Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Firefox Google Mozilla Open Source The Internet News

Mozilla's 3 Big Bets To Keep the Web Open 88

Posted by Soulskill
from the mozilla-also-suffering-from-gambling-addiction dept.
GMGruman writes "Savio Rodrigues writes that Google's latest agreement with Mozilla will ironically fund three new areas of competition between Google and Mozilla — areas that users and open source advocates should cheer on as they will make the Web both better and more open. The alternative, he says, is more control by the likes of Google, Facebook, and Apple."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Mozilla's 3 Big Bets To Keep the Web Open

Comments Filter:
  • dickbag move dude. dickbag move.
    • Re:dude! (Score:4, Interesting)

      by shellbeach (610559) on Friday December 23, 2011 @06:57PM (#38477542)

      dickbag move dude. dickbag move.

      Quite the opposite, actually. It's often been argued [abovethecrowd.com] that a major reason for Google's purchase and development of Android was to safeguard Google's search empire. Except from an ad-revenue-generating sense (and possibly also a kick-Apple-up-the-arse sense :) Google doesn't care whether you're using Android or not. What's of primary importance is that you're using their search tools to generate them income through advertising. Android is simply a very good means to protect that ad revenue castle.

      A boot-to-Gecko OS that promotes Google search is a much better option (as far as Google is concerned) than a boot-to-Gecko OS that promotes Bing or somebody else. I'm sure they'd much rather Android stayed dominant, but it doesn't hurt them to have allies in their camp rather than enemies outside the gates.

      • by hairyfeet (841228)

        Frankly I just wish they'd go back to their mission statement of making a fast and lean browser because its gotten kinda ridiculous with the memory and CPU spiking, at least on Windows.

        I mean we've just been given WebOS and so far at least Google has been pretty damned open with android (ts the carriers you have to worry about anyway) so do we REALLY need yet ANOTHER cell phone OS? That gives us RIM, WinPhone, Android, WebOS and then whatever it is they run on the lower end phones (Java maybe?) so I don't s

  • The "big" bets: (Score:5, Informative)

    by MrEricSir (398214) on Friday December 23, 2011 @06:00PM (#38476998) Homepage

    Since the summary didn't provide this, the allegedly large bets are:

    1. An alternative to Android
    2. An alternative to OpenID
    3. An App store

    • Re:The "big" bets: (Score:5, Informative)

      by asa (33102) <asa@mozilla.com> on Friday December 23, 2011 @06:10PM (#38477098) Homepage

      It's not quite as simple as that. A better bulleted list would be:

      1. An alternative to the proprietary mobile stacks which control the full vertical from hardware to app stores. An open Web stack based on real standards.
      2. An alternative to Facebook Connect, Sign in with Twitter, and Google Accounts. A web-wide ID system that doesn't depend on one particular provider.
      3. A set of standards for Web applications discovery, monitization, and installation and an implementation that will work across all platforms.

      • by Anonymous Coward

        How are they going to do all this while ignoring 12+ year-old usability bugs in order to implement the latest Chrome imitation feature?

    • by Turnerj (2478588)
      And their alternative to OpenID is currently called BrowserID. Very creative name indeed.
    • 2. An alternative to OpenID

      http://xkcd.com/927/ [xkcd.com]

    • by Anonymous Coward

      1. Windows Phone 7
      2. Windows Live ID
      3. Windows Store

  • Whoa, did I just step in a universe warp? I remember reading that previous article as them signing a contract with Microsoft and switching to Bing. Where did all the zeppelins go?
    • by lennier1 (264730)

      You're probably thinking of that pilot project which wasn't advertised on the main Firefox website but served as a test balloon to see how a competing search engine would fare as the default choice.

    • by wmbetts (1306001)

      Where did all the zeppelins go?

      Orgrimmar

  • The alternative, he says, is more control by the likes of Google, Facebook, and Apple.

    What? Apple? I know that dropping the "Apple-bomb" in any discussion helps to generate page-views, but what? Apple controlling the internet? I can understand Google, to say the least. I can understand Facebook as well. They both are a huge part of the internet but Apple? Apple supports (heavily) an open source browser engine... Ah... Wait... I see. They support webkit which is the foundation of Safari and Chrome (you know, Chrome, which is kicking Firefox's ass right now) as well is most mobile browsers, a

    • Re:What? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by NeutronCowboy (896098) on Friday December 23, 2011 @06:05PM (#38477046)

      No, it's the fact that Apple has a damn-near monopoly on mobile purchases, which are done in their walled garden. This is a big area of user activity, and will become a much bigger area of economic activity. Apple, through iTunes, matters to the Internet. In a bad way, unfortunately.

      • No, it's the fact that Apple has a damn-near monopoly on mobile purchases,

        And why is that? Because "it just works!"(TM)

        You are welcome to build an alternative. But it better be (very) good.

        • by MacDork (560499)

          No, it's the fact that Apple has a damn-near monopoly on mobile purchases,

          And why is that? Because "it just works!"(TM)

          You are welcome to build an alternative. But it better be (very) good.

          Welcome? Apple sues anyone who builds an alternative.

          • That's their fault for wrongfully infringing on Apple's concise, specific, hard-earned intellectual property. And by intellectual property, I mean ownership over the concept of any object of some geometric shape emitting/receiving any form of electromagnetic waves.
        • I'm not questioning the value or the quality of Apple's garden. But I am questioning the impact that such a walled garden has on the Internet in general.

    • Re:What? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by lennier1 (264730) on Friday December 23, 2011 @06:20PM (#38477190)

      It's also in Google's interest because it keeps part of the anti-monopoly cries off their back.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      I have actually stumbled across some early stage startup sites that are optimized for iPad. Yeah, you can view them with IE; but they suck that way.

      It's a "velvet rope" business model. iPad users buy the cool clothes and fancy watches. They get into the club because the management knows they'll also buy that $20 drinks.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      It's not just about the tubes on the internet. It's also about the last inches of unfreedom. From your palm to your face, there's Apple, locking you in, en masse.

  • by theodp (442580) on Friday December 23, 2011 @06:04PM (#38477040)

    What Google and Mozilla declined to disclose, reports AllThingsD's Kara Swisher, is that Google will pay just under $300 million per year to be the default choice in Mozillla's Firefox browser [allthingsd.com], a huge jump from its previous arrangement, due to competing interest from both Yahoo and Microsoft. Sources said this total amount - just under $1 billion - was the minimum revenue guarantee for delivering search queries garnered from consumers using Firefox. Google's main rival in the bid, sources said, was Microsoft's Bing search service."

  • It doesn't mean what you think it means. Please, "ironically" has been massacred enough already. Let's this word rest for a couple of decades, unless you are one of the two people in the world that actually uses it appropriately.
    • by schroedingers_hat (2449186) on Friday December 23, 2011 @06:18PM (#38477158)
      It's ironic how much people using the word irony bothers you.
    • by migla (1099771)

      Ironic, isn't it?

    • It doesn't mean what you think it means. Please, "ironically" has been massacred enough already. Let's this word rest for a couple of decades, unless you are one of the two people in the world that actually uses it appropriately.

      Ironically, by drawing peoples attention to the word without providing them an explanation of how it ought to be used, YA_Python_dev exacerbated the problem and increased his own suffering...

      • by cjb658 (1235986) on Friday December 23, 2011 @06:43PM (#38477420) Journal

        It doesn't mean what you think it means. Please, "ironically" has been massacred enough already. Let's this word rest for a couple of decades, unless you are one of the two people in the world that actually uses it appropriately.

        Ironically, by drawing peoples attention to the word without providing them an explanation of how it ought to be used, YA_Python_dev exacerbated the problem and increased his own suffering...

        Plus he threw everyone who uses that expression under the bus. Literally.

        • It doesn't mean what you think it means. Please, "ironically" has been massacred enough already. Let's this word rest for a couple of decades, unless you are one of the two people in the world that actually uses it appropriately.

          Ironically, by drawing peoples attention to the word without providing them an explanation of how it ought to be used, YA_Python_dev exacerbated the problem and increased his own suffering...

          Plus he threw everyone who uses that expression under the bus. Literally.

          It doesn't mean what you think it means. Please, "Literally" has been massacred enough already. Let's this word rest for a couple of decades, unless you are one of the two people in the world that actually uses it appropriately.

          • Please, "Literally" has been massacred enough already. Let's this word rest for a couple of decades, unless you are one of the two people in the world that actually uses it appropriately.

            Please stop building quote pyramids, that's what the "parent" link is for. Quote the pertinent part, to give your comment a bit of context, not the whole thing.

            Please, "massacred" has been used to death already; Let's let this word rest for a couple of eternities, unless you are one of the two people in the world that literally uses it literally.

          • by cjb658 (1235986)

            I was trying to be funny by using more cliches. Sorry.

          • by Cochonou (576531)
            You know, it's a perfectly acceptable usage of "Literally". It's a very common hyperbole.
        • by M8e (1008767)

          I think that everybody that uses that expression under the bus sould be threwed.

    • >unless you are one of the two people in the world that actually uses it appropriately.

      1) George Carlin
      2) ? you ?

    • by nman64 (912054) *

      Nice try, but you're in the wrong. TFS actually uses "ironically" correctly.

      From WordNet (r) 3.0 (2006) [wn]:

      irony
      n 1: witty language used to convey insults or scorn; "he used
      sarcasm to upset his opponent"; "irony is wasted on the
      stupid"; "Satire is a sort of glass, wherein beholders do
      generally discover everybody's face but their own"--
      Jonathan Swift [syn: {sarcasm}, {irony}, {satire}, {caustic
      remark}]
      2: incongruity between what might be expected and what actually
      occurs; "the irony of Ireland's copying the nation she most
      hated"
      3: a trope that involves incongruity between what is expected
      and what occurs

      Google paying money to Mozilla that would quite obviously be used to further develop products that compete with Google's own is not something one might expect, thus an incongruity between what is expected and what occurs has been introduced.

      I know that many people use "ironic" and "ironically" incorrectly, and that it is popular to jump on them for doing so, but TFS has not made that mistake. Contrast this with the well-known exampl

  • Google is under a great deal of scrutiny of late and anything they can do to show they are benevolent overseers will go a long way in allaying some of the current concerns. The fact they also benefit with all those FireFox users searches doesn't heart either.
  • NOPE!  See, we're not a monopoly!  We're HELPING the competition compete!
  • I think the big question will be, how do you make apps for Boot 2 Gecko? Will they be similar to Android apps? Also, I don't mean this as a joke, but would Boot 2 Gecko mean that Richard Stallman could own a cellphone?

    P.S. I recently experimented with Chrome and Opera. But I am back to Firefox because it is just better. Chrome eats memory like crazy without being so fast. Frankly Chrome is also buggier. And the incognito mode is leaky.
    • by BZ (40346)

      > How do you make apps for Boot 2 Gecko?

      Just like you make websites.

      There will be some sort of APIs for doing things that need expanded privileged, but those will be proposed for standardization just like any web API.

    • by Zakabog (603757)

      Richard Stallman refuses to use credit cards for anything because he doesn't want the government tracking his purchases. I don't think having a free (as in speech) OS on a phone will make any difference. Unless it was built by himself with free hardware using a free network.

  • Doomed because.. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by goruka (1721094) on Friday December 23, 2011 @10:16PM (#38478952)
    Mozilla people have this strange vision that they can replace everything (OSs, Desktop, Apps, Cellphone and tablet UIs, etc) with HTML5, JavaScript and nothing else. While Im sure that many developers like JavaScript and that HTML5 brings several great features to the open web, most of us programmers definitely DONT want to use it to write all sorts of applications and games. JS+HTML5 are not a silver bullet or general purpose enough. The recent resurgence of native applications is proof of this.
  • by Altanar (56809) on Friday December 23, 2011 @10:51PM (#38479166)

    Unless Mozilla releases its own advertising network or office suite, it isn't competing with Google. Frankly, anyone who even believed for a second that Google would let the search deal with Mozilla expire doesn't understand Google at all. Google has one main directive: Increase usage of Google **websites** to increase **advertising revenue**. Ending a deal with a major browser to provide the default search engine is completely adverse Google's business plan. You better believe that if Google could, they'd pay Microsoft to make IE's default search engine Google's.

    Chrome isn't a business model. It is a tool Google is using to influence every other browser and the web. By making a fast, standards-based browser, and influencing other browsers to follow their example, they make general internet usage--and by extension ALL Google sites--work better. And if Google sites work better, users will spend more time using them.... will see more ads... will use Google Docs... will increase Google's revenue.

    Comparing 2011's Google/Chrome to 1997's Microsoft/IE is a false dichotomy. Microsoft thought it could control the web to lock people into proprietary software. Google wants to speed up the web to get people to use it even more then they already do.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by BZ (40346)

      > they make general internet usage--and by extension
      > ALL Google sites--work better.

      That's where they started.

      Now they are specifically trying to make Google sites work particularly well with Chrome (and in some cases only with WebKit), even if that has to happen at the expense of other browsers. They are also trying to make Chrome work particularly well with their own sites, even if that comes at the expense of other sites, of course.

      > Microsoft thought it could control the web to lock
      > people

  • Firefox needs to die and start over. This is a good thing for most software. I think the Mozilla Foundation should start over and develop a new browser with a new name. Firefox takes up too much memory, it seems to be they aren't coming up with new efficient code, they are instead just caching everything. I dream about the good old days with internet explorer 2. In fact I think they need to come out with multiple browser, browsers for different users and uses. How about a security enhance browser for doing

  • A new subset of Linux that is even more limited than Android?
    A new push for "apps" just when HTML5 was going to lower the boundaries between applications and web sites?
    An easier way for web sites to identify me?

    I know I'm grossly over-simplifying, and there are positive aspects for each of the three "bets" that I'm not listing here, but still I don't know if I'm 100% sold to those ideas. Or to the fact that they should be a priority for open source developers.

That does not compute.

Working...