The biggest part of people use Chrome-based browsers.
Also… the point is that it’s thanks to those people who use stock Firefox that the codebase stays maintained. So admitting that having those people is a good thing is kind of against the idea of encouraging people to move away from stock Firefox.
Even when using forks of Firefox you are contributing to the Mozilla project and can support it as well
Using librewolf is better than using chrome in term of support for the main devs Mozilla
The thing is that it’s not very common for people who use a fork of Firefox to donate or encourage contributions to Mozilla… most of the people who go for forks do it because they do not trust Mozilla in the first place or don’t agree with the decisions they take. They are not willing to let Mozilla make profit out of their use of the browser, even when done through an option that can be turned off in the browser, they don’t like it even existing.
So if enough people did that, I don’t think Mozilla would keep developing Firefox, at least not at the level that they are now. In fact, I think even today Mozilla is not seeing much gain, since they keep starting side projects to raise funds in other ways.
If there were a separate foundation that was started by all these forks to maintain a base from which to build on (sort of the Chromium-equivalent but in Firefox world) that isn’t connected to Mozilla and that can fully sustain itself… then that would be good in my book. But as things stand, those projects don’t look like they would survive without Mozilla.
I feel like it makes more sense to support an alternative project entirely, like Ladybird or so.
And do you think that most Firefox users donate to Mozilla?
No, most don’t donate directly, but some do use some of the features that indirectly do provide funds. Like for example, would a search engine be willing to pay Mozilla to have them be a default search engine if it had no users?
I feel the weight of Firefox being a popular browser has allowed them to have some partnerships and carry on some strategies that are likely to have been a source of funds. I expect many people do not turn off sponsored links and other features that are likely to help them support the browser and that are likely not available in the forks.
No I did not say that. Do you recommend people to use their browser on default settings?
Mozilla gets paid for having it be the default, regardless of whether the user switches it. They get to make money from it because of the number of users alone being already something interesting to target for their partners. So just you using the browser is beneficial for Mozilla, even if you turn all the sponsored features off.
So it’s the same as if your were using a fork nah? The only difference is that mozilla does know that you use a Firefox browser because telemetry is disabled
No, it’s not the same. Firedragon users have a different default. I’ll repeat the question that you didn’t answer yet:
“would a search engine be willing to pay Mozilla to have them be a default search engine if it (upstream Firefox) had no users?”
And this is just an example. There are many other forms of partnership possible beyond search engines… the point is that the number of users that actually are exposed to the default browser settings (ie. the ones using upstream Firefox, whether they change the settings or not) does give some leverage for making funds out of, while still giving options/freedom to the users who can freely change the setting.
When you watch a video article with sponsored content, even if you skip the sponsor, the creator benefits from your views indirectly because it builds up the numbers and that’s attractive for sponsors… but if someone starts re-posting the videos with the sponsor bits cut out and the re-posting channel becomes MORE popular than the original to the point that the original gets much less views… do you think companies are gonna want to have sponsor deals with that creator who gets very few views on their sponsored content?
The biggest part of people use Chrome-based browsers.
Also… the point is that it’s thanks to those people who use stock Firefox that the codebase stays maintained. So admitting that having those people is a good thing is kind of against the idea of encouraging people to move away from stock Firefox.
To an extent, the enshittification of the most popular platform is inevitable.
Even when using forks of Firefox you are contributing to the Mozilla project and can support it as well Using librewolf is better than using chrome in term of support for the main devs Mozilla
The thing is that it’s not very common for people who use a fork of Firefox to donate or encourage contributions to Mozilla… most of the people who go for forks do it because they do not trust Mozilla in the first place or don’t agree with the decisions they take. They are not willing to let Mozilla make profit out of their use of the browser, even when done through an option that can be turned off in the browser, they don’t like it even existing.
So if enough people did that, I don’t think Mozilla would keep developing Firefox, at least not at the level that they are now. In fact, I think even today Mozilla is not seeing much gain, since they keep starting side projects to raise funds in other ways.
If there were a separate foundation that was started by all these forks to maintain a base from which to build on (sort of the Chromium-equivalent but in Firefox world) that isn’t connected to Mozilla and that can fully sustain itself… then that would be good in my book. But as things stand, those projects don’t look like they would survive without Mozilla.
I feel like it makes more sense to support an alternative project entirely, like Ladybird or so.
I understand completely your point of view but I wouldn’t use the stock Firefox as it’s not private enough and it has really bad features
And do you think that most Firefox users donate to Mozilla?
Using Firefox (even a fork) supports the work of Mozilla, like using chromium browser support the work of google
No, most don’t donate directly, but some do use some of the features that indirectly do provide funds. Like for example, would a search engine be willing to pay Mozilla to have them be a default search engine if it had no users?
I feel the weight of Firefox being a popular browser has allowed them to have some partnerships and carry on some strategies that are likely to have been a source of funds. I expect many people do not turn off sponsored links and other features that are likely to help them support the browser and that are likely not available in the forks.
So you recommend people to use the google search engine? :(
No I did not say that. Do you recommend people to use their browser on default settings?
Mozilla gets paid for having it be the default, regardless of whether the user switches it. They get to make money from it because of the number of users alone being already something interesting to target for their partners. So just you using the browser is beneficial for Mozilla, even if you turn all the sponsored features off.
So it’s the same as if your were using a fork nah? The only difference is that mozilla does know that you use a Firefox browser because telemetry is disabled
No, it’s not the same. Firedragon users have a different default. I’ll repeat the question that you didn’t answer yet:
“would a search engine be willing to pay Mozilla to have them be a default search engine if it (upstream Firefox) had no users?”
And this is just an example. There are many other forms of partnership possible beyond search engines… the point is that the number of users that actually are exposed to the default browser settings (ie. the ones using upstream Firefox, whether they change the settings or not) does give some leverage for making funds out of, while still giving options/freedom to the users who can freely change the setting.
When you watch a video article with sponsored content, even if you skip the sponsor, the creator benefits from your views indirectly because it builds up the numbers and that’s attractive for sponsors… but if someone starts re-posting the videos with the sponsor bits cut out and the re-posting channel becomes MORE popular than the original to the point that the original gets much less views… do you think companies are gonna want to have sponsor deals with that creator who gets very few views on their sponsored content?