
New Search Strategy for Firefox - Osmose
https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/11/19/yahoo-and-mozilla-form-strategic-partnership/
======
DevX101
This is why Google built Chrome. Google's strategy has been to remove the
layers between the user's intent to search and Google's own server. Every
intermediate layer that Google does not control is a risk to their business.

When viewed through these lens, many of the seemingly ancillary Google
business units start to make strategic sense. Android (control the device),
Chrome (control the browser), Fiber (control the tubes).

Each of these channels is an opportunity for disruption by some competitor
search engine and Google wants to make sure they don't get blindsided. Or one
of the gateways could demand a massive tribute for Google to pass through
(cable companies are pushing for this via the war against net neutrality).

If Google didn't have Chrome and Firefox was the leading browser, they'd be in
big trouble with this news. Lucky for them they thought about this a long time
ago and built a browser which now accounts for 50% of market share.

Yahoo NEEDS this deal. For Google, it's a nice to have.

~~~
enneff
> This is why Google built Chrome.

Seriously? Do you remember what browsers were like before Chrome?

~~~
ricardobeat
Maybe your memory is failing you, but FF and Safari were still great browsers
when Chrome first came out. Chrome took over slowly because of constant
improvement, it wasn't much different except for some technical details and
clean UI.

~~~
dhimes
For simple pages Chrome was faster. But the tradeoff was that you didn't get
things like MathML- which was important to- maybe- three of us. And iirc, SVG
was better on FF (I did physics tutorial and animation stuff- I told people to
use FF).

Also, I still prefer video on FF. Chrome is choppier with a lousy connection
or hardware. But Chrome is quicker to load a simple site which makes it
overall a better experience for passive web browsing. (But to be fair my FF is
loaded with add-ons so that may slow it down a bit).

~~~
Curmudgel
You should restart FF with addons disabled (Help > Restart with Add-ons
Disabled) and then compare the two. If you want a "passive web browsing
experience" on FF, you could create a separate profile.

~~~
alttab
Or you know, use Chrome. That way, I don't have to consider what type of "web
browsing experience" I need to have today.

~~~
Curmudgel
I have installed lots of extensions on FF because I find them to be useful. If
I were to use Chrome as my primary browser and wanted the same features that
my current FF setup gives me, then I would have to install extensions. But the
extensions would slow Chrome down and then I would be back to square one. So
"just use Chrome" is not a solution.

~~~
alttab
Maybe not for everyone. I find myself alone amongst many because I hate tools.
The need for a tool means there is some problem that has to be solved. For
instance, I much prefer languages that don't necessitate an IDE. I'd much
rather program in Ruby, Python, Javascript, or anything else I can do
competently in vi, with a 5 line .vimrc file. Even when in vi I only use like
5 commands. I find other ways to be effective. I can boot up Eclipse or
IntelliJ or whatever and get the job done, but certainly there has to be a
better way?

I installed Chrome because its fast. I liked it for web development because it
had "Firebug" essentially built in. I eventually peeked back at Firefox to see
if was doing anything interesting on the development side, but by that point
much preferred the overall speed and simplicity of Chrome that I simply
haven't bothered to go back.

Compared to IE, developing for both platforms rarely requires you to even
check Firefox for correctness or performance once you get around the quirks or
use more recently developed JS libraries.

I think the only extension I installed for Chrome was TamperMonkey. And a
couple of things developed for work purposes.

------
nnethercote
Some more details:

* This is a new, more flexible partnership strategy.

* Continuing the existing relationship with Google was an option, but Mozilla chose to end the Google relationship.

* All the options Mozilla considered had strong, improved economic terms (but the concrete numbers are not public). Because all the options had improved economics, that allowed Mozilla to really consider the strategic outlook.

* The Yahoo agreement in the US is for five years.

* Yahoo will be rolling out a new, improved search tool soon.

* Mozilla has agreements with Yandex and Baidu for Russia and China.

* Google will remain an included option in Firefox and Mozilla will continue to support its use.

~~~
yohui
How does promoting Yandex and Baidu in regions where they are already dominant
(Russia and China, respectively) align with Mozilla's new mission? I'm not
sure how entrenching their hold on their home markets promotes user choice,
innovation, or privacy.

~~~
gcp
Because it prevents the worldwide biggest search provider from eventually also
taking over those remaining holdouts?

~~~
yohui
I don't think there's any danger of Google taking over the Chinese market...

Perhaps Yandex is more at risk, but my impression is that Yandex dominates
Russia much as Google leads the US. In Russia, Google is the underdog.
Firefox's switch can only dampen competition in the Russian market, while
users in markets without Yandex neither gain nor lose.

The rest of the world _may_ stand to benefit, if these national champions
expand beyond their borders, and if they offer users a better choice than the
competition. But that remains to be proven. In the meantime, Mozilla's switch
will certainly have a measurable impact on the current competitive landscape.

------
throwawaymoz
(throwaway account)

While I believe the party line is probably true ("Mozilla decided not to go
with Google"), it's also disingenuous.

Mozilla chose not to go with Google because Google wasn't willing to pay what
they were before. They straight up told Mozilla this 3 years ago when they
signed the billion dollar contract; Mozilla had 3 years to become profitable.
That's why they switched focus to FirefoxOS; they thought that by now they'd
be profitable via selling phones and the app store. (At the time, Bing was
bidding against Google, however Mozilla went with the smaller check from
Google because they knew using Bing would seem like selling out.)

For the record, Google made _billions_ off being Firefox's default search
engine. They paid Firefox $300mil a year for three years, but that was only a
small fraction of how much Google profited from Firefox searches. Not sure if
it's still true, but three years ago they made more from Firefox than they did
from Chrome.

So, yes, Mozilla could have gone with Google still. It's not like Google said
"nope, you can't use us as the default!". However, they went with Yahoo!
because Google wasn't willing to pay what Mozilla needed. The whole "Mozilla
picked Yahoo! to enable choice" has been tweeted by every Mozillian I know
(and said multiple times in this thread), but it's a meaningless statement. If
they really meant that, you'd be prompted when you opened Firefox the first
time to pick a search engine.

~~~
Yoric
Is there any monetary reason to pick many search providers instead of just
Google? This is possible, your guess is as good as mine. Regardless, I believe
that not going with Google is a very sound strategy. If Mozilla has the choice
between an alliance with a competitor with overwhelming firepower and whose
clear interest is making Mozilla obsolete and an underdog with an interest in
growing along with Mozilla, why pick the competitor?

Also, regarding your comment on FirefoxOS: I don't know where you heard that
Mozilla expected to support itself through Firefox OS / Firefox Marketplace
revenue, but I never heard anybody claiming this (I work at Mozilla). The main
reason to introduce Firefox OS was (and still is) to promote openness on the
mobile world (i.e. "wrestle duoplogy from Apple and Google"), just as
Mozilla/Phoenix/Firefox was introduced to promote openness on the web (i.e.
"wrestle monopoly from Microsoft").

Edit: clarifications.

~~~
kibwen
I also see FirefoxOS as Mozilla's long-shot hedge against the spectre of
walled gardens. With first iOS and then WinRT disallowing third-party
browsers, a world dominated by locked-down platforms would be a death sentence
for Firefox.

~~~
venomsnake
I always wondered why no one tried lawsuit on that topic in Europe for iOS
devices? It is arguably worse than the IE situation (you used IE just once to
get a real browser), but right now Safari is only game in town for no
technical reason and everyone is cool with that. No addons, no adblock ...

~~~
fhd2
I suppose that's fine legally unless you're a monopoly. Windows is (or was?).
iOS, arguably, not really.

------
sroerick
Mozilla is making some major moves these days. They've ditched Google as their
main revenue source, partnering with Tor and Yahoo.

Yahoo is angling to be a digital magazine, which I like as a business model
much more than Google's.

Firefox is making a strong case for itself as the privacy centric browser.

I still remember when Firefox started gaining market share. Even non-tech-
savvy people were getting firefox, because IE was so bad for security, and so
hard to maintain.

Excited to see what the next few months brings.

~~~
drdaeman
> Firefox is making a strong case for itself as the privacy centric browser.

They try their best to market themselves as a privacy-centric browser. To
promote themselves as so they add some shiny things like making clearing
browser history a two mouse clicks more accessible. But I'm still worried.

I'm really nitpicking but... That 3rd party cookie controversy that lasted for
almost an year, the "oh, we're full of FLOSS ideals and are firmly against DRM
but... hey, wait, users want Netflix, gotta support DRM" controversy, the
recent "sponsored tiles" controversy, the update of over-engineered and
undocumented proprietary Firefox Sync/Accounts that makes it even harder to
not depend on their servers, the complete ignorance on TLS client
certificates' UI and usability (which is why we're still stuck with
passwords), the BrowserID/Persona thingy that happily continued the trend that
makes your identity owned by a third party, and so on. I know, it's not good
to complain in such rude manner, but the issues do exist. Personally, I
wouldn't really trust Firefox. Not without lots of addons, at least.

Unfortunately, I guess this can't be helped. A large project like Firefox
seems to be impossible without steady and fairly big money income, and since
this money comes from advertisers whose interests are in complete opposite of
users' privacy, Mozilla just have to make some sacrifices.

Still, among the mainstream browsers they're better than competitors.

~~~
zaachary
I'm not going to rebut each mischaracterization, but I did work on Persona,
so:

> the BrowserID/Persona thingy that happily continued the trend that makes
> your identity owned by a third party

Nah. You could happily choose any Identity Provider that implemented the
protocol, including a self-hosted one.

~~~
drdaeman
Nope, that's a pretty common misconception though. You surely can own a server
(I do) but you just can't own a domain. You're merely leasing one from a
registrar.

You see, I strongly believe identity's an intrinsic property of a person, and
if you need a provider for one there's something really wrong with the setup.
I'm completely fine with asserting notaries, but not providers.

~~~
xorcist
> you just can't own a domain. You're merely leasing one from a registrar.

That is not true, in a very strict juridical sense.

~~~
drdaeman
I don't know about juridical sense and I'm not sure there's one applicable
worldwide.

This is true in practice, though. "Your" domain can be seized, blocked or
transferred to a third party, its lease terms can be changed to make it
unaffordable - and generally there's nothing you can do to prevent this before
this happen, since anything of this can happen _without involving you at all_.
That is, because you never possessed this domain, it was merely provided to
you. You may just seek the legal remedy after the fact.

On the contrary, identity is something you __possess __. It can 't be revoked
by anyone. Your passport (notary assertion) may be stolen, seized or revoked,
but your friends won't stop recognizing you as a person. It's just that you
won't be able to prove "I'm recognized as $legal_name by government" anymore.

You just won't wake up and see your password set is blocked so you can't login
anywhere. Yeah, you can be forced to disclose your credentials, but it's a
different story.

~~~
xorcist
> I don't know about juridical sense and I'm not sure there's one applicable
> worldwide.

The statement is even less true then. I would certainly guess that in every
country that leasing is a term, it doesn't match your agreement with your
registrar.

> "Your" domain can be seized, blocked or transferred to a third party,

That is trivially true with pretty much anything, in pretty much any country.
The police will take back a stolen bicycle and return it to a third party, for
example.

But it is a system governed by rules. And so is the domain name. It is yours
to use, and will remain yours unless you break the rules. In most countries
you can challenge any stolen or revoked domain in court.

~~~
drdaeman
> I would certainly guess that in every country that leasing is a term

I'm not talking about how it's called legally. I'm talking how it's actually
working. You pay money, you're allowed to control the resource. That looks
exactly like leasing to me. You can't buy a domain, so you can't own it. It's
that simple

> That is trivially true with pretty much anything, in pretty much any
> country.

Wrong. It's impossible to make you disclose your private key without your
presence, ability and willingness to do so (although you can be forced to
disclose, but that's completely another matter). And, obviously, your identity
cannot be revoked or seized even if you'd wish for so.

> But it is a system governed by rules. And so is the domain name.

And the rules are made by others and others may change it at any time.

> In most countries you can challenge any stolen or revoked domain in court.

But why do I have to do so in a first place?

Seriously, can you explain me why do I need to entrust my identity to some
registrar and ask government to handle that? Or why do I have to pay for a
right to posses my identity? I've used to live without those, but now
everyone's (Google, Facebook and - what's important and what's the basis of my
complaint - Mozilla's continuing the trend) trying to tie me to this third-
party-is-necessary approach.

------
kibwen
It's always seemed as though Google's and Mozilla's relationship would weaken
over the years, though honestly I expected Bing rather than Yahoo to be the
one to step up and fill Google's shoes. Also surprising is that apparently
Mozilla was the one to initiate the switch.

As a Firefox user, all in all I'm rather pleased. I've just tried a few of my
typical searches on Yahoo and though the expected links aren't the top results
(seeing links for Rust-the-game instead of Rust-the-language...), they're on
the first page. Let's see if that improves with time as I use it more. And I'm
happy to support some more diversity in this space.

~~~
nnethercote
The new Yahoo search that's coming soon is meant to be much better. So I
suggest you reserve your judgment until then :)

~~~
modeless
Is it still based on Bing?

~~~
praneshp
Nope.

------
_pius
Note that Mozilla is making Yahoo reinstate support for Do-Not-Track, which it
had dropped earlier this year.

[http://www.pcworld.com/article/2150981/yahoo-drops-do-not-
tr...](http://www.pcworld.com/article/2150981/yahoo-drops-do-not-track-policy-
in-favor-of-personalized-experience.html)

~~~
mythmon_
Yahoo will only respect DNT for Firefox users. This is because DNT was
essentially ruined after Microsoft turned DNT on by default in IE. Since it
didn't represent an explicit user choice, it carried much less weight. It is
an explicit choice in Firefox.

~~~
Ntrails
What if, and this is crazy I know, you needed an explicit action to track me
instead of relying on users not knowing such a thing exists to avoid.

~~~
nnethercote
You're going to love Firefox's new Tracking Protection feature, which is
currently under development:
[http://blog.mozilla.org/nnethercote/2014/11/12/quantifying-t...](http://blog.mozilla.org/nnethercote/2014/11/12/quantifying-
the-effects-of-firefoxs-tracking-protection/)

It allows you to block things coming from known tracking domains, giving
better privacy _and_ faster page loads on many sites.

~~~
FeeTinesAMady
Why would anyone need that when there's ghostery and noscript? Furthermore,
what benefits does that feature have over ghostery? Seems like ghostery blocks
more than that feature does, which makes it seem like that's a waste of
effort.

I suppose it might have some use if it's actually on by default, but they
haven't stated that it will be, and if it isn't on by default, then anyone who
would know to turn it out would be able to install ghostery anyway.

~~~
mythmon_
The benefit is that this is built in to the browser, meaning more users will
use it. If you want the extra protection of Ghostery, then by all means, go
for it. This is easier for other users.

------
andreastt
The correct link is [https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/11/19/promoting-
choice-an...](https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/11/19/promoting-choice-and-
innovation-on-the-web/). Seems the link was changed.

~~~
Osmose
They're separate posts, I hadn't seen that one until you shared it. I think
it's a better article than this one, and would be happy if a mod changed the
link and title. :D

~~~
andreastt
Oh, my mistake entirely.

~~~
Osmose
The original link is now redirecting to the better link anyway, so I've
changed the title to match the new article.

------
s4sharpie
Looks like a smart move by Yahoo to be the default search for a major browser:
google/chrome, bing/ie. This also means that Firefox will likely get some
serious support from Yahoo in $$s to build back market share. Question is can
they catch Google?

~~~
mightykan
It'll be very interesting to see what this does to Bing's marketshare in six
months or so, since Yahoo's search runs through Bing.

Although we might never find out, I'm very curious to find out the terms of
the deal. Did Yahoo pay more? What about Microsoft? Were MS as motivated since
they, essentially had two horses in the race (Bing and Yahoo) vs. Google? Lots
of fun little details.

Edit: Typos

~~~
graeme
>It'll be very interesting to see what this does to Bing's marketshare in six
months or so, since Yahoo's search runs through Bing.

Does Yahoo do their own tweaks? I just checked my site's ranking for a few
terms in Bing vs. Yahoo. Bing gave much the same results as Google, whereas my
site ranked significantly worse in Yahoo.

------
opinali
Yahoo! is OK, but... Yandex and Baidu are not exactly recommended company for
an organization that pretends to hold the Open Web's moral higher ground. They
practice large-scale censorship, they are instruments of repressive regimes.
How does that make any sense?

~~~
mbrubeck
Note that Mozilla has had revenue arrangements with Yandex and Baidu
previously. And Google doesn't exactly have clean hands in China itself.

~~~
hackuser
> Note that Mozilla has had revenue arrangements with Yandex and Baidu
> previously. And Google doesn't exactly have clean hands in China itself.

What did Google do in China? I remember them pulling out of China, declining
to participate further in censorship there, and being attacked (hacked) by the
Chinese government. What am I forgetting?

~~~
mbrubeck
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Google#China](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Google#China)
has a short summary. You're correct that since 2010 they've refused to assist
with government censorship; I had been thinking of what came before that. I
think you have a good point that today, Google is the better actor in China.

------
andrewl-hn
Note that is affects only U.S.-based users of Firefox. Good move for both
parties, and I hope they can struck deals with regional search engines in
other locations as well. Diversification is good for everybody.

~~~
y0ghur7_xxx
I too think that diversity helps: google has a monopoly in search, and a push
for yahoo in search queries may even help them make the search engine better,
and maybe they will become a much needed google competitor.

~~~
cpeterso
Mozilla and Google have been "frenemies" for a while. Now that Firefox is no
longer supporting Google's search monopoly, I wonder how Google's search
traffic (and stock price) will look in six months. I think Mozilla's decision
is good for increasing search competition.

~~~
venomsnake
It will be same. Unless Yahoo have a real winning product (which given their
track record, I doubt) people will just switch to google.

------
dec0dedab0de
The real question is did Google stop paying? did Yahoo offer way more? Or did
Mozilla want to break out from Google's shadow?

Edit: I mean to say did Google decide to end it, or did Mozilla, and why?

~~~
ngokevin
There was a strong option in place from Google, but Mozilla decided not to go
with them as a global default in order to promote choice.

~~~
anExcitedBeast
I don't think I follow this argument. Can you explain it further? It feels
like Yahoo probably just offered more money.

~~~
mbrubeck
Compared to the previous deal (where Google was the global default), the new
deal also leaves Mozilla more free to pursue different partnerships worldwide.
For example, Yandex is now the default Firefox search engine in Russia (as it
was three years ago, before the global Google deal).

~~~
todesschaf
You mean Yandex in Russia. Baidu is China :)

~~~
mbrubeck
Fixed, thanks.

------
spikels
Yikes I never realized Mozilla was so dependent on Google

    
    
      % of Revenue from Google Search Royalties:
    
      2013 Not released yet (usually 11 months! after end of year)
      2012 88% (90% of 304,539/311,005)
      2011 84% (85% of 161,904/163,474)
      2010 83% (84% of 121,109/123,206)
      2009 84% (86% of 101,537/104,305)
      2008 98% (91% of 83,600/77,737)
      2007 80% (88% of 68,238,803/75,125,640)
      2006 78% (85% of 61,561,496/66,840,850)
      2005 91% (95% of 50,516,268/52,906,602)
    

Sources:

2012 - [https://static.mozilla.com/moco/en-
US/pdf/Mozilla_Audited_Fi...](https://static.mozilla.com/moco/en-
US/pdf/Mozilla_Audited_Financials_2012.pdf)

2011 - [http://static.mozilla.com/moco/en-
US/pdf/Mozilla%20Foundatio...](http://static.mozilla.com/moco/en-
US/pdf/Mozilla%20Foundation%20and%20Subsidiaries%202011%20Audited%20Financial%20Statement.pdf)

2010 - [http://static.mozilla.com/moco/en-
US/pdf/Mozilla%20Foundatio...](http://static.mozilla.com/moco/en-
US/pdf/Mozilla%20Foundation%20and%20Subsidiaries%202010%20Audited%20Financial%20Statement.pdf)

2009 -
[http://static.mozilla.com/foundation/documents/mf-2009-audit...](http://static.mozilla.com/foundation/documents/mf-2009-audited-
financial-statement.pdf)

2008 -
[http://static.mozilla.com/foundation/documents/mf-2008-audit...](http://static.mozilla.com/foundation/documents/mf-2008-audited-
financial-statement.pdf)

2007 -
[http://static.mozilla.com/foundation/documents/mf-2007-audit...](http://static.mozilla.com/foundation/documents/mf-2007-audited-
financial-statement.pdf)

2006 -
[http://static.mozilla.com/foundation/documents/mf-2006-audit...](http://static.mozilla.com/foundation/documents/mf-2006-audited-
financial-statement.pdf)

2005 -
[http://static.mozilla.com/foundation/documents/mf-2005-audit...](http://static.mozilla.com/foundation/documents/mf-2005-audited-
financial-statement.pdf)

~~~
glomph
Where else did you imagine their money coming from?

~~~
spikels
It's a non-profit serving the public interest so I had assumed donations from
individuals and foundations would be a bigger source of revenue. It looks like
they have collected less than $2.2 million in the 8 years covered by the
financials. This is nothing for a organization that spent $150 million last
year.

I hope they got a generous deal from Yahoo - who has a ton of Alibaba cash
burning a hole in their pocket - but the fundamentals of a shrinking desktop
advertising market and share don't look good.

------
tn13
Honestly I dont see how this is a "choice". In fact this sounds exactly
opposite of the choice. In this particular case Firefox has made the choice on
our behalf that we are better off using Yahoo's crappy search results instead
of market leader Google.

If you are making a browser which is focused on giving freedom to users you
are supposed to :

1\. Either let the users chose the search engine as an on-boarding step. 2\.
Offer industry best/leader as default.

In this particular case Firefox has made a suboptimal choice on our behalf in
the name of "choice".

How exactly is this different from :

1\. Comcast taking more money from Netflix to give them better bandwidth ?

Now my grandmother will end up seeing 0 organic search results above the fold
and will have to learn to either change the search settings or simply use that
icon with Red Green and Yellow around a blue dot (Chrome).

~~~
userbinator
Mozilla are known for their doublespeak (best example to-date being
[https://blog.mozilla.org/advancingcontent/2014/02/11/publish...](https://blog.mozilla.org/advancingcontent/2014/02/11/publisher-
transformation-with-users-at-the-center/)), but this is one of their more
honest pieces - they _are_ giving users a choice of search engines;
nonetheless, I can see why the title rubs you the wrong way, and I'd also
prefer the original one which was "Yahoo and Mozilla form Strategic
Partnership".

------
ihuman
Haven't they done something like this before? I remember Yahoo promoting a
Yahoo-branded Firefox. It's default search and homepage were Yahoo, and every
titlebar had "Firefox and Yahoo" at the end instead of just "Firefox."

~~~
Yoric
Yeah, there was an experimental Firefox + Yahoo distro, for download on
Yahoo's servers. There was also a Firefox + Bing distro, iirc.

------
mrschwabe
This seems like a positive step forward for Mozilla (away from Google) but
there's no denying how much more awesome this announcement would have been if
the new default search provider was DuckDuckGo :)

------
sp332
I'd swear this happened already... I updated Firefox on an old Android tablet
yesterday and the default search was already switched to Yahoo. Edit: ah, now
that you mention it, it was a Beta version.

~~~
cpeterso
Firefox for Android has been testing Yahoo as the default search engine for a
few months. Mozilla's search deal with Google did not cover mobile browsers.
Firefox OS uses Bing.

~~~
soapdog
Firefox OS does not use Bing. It used Bing a long time ago but all consumer
devices are set to Google these days.

------
drewda
"Google will also continue to power the Safe Browsing and Geolocation features
of Firefox."

It's disappointing to hear that Firefox isn't yet using Mozilla's location
services project [1].

Background: These are the services that will, say, take the SSID of your
current WiFI access point and map that to a latitude/longitude. My
understanding is that almost all commercial users subscribe to Skyhook
Wireless's database[2], other than Google, which has built its own WiFi AP
maps using its StreetView trucks.

I think Mozilla's "open" service, contributed by individual users, is a
welcome alternative, since it means you no longer have to send your location
to a large corporation on every look-up.

[1]
[https://location.services.mozilla.com/](https://location.services.mozilla.com/)

[2]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skyhook_Wireless](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skyhook_Wireless)

~~~
gsnedders
It's almost certainly down to the fact the Mozilla project just doesn't have
the coverage yet.

------
jlebar
I'm getting 500 errors. Google cache:

[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:oALd2oT...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:oALd2oTUZ2AJ:https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/11/19/yahoo-
and-mozilla-form-strategic-partnership/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us)

------
math0ne
For me at least then moving away from google is a huge selling point. I think
if they marketed themselves as a googless web experience it could be really
good for them.

------
digitalnalogika
What will be the default engine in countries not listed in post? It is not
exactly clear, apart from saying that Google will be pre-installed (but not
default?).

------
AshleysBrain
Does this mean Yahoo outbid Google for being the new default search? How much
is the deal worth? What about outside the US?

~~~
gcp
Outside the US it's Yandex and Baidu for their respective locales.

~~~
fpgeek
Um, there's more to the world outside the US than Russia and China...

~~~
gcp
That doesn't appear to have been announced. I wonder if it's because the EU
was asleep.

------
pwnna
One question: wasn't Yahoo supposed to be a part of Bing at some point?

~~~
mightykan
When Microsoft failed to purchase Yahoo to $47.5bn billion in 2008, they
reached a 10-year deal in 2009 for Yahoo to use Bing's infrastructure and
"backend" for search [1]. Yahoo provides their own UI/UX and Microsoft
provides the actual data.

So, technically, Firefox will be showing very similar (if not identical)
results to Bing.

[1]:
[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8174763.stm](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8174763.stm)

------
cwyers
I can't get at the post, so maybe they answer this, but... in this thread, I'm
seeing that it's Yahoo! in the U.S., Yandex in Russia, Baidu in China. That
seems to leave... a lot of the globe unspoken for. What's the default search
for those places?

~~~
fpgeek
I can get at the post and I also couldn't see anything about the default
outside of US/Russia/China.

What makes this particularly interesting is the rest of the globe includes
some of Firefox's strongest markets. My gut suggests this is obscure because
Google will remain the default there, but that's just a guess.

EDIT: My gut seems to be wrong. The Yahoo post on this (
[http://yahoo.tumblr.com/1313](http://yahoo.tumblr.com/1313) ) mentions "the
long-term framework we developed with Mozilla for future product integrations
and expansion into international markets". I think that means Yahoo will end
up being the default outside Russia and China, though the rollout may take
some time.

------
mnemonik
Related blog post: [https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/11/19/promoting-choice-
an...](https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/11/19/promoting-choice-and-
innovation-on-the-web/)

More details, Yandex in Russia and Baidu in China, etc.

------
briholt
Anyone have any insights into this? From the outside it looks like Mozilla is
parting ways with Google because of Chrome. Interesting they went with Yahoo
and not Bing.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Anyone have any insights into this? From the outside it looks like Mozilla
> is parting ways with Google because of Chrome.

Looks more like Mozilla is parting ways with Google because of money --
whether Yahoo! offering more than Google has in the past or Google offering
less.

(Though, looking at historical usage share measures, there's a good argument
that if Google is offering less, its likely because Chrome eclipsing Firefox
-- and by some measures IE -- has reduced the _value_ of default search
placement in Firefox.)

~~~
gcp
_if Google is offering less, its likely because Chrome eclipsing Firefox --
and by some measures IE -- has reduced the value of default search placement
in Firefox_

Yahoo is looking at the same marketshare numbers, so that actually can't be
the reason.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Yahoo is looking at the same marketshare numbers, so that actually can't be
> the reason.

It certainly can be the reason that Google's offer isn't as strong -- the
value of default search place in the third-place-with-continuing-declining-
share browser is conceivably quite different to a party that owns what is,
depending on which measure you look at, either the first- or second-place
browser and a party that doesn't have any browser.

~~~
gcp
I don't see how that follows. Why would it? That x% of users represents X
amount of users who click ads, which means y% of lost revenue. Why would the
monetary value of that y% be so different to another search engine vendor?

Either it's scaling effects (owning a few percent makes you more known, which
drives new users) or Yahoo is better at selling ads through those users. Note
that in the former case, there's even more incentive for Google to block. And
if the second is true, oh boy, they certainly have a problem at G...

~~~
mousa
It's not that interesting. Yahoo is under a lot of pressure to grow and just
got a windfall of cash from the Alibaba IPO. This is an easy place for them to
grow their revenue.

------
panabee
google has been apple's greatest competitor for a while. apple has > $160B in
cash. mobile bing is comparable to mobile google. the strategic value of
weakening google seems to far outweigh the financial value of defaulting to
google search (assuming google is willing to outbid microsoft). so why hasn't
apple defaulted to bing yet, and when will it?

------
tn13
It is hard to figure out what a "strategic partnership" really means at the
moment but ..

\- I hope this strategic partnership does not mean 0 organic search results
above the fold. That is what Yahoo is doing at the moment. \- I hope FF does
not come up with any Yahoo spyware/Toolbars etc.

Search is a weird thing on internet.

~~~
ngokevin
I don't believe that will be the case. I personally believe Yahoo can step up
and deliver an improved search experience.

------
agumonkey
It would be nice to have search engine keybindings too. Stupid example Ctrl+K
Ctrl+<Initial> to pick an engine (hopefully not too many starts with the same
letter).

Even better, hell revolutionary : multiple search at once. /s/m

~~~
Yoric
I do * Ctrl + L to use DDG (my default search engine); * Ctrl + L "go" to use
Google; * Ctrl + L "tlf" to search in my dictionary; * etc.

To set this up, lookup the documentation of "keywords" in Firefox.

~~~
agumonkey
Pardon my french, but Dude, where did you learn about that ? I'm not the
finest follower but I care about this kind of features and scroll through
changelogs and missed this entirely. This is beautiful.

damn, the abstracted bookmark url is at least from 2006 [http://www-
archive.mozilla.org/docs/end-user/keywords.html](http://www-
archive.mozilla.org/docs/end-user/keywords.html)

#dumbfounded

------
kevincox
I'm really curious about the financial angle of this. I'm wondering how much
was gained/lost based on the decision they made versus making a deal with
Google for a similar system as in the past.

------
patcon
Anyone interested in search engine alternatives should look into yacy! Its
distributed and runs locally. You can share your node with others of you
really want to help :)

------
Osmose
FYI blog.mozilla.org is down, IT people are working on it.

------
jimmaswell
Is this why Firefox mobile started using Yahoo as the default and I can't
change it? I tried changing it and it just kept using Yahoo.

~~~
zobzu
I use mobile firefox as well and it switched to yahoo as well. i could change
it back without any issue. i think they changed defaults - but if you had put
your own engine yourself it didnt.

------
victor27
Curious - do people here view the Yahoo! Search Experience to be better or
worse than Google Search?

~~~
mythmon_
This is kind of a moot point. If you read the article carefully, you'll notice
that Yahoo will be bringing "a new, re-imagined Yahoo search experience to
Firefox users in the U.S"

~~~
cpeterso
> "a new, re-imagined Yahoo search experience to Firefox users in the U.S"

I wonder if or how Yahoo's "re-imagined" search experience will be affected
for non-Firefox users.

UPDATE: Yahoo's press release says their "clean, modern, and immersive search
experience that will launch first to Firefox’s U.S. users in December and then
to all Yahoo users in early 2015."

[http://yahoo.tumblr.com/1313](http://yahoo.tumblr.com/1313)

~~~
jfoster
Interesting that Firefox users get it first. If they're clever (I think they
are), that's a tactic to help Mozilla with user acquisition. (assuming the
reimagined search experience is something that they can make people want to
try)

------
mcintyre1994
To be blunt, where's the innovation in Yahoo! Search? They're using Bing data
and the result page images in the article look like a clone of Google's.

------
huhtenberg
Here's the option to suppress the change -
[http://i.imgur.com/HwHqQU9.png](http://i.imgur.com/HwHqQU9.png)

~~~
chuckharmston
It's worth noting that Google isn't disappearing from Firefox; you will still
be able to manage your search engines as you have before.

~~~
Ntrails
But not in the "new tab" page I assume?

~~~
mbrubeck
The "new tab" page in recent versions of Firefox uses whichever search engine
you select in the search toolbar. So it's easy to switch it to Google, Yahoo,
DuckDuckGo, or others.

------
agapos
Doesn't that mean that Google giving up on one of the biggest markets means
they no longer need Mozilla and it can ditch it's support altogether? Will
Yahoo be able to support Moz as Google did? Will this became precedence for
other countries too (aside from exceptions like Russia's yandex)?

~~~
todesschaf
You're assuming Google gave up on Mozilla, and not the other way around. Your
assumption is incorrect.

------
rdl
This makes me less likely to use Mozilla, but I was already a Chrome or Safari
user (despite supporting the Mozilla mission).

Seems like a bad decision for Mozilla.

~~~
callahad
Why would this be a bad decision, or make you less likely to use Firefox?
Mozilla _exists_ in large part due to the abuses that come with monopolistic
control over the Internet. Google is dangerously close to that line.

Choosing a different partner seems like the most mission-aligned option for
Mozilla.

~~~
rdl
Making the product worse, from the perspective users care about, for ideals.

FF, for instance, made their multi-browser "sync" horribly complicated for
users, to preserve zero knowledge, which is the opposite of what 99% of users
wanted.

Chrome made it simple (and THEN added a fairly decent ZK option buried in
advanced).

What makes Mozilla/Firefox relevant is having enough users that it can't be
ignored. Mozilla is already increasingly irrelevant due to mobile (Firefox OS
is nice promise, but Safari and Chrome are dominating the space);
marginalizing their desktop product doesn't help.

~~~
Yoric
Yeah, Sync could be improved a lot. The good news is that we are working on
it, and I have hopes that the next version will solve all issues (both
performance and UX) without sacrificing privacy.

Now, if the question is whether adopting Yahoo & co will be bad for the user
experience, Mozilla is betting on the fact that these smaller search providers
can deliver not just a comparable experience, but also innovation from many
sources.

~~~
mythmon_
"The next version" is already out. We moved away from the ZK sync a while ago,
and use a much more user friendly model now.

~~~
Yoric
I was thinking of CloudSync.

