Just remember that Google is essentially an advertising company and that they were always going to squeeze this opening closed as soon as they could get away with it.
I do fear for a future were even Firefox ends up caving in. Ladybird browser might be our only hope until something legal comes along to block functionality.
Firefox haven't caved in so far. Why do u think it might in future?
Because Mozilla, at least from the outside appears to have been horribly mismanaged for the past 20-25 years and only survived because the ad money kept rolling in.
I'm not knocking Mozilla for taking money from Google, it was a smart move. Most users would use Google anyway, so Mozilla pocketing billions by making users preferred search engine the default didn't really hurt anyone. Some of that money should however have gone into a trust or some type of investment so that funding for browser development would be safe if the ad money ever dried up.
Maybe someone at Mozilla knows something I don't, but there doesn't seem to be much planning for the future.
There is a meme that Google financially supports Firefox development as some soft of strategy whereby having an "alternative" to Chrome gives Google some sort of "protection"
This does not make any sense and there is zero evidence to support it
Firefox's value to Google could be as a source for browser development. As part of the agreement between Google and Mozilla, perhaps Google gets more than just search traffic from Firefox, perhaps it also gets collaboration with Mozilla on software development. There is a history of such collaboration. Google CEO did not want competition from Mozilla on a browser. Chrome was originally written by ex-Mozilla developers using components of Firefox^1
1.
https://web.archive.org/web/20121018180015/https://www.compu...
https://web.archive.org/web/20200805000248/https://blogs.wsj...
> the ad money kept rolling in
Why "ad money"? That's a very uncharitable interpretation and for anyone not aware of the situation it's misleading. They're not paid for ads or by ads, they're paid by Google to continue being a viable alternative to Chrome. Is every Google employee getting "ad money" every month, or a salary?
The payment is more accurately described as a protection tax.
In this particular context there really isn't any difference. Technically Mozilla isn't in the business of delivering ads, but their revenue is mostly supported by ad money from Google, and Google, being an ad giant, can simply cut that stream off. The common sentiment seems to be that this would spell a life and death situation for the company and for the browser as a whole, which essentially makes Firefox a hostage to the whims of an ideologically hostile corporate entity.
> Technically Mozilla isn't in the business of delivering ads
They weren't back then but are now: https://blog.mozilla.org/en/advertising/mozilla-anonym-raisi...
> Google, being an ad giant
Isn't Google also a cloud giant?
I wouldn't say so. They're not offering their cloud at the same scale other competitors. Not sure when the last was I saw advertising for unlike AWS, Azure.
Felt more like their cloud services were more of a side product for when "the cloud" was the trendy buzzword and a way to justify their infrastructure costs. That and keeping a leg in the egg & spoon race.
So your conclusion is based on advertising that you personally have noticed / haven't noticed?
GCP is growing faster than either AWS or Azure, roughly 60% a year. AWS seems to have stagnated in growth. Azure is a clown car.
Still wouldn't touch GCP with a 10-foot pole.
Too much dependency in Google[0].
--
[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48396596
While the nuance is important, money from Google is ad money:
So yes, Google gives Firefox money for political reasons. Made from ads, so they can sell ads, including to Firefox users.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...
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!
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.
Technically yes
Well thought out commentary... Let's dig deeper and at least we make it more interesting conversation, not a blurb.
Wouldn't it be technically no because Google's revenue isn't 100% from ads? They're making almost $120bn from cloud, subscriptions and devices for example. It could be cloud money. And if Google gets ad money so whatever it pays becomes ad money, then it's ad money all the way down.
Where did you get the $120bn figure?
FYI last fiscal results from Q1 of Alphabet, Google Cloud made $20bn revenue Q1 2026, up from Q4 2025 of $17bn. It's a bit misleading to include "subscriptions, platforms, and devices" in cloud.
Q1 2026 Google's revenue totalled $109bn, of which $77bn is Ads, so 70% of its revenue is Ads. It's common knowledge that Google is an Ads company.
> FYI last fiscal results from Q1
I googled the money they made from cloud, subscriptions, platforms, and devices, then approximated almost $120bn in a year. The precise number mattered less than the fact that it's a ton of it already, enough to cover a lot of payoffs.
> It's a bit misleading to include
I didn't "include in" anything, it was an enumeration of things that aren't ads. "Google makes $Q from X and Y", not from "X included in Y".
You found something that's technically correct (a clear enumeration and addition) to be misleading. I think you now accidentally understand what was my initial objection. A lot of other people in the thread don't because that's how social media works, they go with the prevailing opinion for the sweet sweet likes, or go against it and get squeezed out.
> Is every Google employee getting "ad money" every month
Yes. You can think of it like "blood money".
> Firefox haven't caved in so far. Why do u think it might in future?
Because pretty much all their revenue comes from Google.
I think Google will try to annoy Firefox users into using Chrome instead via things like needless captchas.
Things like https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2026/06/mozilla-firefox-android-... do not bode well either... :(
All the more reason to keep using Firefox.
Donate if you can!
https://www.mozillafoundation.org/en/donate/
Donations to Mozilla Foundation do not support Firefox development. But payments for services to Mozilla Corporation do.[1]
[1] https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/products/
Those also don't go to just Firefox development but also to cushy executive salaries.
Last I heard was that there is no way to be sure that donations to the Mozilla Foundation go to Firefox.
They will do both. Firefox has zero leverage to do anything and is on life support with Google's money.
Making Firefox even less desirable by "googlifying" it pushes Firefox users away and kills its image of a viable competitor. That's exactly what Google is paying for.
Why would Google destroy the cover they have for keeping control over Chrome and 70% of internet users, just to squeeze a bit more ad revenue from what, 2% of users?
Copying Chrome at the expense of loosing even more of their user share has been Firefox's MO for the last decade. It doesn't have to make sense to be reality.
Firefox has around 2% share, it hasn't been a viable competitor for a long time.
Mozilla Foundation is more interested in spending money on anything else than making Firefox genuinely better.
If money gets short, the first thing they would cut would be a browser.
If Mozilla operates from revenue derived from selling www traffic to an advertising company running a "search engine", then it is 100% possible and realistic that Mozilla's browser could be optimised for advertising
Mozilla literally advocates for an "online advertising ecosystem"
At present Firefox is designed to send search traffic to Google by default
Mozilla can only see its continued existence through support from advertising. It does not just partner with advertising compaines, it actually acquired an adtech company
Google has a history of "shaking the cushions" by targeting their advertising customers and Chrome. It's reasonable to forsee that they could also target the agreement with Mozilla, i.e., Firefox
https://www.inc.com/minda-zetlin/google-found-a-sneaky-way-t...
https://nypost.com/2023/11/29/business/google-ad-chief-jerry...
Maybe Mozilla breaks its partnership with Google, who knows. But based on a long history of Mozilla advocacy for online ads and working with online advertising companies, it seems 100% committed to online advertising as a "business model" regardless of whether it partners with Google or another "search engine"
It's giving Sony. Similar situation where you have a media business and also make some of the distribution channels including engineering of devices used to consume the content.
Good news is there are many viable Firefox forks currently and I’m sure some of them could take the wheel. It is open source, after all.
It would be a shame to lose the Mozilla foundation/Firefox but it wouldn’t be the end of the browser.
The thing is that they shouldn't be able to get away with it.
> Ladybird browser might be our only hope
God help us.
Maybe after few another "we are switching from language X to language Y" blogposts.
[dead]