November 05, 2007, 3:27 PM — What bloggers are saying about the latest in information technology
A blog post on Cnet suggested that the Firefox browser "may not be as independent as previously
thought." Firefox is free, and its maker, Mozilla, is a non-profit (a designation
that in reality is functionally meaningless). It's a good enough browser, has
some useful plug-ins, and it has gained popularity among those who just don't
want to have anything to do with Microsoft.
I personally don't begrudge Microsoft their billions, and don't have a big problem
with Mozilla raking in a little moolah as well. Even open source projects need
money, and it has to come from somewhere. The Cnet report notes that the majority
of Mozilla's revenues come from Google, as a result of Google being the default
search engine in the Firefox search bar. There are those out there who apparently
criticize Mozilla for this relationship, but it's a legitimate business relationship,
and no doubt, one on which Mozilla's very existence depends. Of course, Mozilla
Foundation takes donations as well, but any software company -- profit or non
-- which depends solely on donations just isn't going to make it in the long
run, no matter how trendy, cool, politically correct, or anti-Microsoft they
may be.
An interesting note in the blog post is an entire section on Firefox's ad blocking
extension, which blocks most banner ads, the viewing of which, as some would
have you believe, leads to dementia, erectile dysfunction, and bird flu. The
blog questions why Firefox does not roll in the AdBlock Plus extension as a
primary feature. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you! Obviously, doing
so would cause all that wonderful Google money to dry up very quickly. The post
implies that there is a "dangerous conflict of interest"-- but the
writer fails to remember that even nonprofit organizations have to make money.
Those who go to great lengths to avoid online ads of any sort, and claim that
they should not exist should remember that it is precisely these advertisements
that have become the fuel of the Internet. People working for free are not going
to get us to Web 3.0. Money will. And that money comes from advertising.
ZDNet's Larry Dignan and Dan Farber both took a look at the issue as well. Larry
shows us the figures. It's pretty clear
that without Google, Mozilla would not exist. Mozilla gets 85 percent of its
revenues from Google, and in fact, Mozilla isn't just a bunch of volunteer geeks
-- it's a big business in and of itself, with an office to run and payroll to
meet. Dan also weighs in, noting that "Google
is the new Microsoft", but notes that much of what the Cnet poster is up
in arms about actually makes sense for all concerned. Google engineers contribute
code to Firefox, but this is no evidence of anything shady -- that's how open
source works.
A
posting and sheds some insight and reason onto the issue. While the Cnet blogger
implies that there's something underhanded about the relationship between Mozilla
and Google, the TechDirt blogger brings out the inherent fallacy of this argument,
calling the relationship "win-win." And he's right, Google wins because
it sells more ad clicks, and Mozilla wins because they get some of Google's money,
which they use to make Mozilla better, and as a result, Mozilla users win, too.
