[sshine]

While the nuance is important, money from Google is ad money:

  - Directing people to Google Search means Firefox users get exposed to ads
  - The money given to Firefox was made selling ads
  - Google is an ad company

So yes, Google gives Firefox money for political reasons. Made from ads, so they can sell ads, including to Firefox users.

[close04]

I'm with you on the first one and that's the closest reason why you could call Firefox payment "ad money". But the rest are not too strong. Google makes a lot of non-ad money too, even if it's a smaller portion than ads. You don't call airlines "banks" just because they make all of their money from currency-like "miles", and even fly at a loss [0].

What I want to say is that calling it "ad money" makes Firefox look bad when it shouldn't.

[0] https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/09/airlines-b...

[rntksi]

You're mis-representing things here.

As in my reply further below, Q1 2026 you can see Google makes 70% of revenue from Ads, the non-ad money you refer to is only 1/3. But if you look at net income, 85% of the net income from Google comes from Services (including Ads).

The Airlines story is taken out of context and different from Google, Delta for example in the Q1 2026 filing you can see they have a revenue of $15.8bn, of which ticket sales is $10.7bn ! Loyalty program income is just $1bn. However the net income supports the story The Atlantic ran, which just means that out of the $1bn, they are getting more net income from their mileage programs, than income from out of $10.7bn ticket sales, because the operating expense of flying airplane is quite high from fuel, etc.

So on one side, Google has 70% revenue from Ads, and even more % if you count net income. On the other side, Airlines - like Delta - have 70% of their revenue from passenger, but relatively speaking less net income from ticket sales if you consider net income.

You are not comparing the same thing. If you just compare revenue, Airlines cannot be called Banks because they still make 70% of their revenue from passenger ticket sales, just as how Google is an Ad company because their main revenue is 70% ads!

If you compare net income, the airlines story can have an angle, but the Google story doesn't, because their net income from Ads is way higher!

[close04]

When someone says that all money a company pays is "money from their main segment", that's intentionally misrepresenting. In this case what's important is what the money is for, not from. Calling it "Firefox had ad-money coming in" can only be bad faith, the usual social media rage bait.

Now everyone comes out of the woodwork with "well akshully" because there's an interpretation where they can plausibly claim "technically I'm right" despite knowing they are sending the wrong message.

Basketball player LeBron James made more money from endorsements than sports, gas stations make more money from selling coffee and food than gas, and fast-food giant McDonald's makes more money from rent than from fast-food. If you called a gas station "a grocery store" you'd be technically right but also practically and pointlessly wrong.

[sshine]

It's a completely fair point.

You could say Google has two purposes of funding Firefox:

One is to inject search engine and ad distribution dominance into every known browser.

The other is to prop up Firefox as an alternative browser to avoid monopoly lawsuits.

They're not sponsoring Firefox out of goodness.

Which is why I don't like to be charitable with the interpretation.

[tomnipotent]

Without the ads, there would be no payments to Mozilla. It's absolutely 100% unequivocably ad money.

[graemep]

> You don't call airlines "banks" just because they make all of their money from currency-like "miles",

The article you link to does!