| ▲ | throwmeoutplzdo 7 hours ago | |||||||||||||
You’re mixing up funding with control. Mozilla Corporation takes money from Google for search placement. That doesn’t turn it into a subsidiary. Google doesn’t own it, doesn’t run its roadmap, and doesn’t ship its code. Mozilla negotiates search deals the same way Apple does for Safari. Revenue deal ≠ corporate control. On telemetry: you’re overstating it. Firefox ships with telemetry on, but it documents what it collects, lets users turn it off, and exposes most of it in about:config. Google Chrome ties into a much broader account system, sync stack, and ad network. Chrome doesn’t operate in isolation; it plugs straight into Google’s data ecosystem. Firefox doesn’t own an ad network to feed. “Almost comparable” needs evidence. Comparable how? Volume? Type? Identifiability? Retention? Without specifics, the claim collapses into vibes. The bigger difference sits lower in the stack: engine independence. Firefox runs on Gecko. Chrome runs on Blink. If you care about web monoculture, that matters more than marginal telemetry deltas. When one engine dominates, web standards start drifting toward what that engine implements. We watched that happen in the IE6 era. As for uBlock Origin: yes, it’s a major reason people choose Firefox. But browser architecture shapes how long powerful content blockers survive. Chrome’s extension model changes (Manifest V3) restrict what blockers can do. Firefox kept the older, more capable API. That choice signals priorities. If your argument reduces to “both collect some data, so it doesn’t matter,” you flatten meaningful differences. The question isn’t purity. The question asks who controls the engine, who sets extension policy, and who benefits from surveillance at scale. If you think those differences don’t matter, make that case directly. But don’t blur structural distinctions into “basically the same.” They’re not. | ||||||||||||||
| ▲ | shevy-java 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | |||||||||||||
That is not a mix-up though. Mozilla became dependent on the Google money - everyone sees this. | ||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| ▲ | stephenr 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | |||||||||||||
> Mozilla negotiates search deals the same way Apple does for Safari. Revenue deal ≠ corporate control. Google search revenue represents about 75% of Mozilla's total revenue. Google search revenue represents about 4% of Apple's total revenue. If you think those differences don’t matter, make that case directly. But don’t blur financial distinctions into “basically the same.” They’re not. | ||||||||||||||
| ▲ | Aeglaecia 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | |||||||||||||
[flagged] | ||||||||||||||
| ▲ | jahsome 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | |||||||||||||
[flagged] | ||||||||||||||