News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on U.S. v. Google. Parent comment

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?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:U.S. v. Google by ilovetux on Tuesday September 12, 2023 @10:21AM (#37481752)
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.

[ Parent | on HN ]
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
[ Parent | on HN ]
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.
[ Parent | on HN ]
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.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:U.S. v. Google by ilovetux on Tuesday September 12, 2023 @10:24AM (#37481796)
Even with tons of new users, how would Mozilla be able to fund continued development of Firefox?

Mozilla will need to find a way to raise funds.

[ Parent | on HN ]