Google Will Pay Mozilla Almost $300M Per Year in Search Deal(allthingsd.com)
allthingsd.com
Google Will Pay Mozilla Almost $300M Per Year in Search Deal
http://allthingsd.com/20111222/google-will-pay-mozilla-almost-300m-per-year-in-search-deal-besting-microsoft-and-yahoo/
5 comments
There are still people convinced that the glass has a hole in it.
What's actually being paid for, here?
It could be the case that having Google as the default in Firefox will pay for itself through advertising. Anyone have any feel for how likely that is?
If it isn't, is it an attempt to buy good will? Trying to gain some leverage over Mozilla when it comes to taking sides in the standards war?
Or just the idea that any time Firefox gains a user is a time that Safari or IE isn't gaining that user, and that any marginal hits to the adoption of Chrome are disproportionately compensated by hits to the adoption of competing browsers?
It could be the case that having Google as the default in Firefox will pay for itself through advertising. Anyone have any feel for how likely that is?
If it isn't, is it an attempt to buy good will? Trying to gain some leverage over Mozilla when it comes to taking sides in the standards war?
Or just the idea that any time Firefox gains a user is a time that Safari or IE isn't gaining that user, and that any marginal hits to the adoption of Chrome are disproportionately compensated by hits to the adoption of competing browsers?
It could be the case that having Google as the default in Firefox will pay for itself through advertising.
Of course it will, easily
(Seriously - people should understand that Google's business is search (and advertising), and they want to commoditize its complements - browsers and phones with browsers on them).
Google does roughly 1 billion searches a day[1], and makes conservatively $0.08 per search[2]. Firefox has roughly 25% market share.
$0.08 * 1,000,000,000 * 0.25 = $20,000,000 per day.
Yearly revenue = $7,300,000,000 = $7.3 billion
Reasonableness check: Google's yearly revenue = $29.3 billion. $29/4 (ie, Firefox at 25%) = $7.25 billion, which seems roughly right.
[1] http://www.jeffbullas.com/2011/05/16/50-amazing-facts-and-fi...
[2] http://www.quora.com/How-much-revenue-does-Google-make-per-q...
Of course it will, easily
(Seriously - people should understand that Google's business is search (and advertising), and they want to commoditize its complements - browsers and phones with browsers on them).
Google does roughly 1 billion searches a day[1], and makes conservatively $0.08 per search[2]. Firefox has roughly 25% market share.
$0.08 * 1,000,000,000 * 0.25 = $20,000,000 per day.
Yearly revenue = $7,300,000,000 = $7.3 billion
Reasonableness check: Google's yearly revenue = $29.3 billion. $29/4 (ie, Firefox at 25%) = $7.25 billion, which seems roughly right.
[1] http://www.jeffbullas.com/2011/05/16/50-amazing-facts-and-fi...
[2] http://www.quora.com/How-much-revenue-does-Google-make-per-q...
That estimate seems pretty far off.
First, I think it's only fair to attribute ~1/2 of their revenue to search. You've got to give a lot to web ads, gmail ads, etc.
Second, I'm not sure it's quite fair to give FF 25% of their total search. It may be 25% of their desktop search, but mobile search is getting bigger and bigger. I'd say 25% is at best an upper bound.
Third, I think a large number of FF users would use Google search even if that required changing the default. I'd guess that it's on the order of 50%. The value of the deal is only the value of the searches they gain.
That said, even if you divide by 10, spending $300M to making $700M and get goodwill with developers is a great deal.
First, I think it's only fair to attribute ~1/2 of their revenue to search. You've got to give a lot to web ads, gmail ads, etc.
Second, I'm not sure it's quite fair to give FF 25% of their total search. It may be 25% of their desktop search, but mobile search is getting bigger and bigger. I'd say 25% is at best an upper bound.
Third, I think a large number of FF users would use Google search even if that required changing the default. I'd guess that it's on the order of 50%. The value of the deal is only the value of the searches they gain.
That said, even if you divide by 10, spending $300M to making $700M and get goodwill with developers is a great deal.
The trick is figuring out how many users would use the Firefox search box vs would just enter google.com into the URL the old fashioned way (or would change the search box back to Google). I have no doubt Google is measuring that number and used it to guide their bidding.
My hunch is that Google is only breaking close to even with this deal (i.e. making $300M for paying $300M) and bid high just to keep too many people from trying Bing.
Plus, Google tends to act at least a little altruistic when it comes to the web [1] and may mind less being generous to Firefox.
[1] http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/Wikimedia...
My hunch is that Google is only breaking close to even with this deal (i.e. making $300M for paying $300M) and bid high just to keep too many people from trying Bing.
Plus, Google tends to act at least a little altruistic when it comes to the web [1] and may mind less being generous to Firefox.
[1] http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/Wikimedia...
Hunches aren't very useful without hard data. More practically, defensible logic is good practice on HN, because people try and build real businesses based on what they read here.
A month ago many people thought that Mozilla was going to be in financial trouble because "they couldn't re-sign the Google deal". That seemed to be based on little more than a hunch, which data showed that was clearly wrong (which I pointed out at the time).
Note that a donation to Wikipedia is very different (for tax purposes) to a business arrangement with Mozilla.
(I do agree that Google is good to the web though)
A month ago many people thought that Mozilla was going to be in financial trouble because "they couldn't re-sign the Google deal". That seemed to be based on little more than a hunch, which data showed that was clearly wrong (which I pointed out at the time).
Note that a donation to Wikipedia is very different (for tax purposes) to a business arrangement with Mozilla.
(I do agree that Google is good to the web though)
That estimate seems pretty far off.
Well, it may well be 50% off, or even 80% off, but it does give you an order of magnitude. 100% correct numbers aren't really material: this is a really good deal for Google.
You are right that not all their revenue comes from search, and I should have thought of that. 66% of their revenue is from Google websites[1]. They don't break that down, but I'd suspect 90% is search (Youtube is probably a reasonable contributor but search ads are very expensive, and Google gets pretty good fill rates on them).
Mobile search is growing quickly, but they still "only" made $2.5 billion over the last 12 months from it (and also I presume this deal covers the Firefox mobile browser, which might not be popular now but Mozilla has been working hard on).
But yes, 25% market share is probably an upper bound.
I think a large number of FF users would use Google search even if that required changing the default.
It is possible that Mozilla could do a deal to change the search engine used on existing installs. I would hope they wouldn't do that, but it is something another search engine would probably have wanted to explore.
Also, about:home is the default home page on Firefox, and currently defaults to a Mozilla branded Google search page. That could be changed on existing browsers for sure.
All up, I agree that the $7.2 billion number is probably high, but it seems likely it would be more than $1-2 billion.
[1] http://investor.google.com/documents/20100331_google_10Q.htm...
[2] http://searchengineland.com/will-google-see-6-25-billion-in-...
Well, it may well be 50% off, or even 80% off, but it does give you an order of magnitude. 100% correct numbers aren't really material: this is a really good deal for Google.
You are right that not all their revenue comes from search, and I should have thought of that. 66% of their revenue is from Google websites[1]. They don't break that down, but I'd suspect 90% is search (Youtube is probably a reasonable contributor but search ads are very expensive, and Google gets pretty good fill rates on them).
Mobile search is growing quickly, but they still "only" made $2.5 billion over the last 12 months from it (and also I presume this deal covers the Firefox mobile browser, which might not be popular now but Mozilla has been working hard on).
But yes, 25% market share is probably an upper bound.
I think a large number of FF users would use Google search even if that required changing the default.
It is possible that Mozilla could do a deal to change the search engine used on existing installs. I would hope they wouldn't do that, but it is something another search engine would probably have wanted to explore.
Also, about:home is the default home page on Firefox, and currently defaults to a Mozilla branded Google search page. That could be changed on existing browsers for sure.
All up, I agree that the $7.2 billion number is probably high, but it seems likely it would be more than $1-2 billion.
[1] http://investor.google.com/documents/20100331_google_10Q.htm...
[2] http://searchengineland.com/will-google-see-6-25-billion-in-...
If this was such a great money making deal for Google why did Microsoft not bid higher? They have similar monetization strategy for Bing and would have similar ROI for gaining searches. Plus, MS is flush with cash and have a great desire to compete with Google.
[edit grammar]
[edit grammar]
Microsoft would love to, but they can't afford it. Bing is already losing huge amounts of money, and doing yet another deal for market share isn't going to be popular within MS unless it is profitable.
While MS could make money on a Firefox deal, they can't nearly make as much as Google can simply because Microsoft can't monetize the users as well as Google can.
You can see this on the demand side - many people try out new keyword advertising campaigns on Bing because they are so much cheaper than on Google.
Once they are confident they have a good set of keywords, they switch straight to Google (and at best keep the Bing campaign going). They'll pay more at Google, but get so much more traffic it is worth it.
While MS could make money on a Firefox deal, they can't nearly make as much as Google can simply because Microsoft can't monetize the users as well as Google can.
You can see this on the demand side - many people try out new keyword advertising campaigns on Bing because they are so much cheaper than on Google.
Once they are confident they have a good set of keywords, they switch straight to Google (and at best keep the Bing campaign going). They'll pay more at Google, but get so much more traffic it is worth it.
Good point.
Do you think Bing could be monetized at a similar rate to Google if their market shares were similar? Or are there other things Google are doing (e.g. better add targeting) that is making them more money per search?
Do you think Bing could be monetized at a similar rate to Google if their market shares were similar? Or are there other things Google are doing (e.g. better add targeting) that is making them more money per search?
Hard to know. Google does have better targeting at the moment.
Back when Yahoo was a player they built a platform that was supposed to match Google (Yahoo Panama[1]) that was their big hope of matching Google. It didn't succeed.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahoo!_Search_Marketing#Details...
Back when Yahoo was a player they built a platform that was supposed to match Google (Yahoo Panama[1]) that was their big hope of matching Google. It didn't succeed.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahoo!_Search_Marketing#Details...
[deleted]
Also, Firefox users are far more likely to be using AdBlock than Chrome or Internet Explorer users. (yes, Chrome too. Ever since Google featured it on their homepage for a while, average Joes have become fairly likely to be using it)
> I think a large number of FF users would use Google search even if that required changing the default. I'd guess that it's on the order of 50%.
I think you're overestimating the degree to which the average user is willing to make any changes to any default functionality. Remember, these are the people who google "google".
I think you're overestimating the degree to which the average user is willing to make any changes to any default functionality. Remember, these are the people who google "google".
what they are paying for is the portion of users who wouldn't use Google search if it wasn't the default.
So more like 30-40% of the 25% Firefox market share.
Still very worthwhile for Google, and explains why Firefox held out for more.
So more like 30-40% of the 25% Firefox market share.
Still very worthwhile for Google, and explains why Firefox held out for more.
> What's actually being paid for, here?
The same as with Google's previous deals with Mozilla, Opera, etc.
By being the default search engine, Google gets more prominent placement in the browser. Were Google to no longer be the default in Firefox, some users would use alternatives to Google - either because they just leave the non-Google default because it is good enough, or because they are exposed for the first time to the alternatives, and they find they like them - all of which Google wants to prevent at all costs.
Another way to look at this is that there were some estimates thrown around during the Flock days of how much advertising revenue a browser generates for a search engine (this was Flock's proposed business model). I think I remember $1-2 per user per year. That should actually be higher today, assuming in the ensuing years search engines have gotten better at monetizing traffic which seems reasonable. Given that, $300M sounds about right given the amount of users Firefox has - apparently Firefox was receiving below market value before.
The same as with Google's previous deals with Mozilla, Opera, etc.
By being the default search engine, Google gets more prominent placement in the browser. Were Google to no longer be the default in Firefox, some users would use alternatives to Google - either because they just leave the non-Google default because it is good enough, or because they are exposed for the first time to the alternatives, and they find they like them - all of which Google wants to prevent at all costs.
Another way to look at this is that there were some estimates thrown around during the Flock days of how much advertising revenue a browser generates for a search engine (this was Flock's proposed business model). I think I remember $1-2 per user per year. That should actually be higher today, assuming in the ensuing years search engines have gotten better at monetizing traffic which seems reasonable. Given that, $300M sounds about right given the amount of users Firefox has - apparently Firefox was receiving below market value before.
>Anyone have any feel for how likely that is?
As a rough napkin calculation, Firefox has 25% of the market share. So, roughly, 25% of Google's revenue comes from FF users. That's ~ $7.5BB annually. Now, as to how many of those users would manually choose to use Google for search, I don't think anyone can say for sure (although I'm sure Google has made a good estimate). Suffice to say, Google clearly sees it as worth their while to pony up and keep those users directed towards them by default.
As a rough napkin calculation, Firefox has 25% of the market share. So, roughly, 25% of Google's revenue comes from FF users. That's ~ $7.5BB annually. Now, as to how many of those users would manually choose to use Google for search, I don't think anyone can say for sure (although I'm sure Google has made a good estimate). Suffice to say, Google clearly sees it as worth their while to pony up and keep those users directed towards them by default.
Woah, big leaps here. First, just because firefox has 25% of the browser market share most certainly does not mean that they provide 25% of google searches! What about all the searches through google's homepage, mobile, custom site search, etc, etc. A lot of people still use the homepage (I know, not very many amongst the tech savvy).
Secondly, whilst most of google's income is advertising, not all of it is income from advertising on their main search results page- doubleclick, adwords, etc, etc. Lots more stuff there.
I would place it for a rough guess AT MOST 10% of google's income comes from firefox.
Secondly, whilst most of google's income is advertising, not all of it is income from advertising on their main search results page- doubleclick, adwords, etc, etc. Lots more stuff there.
I would place it for a rough guess AT MOST 10% of google's income comes from firefox.
A lot of people still use the homepage
The default Firefox home page (about:home) is a branded Google search. Combine that and the Firefox search box and I would bet you cover 90% of the searches Firefox users do.
Anyway, even if it is 10% it doesn't change the outcome substantially - it drops the revenue to $3-4 billion instead of over $7 billion. Either way it is worth paying $300 million for.
The default Firefox home page (about:home) is a branded Google search. Combine that and the Firefox search box and I would bet you cover 90% of the searches Firefox users do.
Anyway, even if it is 10% it doesn't change the outcome substantially - it drops the revenue to $3-4 billion instead of over $7 billion. Either way it is worth paying $300 million for.
Sorry, by homepage I meant typing in "www.google.com" and searching from there. Or typing google into the search bar and then getting to google, and typing the query there. Believe it or not, a lot of people still search these ways.
But yeah, def still worth it, I was just questioning the "25% of google's income" claim.
Edit: In fact, I found a source for these numbers: http://news.softpedia.com/news/Firefox-Google-Search-Box-Tra...
According to this [April 2010 - but I don't think firefox's market share has actually changed a lot since then], 82% of the search market is google, and 9.18% of the search market is searches from firefox via google. That puts firefox at 11% of google's searches. I think then about 8-9% of google income would be a good estimate- couldn't quickly find any data on what % of their income comes from search, but http://www.coastdigital.co.uk/news/google-gives-breakdown-of... shows that it def isn't 100%.
But yeah, def still worth it, I was just questioning the "25% of google's income" claim.
Edit: In fact, I found a source for these numbers: http://news.softpedia.com/news/Firefox-Google-Search-Box-Tra...
According to this [April 2010 - but I don't think firefox's market share has actually changed a lot since then], 82% of the search market is google, and 9.18% of the search market is searches from firefox via google. That puts firefox at 11% of google's searches. I think then about 8-9% of google income would be a good estimate- couldn't quickly find any data on what % of their income comes from search, but http://www.coastdigital.co.uk/news/google-gives-breakdown-of... shows that it def isn't 100%.
Google's product is not Chrome. Google's product is not search. Google's product is advertising. Search is how they deliver it, and browsers are how they deliver THAT.
Google doesn't care, financially speaking, if Chrome or Firefox does better in the marketplace. They care about the eyeballs that Firefox, Chrome, and any other browser can deliver to Google ads.
Google doesn't care, financially speaking, if Chrome or Firefox does better in the marketplace. They care about the eyeballs that Firefox, Chrome, and any other browser can deliver to Google ads.
This is very wrong. Google cares deeply if Chrome wins. You are being way too narrow in your focus.
Advertising is not their product, it's their revenue stream. Their product is _everything_ that sits between a user and monetizing an ad. Just look at what they have done from an engineering, offensive and defensive position here. It's all about that ethereal space between users and monetization. That's the battlefield, and they want all of it.
They need FF because when Chrome dominates, FF needs to be a viable competitor. With Bing, it would be worse off.
Advertising is not their product, it's their revenue stream. Their product is _everything_ that sits between a user and monetizing an ad. Just look at what they have done from an engineering, offensive and defensive position here. It's all about that ethereal space between users and monetization. That's the battlefield, and they want all of it.
They need FF because when Chrome dominates, FF needs to be a viable competitor. With Bing, it would be worse off.
True, but also, if Chrome wins, it means they don't have to care about these deals too much anymore.
Because right now is Firefox switches search engine, it's very bad for Google.
Chrome will never switch. So, yeah.
That and that they can use Chrome to lock people into Google services in the future.
That and that they can use Chrome to lock people into Google services in the future.
>That and that they can use Chrome to lock people into Google services in the future.
Oh no, not more Chrome proves Google is evil...
The only thing I've seen from Google that is a move in this direction is that it will share the oAuth cookie between Chrome Sync and google.com pages to auto login if you're already logged into the browser.
I don't see how Chrome "locks people into Google services" any more than simply enabling them to get there faster (V8, SPDY, etc).
Oh no, not more Chrome proves Google is evil...
The only thing I've seen from Google that is a move in this direction is that it will share the oAuth cookie between Chrome Sync and google.com pages to auto login if you're already logged into the browser.
I don't see how Chrome "locks people into Google services" any more than simply enabling them to get there faster (V8, SPDY, etc).
> What's actually being paid for, here?
For this - http://img585.imageshack.us/img585/7109/googlevy.png
For this - http://img585.imageshack.us/img585/7109/googlevy.png
$300M / (16*16 pixels) = ~$1M/pixel!
[deleted]
The dynamics behind the deal are interesting. Google probably paid just enough to outbid Bing, the second highest bidder. Or Firefox played a great hand of poker with Google. In either case it should trouble Mozilla that they are dependent on not only Google, but Bing (by extension) for the majority of their revenue.
Finding a sustainable way to reduce reliance on these companies should be the #1 job of the Mozilla business team in the next 3 years, before the deal comes up for renewal.
Finding a sustainable way to reduce reliance on these companies should be the #1 job of the Mozilla business team in the next 3 years, before the deal comes up for renewal.
I'm sure Mozilla feels very precarious getting such a huge chunk of money from a single source. But:
- Mozilla isn't a company, it's a non-profit (this deal was done by Mozilla Corp, yes, but that's a wholly owned branch of the foundation). Reducing their reliance on Google for cash is never going to be Mozilla's aim as a whole.
- Three years is a hell of a long time. When the last deal was negotiated, there was no Bing, and no Chrome. The world was a very different place. No matter how good their strategy is, it's going to be a terrible one for the world in 3 years time.
- The interests of the Mozilla foundation and Google are broadly aligned - they both care about an open, free web. That's a rare thing to find in large industry players these days.
- Mozilla isn't a company, it's a non-profit (this deal was done by Mozilla Corp, yes, but that's a wholly owned branch of the foundation). Reducing their reliance on Google for cash is never going to be Mozilla's aim as a whole.
- Three years is a hell of a long time. When the last deal was negotiated, there was no Bing, and no Chrome. The world was a very different place. No matter how good their strategy is, it's going to be a terrible one for the world in 3 years time.
- The interests of the Mozilla foundation and Google are broadly aligned - they both care about an open, free web. That's a rare thing to find in large industry players these days.
Your right that for Google whether a user is using Chrome or using Firefox with Google Search it shouldn't matter much on the bottom line and they don't have to worry too much about feature support from Firefox as they are quick to propose/ adopt standards.
Even though I prefer Google's search results to Bing's, I feel the "open web" might be a better place if Mozilla unseated Google's search monopoly by signing with Bing. Mozilla does have a search deal with Microsoft, but it's for second place on the list. If Bing was Firefox's default search engine, Google would have some healthy search competition.
Not really.
If Google or Bing hadn't paid enough then it would be pretty easy[1] to raise the money from random investors.
There are precedents for that - Lycos (I think? or Infoseek?) raised capital after buying a default slot on the original Netscape browser with money they didn't actually have.
[1] Not saying that building a web scale search engine is easy, exactly, but I am saying that the default search engine for ~25% of the world web browsers is a business a lot of investors would want to invest in.
If Google or Bing hadn't paid enough then it would be pretty easy[1] to raise the money from random investors.
There are precedents for that - Lycos (I think? or Infoseek?) raised capital after buying a default slot on the original Netscape browser with money they didn't actually have.
[1] Not saying that building a web scale search engine is easy, exactly, but I am saying that the default search engine for ~25% of the world web browsers is a business a lot of investors would want to invest in.
It's a great option to consider, but:
* What matters is not just default placement, but actual share. How many would not switch to Google? Say hypothetically half which I think is generous.
* That leaves them with the kind of share that Bing had prior to the yahoo deal. And bing was losing over a billion a year.
* That still doesn't actually create a business model, because now they have create a search ad network to compete with AdWords. That's another tough problem - especially without scale.
So all in all I don't doubt they could raise some money, but chances of success would be extremely slim.
I don't think that Mozilla has a BATNA to Bing/Google which is why the economics are so different in each round. It's entirely based on Google and Bing bidding against each other.
So all in all I don't doubt they could raise some money, but chances of success would be extremely slim.
I don't think that Mozilla has a BATNA to Bing/Google which is why the economics are so different in each round. It's entirely based on Google and Bing bidding against each other.
Investors don't invest if there are no shares to get.
And, there are no shares to get. And that's the whole point of Mozilla's existence.
Thus, there's only such deals and donations. An investor would therefore need to donate, to support Mozilla.
Thus, there's only such deals and donations. An investor would therefore need to donate, to support Mozilla.
I think nl was suggesting that investors could raise money to buy Firefox's search spot and then create a search engine. Imagine if some VC firm raised $301M to outbid Google and then signed a deal with DuckDuckGo.
If DuckDuckGo could really make $301+ M on search in Firefox, they would bid that. Reality, they can't. There is no value created in the imagined middle man investor.
1) Create a company
2) Bid $300 million for Mozilla's search spot.
3) Raise $600 million, build search engine
4) Profit
(Yeah, in practice steps 2 and 3 would need to happen simultaneously)
2) Bid $300 million for Mozilla's search spot.
3) Raise $600 million, build search engine
4) Profit
(Yeah, in practice steps 2 and 3 would need to happen simultaneously)
Profit how? From your search engine?
99% of FF users would just switch to Google as soon as they install it. It's not like anybody has made a competent enough search engine yet...
99% of FF users would just switch to Google as soon as they install it. It's not like anybody has made a competent enough search engine yet...
99% of FF users would just switch to Google as soon as they install it.
I assume you can back that up somehow? Most evidence I've seen indicates that the majority of people don't change defaults.
It's not like anybody has made a competent enough search engine yet
http://blekko.com/
http://duckduckgo.com/
http://www.gigablast.com/
http://www.yandex.com/
http://www.baidu.com/
There would be more if there was an easy way around the distribution problem. Becoming the default search engine in Firefox would sure help with that problem.
I assume you can back that up somehow? Most evidence I've seen indicates that the majority of people don't change defaults.
It's not like anybody has made a competent enough search engine yet
http://blekko.com/
http://duckduckgo.com/
http://www.gigablast.com/
http://www.yandex.com/
http://www.baidu.com/
There would be more if there was an easy way around the distribution problem. Becoming the default search engine in Firefox would sure help with that problem.
"""99% of FF users would just switch to Google as soon as they install it. I assume you can back that up somehow? Most evidence I've seen indicates that the majority of people don't change defaults.""""
Then the evidence you've seen is wrong. If people "don't change defaults" how come they switched to FF in the first place, which is not the default browser on Windows, but is (or rather, was until it lost to Chrome) an extremely popular windows browser?
Maybe naive users don't change defaults, but those users are sticking with (duh) the default IE. Users that moved to FF are more likely to change defaults.
Also, they won't even have to change the default: they just navigate to google.com and search from there, instead of using the search in the toolbar with this unfamiliar "Bing" thing.
"""http://blekko.com/ http://duckduckgo.com/ (...) """
Note the use of the word: "competent". None has results that good that make people actually want to switch to it. (For example, DDG's main selling point is privacy).
The only example I agree with, Baidu was made from a similar algorithm to Google's and with a remarkably similar history (RankDex vs PageRank etc). And even that is mainly popular in China for national/cultural/political reasons, methinks.
Then the evidence you've seen is wrong. If people "don't change defaults" how come they switched to FF in the first place, which is not the default browser on Windows, but is (or rather, was until it lost to Chrome) an extremely popular windows browser?
Maybe naive users don't change defaults, but those users are sticking with (duh) the default IE. Users that moved to FF are more likely to change defaults.
Also, they won't even have to change the default: they just navigate to google.com and search from there, instead of using the search in the toolbar with this unfamiliar "Bing" thing.
"""http://blekko.com/ http://duckduckgo.com/ (...) """
Note the use of the word: "competent". None has results that good that make people actually want to switch to it. (For example, DDG's main selling point is privacy).
The only example I agree with, Baidu was made from a similar algorithm to Google's and with a remarkably similar history (RankDex vs PageRank etc). And even that is mainly popular in China for national/cultural/political reasons, methinks.
So is your argument that Google should have paid nothing to be the default search engine, because people will switch, or is it that $300 million is an appropriate about for the 1% that won't change the default?
(Btw, why do you quote like that? HN docs on formatting are here: http://news.ycombinator.com/formatdoc)
(Btw, why do you quote like that? HN docs on formatting are here: http://news.ycombinator.com/formatdoc)
"""So is your argument that Google should have paid nothing to be the default search engine, because people will switch, or is it that $300 million is an appropriate about for the 1% that won't change the default?"""
No, "my argument" was on the topic of the comment I specifically responded to.
You know, where you said that by getting the FF default search && making your own search engine, you'll "profit". To which I responded something akin to: "bollocks --even if you do that, FF users will just switch search engine back to Google".
It wasn't that hard to follow, check it again.
"""(Btw, why do you quote like that? HN docs on formatting are here: http://news.ycombinator.com/formatdoc)
Ever noticed how the "HN docs on formatting" say NOTHING about quoting?
"Italics", which you use, is not for quoting is for emphasis. Other people use your method, other people use ">", I use mine.
No, "my argument" was on the topic of the comment I specifically responded to.
You know, where you said that by getting the FF default search && making your own search engine, you'll "profit". To which I responded something akin to: "bollocks --even if you do that, FF users will just switch search engine back to Google".
It wasn't that hard to follow, check it again.
"""(Btw, why do you quote like that? HN docs on formatting are here: http://news.ycombinator.com/formatdoc)
Ever noticed how the "HN docs on formatting" say NOTHING about quoting?
"Italics", which you use, is not for quoting is for emphasis. Other people use your method, other people use ">", I use mine.
Oh, and another thing: people already switched MULTIPLE times from Yahoo to Lycos to Altavista to Google.
Pre Google people switched search engines all the time -as soon as a better one come along.
Pre Google people switched search engines all the time -as soon as a better one come along.
Mozilla is not your traditional corporation.
Money always comes second. Openess and such values always come first. Always.
There is no share holder. No one has to be worried, except people who support Mozilla's point of view.
That's why it's a company worth supporting. If you support it, you win. If you don't, well, they might eventually die, and there aren't really many (read: any) replacement. It's pretty atypical.
There is no share holder. No one has to be worried, except people who support Mozilla's point of view.
That's why it's a company worth supporting. If you support it, you win. If you don't, well, they might eventually die, and there aren't really many (read: any) replacement. It's pretty atypical.
I like Mozilla, but I think you're stretching "openness" here. I don't see a lot of openness in this: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=471561
Per the new business arrangement between Mozilla & Yandex
in Russia, we need to make some changes to the ru build's
search defaults.
...
This bug is marked confidential until the agreement
has been announced publicly.
No, openness means you can take the Firefox source and release your own (rebranded) browser with a different search engine. This is exactly what Iceweasel is; in fact, I think they even use DuckDuckGo for searching, but I could be wrong because I don't have it installed.
We are talking about different opennesses here. I'm not arguing that their browser is not open source. This thread is about bidding for the default search engine in Firefox and Mozilla's business decisions. Obviously, Yandex outbid Google in the Russian market. The switch from Google was based on money. The decision was not made in the open. I interpret this as "we value openness, but to keep this organization afloat to continue making open source browser we need to make _closed_ deals with search engines", which looks like an acceptable compromise to me. But it's nowhere near the complete openness as I understand it. If your goal is pure philanthropic -- to make the best free browser -- you base your decisions ONLY on what's best for users, not on an acceptable compromise somewhere inbetween [who gets you the most money] and [what's best for users].
PS I don't suggest that Yandex is not the best choice for Russian users (it may be), but we'll never know, because nobody asked them.
PS I don't suggest that Yandex is not the best choice for Russian users (it may be), but we'll never know, because nobody asked them.
> Obviously, Yandex outbid Google in the Russian market. The switch from Google was based on money.
I find that very hard to believe. How can Yandex possibly outbid Google? Google's revenue is 60 times bigger. If Google wanted to win, it would have won.
Since Yandex was chosen, clearly there are other factors than money here. Perhaps Yandex is better for Russian users? I don't know, I don't speak Russian.
I find that very hard to believe. How can Yandex possibly outbid Google? Google's revenue is 60 times bigger. If Google wanted to win, it would have won.
Since Yandex was chosen, clearly there are other factors than money here. Perhaps Yandex is better for Russian users? I don't know, I don't speak Russian.
Actually I think it is looking more sustainable now that bing has high interest in the position as well. As long as Firefox holds a market share similar to its current one and bing holds its market share to keep ms interested in pushing it the decent sized deals should continue and probably grow.
What would to suggest as an alternate revenue source?
What would to suggest as an alternate revenue source?
Kind of curious: what is mozilla spending (or plan to) all of this cash on? Wikipedia says the MozCo has ~600 employees. Even if they are paying average $200k per person and spending another 80 million on rent, hosting, equipment, etc. that still leaves ~$100mil. Executive compensation? Rainy day fund?
I hope mozilla can now afford H.264 licenses. They are the last holdout to make web video easy.
Not true.
Chrome: http://blog.chromium.org/2011/01/html-video-codec-support-in...
Opera: See an opinion piece at http://my.opera.com/haavard/blog/2011/01/13/openness
Chrome: http://blog.chromium.org/2011/01/html-video-codec-support-in...
Opera: See an opinion piece at http://my.opera.com/haavard/blog/2011/01/13/openness
Isn't this an issue of keeping the web open, rather than the cost of licenses?
Mozilla would need to be able to convey their H.264 licenses under open-source terms. That would effectively destroy most existing and future revenue streams associated with H.264 (as licensees could elect to use Mozilla's open-source license for free instead).
In other words, Mozilla would need to be able to buy the entire H.264 patent pool. Even at $300M/year, they're nowhere near that.
In other words, Mozilla would need to be able to buy the entire H.264 patent pool. Even at $300M/year, they're nowhere near that.
[deleted]
The real story was "OMG! There's a bidding war over Mozilla's new search deal that will get them a lot more money."
It is enough to make you wonder whether a player in those negotiations started the previous rumor in the first place (presumably as leverage). The timing certainly fits.