Mozilla waves goodbye to Google's megabucks

and makes Yahoo! Search the Firefox default in US.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/11/20/yahoo_becomes_default_firefox_search_in_us/

Personally I don't use Google much only for translations and maps but who would like to use Yahoo search? Not me since I like Startpage. Is this the reason why Firefox will have ads coming through on their new page (or whatever it's called) since I wonder whether Yahoo will pay as much to Mozilla as Google did. What about other parts of the world, e.g. Europe?

 

Unless Yahoo search has gotten astoundingly better than it used to be, I think they've just shot themselves in the foot.

 

I doubt it will make much difference to Firefox users since most use whatever search engine they prefer,
which is also true for the Home page.

 

It might if it slows down Mozilla development.

 

So how do you see that being played out?

Do you think there is another strong contender for that spot?

 

Mozilla must think all it's users are ignorant. Within a year, 50% of Firefox users will have changed the default search provider back to Google.

BTW oma, StartPage uses Google's search engine. I use Ixquick which uses multiple search engines.

 

The same way it is now. Mozilla will continue to struggle (even moreso) while their market share dwindles, and they will then pull an Opera and move to webkit, or fizzle out. Then they will take potshots at others like Google in public statements, people will roll their eyes and say, "Mozilla, who?"

Their problem is there is no need to fill the spot they have. Everyone else is doing a better job than they are.

Mozilla needs a win. Firefox is bad, bad, bad. I like the Developer Edition, but it even struggles.

Gecko chokes on too many things these days. I had to disable an easter egg on my company's website because WebGL in Firefox (in this case anyway) pegs the CPU to 100% for a simple animation. It is fine in Chrome and IE though.

In my development work, I consistently have to make more workarounds for Firefox users than I do even IE.

 

I believe the 5 year deal with google dropped, because google now has their own browser.

But, on a side note, I still use minefield for my daily browsing, and sometimes firefox, which I'm on now.

Though, I do have chrome and canary, I just switch between the four.

I'm not a developer, but I like to try this and that.

But, I'm still a fan of mozilla, since they were called Phoenix, which I ran in the Navy, back in the day.

 

Several years ago, when I was studying CSS and web design, most prominent authors recommended first testing code
in the dominant standards compliant browsers, primarily Firefox and also Safari and Opera, and once everything
was working properly there, then test in Internet Explorer and add adjustments and tweaks as needed.

The picture you are painting is that now things are just the opposite where Firefox is concerned.

Until now, I have considered Pale Moon, Waterfox and Cyberfox to be minor modifications of the original and therfore
all regarded as Firefox with some variations. Maybe I've been wrong about that, so I'm going to give Pale Moon 64-bit
another try.

With the Chromium based browsers, Google Chrome and Opera, I think the differences are more significant but
still very closely related to the original parent.

 

Correct. Firefox is falling behind.

 

And they flat out suck at syncing between devices. For someone who browses the web as much from a smartphone as from a computer, which is becoming more and more common, Firefox is a terrible choice for that reason alone.

 

Yes I know that Startpage uses google but it won't phone home, doesn't spam my windows with crap and I get clean results pages. Once in a while I use Ixquick as my homepage for fun and use it also in Pale Moon and IE11.

 

Both great search providers. A bigger problem is Facebook. If it wasn't for Abine's DoNotTrackMe, I would never have known Facebook has tried to track me more than 10,000 times in 6 months on other sites.boxing

And that's how Mark Zuckerberg became a billionaire. He's such a nice guy.:kissmy:flip

 

Companies that don't charge make money off advertisements, which requires tracking. Not exactly surprising.

There is no evil in business, just business itself.

 

You would also have known that had you read the TOS when you signed up, or paid a modicum of attention to anything that's been in the news in the last five years.

 

It's pointless tracking my activities on other websites, because:
1. Abine stops Facebook from tracking me.
2. I don't click on advertisements.

TOS? What percentage of members on social networking sites and/or forums read the TOS before signing up?
"Of course lawyers must have been involved as you would literally need one, and a decent knowledge of technology, to absorb all of this. In other words, it’s mostly just bullsh*t.":crap

http://www.majorgeeks.com/news/story/facebook_to_make_a_lot_of_changes_on_january_12015.html

 

Ignorance is not a defense. They have stated they track you if you sign up for and use the service, ergo if you use the service they will track you.

And like I said, if you've paid a modicum of attention to anything in the news in the last five years, you'd know even without reading the TOS that Facebook tracks your activity. It's not a huge scary conspiracy...as Adrynalyne pointed out, "There is no evil in business, just business itself".

Even if you don't click on advertisements, the site still makes money when you see them.

 

That's not in any way relevant. By signing up you agreed to the TOS, whether you read it or not. Just like here at MGs. By posting I agree to the T&C's of the forums.

 

1. Facebook doesn't know that.
2. Others do, they aren't going to provide custom treatment for every member. The cost to develop something like that is astronomical with no benefit.

 

I disagree.
Adrynalyne, I have seen some of your posts and you are certainly a knowledgable person with regards to computers. :major You know a simple cookie on my PC can take care of that, much like a 'tracking protection list', which is just a text file. Even if I am wrong, Facebook has an astronomical amount of money.

I don't really care about the annoying ads.

The bottom line is, Yahoo! is wasting money, and Mozilla Firefox is insulting the intellect of it's users. Not even Microsoft can force me to use Bing in Internet Explorer.

 

You don't seem to understand. A company needs a reason to spend that money. Customizing their tracking for each user per your points (1 and 2) doesn't help them out at all, so there is no reason to do it. Business 101, right? There needs to be justification.

I think I am pretty in touch with development costs. You wouldn't believe how much money goes into it. A simple two day project built by me costs an easy 3 thousand dollars. Now imagine 6 months to a year (or more!) for something complex like what you are saying. You see a simple cookie. I see a complex server-side system for handling it that costs with no benefit.

 

"Mozilla waves goodbye to Google's megabucks"

I think we're going off post, and yes, I opened the door. Having done Engineering Procurement, I know how much time and money can go into fixing or changing a small issue. What I don't know, is why Yahoo! is spending money on being the default search provider in Mozilla Firefox. I smell a rat. Remember what Yahoo! did to Musicmatch Jukebox?

Lastly, I don't see a simple cookie, I see a SUPER Tracking Protection List.:celebrate