People don’t know this, but Firefox is essentially funded (and owned in a way) by Google.
Brave is the best option you’re going to have. They keep adding great features, VPN, Tor, AI
You can simply turn off Brave Ads if you don’t want them, their model works showing you ads in exchange for BAT. It’s a much better model than the current internet, and you can opt out if you don’t want the BAT.
No Firefox is definitely not “owned” by Google. Hyperbole or misinformation helps nobody.
Google pays Mozilla money to be the default search provider in Firefox (as they pay to be the default search provider in many other Browsers and platforms of their competitors). Their largest search deal is with Apple, they pay over 10 Billion dollars (20x what they pay Firefox) to be the default search provider in Apple’s Safari. That doesn’t mean Google “Owns Apple”, nor does it mean the own Firefox.
This is also not limited to Google, prior to Google, Yahoo paid Mozilla for the privilege of being the default search in Firefox, Bing and Duckduckgo have both separately discussed search deal with Apple. Being the ‘default’ is worth a lot for search engines, they pay for the privilege becausei t benefits their business, not because it makes them the corporate overlord of the browser they pay.
The advantage is mainly the dynamic filtering modes that uBO offers:
How can FF be independent when Google provides most of its funding?
Most people don’t know but Mozilla foundation and corporation are separate entities. If Google stops funding, Mozilla foundation can support the others development.
However, if Google makes bad changes in Chromium, then Brave will be screwed. Also, I am really wondering they will earn enough money when VC funding dries up.
Still, I both use Firefox and brave.
Edit: Firefox also can make a deal with DDG or other search engines.
Possibly I’m getting hung up on semantics here but Google doesn’t “fund” Firefox (in the same sense that you or I don’t ‘fund’ the grocery store or ‘fund’ the gas station, or ‘fund’ our landlord). Google pays Mozilla for a service/privilege of being the default search provider.
I absolutely agree with you insofar as its a precarious position for any organization to be to get a majority of its funding from a single entity, even more so if that entity is a competitor. But Mozilla has a long track record, and has a demonstrated history of independence, is frequently one of the the most outspoken voices on the opposite side of issues from Google. Or put simply, the proof is in the pudding, FIrefox is a 25 year old project, is open source, and has been in the public eye all that time, there is no evidence that their independence has been limited by Google or anyone else.
Its not a perfect arrangement (but there are no perfect arrangements in the Browser space, Firefox is by far the closest thing to a fully independent Browser (and I’d love a future where Mozilla could have more diverse income sources (they are working on this) and work out a deal with a more ethical search provider (duckduckgo maybe).
Most people don’t know but Mozilla foundation and corporation are separate entities. If Google stops funding, Mozilla foundation can support the others development.
I agree with your comment overall, only caveat is I really think using the word ‘funding’ gives the wrong impression. Mozilla sells Google (and before them Yahoo) the privilege/advantage of being the default search engine in Firefox. If Google decided to stop paying for this privilege (they are unlikely to, they spend 10’s of billions ot be the default on every platform, its really important to them), Mozilla would be free to find another customer to pay for the privilege (Bing is aggressively trying to gain market share right now and recently offered 10 billion to Apple for the privilege (and was turned down), DDG and other would be interested as well but probably couldn’t pay as much)
The majority of Mozilla Corporation’s revenue comes from royalties earned through Firefox web browser search partnerships and distribution deals . Precisely about 88% of Mozilla’s revenue came through royalties received by search engines to be featured on its Mozilla Firefox browser. In 2017, Google closed a deal with Mozilla to be the primary search engine, by putting an end to a previous deal with Yahoo.
Google contributes 88% of Firefoxes revenue, they effectively own the company. Firefox exists to serve Google, because Google is pretty much its only customer. So whatever Google says, Firefox does. It’s simple.
However, if Google makes bad changes in Chromium, then Brave will be screwed. Also, I am really wondering they will earn enough money when VC funding dries up.
Brave can always choose to fork and selectively implement Chromium changes. They are a legitimate competitor to Google, whose revenue does not at all come from Google. They have a legitimate business model that doesn’t require them to be paid by Google, via selling VPN, Search, AI, and Ads.
It’s really no comparison. One is a legitimate competitor (Brave) and one is a puppet , where Google is the only customer, (Firefox).
The Mozilla Foundation is funded by donations and 2% of annual net revenues from the Mozilla Corporation, amounting to over US$8.3 million in 2016.
Mozilla foundation has no business model, its money comes from the Mozilla Corporation. It has no customers and relies on donations.
Edit: Firefox also can make a deal with DDG or other search engines.
Yeah, I’m sure that’s going to happen, because Google will let go of paying them the most money to control them. because the Mozilla Corporation is an independent entity that can make it’s own choices about whom to partner with…and there’s nothing Google can do to stop this.
they effectively own the company. Firefox exists to serve Google, because Google is pretty much its only customer. So whatever Google says, Firefox does. It’s simple.
Can you provide any evidence of this. Firefox has a 25 year track record, if this is the case you should be able to provide concrete evidence of at least a few substantive, specific real world examples of this. Otherwise its just a conspiracy theory.
Brave can always choose to fork and selectively implement Chromium changes. They are a legitimate competitor to Google
They are very much dependent on Google and affected by Google’s decisions in a way that non-Chromium browsers are not. Brave is a derivative of and dependent on Google’s Chromium and Blink Browser and Browser engine. not an independent competitor to Google. Chromium and Blink are developed and controlled almost completely by Google, Brave is downstream of them, any changes made by Google upstream will effect Brave. The decisions Google makes effect Brave, as an example, the recent move to undermine adblockers (MV3) will effect brave, they’ve committed to a workaround, but it is not guaranteed to be sustainable permanently, Many people mistakenly think Brave will not be effected but here is the commitment Brave’s CEO actually made:
We’ll keep supporting V2 until it gets too costly for us
Each workaround costs time, money, resources. Through either indifference or in order to deliberately undermine Brave, Google can make life difficult for Brave and other derivatives, and do things that undermine its ability to deliver a private browsing experience. It remains to be seen whether this will happen or not.
One is a legitimate competitor (Brave) and one is a puppet , where Google is the only customer, (Firefox).
Seriously? Come on… This forum is not /r/privacy and has higher standards of discourse and informed discussion, lets just have a discussion without devolving into baseless hyperbole and conspiracy theories.
It is an assumption but I feel like you may be on the younger side (nothing wrong with that, I’m not trying to devalue your opinion) and don’t have a whole lot of awareness of the role Mozilla has played in promoting and protecting an open internet over the last couple decades, in many cases in direct opposition to Google. As far as medium to large organizations go, Mozilla has pretty consistently been on the right side of history, with respect to ethics in tech and a healthy open internet.
Sorry, you’re kind of right. I don’t have time for a nuanced discussion, and shouldn’t be posting.
Can you provide any evidence of this. Firefox has a 25 year track record, if this is the case you should be able to provide concrete evidence of at least a few substantive, specific real world examples of this. Otherwise its just a conspiracy theory.
I would say you would have to look for what they didn’t do rather than what they do to find this.
My opinion persists, in that Firefox is controlled opposition for Google and that Brave is a better alternative with more potential.
There is a deep and worthy debate about the merits and pains of Chromium vs an alternative engine.
I’m done, both Brave and Firefox are good browsers.
Conversation seems to have run its course, OP requested the thread to be locked.