Re:U.S. v. Google
by ocdtrekkie on Tuesday September 12, 2023 @10:11AM
(#37481577)
If Firefox loses a lot of funding but Google loses the ability to pay companies to make Chrome the default on nearly all devices sold globally today, Firefox will be in much better shape than it is now. Google is killing it, and also giving it a few dollars.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:U.S. v. Google
by bilal4hmed on Tuesday September 12, 2023 @10:14AM
(#37481615)
how would the loss of funding put Firefox in better shape? Are you saying that exposure would mean dollars would flow in from donations from new users?
I think they are saying that Firefox would be in a better position to increase market share.
I am not sure that I agree. Specifically, I doubt that mozilla would be able to realize any revenue even if every OEM made Firefox the default browser.
Re:U.S. v. Google
by bilal4hmed on Tuesday September 12, 2023 @10:24AM
(#37481795)
ah thanks for that, Im was wondering how it makes their financial position better. Losing this case imo would knock them out completely
Re:U.S. v. Google
by ocdtrekkie on Tuesday September 12, 2023 @10:16AM
(#37481665)
I'm saying if Google can't throw billions at other companies to push Chrome over Firefox, Firefox can get those users for pennies on the dollar, or even be considered the free better choice for product vendors to include.
Re:U.S. v. Google
by londons_explore on Tuesday September 12, 2023 @10:21AM
(#37481755)
I think you're misunderstanding....
If Android OEM's aren't locked into Chrome, they'll probably request payment from Edge, Brave and other startup browsers to be the default. Whoever pays most will get the spot. And that browser will end up being ad-ridden to help pay for that.
I could totally imagine browsers having ad-blockers that don't block ads, but merely replace "bad" website-provided ads with browser-provided "good" ads.