https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/01/22/so-why-i...
Which means as Mozilla dries up, its only support is "Google."
Meaning, soon to you, a chromium firefox based browser no different as to Edge, Brave or whatever else is out there.
tl;dr Mozilla is propped up by Google. Google is no bueno.
Doubtful. I think of lot of the reason Google helps fund Mozilla is so there's a better answer to the question "Does Google have a monopoly in web browsers?" It's better for both Google (because they can point at competition) and Mozilla (because Google will still want to hand them money) if Mozilla has their own engine.
Source: https://appleinsider.com/articles/18/08/06/august-6-1997----...
At the end of the 5-year agreement, Apple released Safari and the rest is history, as they say.
Google makes money from advertising, not browsers. Firefox doesn't hurt Google.
Firefox makes it harder to acquire data from users.
If market share for Firefox were to increase at the cost of Chrome users, it would hurt Google.
Firefox hurting Google has nothing to do with the reasoning I supplied previously. In fact, Firefox not hurting Google is all the more reason to make sure they get funded and survive if it lets Google avoid or deflect government scrutiny.
That is hard as long as there is both
- an independent browser engine on the market
- and politicians and judges that haven't succumbed to the pressure from Big Media
† In practice, it's already true, given that Firefox is niche even on desktop.
Google is already under constant investigation from various governments at this point. Money spent keeping a competitor alive when it's low market share means it doesn't have the same power as Google is probably money well spent.
You even have non-techies at wall street journal recommending people to switch from Google Chrome on YouTube.
