[glenstein]

>1. It's unfair to assume that their primary funding source stops in one scenario and not in the other.

Wait, what? I thought your whole premise from one comment ago was that they "stop doing everything" and exclusively slow burn away their endowment. They're dead by 2029 if they do that.

If they don't do that, then you're just talking about how they currently operate.

[yencabulator]

The money paid by Google so Chrome does not look like a monopoly is earned by Firefox and specifically for Firefox to exists as a viable-enough competitor. If anything, maintaining Firefox properly is the branch that earns that money.

Mozilla should stop doing all these side quests -- look at their track record! -- and they should get rid of the fat executive layer. They should transparently report what they're using their money, instead of saying they burn hundreds of millions of dollars in "software development" while firing the Servo developers.

[maxloh]

Actually, it makes much more sense if Google pays Mozilla to maintain an alternative that never becomes truly competitive.

I don't think actual competition benefits Google in a commercial sense. If we considered the situation purely rationally, Google's most logical decision would be to use their budget as leverage, threatening off the books to prevent any strategy that might make Firefox "viable again", under the assumption that Google focused primarily on market share, while Mozilla focused purely on survival.

[yencabulator]

Yes, Google definitely has an incentive to keep Firefox inferior. If it became a real competition, that money flow would likely stop.

However, if Firefox drops to ~0% usage, it will definitely stop, as that ruins Google's monopoly defense, which is the motivation for it! Firefox usage is supposedly already as low as 2.33%.