Some of the ire is earned but I have yet to see how Mozilla is supposed to fund Firefox development without that google search bar.
Developing a browser isn't easy and requires a few teams of developers, but in 2020 it spent 242 million dollars in software development costs, 137 million dollars in administrative costs and 37 million dollars in marketing and branding costs. I don't live in a lala land where I think you can develop a browser for free, but I think we can all agree that you don't need to spend this amount of money on it either. Are 100 developers enough? 200? How much does that cost? Do they all need San Francisco salaries to develop a good browser?
In terms of funding, they got 440 million dollars from royalties (what they get from setting default search engines on their browser) and 25 million dollars in subscription revenue (Pocket and VPN subscriptions type things - products they actually sell).
Now, can you develop a browser on 25 million dollars per year? Maybe it's cutting it short, but for sure there could be a strategy to invest more on this side of the equation to phase out the need to be Google's bitch in a more intentional way.
Source: https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2020/mozilla-fdn-202...
100-200 developers probably roughly costs on the order of 25-50 million a year (assuming a made up number of 250k fully loaded cost with benefits and taxes, which might be lower or higher than their average, idk. This number seems almost too conservative to my gut). From this back of the envelope math, I don't think the royalties business is enough to support the development cost alone.
> Do they all need San Francisco salaries to develop a good browser?
If you don't want them to leave to work on safari or chrome, probably? This experiment was more or less tried by opera, right?
Brave gets away with a lot lower overhead by bascially piggybacking off chrome. Opera similarly gave up selling their own browser engine and cut their development teams while switching to another wrapper on blink. Firefox could become yet another skinning of blink and chrome code, but it's not clear to me how that's helping them with being "Google's bitch in a more intentional way".
I think there are problems with Mozilla's side project expenditures, there is definitely some bloat, and they have had some expensive failures like Firefox phone. However I don't think Mozilla could have survived without Google's funding and people vastly underestimate how expensive quality software is.
There's a lot that can be added here:
Mozilla promised to opensource pocket server and never did.
They promised to hire someone full-time for Thunderbird, but never did. afair there is a German company that has full-time developer working on Thuderbird.
They promised a VPN... yes, delivered something.
They promised anonymous email, I know they were giving access by invites, but nothing more about it.
They promised to unfork Tor browser and integrate Tor into Firefox, they were even running a few Tor nodes.
Remember how hyped everyone here was for Servo in Firefox and electron competitor?
MDN could have integration with GH or GL and educational content for web development, they literally had resources, brand and ability to join an online university and give degrees or at least serious bootcamps. Mozilla was a meaningful brand to do it.
They had a lot of opportunities to sell privacy, we literally demanded it from them, but they weren't interested in listening. Instead they delivered 6 rebrands each breaking my muscle memory.
Do you remember how they advised EU to regulate monopoly on the webbrowser market? There was time when they had all ability, but 0 will to keep it this way https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BrowserChoice.eu
If we’re talking about the Mozilla foundation, they should seek donations and grants and focus on being the best user web tooling.
If we’re talking about the corp, they could’ve kept rust under the umbrella and pioneered the WASI runtime and built an alternative to k8s that runs webassemblies and built out a paid cloud infra.
It doesn’t make sense to have a foundation that is user aligned and a corp that is user hostile. There should be aligned incentives.
1. Stick to building a more private browser
2. Become a non-profit or Benefit Corp
3. Fund #1 through all of us donating and encouraging our less tech savvy connections to use it and donate
They could also try to seek government funding. EU and other non-US countries should have an interest in there being a browser that is not beholden to a US for-profit corporation.
And something like apple's iCloud relay. I would pay for that.
I won't pay for a Mullvad subscription that's less useful than actual Mullvad because it just works in the browser and it doesn't fix all the issues iCloud relay solves.
If they'd sell actual privacy features I'd pay for it totally. Sync too.
Your raising a discussion about mozilla in a brave thread plays right into mozilla's purpose of muddying the waters for actual competition against google. Please don't derail brave discussions with off topic stuff.
Sure it's probably not going to make it but they're still not things they can sensibly afford to do.
Firefox literally sends your keystrokes to Google, right out of the box. Brave, however, was found to be the most private popular browser by reputable researchers: https://www.scss.tcd.ie/Doug.Leith/pubs/browser_privacy.pdf.
Brave [never] hijacked links either. Affiliate Links were offered among suggested sites for relevant search input. So if you searched "Binance," the browser would offer (among other suggestions), an affiliate link for the site. Users could then choose to browse to the property with the affiliate link, and in so doing support the development of Brave. No impact to privacy or security at all.
The mistake here was with input handling. Built to handle search input, this feature also mistakenly handled fully-qualified domains. While we intended the app to offer affiliate links (when relevant) to something like "what is binance?", it was also offering them for "binance.us". The latter case was corrected quickly (and the feature itself was disabled out of the box).
More about that on our blog: https://brave.com/referral-codes-in-suggested-sites/.
To your second point, about setting up crypto wallets and soliciting donations on behalf of non-participating publishers, you're mistaken there as well.
To prime the support-system in Brave (called Brave Payments at the time), we staked Brave users with tokens, inviting them to direct those tokens to creators they would like to support. More clearly, Brave gave Brave users say over where Brave ought to direct its own tokens.
Unfortunately, our UI/UX wasn't very clear about which creators were verified, and which were not (we followed the Twitter approach, marking verified creators with a checkmark, but doing nothing for others). This resulted in some confusion at the end of 2018, where users were directing Brave's tokens to non-participating creators (most notably Tom Scott).
We received considerably helpful feedback about how the system could be improved (both from a UI/UX side, and operationally). Frankly, I don't think I've ever seen our team work so hard, and churn out such a monumental update in so little time. We had made massive changes within 48 hours IIRC. Creators were explicitly marked as verified or unverified in all cases, the BAT that Brave stakes with users would remain in the local wallet until it could be received by a verified creator. And BAT that sat pending for 90 days would be unlocked again for the user to direct elsewhere.
Tom Scott was kind enough to review our changes, and explicitly gave us his approval soon-thereafter. What is now 'Brave Rewards' wouldn't be doing so well today were it not for Tom and so many other incredible users helping us find the best path forward.
More about that on our blog: https://brave.com/rewards-update/
This is a touch of FUD. Firefox sends what you type into the search/address bar to google for search suggestions by default, yes. Your perhaps unintended implication here is that all keystrokes are being logged and sent to google.
> Brave, however, was found to be the most private popular browser by reputable researchers: https://www.scss.tcd.ie/Doug.Leith/pubs/browser_privacy.pdf.
This is a bit of a misstatement of the research; Rather they found that Brave doesn't tag users' installs with persistent IDs by default in startup telemetry or update requests, while most of the rest of the competition do. This means Brave has a superior initial privacy state but says nothing about the overall usage posture. Is it better? Possibly but that's not the conclusion the researchers actually came to.
Here's an example of why the first line of FUD is dangerous: "Brave's BAT is basically just a way for users to be tracked as they go about navigating the web."
This is an easy throw-away statement with little substance and likely little to no truth behind it.
A more concrete example might be that the so-called "Privacy Preserving Product Analytics API" that collects data on Brave users' installs gets enough data to pretty easily fingerprint a user if you wanted to. You don't need many data points to identify an individual from a large group.
Keystrokes in the URL bar.
It would have been better to say "by default Firefox literally sends every keystroke you type in the URL bar to Google".
In my opinion it is a user-hostile "feature", and should be pointed out, but not in way that could be so wildly misinterpreted.
Describing the cost without explaining the why is really putting a spin on things.
- The affiliate link "hijacking" was - if I remember correctly - to sites of crypto companies that partner with them. I'd prefer if this didn't happen, but most seem to be fine when other browsers (Safari, Firefox, etc) add something like "?client=safari" when searching or when their search engine (eg: DDG) use affiliate links to sites like Amazon or Ebay. It's not a new thing.
- The money collection (brave rewards)... if one doesn't understand how the system works, it looks like they are stealing money... but the money is returned to the sender after a while if the website/creator doesn't claim it. Is this that bad?
And then there's them not blocking some trackers (Google, Facebook, etc) by default, but if they did, they would break logins on many websites.
Maybe all this is bad, but I'm not sure if there's any browser out there without a history of shady behaviour. Even Mozilla has messed up a few times.
I don't think anyone ever accused them of stealing that money, but yes, hijacking people's personal brands to collect money without their explicit knowledge is a bad thing.
Imagine if I saw the icon and gave "them" money via Brave instead of joining their Patreon or some other official channel that they explicitly set up. If they don't collect, then yes, I might get my money back - nothing was "stolen". But that was money I wanted to send to the content creator in that particular moment, and that creator will probably never see it. The creator got screwed out of money that otherwise would have gone to them.
Imagine I presented you with $10 (from my own pocket), and asked you where it should be spent. You told me "Doc's Pub, over on 9th." So I walked over to Doc's Pub, but found them to be closed. So I waited outside for a few hours, just incase they opened up. I later went home and wrote down "try to spend $10 at Doc's tomorrow."
Brave staked users with BAT (from our token sale). Users could direct that BAT to the sites/properties of their choosing. The BAT then went into an omnibus settlement wallet (note: the BAT originated in one Brave wallet, and was sent to another Brave wallet).
There was no hijacking of brands, or anything of that nature. I would encourage you again to please visit the aforementioned link. In it I mention our blog post on the topic, which includes screenshots and more. I hope this helps!
Brave gave users BAT to tip content creators. They tipped it, if it wasn't claimed in 90d, Brave returned the BAT to the pool. There was no collecting money. It was Brave's promotional BAT and it never actually left Brave's possession unless claimed.
The issue was that it wasn't clear if the creator had or hadn't signed up. Which was fixed within 48h.
At least for websites I have to manually click the Brave Rewards icon (wasn't prompted to do it on a new profile) and it shows if the site is verified or not:
- My personal website (verified): https://i.imgur.com/WZykI2U.png
- Google[.]com (unverified): https://i.imgur.com/89XvzIz.png
And if we hover over the "unverified creator" text, this is displayed: https://i.imgur.com/IfKQUME.png
I guess the right way to do this is to only allow tips/donations for websites already verified... still, if you're going to use Brave Rewards, you probably have an idea of how it works.
Maybe things are different for creators on platforms like YouTube? I don't know how it works. I couldn't find a way to make a direct contribution with Brave Rewards.
Then what should they do? It sounds like they're between a rock and a hard place
This is only a "problem" for some because they think Brave is actually siding with those services, when in reality there's a good reason to not block them by default.
Grassroots users should support it like the godsend it is.
https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/16/16784628/mozilla-mr-robo...
