Baker's testimony shows that Mozilla depends so much on its deal with Google for revenue that "the biggest loser of a DOJ win in the Google case would be Mozilla."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 11 points 2 years ago (1 child)

The only reason that would work is if they used user search data to sell to advertisers or show ads themselves. That's how Google search makes money, but it's antithetical to everything Mozilla is trying to market themselves as: a privacy oriented browser.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    I'd pay for a yearly subscription to a privacy focused search by Mozilla.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    No you won't. I mean maybe you, personally, will, but the majority of people won't. People don't want to pay for YouTube without ads, for fox sake.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    Mozilla needs sticky viable income streams. Privacy focused search might be something they can sell to other businesses as a service. I would much rather see Mozilla become the next Red Hat than fade away forever.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago

    The problem is that no one wants to pay money and no one cares about privacy. Privacy in general is a brand new concept which only started its existence about two centuries ago in Catholic countries and still doesn't exist in many parts of the world. Privacy is a foreign concept for humans and paying for it is just silly.

  • source
  • parent