This article is misleading in three ways. First, it ignores the markets are the cause of this problem. Second, it falsely claims Google is responsible for the development of other companies' browsers. Third, it treats Google paying for their development as a good thing with antitrust action being evil.
There's countless companies that depend on web browsers. Most don't buy them or contribute to their development. The biggest companies that include browsers in their products or platforms have budgets to build their own browsers, esp starting with existing code. They don't purely due to selfishness which, for many, hurts them in the long run as 3rd parties dictate their requirements.
That brings us to Apple and Microsoft. These are among the richest companies in existence. Their strategy is to create lock-in to their platforms which heavily use browsers. They have their own browsers. If they don't invest in their browsers, whatever happens is their fault alone. Double true since, unlike most alternative browsers, they have the money to sustain the project.
Third point is that it's good that the business model is to hope Google keeps paying for two of them with their advertising revenue. While it's great that they do, let's not forget both the dangers of (a) monoculture centered on one, greedy company; and (b) that many of us thing Google's advertising practices, especially in search, are so horrible we're trying to avoid using Google. I'd rather the the projects be self-sustaining and independent even if Google is a major customer.
Which brings me to a point of agreement where the one, independent project... Firefox... could be really hurt by a loss of Google funding. That's a sad reality I'd like to avoid. Meanwhile, I'd like to see more non-Google funding for Firefox or products layered on it from Mozilla. There should be a really, strong push to make sure Google isn't necessary for their survival. Most of what I see Mozilla promoting isn't that.
There's countless companies that depend on web browsers. Most don't buy them or contribute to their development. The biggest companies that include browsers in their products or platforms have budgets to build their own browsers, esp starting with existing code. They don't purely due to selfishness which, for many, hurts them in the long run as 3rd parties dictate their requirements.
That brings us to Apple and Microsoft. These are among the richest companies in existence. Their strategy is to create lock-in to their platforms which heavily use browsers. They have their own browsers. If they don't invest in their browsers, whatever happens is their fault alone. Double true since, unlike most alternative browsers, they have the money to sustain the project.
Third point is that it's good that the business model is to hope Google keeps paying for two of them with their advertising revenue. While it's great that they do, let's not forget both the dangers of (a) monoculture centered on one, greedy company; and (b) that many of us thing Google's advertising practices, especially in search, are so horrible we're trying to avoid using Google. I'd rather the the projects be self-sustaining and independent even if Google is a major customer.
Which brings me to a point of agreement where the one, independent project... Firefox... could be really hurt by a loss of Google funding. That's a sad reality I'd like to avoid. Meanwhile, I'd like to see more non-Google funding for Firefox or products layered on it from Mozilla. There should be a really, strong push to make sure Google isn't necessary for their survival. Most of what I see Mozilla promoting isn't that.