Though I do like where this discussion ended up. Yes, if Mozilla were a traditional corporation, then we would have maximizing revenue as not just a goal, but our primary mission as an organization. Because we’re not a traditional corporation, but rather a public-benefit organization, we get to have loftier and more user-friendly goals like making the Web a better place — without compromise!

I wouldn’t say it’s without compromise… The compromise is that the user experience ala Google is apparently worth more than the increase in revenues ala the search engine chosen by bids.

Whatever Google is paying you, it’s not enough. If they know you’re going to go with them anyway (for user experience, since most FF users prefer Google), then there’s no incentive for them to give you the *best* deal.

I’m not saying that’s necessarily a bad thing, just pointing out the compromise. I guess we’ve come full circle, as now I’m pointing out the difference between your not-for-profit status and that of a typical corporation.

Absolutely. Though I cannot imagine a situation where that search provider wouldn’t be willing to pay for the kinds of massive traffic that Mozilla can send its way.

Any search provider that can pass Google and Yahoo in terms of user demand will necessarily be monetizing that traffic as well or better than those players and it just doesn’t make sense that they wouldn’t have programs for paying to further increase their traffic.

Mozilla is swiftly approaching 200 million users and that’s a lot of search traffic, (estimate the number of searches you do in a month, multiply by 200 million and so I’m confident that whatever our users demand at that kind of scale (75%) would be something that could help to fund more Mozilla work.

We’re not optimizing for revenue. We’re optimizing for the user experience that will get us the user base we need to move the Web in the direction our Mission calls for. I’m completely confident that whatever we do, if we always put the users first, we’ll have enough reach that we’ll be able to strike that wonderful balance between providing the best possible product for hundreds of millions of users and making enough revenue to keep moving Firefox and the Web forward.

Search is one pretty obvious (now, but not when we pioneered this kind of relationship) way to serve both those needs without compromising our commitment to our users and our mission, but it’s not necessarily the only way and we’ll be looking over the coming years to find other relationships and revenue sources.

But in the mean time, there isn’t a search engine out there that our users would want that wouldn’t be willing to pay us what we’re making now or better to have a spot on that list so we’re in good shape for being able to provide for both our users and our revenue without compromise.

About the free and open web (which is a whole other convoluted can of worms). My opinion is really mixed on this. I’d rather see the web use standards, but all of the standards boards have let consumers down.

Do you really think that Flash or Silverlight would be able to take off if the same kind of rich experience could be created using standards? Adobe and Microsoft are satisfying a demand that has gone unmet by groups like the W3C. Yes, some of the richness can be done using AJAX, but AJAX is really a kludge. Keep in mind who made AJAX possible too (Microsoft with XmlHttpRequest).

We’ll see what HTML5 actually does when it actually materializes. But until then Flash and particularly Silverlight will allow an experience you could never create with “free and open” standards. And even if you could create it, it would be insane to debug, change, or maintain in the future.

Both Apple and Google are betting on standards built through a collaborative and participatory processes, — the Free and Open Web. That’s good.

What Apple’s doing outside of the Web is a whole other story. But, when you look at which of the big players are putting their resources on my side, Apple and Google fit that bill pretty well.

In that same context, there are two big players betting against a Free and Open Web, Microsoft and Adobe. They’re putting their resources into subverting the Web with closed, web-like software stacks, Flex+Flash, and Silverlight.

Thanks for your time spent explaining specifically how Mozilla operates in this particular case. One minor quibble with your latest comment… Apple characterized as free and open? Is there something I don’t know about my iPods or iTunes?

Just another correction. Google didn’t buy up the rights to be the default search in Firefox. Mozilla put Google in as the default search before there even was a Firefox (in the old Mozilla Application Suite days) and Google is paying for the traffic that Firefox generates just like Yahoo is. In countries where Yahoo was Firefox’s default, it accounted for the bulk of searches. In countries where Google was the default, it accounted for the bulk of searches.

Mozilla didn’t sell off the default search to the highest bidder. Had Mozilla done that, I’d bet that Live Search would be in that spot because Microsoft has more money than anyone and more to gain than anyone by getting in there.

Mozilla didn’t sell of search positions, though. That’s not how it went down at all. We picked the top general search for most of our uses, Google, and then picked the second most popular search as an alternative, Yahoo, and then Mozilla worked out a revenue agreement with both of them for the search traffic Firefox generated.

When we learned that Yahoo was actually more used in some countries than Google (CJKT) we switched the order because that’s what we thought was right for our users as a default (of course while providing them the easy mechanism to change.) After doing that, we heard quite clearly from those users that even though Yahoo had a larger presence than Google in those markets, that our users in particular preferred Google so we changed it back.

In other countries where neither Google nor Yahoo are the favored search (Baidu in China, Daum and Naver in Korea, Yandex in Russia, etc. etc.) we are working to change the default spot to those providers — because we want to do right by our users and that’s what our users are asking for.

It’s not about the money. It’d about doing the right thing.

We think the right thing is providing the best possible default right out of the box with no configuration required and then offering the second-most demanded option as the number two. For “general” search, that’s Google and Yahoo for most locales (note the exceptions I mentioned above.)

We also think the right thing is to include some niche or category searches in Firefox so we decided that we would include, in addition to the two general searches, an ecommerce solution, an auction site, and an encyclopedia. The obvious choices there were Amazon, Ebay, and Wikipedia. — Except that if you happen to travel to South America, for example, you’ll find that Mercado Libre is the right choice rather than Ebay so we’ll work to get Mercado Libre in as the default for our users in that case.

Again, the point is to try to learn what our users want and make it as easy as possible for them to get it.

Our users are not demanding Microsoft in any substantial numbers and certainly not at the level of a Yahoo or Google search — in any market in the world. If they were, we’d figure out where it made sense and we’d add it and work out a revenue deal with Microsoft for whatever traffic it generated.

So, I’ll say it one more time. It’s not about the money. It’s not about Google. It’s about Mozilla doing the right thing for its users with Firefox.

And as far as Microsoft is concerned, if they did exactly the same thing as Firefox with their search integration, I’d be thrilled. No need for interrupting the user’s flow when getting set up. Had they not been under the close scrutiny of the US Department of Justice for breaking the law, and had they been the kind of organization that could be trusted to make a good faith effort to figure out what their users actually wanted for search options, I’d have much preferred to see them ship a reasonable set of defaults with an easy switching mechanism.

But Microsoft is essentially an ex-con and the rules are different when you’re the biggest baddest company in the business and you’ve got a criminal record. That made it basically impossible for Microsoft to get away with anything but making it a forced user choice.

As for open, I’d much sooner pat Google on the back for using free and open and agreed upon web standards to build their Internet apps on (like Apple does — and they deserve a pat on the back too,) rather than the proprietary and closed platforms of Flash and Silverlight like Adobe and Microsoft do. It’s really hard for me to believe that either of those companies have the free and open Web at heart when they’re actively subverting it with closed technologies like Flash and Silverlight.

But that’s a whole other discussion

Just look at the XMPP example. Google had no presence in IM, so they created/hijacked a new IM protocol. Sure they publish how it works (and I’m actually a huge fan of how the XMPP protocol works and what it can do BTW) but they use the guise of “open” because they aren’t a front runner.

If you look at any product they lead in however, it is as locked down as possible. “Why would they allow anyone else’s search product to be embedded in their email or maps applications?” Because they say they are for choice. Conversely why should Microsoft allow Google’s search product to be embedded in Windows Vista? Google will sue Microsoft over getting into Vista (using the guise of choice), but then close up their own products.

This whole train of thought started when I was reading another post about how hard Google fought for “choice” in search engine providers for IE, but then bought up the rights to be the default search in FF. They didn’t care about choice in IE, they cared about Microsoft not being the default. It is Machiavellian self interest.

There is such a double standard where Google gets a free ride as being open when arguably their products are far more closed than Microsoft’s. I guess people’s blind allegiance to Google and blind hatred to Microsoft just bothers me.

BTW Google’s AIM only works with Gmail not Google Talk.

I guess I don’t see/understand your problem with Google. They’re a public company with a duty to maximize shareholder value. Everything they do is designed to achieve that goal. I don’t think anyone has any weird illusions about that, because that’s the definition of a publicly-held company.

To the extent that you’re just revealing the obvious, I guess I agree. But your “choice” analysis is flawed. For example, Google built their chat platform on an open standard. Any of their competitors could integrate with Google Chat at any time. But the reverse isn’t true. MSN / Yahoo / AIM all have larger user bases than Google and they all have proprietary systems. Google is interoperable with AIM through G-Mail, and will soon add support for Yahoo! I don’t see your point here.

As for search, that’s Google’s main product everything they do is built around their search engine. Why would they allow anyone else’s search product to be embedded in their email or maps applications?

There’s a difference between a commitment to open standards and simply abandoning competitive behavior. That’s one of the reasons analysts have been so upset about the Yahoo! decision to outsource ad-placement to Google. Ads and search are at the core of Yahoo’s vision.

Your kind of open-ness would cause shareholder revolt at Google.

Microsoft: wants money for their cause (shareholders, which btw aren’t all filthy rich pigs; it is only $28/share and lots of “regular” people have it in their retirement/investment portfolios, it’s like buying Coca-Cola or any other blue chip)
Mozilla: wants money for their cause (Mozilla’s view of public benefit)

You also can’t tell me that continued employment or job stability isn’t a primary motivator for most employees at either (or any) company. Hence they are incentivized to protect their organization. I’m sure there are a quite a few people in on Landings Drive in Mountain View that would be quite disappointed if Google dropped their agreement with Mozilla.

I guess I just don’t buy into the underlying assumption that increased revenues are always in compatible with user satisfaction. I switched to Office 2007 because it is leaps and bounds better than OOo, and I had to pay for it. It is foolish for for-profit proprietary or “community driven” pen-source software to think that either way inherently makes them more customer responsive. Both parties could learn a thing or two from the other.

I should note that in my Microsoft vs Google & Mozilla view, my issue is mostly with Google. They push aggressively for choice (search engine choice, mobile phone platform, etc) only when it suits their aspirations. When it doesn’t (Doubleclick?) they are just as bad, if not worse, than the Microsoft of yesteryear. They aren’t really for customer choice, they are for Google.