In conjunction with the previous post regarding MS making their AI/Recall bullshit a product not just shoved down our throats (the market will speak), I've been thinking a bit about the current state of affairs with the web. In particular as it relates to Mozilla and its captivity to a giant corporate benefactor (who also is its competitor).

We have become used to free (as in beer) browsers since at least the mid-90s. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but as is often the case, if you aren't paying, you are the product. This is especially true when the aforementioned benefactor is an ad-based business whose goal is to suck up as much data as they can about the users.

The latest news where Mozilla has bought ad firm Anonym is a sign of how far we've fallen from the original goals of an open web, and that those who are entrusted to safeguard against the corporate enshittification of everything are falling prey to the same technology (but "hey it's about freedom and privacy" they exclaim).

The more you end up pushing ads in (even in the name of a less-worse system) means you are going to more and more rely on these tools, until the tools original purpose is destroyed, and you are right back to where you started (invasive ads and spying on end users)

There are a few issues at play, one of the biggest is that Mozilla is no longer just about "making a browser" (not that's all they ever were, we SHOULD want them to push for an open web; but in the past decade+ they have continually zerged out into other domains that stray from their supposed goal - working deals and purchases to "improve" the browser in ways that ultimately are detrimental to an open web, IMHO).

The obvious example was Pocket integration being forced on users. Telemetry shoved on users, and Ads being placed into the default startpage. Outcry has made them relent somewhat on each of these features, but they rely on the old rapey maxim: It's easier to ask forgiveness than permission. Not cool.

And this is a pattern that has, as noted, been happening a long time now.

Because Mozilla is free (as in beer) there is nobody paying the piper. Except, again, primarily their opposition in this space. While Google has done some good for an open web, they also use their power to push a browser monoculture that is increasingly taking hold. There are only 2 browser(rendering) engines left to compete in any meaningful way: Gecko (Mozilla) and Webkit (iOS/macOS).

Almost every alternative browser has dropped their own engine in favor of Google's Blink Engine.

A single browser engine in the hands of a giant corporation calling the shots is somethign we've already seen. There is no foundation or true openness when it comes to the Blink engine, what Google wants is what Google gets. The rest of you suckers can fall in line, that means you Microsoft, Opera, Chromium, Vivaldi, Brave, and many many others. Don't worry it's "open source!"

Unlike MS who rested on their laurels during the reign of IE as the dominant browser (thanks to corporate use, and thus the spread to the home user and default-browser for the OS), Google does work on adding features and enhancing things like their JS engine.

But along the way, they continue to push features that close off the web, always with a justification for something benign, but in the end, always self-serving for Google. Whether it be "amp" pages (previously SPDY), Manifest v3, or even the user-hostile, security oriented sounding "WebEnvironment Integrity". Fortunately for the latter, enough users spoke out against it that Google supposedly "abandoned" it. However it's back for the Android OS under the name (Android WebView Media Integrity API). They will never stop trying.

So. We need to reduce reliance on the big G. We also need to consider the current path that Mozilla is taking as an organization and their constant missteps and user-hostile actions.

I believe that a monoculture in browser engines is a bad idea. While it makes the lives of devs easier because they only have to handle one target instead of handling edge cases, it is not good for the web as a whole to stifle competition on browser engines.

The big elephant in the room is funding. How does an organization like Mozilla get enough revenue to sustain constant work on a browser - to enable continued work on security and adding features that are user-friendly?

Is it necessary to raise as much capital as Mozilla does to develop a browser? As noted above, Mozilla does a lot more than just make firefox, they advocate for a (more) open web. But along the way, they have constantly been playing "catchup" by aping Google. Whether it be removing XUL and all the customizability that afforded in the brower's "chrome" (and extensions) and thus - going over to Google's own extension API (and thus handing over a lot of control, not just in how a web page is viewed, but what you the user are allowed to do with the browsers UI and incoming pages). Mozilla has fought off the worst of the worst, but they constantly have to be on alert now that they gave up the lead and power of their own development to race against their masters.

So - the question as stated: Does a browser-maker require the same large amount of capital that the Mozilla Organization does? Or is it only a fraction of what the org brings in. I believe the answer is that it's a fraction of what the org brings in. If your goal is only to create a browser you don't need to feed as much at the trough of the beast.

So - let us imagine a world where the mozilla org is not tied to the browser. Let's imagine an independent 3rd party browser that is based on a non-profit foundation (ideally), and that has a strong user-centric focus, both in terms of privacy, and respect for their ability to control the browser as they see fit, and not mandate a one-size fits all approach (that just conveniently happens to mirror that same goals as large corporate datamongers), with a few crumbs tossed to the plebs.

In such a world, what are the options for funding?

1. End-User donations only - A pure "non-profit" that doesn't sell anything, but gives the product away, and only receives money based on goodwill and charity from those who believe in the cause.

2. Corporate Donations - The status quo. See above for all the reasons to avoid this. Whether this be Google or previously AOL (via their acquisition of Netscape in the 90s)

3. An actual saleable product - There was a time when people paid for browsers to be made. Before MS bundled IE in windows. Before Netscape "freed" Navigator. But the convenience of a browser built into the OS, of one freely downloaded and not having to pay for it, is highly attractive to almost anyone. This route has fallen by the wayside.

There are niche software markets where people are willing to spend money for services they see as valuable. Alas, many of these markets end up being driven by the pressures of the market to increase shareholder value (as opposed to customer centric goals). The customer is an "acquisition" as much as the corporate property being purchased. The market is captive in so many cases. But as long as the organization isn't driven by Wall Street there is a use case for software purchases.

So the question is: Is item 3 a viable option for sustainable browser development? And if so, what is the proper way to handle it?

Should it be predicated upon release cycles of major versions, with security and minor version updates/bug-fixes being released for free?

Should it be subscription based? A monthly or yearly fee for perpetual sustained income instead of cycles of income and boom/bust mentality?

What role does a subscription based mentality drive in the consumer? What about the developers? Does a subscription based product entail thinking of the subscription as a "free" stream of money where the incentive to release a quality product is put on the back burner in order to drive more "subscriptions"?

In some sense one could see the Yearly Subscription model to be almost standard these days. It can cut down the perception of an expensive software package into small payments instead of a large sum (so it's easier to convince people of the purchase).

The user who inspired this post on a Mastodon discussion said they wouldn't even mind a free, ad-based version along with the subcsription version, though personally I thin that's a slipper slope that we really should ideally avoid, or at least find an advertising mechanism that supports things like non-profits and open-source solutions as opposed to yet more of the same.

The question then becomes what would the goals be? Does one fork the existing Gecko engine for use? Do they keep the same codebase on the engine? Do they just mess with the Blink engine? Do they revert to XUL as in some of the firefox forks for the chrome of the browser? Do they focus on new chrome for the renderer. Do they continue to use the Manifest v3? Do they revert to v2? Use Mozilla's old plugin architecture? There are a lot of design decisions involved in something like this that I obviously don't have answers for (being neither a developer nor activist/organizer/executive).

I think a new open foundation that's built along the lines of the W3C and its old projects to develop open/reference browsers (a la Arena and Amaya browsers) would be essential. I would much rather the W3C be doing this than having to start a new organization. The problem with the W3C of course is that it is heavily dominated by corporate interests, and things like DRM for the web isn't considered an affront by said members. There needs to be a user-centric advocacy group/organization that isn't predicated upon corporate beneficience hiding ulterior motives.

This foundation/organization should really be predicated upon building a user-centric browser that is not predicated upon the charity of user-hostile corporations.

So here is what I'm thinking:

1. A non-profit organization that creates a saleable product that does not rely on corporate money as a "gift" to sustain itself, nor should any "search engine" deals be made.

2. The browser should have a very open (but secure) extension API so that the restrictions forced upon the users via Google's continuously tightening extension API no longer has the stranglehold it does.

3. How the saleable product is handled in terms of its sales would be something determined by both the market and other factors (such as non-corporate/personal donations). Donations should have a limit, so that larger donors cannot just drop a million bucks and demand x,y,z changes because they gave the most (and thus create a psychological hook on this need for money). In the same way that US political donors are capped at 2500 (or used to be; that may have changed with the fucksticks who run SCOTUS these days).

4. Standards should not be pre-emptively pushed on end-users without feeding up into the larger web ecosystem for consideration (e.g. the bullshit that Google does in its browsers that become "standards" only after they've already rolled it out to people (because you know - just use your captive audience as test subjects and then show the "proof" to the powers that be with you telemetric data)). This may lead to a slower adoption of the web (and frankly without a law, I don't think this would be possible to do, because the big boys will ALWAYS be pushing forward on "innovations", regardless of actual utility or desire by end-users).

I imagine there is a middle way on point number 4 but I am not sure how that can happen. It will probably remain as it is now, but ideally, any novelty driven by this user-centric organization would do its best to go through a communal decisions making effort instead of forced on everyone.

Any technology incorporated into the browser from a third party should take user-control as the core question regarding its fitness for the browser.

As noted, I think a monoculture of engines is a very bad thing, and this browser should strive to not just use Blink - but I can see why having a single engine (with rendering only, not any of the other tacked on features of a browser - like addon APIs) is fruitful for developers.

The issue isn't that there is a multiplicity of engines, but rather that implementation details are never consistent and small changes in engines leave the problem to devs to create workarounds.

This leads to a question of what the best way to handle this - so far it's "feed it up to W3C and let them sort it out, after it's already been thrust on users" or "just let 2 competing implementations and methods of handling it remain". Often the second may lead to the first (that is after enough unbearable complication between two implementations, browers makers and web developers will have had enough and call on the W3C or other standards org to resolve the conflict if possible).

Ultimately - the problem remains:

We need an open, user-centric, extensible browser that is NOT corporate funded, and ideally funded by the users themselves, and limited donations so that large donors do not get an special rights/say in how the software is developed.

The real problem is the governing framework we have for user rights (in the US in particular), and the egregious kowtowing to corporate America that our so called "leaders" (aka: Simps and Corporate Whores) engage in.

In many ways Europe does things right (or at least appear to do so, I admit, not being from Europe I am not up on the particulars. For example GDPR popups are not required by sites, but it becomes a tactic they use to make the law seem like an annoyance, because they follow the letter, not the spirit, and the law lets them... a nice hidden "we're helping the people with this law" that has no teeth and lets them get blamed for being obnoxious and if only they didn't have this mandate in the first place I wouldn't have to constantly click No, Allow for All, Only allow minimum required, etc...), but in many others, they do it so, so, so wrong. This is the problem with Nation-States as guarantors of rights. They end up having their own user-hostile approaches (often guided by poor logical thinking and presuppositions on what the "right" way to defend their national interests are -- see every Nation-State Actor on every encryption ever).

I should end this, I'm not sure I have much more to say, but I think this is something we are going to hear and see more and more of as Mozilla continues to enshittify itself in the beds we made with it.

Meanwhile, jwz says "I told you so!"