A lot of people in this thread seem to downplay the article with “yeah, that might be your opinion…” but two facts that are facts and not opinions are:
The market share Firefox hold is insignificant.
Mozilla’s business is a near 100% dependency on one “customer”, Google.
This means that if Google decides to stop bank rolling Mozilla it’s game over. Firstly because other revenue streams are currently near insignificant when you look at the total expenses.
Secondly because since Firefox hold no significant market share, no one else would be interested in investing in Mozilla and the future of Firefox. After all, whatever Mozilla will throw up on the wall as the “grand masterplan for world dominance” would just end up in the question “Why didn’t you do this before?”.
I’ve been using Firefox for almost 20 years. I started using it because I saw what happens when one company controls the browser market.
That web browser did so much damage and we only really got rid of it some year ago.
Chrome is a perfect example that the history repeats itself and that people are fucking stupid.
People are actually acting surprised and complain about Google putting effort into making adblocking impossible in Chrome.
So all in all, if Mozilla doesn’t find other revenue streams, Firefox is dead…
It just doesn’t know it yet.
Now, everyone yapping about that Linux was an insignificant player and still made it to the top just sound like enthusiasts who really doesn’t know history and the harsh reality of doing business.
Linux was just a little more than hobby project (business wise) that essentially only Red Hat and Suse made real money from in the 90’s.
Arguably you could say that the turning point was when the CEO of IBM, Lou Gerstner, shocked the world by saying that IBM was going to pump in 1 billion dollars in Linux during 2001. Now, that doesn’t look like much today when just Red Hat has a yearly revenue of 3-4 billion, but that’s how insignificant Linux was at that time.
After that milestone Linux went for the jugular on Windows Server.
For ordinary people it would still take almost 10 years before they would hold something Linux in their hands.
The rocket engine that accelerated Linux and pieces that it was ready for end users was Google and Android in 2007.
Linux’s growth the last 20 years wasn’t mainly driven by enthusiasts, it was business pumping in money in future opportunities.
What future opportunities can Mozilla sell to investors with the market share Firefox has today?
Yup. Mozilla really needs to diversify and find new revenue sources.
They’ve been trying, but it’s proving difficult to do while still refraining from hoovering up and selling everybody’s data. Nobody wants to pay.
To make matters worse, anytime Mozilla tries to make any money, people accuse them of selling out or say they should just focus on Firefox. Some of these people even say that Firefox needs to get rid of Google funding immediately to get rid of Google’s influence.
But that means the death of Firefox. I don’t really get what these people want.
These people want to be rid of Google’s influence, which is why they chose Firefox over Chrome to begin with. But they don’t understand the position Mozilla is in…
Some of these people even say that Firefox needs to get rid of Google funding immediately to get rid of Google’s influence.
Which is an importnt factor, because Mozilla is currently being kept alive specifcally to lose.
To be fair, those people (and lots others too) watch everyday some millionaires or billionaires just up and throwing money. Under that premise, it “should be as easy” as just convincing a random capitalist with narcissist complex to fund Mozilla. The problem with that is, people’s memory on the internet tends to not be retrospeculative, so they don’t notice if Mozilla did that they’d be in just about the same position eg.: Reddit was 5 years before 2023.
The issue is biggest for web browsers, but I also feel like I see that issue for a whole lot of web industries. Journalism, for instance. Everyone wants everything for free, and so the “articles” you see are garbage half churned out from algorithms to optimize click rate, and blanketed with dozens of ads. To take another example, games, we have a market saturated with freemium games that encourage people to spend nothing (and then hundreds). Pirates would now claim it’s a moral responsibility to pirate, but if we end up in that world, only a slim minority of people would ever make a living out of it.
The general unwillingness/inability for consumers to pay for digital content definitely causes a lot of problems now. I personally attribute it to a generally low minimum wage, but it could be an issue going beyond that.
Arguably Google needs Firefox and co to not lose chrome in Europe due to anti monopoly rulings. Think that is sadly the best thing Firefox has to offer investors.
The rocket engine that accelerated Linux and pieces that it was ready for end users was Google and Android in 2007.
N-no. Correct about IBM though.
It seems that what made Linux and FreeBSD relevant was the late 90s’ and early 00s’ Web. And FreeBSD then lost to Linux, not to Windows Server or Solaris.
Linux’s growth the last 20 years wasn’t mainly driven by enthusiasts, it was business pumping in money in future opportunities.
Only there are different kinds of businesses, and the balance between them is becoming worse.
Before IBM made that statement there were essentially no major software vendors that ported and supported their software on Linux.
Yes, one might argue that Linux-Apache-MySql-Php revolutionized things but other than that a clear majority of things were run on solutions that put money in Microsoft’s pockets.
Feel free to name drop some major finance systems or similar enterprise systems you could run without Microsoft cashing in on the OS in some way between 1990-2005.
As I wrote before, it took us 20 years to get rid of IE and a lot of proprietary server side junk Microsoft blessed us with.
It’s not an coincidence. 99% of all companies were stuck in development tools from Microsoft.
It wasn’t until the hardware really really caught up with Java requirements that things really changed.
I’ve just found mentions of Linux support by Oracle before that, so there were things before IBM and that statement. Though on that page there’s no Linux link, but there are AIX, Solaris etc and an NT one.
Feel free to name drop some major finance systems or similar enterprise systems you could run without Microsoft cashing in on the OS in some way between 1990-2005.
Could you please, on the contrary, name some such systems strongly requiring Microsoft really? IIS and AD are not that.
I mean, OK, for the thick clients for administrators likely it’d be many things.
But everything IBM or commercial Unix-based, like, again, Oracle databases.
I’m born in 1996, so don’t really know what I’m talking about. Just seems a bit skewed.
I expect Google to keep Mozilla/Firefox on the lifeline indefinitely to avoid antitrust issues in the states and EU, so Mozilla/Firefox won’t go anywhere.
Still, this doesn’t mean anything, because I often need Chrome or Safari to access some websites.
In the end it is quite funny: Moving a lot of stuff to the web made Linux a more realistic desktop option, at the same time to access a lot of stuff on the web one needs to run a Blink browser.
IMHO the most annoying thing is, that we could have at least some laws, which mandate that every government service must be available to Open Source users and every government paid software must run on at least Linux. Thanks to lobbying and power this will never happen.
Edit: To state it more clearly: Firefox is IMHO in bad shape and in a bad situation. Firefox won’t die, but at the same time right now I already need Chrome/Safari browsers, because Firefox support is broken on many sites. I see no way Firefox can gain significant market share, especially seeing what regular consumers tolerate from Microsoft/Edge and Google/Chrome.
One big problem, even if Google continues to pour money into Mozilla, is that more and more sites and systems drops support for Firefox. When I say “drop” I mean implement measures for making it harder to use a service if you use Firefox. Even Google does this.
A lot of people in this thread seem to downplay the article with “yeah, that might be your opinion…” but two facts that are facts and not opinions are:
This means that if Google decides to stop bank rolling Mozilla it’s game over. Firstly because other revenue streams are currently near insignificant when you look at the total expenses.
Secondly because since Firefox hold no significant market share, no one else would be interested in investing in Mozilla and the future of Firefox. After all, whatever Mozilla will throw up on the wall as the “grand masterplan for world dominance” would just end up in the question “Why didn’t you do this before?”.
I’ve been using Firefox for almost 20 years. I started using it because I saw what happens when one company controls the browser market. That web browser did so much damage and we only really got rid of it some year ago.
Chrome is a perfect example that the history repeats itself and that people are fucking stupid. People are actually acting surprised and complain about Google putting effort into making adblocking impossible in Chrome.
So all in all, if Mozilla doesn’t find other revenue streams, Firefox is dead… It just doesn’t know it yet.
Now, everyone yapping about that Linux was an insignificant player and still made it to the top just sound like enthusiasts who really doesn’t know history and the harsh reality of doing business.
Linux was just a little more than hobby project (business wise) that essentially only Red Hat and Suse made real money from in the 90’s.
Arguably you could say that the turning point was when the CEO of IBM, Lou Gerstner, shocked the world by saying that IBM was going to pump in 1 billion dollars in Linux during 2001. Now, that doesn’t look like much today when just Red Hat has a yearly revenue of 3-4 billion, but that’s how insignificant Linux was at that time.
After that milestone Linux went for the jugular on Windows Server. For ordinary people it would still take almost 10 years before they would hold something Linux in their hands.
The rocket engine that accelerated Linux and pieces that it was ready for end users was Google and Android in 2007. Linux’s growth the last 20 years wasn’t mainly driven by enthusiasts, it was business pumping in money in future opportunities.
What future opportunities can Mozilla sell to investors with the market share Firefox has today?
Yup. Mozilla really needs to diversify and find new revenue sources.
They’ve been trying, but it’s proving difficult to do while still refraining from hoovering up and selling everybody’s data. Nobody wants to pay.
To make matters worse, anytime Mozilla tries to make any money, people accuse them of selling out or say they should just focus on Firefox. Some of these people even say that Firefox needs to get rid of Google funding immediately to get rid of Google’s influence.
But that means the death of Firefox. I don’t really get what these people want.
These people want to be rid of Google’s influence, which is why they chose Firefox over Chrome to begin with. But they don’t understand the position Mozilla is in…
Well yeah, I want that too, but it can’t happen until Mozilla is making a decent amount themselves
Which is an importnt factor, because Mozilla is currently being kept alive specifcally to lose.
To be fair, those people (and lots others too) watch everyday some millionaires or billionaires just up and throwing money. Under that premise, it “should be as easy” as just convincing a random capitalist with narcissist complex to fund Mozilla. The problem with that is, people’s memory on the internet tends to not be retrospeculative, so they don’t notice if Mozilla did that they’d be in just about the same position eg.: Reddit was 5 years before 2023.
The issue is biggest for web browsers, but I also feel like I see that issue for a whole lot of web industries. Journalism, for instance. Everyone wants everything for free, and so the “articles” you see are garbage half churned out from algorithms to optimize click rate, and blanketed with dozens of ads. To take another example, games, we have a market saturated with freemium games that encourage people to spend nothing (and then hundreds). Pirates would now claim it’s a moral responsibility to pirate, but if we end up in that world, only a slim minority of people would ever make a living out of it.
The general unwillingness/inability for consumers to pay for digital content definitely causes a lot of problems now. I personally attribute it to a generally low minimum wage, but it could be an issue going beyond that.
Arguably Google needs Firefox and co to not lose chrome in Europe due to anti monopoly rulings. Think that is sadly the best thing Firefox has to offer investors.
N-no. Correct about IBM though.
It seems that what made Linux and FreeBSD relevant was the late 90s’ and early 00s’ Web. And FreeBSD then lost to Linux, not to Windows Server or Solaris.
Only there are different kinds of businesses, and the balance between them is becoming worse.
Before IBM made that statement there were essentially no major software vendors that ported and supported their software on Linux.
Yes, one might argue that Linux-Apache-MySql-Php revolutionized things but other than that a clear majority of things were run on solutions that put money in Microsoft’s pockets.
Feel free to name drop some major finance systems or similar enterprise systems you could run without Microsoft cashing in on the OS in some way between 1990-2005.
As I wrote before, it took us 20 years to get rid of IE and a lot of proprietary server side junk Microsoft blessed us with. It’s not an coincidence. 99% of all companies were stuck in development tools from Microsoft.
It wasn’t until the hardware really really caught up with Java requirements that things really changed.
I’ve just found mentions of Linux support by Oracle before that, so there were things before IBM and that statement. Though on that page there’s no Linux link, but there are AIX, Solaris etc and an NT one.
Could you please, on the contrary, name some such systems strongly requiring Microsoft really? IIS and AD are not that.
I mean, OK, for the thick clients for administrators likely it’d be many things.
But everything IBM or commercial Unix-based, like, again, Oracle databases.
I’m born in 1996, so don’t really know what I’m talking about. Just seems a bit skewed.
Great write up, thank you very much!
I expect Google to keep Mozilla/Firefox on the lifeline indefinitely to avoid antitrust issues in the states and EU, so Mozilla/Firefox won’t go anywhere.
Still, this doesn’t mean anything, because I often need Chrome or Safari to access some websites.
In the end it is quite funny: Moving a lot of stuff to the web made Linux a more realistic desktop option, at the same time to access a lot of stuff on the web one needs to run a Blink browser.
IMHO the most annoying thing is, that we could have at least some laws, which mandate that every government service must be available to Open Source users and every government paid software must run on at least Linux. Thanks to lobbying and power this will never happen.
Edit: To state it more clearly: Firefox is IMHO in bad shape and in a bad situation. Firefox won’t die, but at the same time right now I already need Chrome/Safari browsers, because Firefox support is broken on many sites. I see no way Firefox can gain significant market share, especially seeing what regular consumers tolerate from Microsoft/Edge and Google/Chrome.
One big problem, even if Google continues to pour money into Mozilla, is that more and more sites and systems drops support for Firefox. When I say “drop” I mean implement measures for making it harder to use a service if you use Firefox. Even Google does this.
Really appreciate the perspective, thank you for sharing
It’s just sad. I love my Firefox and will always do…
Solid write up and a great question!