

We and Mozilla are working together to make the web awesome - nr0mx
https://plus.google.com/114128403856330399812/posts/9dKsD7Mi7JU

======
nextparadigms
I would've thought this was obvious. Google didn't just pay $300 to stop
Firefox from using Bing, although I'm sure that played a big role, too, but I
believe the reason Mozilla got $300 million was because they knew how to
negotiate the price up. I don't think Mozilla really wanted to change to Bing.

Also, Google is a lot better off having an ally in Mozilla. Not so much
because they don't want Bing to get a lot of users, but because together with
Mozilla they have over 50% of the browser market share, and since the whole
total of that market share includes very modern browser versions(Chrome always
on latest version, Firefox not too far behind with the old ones), Google and
Mozilla can pretty much dictate where the web is going now. I wouldn't be
surprised if for those $300 million they also got Mozilla to accept using
Native Client in Firefox later on. I think this part of the partnership
matters more than just stopping Bing from becoming the default search on
Firefox.

~~~
khuey
Mozilla's decisions on what technologies to support and what to oppose are not
influenced by our business arrangements.

~~~
jedberg
Not officially, no, but I'm sure if google goes to mozilla and says, "hey, we
think you guys should support technology X, it's really great" I'm sure you'd
listen and probably get a good nudge from the higher ups that, "hey maybe we
should listen to those google people".

~~~
khuey
We _might_ prioritize things based on input from Google (we tend to listen to
things Google's web properties have to say since they run some of the biggest
websites on the planet). This is usually a collaboration between the technical
folks at both organizations to drive things that are best for the web.

We're not going to implement things that we think are bad for the web just
because Google says so. You can look around to see what Brendan Eich (CTO of
Mozilla, a higher up by any definition) has to say about Dart and NaCl.
Google's money doesn't buy our cooperation on these kinds of issues (and it's
worth noting that we work with plenty of people who aren't paying us money,
such as Facebook, the same way that we work with Google).

------
potch
I work at Mozilla, and the atmosphere between us and Chrome is not the high-
stakes cage match people would have it be. At a fundamental level there's only
so much market share, but at an engineer-level, we're insulated from such
corporate politics. It's a cooperative atmosphere, and we both succeed with
each others' help and knowledge.

------
nikcub
Google's browser efforts started with Gears. At the time browser development
was stagnant an Google needed the technology to advance in order to improve
their web applications and compete with the old desktop software model.

Chrome is an extension of that effort and has played a large part in driving
adoption of new web technology.

But I don't buy the part about Google not being as interested in having users.
Chrome is the operating system that runs the Google applications. They have
increased their marketing spend this year by 69% to $4.9 billion dollars.

Google, marketing, something they never used to do and were known for not
spending on. A lot of that marketing is for the chrome brand. The reason so
many average PC users know about chrome is because of the market. They even
hired Lady Gaga to do a Chrome ad, and I don't think they would go to the
trouble of doing that if they were not interested in attracting users.

It is ok that Google want users for Chrome - nothing wrong with it. They have
done so much to help users and the web with their investment in browser
technology that there is no shame in marketing the product and wanting the
world to use it.

------
davidu
Peter's drinking a bit too much of the Kool-Aid.

Chrome advances the web. It does this because it's damn good. It's forced
others to be good. None of this has anything to do with the point being made
in the OP he's responding to.

Everything between the user and the monetization mechanism (advertisement) is
strategic to Google. To believe otherwise is to be delusional. It's like the
people who thought they could partner with Microsoft in the 90s and it'd be
good for them.

------
powertower
Some people would have a hard time surviving in the real world outside of
Google's walls.

I can see why a guy on the Chrome UI team would dismiss a valid business
strategy of hedging against the IE + Firefox user-base that uses the search
bar and address bar for 100% of their searches (vs. going to
<http://www.google.com> directly) ... having their default search engine
switched on them.

To him, owning a share of the browser market is not really important to
Google, in that way, because he has this image of himself and Google being the
good guys and doing to no evil.

Someone drank the kool-aid.

~~~
JS_startup
My thoughts exactly. Paradoxically, being closer to the issue and company
actually clouds your perception instead of enhancing it.

------
DanBC
> * "It's very simple: the primary goal of Chrome is to make the web advance
> as much and as quickly as possible."*

This is actually a bit frustrating. There's a bunch of people writing sub-
optimal web-pages; not understanding the features or the security; and then
there's a bunch of browser engineers trying to keep up.

Security still needs huge amounts of research and energy to progress beyond
the broken model (username and pass everywhere / single weak social media
login for everything) to something that most users can cope with.

I sound like a luddite, but I miss the days when you could do a Google search
for something and the first page would be people who knew a lot about that
subject, and who'd written some great text about it, and given it a bit of
markup.

Honestly, ideal web pages for me are those but with CSS.

A lot of the web now feels like it's been designed by people who grew up with
Geocities and <blink> and <marquee>.

~~~
zobzu
I'd note that browserid (browserid.org) solves the "single social login for
everything". It also solves the "user and pass everywhere" in fact. It's
pretty damn neat.

Unfortunately i'm not sure people will adopt it. It's only good for the user.
It doesn't bring money.

------
MatthewPhillips
Mozilla is putting a lot of resources; including some of their best coders,
into advancing mobile. I don't see the same on Google's side. Am I wrong?

~~~
rmc
They have sponsored and released the only modern smartphone OS that isn't
locked down to one company like iOS. They (through Android) are to Apple, what
OpenOffice/LibreOffice is to MS Office. They are the reason Apple don't own
smartphone. With Google/Android what would be the Apple competitor?
Blackberry? OpenMoko?!

~~~
MatthewPhillips
In the context of this posting, I'm specifically talking about the mobile web.

~~~
nl
Have you tried the Android browser in 3.2 or 4? It's pretty damn good....

------
photon_off
Please make the Chrome address bar awesome.

~~~
redthrowaway
The omnibox is already awesome. It's Chrome's definitive UX feature, and I'm
surprised nobody else has implemented it yet.

~~~
jQueryIsAwesome
Yep, when i have to test something in Firefox i always forget that to search
in Google (or in other popular site) i can't just write it in the address bar.

And it always remember all my sites so to go to hacker news i just write an
"n" and it writes the rest... and i can even delete the suggestions with
shift+delete.

So yeah, i also don't have any idea what the parent comment was triyng to say.

~~~
ootachi
Except you can just write it in the address bar (and hit enter). Try it!

~~~
hub_
He must be confusing with Safari.

------
drhowarddrfine
Google has said from the beginning that the purpose of Chrome was to move the
web forward, not compete with other browsers, and I had forgotten that.

~~~
davidu
This is not Chrome's purpose. Everything between the user and the monetization
mechanism (advertisement) is strategic to Google. It just doesn't sound as
warm and fuzzy when they say it like that.

~~~
rayiner
The two statements are not necessarily in conflict. It helps Google's bottom
line to move the web forward, and make more things possible through browser
interfaces.

------
hendrix
This article is BS. Google is a for-profit public company, hence google wants
to make more money for google's shareholders. If they can do that by pushing
chrome (advertizing platform) or firefox (OSS platform that they want to
control) then that's what they will do. It doesn't matter what browser you
use, so long as you look at their ads. Never mind their horrible privacy
practices (2038 cookie) and associated shenanigans.

~~~
hub_
How is that incompatible with bringing the web forward?

Making sure the web is an open platform make sure no one control the
technology, therefor Google have more opportunities to display ads. And also
people have more opportunities to compete with Google too.

Nothing forces you to visit Google properties, etc.

~~~
cpeterso
Would Mozilla stop making Firefox an open, web-advancing browser if Microsoft
Bing paid Mozilla's bills? I don't think so. So why didn't Google save its
shareholders $1B and let Microsoft foot the bill to continue Mozilla
development? Google clearly must profit from their relationship with Mozilla.

------
zobzu
Q: does google win billions from this deal?

A:yes

Q: does google donatethis money?

A: no.

Q: what is TFA worth then?

A: oh, wait.

so.yeah. right.

