RE: https://mastodon.social/@yoasif/115227835002688747

People really don't like it when you tell the truth about the #Vivaldi browser; I got blocked for this comment pointing out that Vivaldi, like Mozilla are reliant on ad-tech for business revenue.

That probably isn't enough though -- the fact that they are *more* reliant on Google than Mozilla is -- for #Chromium -- is something no Chrome-bashing Vivaldi user seems to want to talk about.

(Mozilla is nowhere near perfect, but closed source Chromium is worse.)

@yoasif Having read that conversation, it looks to me like you were blocked for likening him with people who defend Charlie Kirk, _and NOT_ for saying that Vivaldi has the same business model as Mozilla.

IMO, a very weird, borderline offensive remark to even make at the start of that post, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Now, you can see what my handle is, so obviously whatever I say regarding Vivaldi will be biased towards them; no getting around it. I'll also mention that I've seen a few of your previous conversations regarding Vivaldi where you tagged it (I follow the hashtag).

With that ouf of the way, regarding your main point, I disagree. To my eyes, _Mozilla_ is the one who is more reliant on Google. They're the ones with the financial burden to protect/_NOT anger_ their _largest source of revenue_ - it is no secret that the vast majority of their revenue comes from Google; it would be disingenuous to say otherwise.

So I think you and I can both agree that if their contract with Google seized to exist, it would likely mark the end of Mozilla. Of course, this would not mark the end of the Gecko engine, but realistically, it would probably grind its development to a halt too.

Meanwhile Vivaldi does not really have that financial burden; that's not to say that they don't have any, but unlike Mozilla, the important distinction is that their sources of revenue are far, _far_, _FAR_ more distributed:

Vivaldi has multiple search deals, donations, partner deals comprising of bookmarks and referral links (which they call direct match) - plenty of people rightly point out that these last two are just ads, I'm not denying that. So yes, that's no different than Mozilla, but the catch is that if one deal falls through, they still have their other deals and the donations to back them up, unlike Mozilla's gargantuan, monolithic Google search deal.

You say that if Google's investment in Chromium goes away, Vivaldi goes? No duh! But with the current circumstances regarding browser engines, I just don't think this is a very interesting point to make. Also, I just can't fathom a future where Chromium ceases to be funded by Google but Mozilla somehow retains their funding from them. If anything Mozilla is still the one more likely to lose out here.

Vivaldi is not perfect either, but they're not the ones that are constantly making one terrible choice after another that drives more people away. Vivaldi's survival fully lies in them pleasing their users - Mozilla's too, but they don't seem to get that.

@AltCode Divestment was a possibility. So is just going closed source to stop free riders.

That would be a perfectly rational choice for the bottom line; they pay for the lion's share of Chromium development and in turn, are powering their competitors.

@yoasif Having read that conversation, it looks to me like you were blocked for likening him with people who defend Charlie Kirk, _and NOT_ for saying that Vivaldi has the same business model as Mozilla.

IMO, a very weird, borderline offensive remark to even make at the start of that post, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Now, you can see what my handle is, so obviously whatever I say regarding Vivaldi will be biased towards them; no getting around it. I'll also mention that I've seen a few of your previous conversations regarding Vivaldi where you tagged it (I follow the hashtag).

With that ouf of the way, regarding your main point, I disagree. To my eyes, _Mozilla_ is the one who is more reliant on Google. They're the ones with the financial burden to protect/_NOT anger_ their _largest source of revenue_ - it is no secret that the vast majority of their revenue comes from Google; it would be disingenuous to say otherwise.

So I think you and I can both agree that if their contract with Google seized to exist, it would likely mark the end of Mozilla. Of course, this would not mark the end of the Gecko engine, but realistically, it would probably grind its development to a halt too.

@AltCode If their competitors succeed in hurting the bottom line, Google may decide to simply not share their improvements with them.

Paying for traffic is a winning strategy for Google, and they make money on it. They have far less reason to discontinue that than funding their competition.

RE: https://mastodon.social/@yoasif/115227815284816252

@AltCode I explained the comparison to Kirk defenders; it is about people "adding context" that doesn't actually change the overall conclusion you would draw without the context.

I'm referencing discourse on social; if you haven't seen that, I can see where it might seem out of left field.

I looked at the article that was linked -- the added context didn't reveal where Vivaldi's funding is not powered by advertising -- which I started off with.

@AltCode No comparison to Kirk himself or to the arguments his defenders espouse was implied or intended.

Gavin (@gavlegs) on Threads

for all the criticism of kirk I gotta give him credit for being responsible for so many people adding the word "context" to their vocabularies

Threads (www.threads.com)

@AltCode Given that scenario, could Vivaldi pay for development on the last open source version of Chromium? Or would they immediately try to find another vendor to free ride from?

(Keep in mind that Edge is not open source, and Microsoft is the second largest committer to Chromium.)

Microsoft is like Vivaldi - not willing to share. Can Vivaldi raise enough money via their distributed sources to take over development of a Chromium fork that rivals Edge and Chrome?

I don't think they can.

@yoasif What do you mean by "divestment was a possibility". I didn't understand your point there.

As for your other point, _IF_ their competition did indeed succeed in hurting Google's bottom line, that would still be a good thing, no?

Are you not saying that in such a scenario, Chrome would lose a significant amount of its market share, that it would no longer be a de facto monopoly? Ok, let's play out this hypothetical of yours.

@yoasif Let's go through the list, starting with the other Chromium browsers:

With the increased scrutiny Microsoft is currently facing with regulators (particularly in the EU), I don't see them being the ones to hurt Google's bottom line.

Brave, maybe, in the mid-to-long term future, provided they play their cards right, because they face friction with their weird crypto obsession.

Opera, I don't think so. They may not be irrelevant, but they're also not a threat to Google.

Arc/Dia is a circus run by "ThE bRoWsRr CoMpAnY".

Comet, also a joke.

Safari/WebKit, I don't think so.

As for Firefox, they are in an ever perpetuating downward spiral of their own making, so they definitely wouldn't hurt Google's position.

Other emerging browser engines like Servo and Ladybird, IMO, are also a no, at least not in the near, mid, or long term future. New engines face a lot of friction, so maybe in the _way-WAY off long term_ future, but at that point it's anyone's guess what may happen.

So, honestly, I think Vivaldi will be fine.