | (#27170419)

Qoute from TFA: "They could breach the contract or they could decide not to renew," Baker says. While she says she doesn't expect Google to take either approach, she's nonetheless considering alternatives." Which is just good, common sense. And even if they *knew* google was going to renew their contract, there's no reason not to shop for a better deal.

Re:Isn't that the problem? (1)

Lord Bitman (95493) | more than 5 years ago | (#27170493)

Why should a web browser be so monolithic / try to do everything?
There's really no reason at all for the same application to handle, for example, interacting with a web page AND bookmarking that page

Let's go to Yahoo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27169565)

Yahoo search is not bad. From search.yahoo.com, you can actually get to it.

Yahoo Search and Firefox make lots of sense as a pairing, along the lines of Live Search + IE and
Chrome + Google.

If nothing else, it would give Mozilla a chance to get more money from Google, which can go toward development.

Who needs Google? (0, Flamebait)

ClosedSource (238333) | more than 5 years ago | (#27169643)

Open source experts on Slashdot.org have been assuring us for years that open source projects can make a profit, so I'm sure that a popular application like FireFox can survive without being propped-up by Google.

Enemy of my enemy is my friend. (1)

ConfusedVorlon (657247) | more than 5 years ago | (#27169653)

Google pays Mozilla because they want to increase competition against Microsoft. The more competition they can encourage, the more they can offer powerful services through the browser.

They don't care whether it is their browser, Mozilla, or even IE - as long as it supports the standards that let them push MS out of the way.

They built chrome to help that push, and to focus a bit more on javascript performance (again, so they can push against MS).

They don't see Mozilla as competition against chrome - but as an ally against MS. I'm sure they know that they are getting a powerful dose of worldwide browser improvement for not much cash. I'm quite sure they won't be stopping that cheque.

Re:Enemy of my enemy is my friend. (2, Interesting)

Lemmy Caution (8378) | more than 5 years ago | (#27170197)

If Microsoft gives up IE, is it still Mozilla's enemy?

You know, it might actually be nice.. (1)

Kazoo the Clown (644526) | more than 5 years ago | (#27170183)

Just imagine-- using software whose developers don't feel they have to be constantly finding new features to add to it in order to keep their revenue stream going. Releases might just become stable enough that for a change, they aren't introducing new security flaws with every update. Sounds pretty sweet, actually.

I don't play the name game (1)

fulldecent (598482) | more than 5 years ago | (#27170321)

Yahoo and MSN have search engines? No, seriously, I didn't even notice.

wtf? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27170435)

Google is currently the superior search platform. It would be stupid to replace them as the default search option just because they stop handing out free money.

optimized build huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27170457)

yeah, except that if they make the browser for mobiles as "optimized" as it is for linux, then i`d say "gtfo, me wants another browser"

Mozilla should Slashdot more often (1)

msoori (614781) | more than 5 years ago | (#27170635)

Maybe Mozilla guys should read slashdot more often... if they /. just a couple of days agao, they would have been able to recognize a business opportunity http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/03/10/1942232 [slashdot.org] Now, could I be the one to have brokered this deal and collect a few million$?

Bargain chip? (1)

secondspan (1499077) | more than 5 years ago | (#27170641)

At the very least this is a nice bargaining chip for Google in negotiating with the Mozilla guys -- a play stolen from the Microsoft playbook?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...