It's clear that the professional managerial class (PMC) has its own social circles and inputs. I don't see how else they could continue to lean so aggressively into positions which are alien to most normal people. I don't necessarily just mean "the elite are out of touch," although that's a fair reading of the situation as well.
Rather, we all talk about people being in a bubble. (and these days, everyone is in a bubble) The PMC is for certain in their own bubble and I really have no idea what the inputs are. They're totally alien to me.
Multi-model or no, “AI in the browser” seems like one of those things destined to be eaten by “AI in the OS”, even more surely and to a greater degree than Dropbox was destined to be an OS feature. Having those same tools available system-wide covers the browser case while being far more useful and easier to use (because it’s one interface and set of behavior everywhere).
> He says he could begin to block ad blockers in Firefox and estimates that’d bring in another $150 million, but he doesn’t want to do that. It feels off-mission
Eh yeah, killing the #1 reason why people still use your product is pretty much off-mission yes. I don't really understand how this would make money for them but either way it is the worst idea possible.
I understand more that he wants to be all in on AI. It's the big thing now. Billions are splashing around and Mozilla badly needs money. But everyone is doing AI browsers now. What would make Firefox so different from the rest? What is their moat? Better to focus on what makes it different rather than trying to play the same game as everyone else.
And yeah the web is in an existential crisis, but that's not really up to Mozilla to fix. I definitely won't stop adblocking that's for sure.
> At some point, though, Enzor-DeMeo will have to tend to Mozilla’s own business. “I do think we need revenue diversification away from Google,” he says, “but I don’t necessarily believe we need revenue diversification away from the browser.”
So they want to monetize the browser somehow outside of the Google deal. Future does't look good for Firefox
They’re not in a position to completely ignore some of the current AI trends. That much I can wrap my head around.
The seeming double down makes no sense to me. It won’t suddenly make Mozilla more popular. It could be useful, yes, however I doubt it’ll be radically different from other implementations of AI + Browser in such a way that it stands above the others.
What I wish they would realize in the Mozilla C-Suite is that there is real appetite browsers that get out of people’s way and focus on productivity. Given their small market share they could stand to grow by addressing that part of the market. Look at the previous success of Arc.
They keep chasing trends instead of creating them. And while it is a hard job to do that, I feel they haven’t given it an earnest attempt in some time
Firefox is still my daily browser of choice. I really want to see it do better and succeed
One of the findings Google shared as evidence in the DoJ's antitrust litigation was that Google's users consume "AI"-generated results more readily than "non-AI" results
Mozilla gets paid by sending search query data to Google
More user-facing "AI" potentially means more search data will be generated by (from) Mozilla's users
The number of gratuitous HTTP requests generated by mobile Firefox is, to me, nothing less than astounding. All this traffic is blocked from reaching the internet on the computers and networks I own but I would imagine most Firefox users allow this traffic to escape. I suspect "AI" will only increase the number of automatically-generated HTTP requests even further
"It won't suddenly make Firefox more popular."
Perhaps the goal is not necessarily to increase the number of Firefox users but to "extract" more data from existing users
"I really want to see it do better and succeed"
For Mozilla's CEO and senior management it looks like Mozilla is succeeding
> I doubt it’ll be radically different from other implementations of AI + Browser in such a way that it stands above the others.
Mozilla distinguishes itself by allowing to use any AI, including open source private, local LLMs in their chatbot, not only proprietary Gemini like Chrome or Copilot like Edge. This is privacy-friendly.
> And Enzor-DeMeo is convinced Mozilla can get there, that people want what the company is selling. “There is something to be said about, when I have a Mozilla product, I always know my data is in my control. I can turn the thing off, and they’re not going to do anything sketchy.
I used to think that, but they no longer have as much of that trust, and announcements like this are part of the reason.
Their AI solution is all about trust, he says, and we can trust Mozilla because they're not incentivized to push any particular provider. But all we're trusting them with is a frontend for other AI providers, which really doesn't help much since the backend provider also needs to be trusted.
But wait! Since Mozilla is trusted, they're also going to provide their own AI backend service. And they're going to do placement deals with AI providers. Which of course incentivizes them to favor their own services and their partners, which nullifies the CEO's stated basis for trusting them, which makes the whole thing pointless.
Unfortunately this is not unexpected because Mozilla needs to continue receiving money to survive and unfortunately nobody wants to have the tough conversation about paying for a browser so when whoever is funneling money into Mozilla (Google) says you need AI in your product you have no choice but to jump.
I think their logic is a bit wrong here. Microsoft is a "trusted" entity. Trust doing a lot of heavy lifting here, and even they had to roll back their AI ambitions after seeing the lackluster adoption rates of people using their AI features. The trust part just doesn't matter. It's the principal that we've had browsers for over 20+ years and we never needed AI in our browsers. I would quickly abandon Firefox for an alternative in a heartbeat that doesn't include AI in it.
The uncomfortable truth for all these companies though is that most people simply do not need AI in the places they are shoving it into. Like why does notepad need AI?
1. reskin chromium, or webkit. firefox is dead tech, cannot be used for anything other than firefox, and is no longer a testing target. it is insane to continually play catch-up with companies 1000x the size of your team. V8 is now the standard JS engine, spidermonkey is an insecure time bomb and again not modular.
Brave got it right and then got it wrong with pushing crypto and its buggy.
2. Push for local AI. local tooling is going to get big when we get past the current drought. We need fast reactive systems not dependent on servers. Chatgpt is like gaming on the cloud - its still bad even when its good. Need to learn the meta and understand why people are buying 5090’s just to run agents.
3. Remove everyone that wont follow good engineering or otherwise is using your cashflow as jump. This means no diversity hiring. No h1b’s, no cultural or ethnic political warring. Ignore the fake resumes go for git history only. If its mass firing so be it theres no shortage.
4. youre going to make everyone very upset to get anything of value done.
First want to address the general hate/distrust Mozilla is getting. Based on their behavior the last many years, this is fair.
However, we've got a new CEO, and one from the Firefox side who openly talks about Firefox being the core focus for Mozilla. This is exactly what we've been asking for! I think we should give them a chance.
On the AI thing - I don't personally want AI in my browser. However, I do see some inevitability there, and I appreciate the stated approach:
> there’s still an AI Mode coming to Firefox next year, which Enzor-DeMeo says will offer users their choice of model and product, all in a browser they can understand and from a company they can trust.
If I can easily turn it off or point it at my own provider, this seems fine to me (maybe even good). I'm quite hesitant to let AI take any actions, but if there is sufficient user control/configurability then it could end up being a useful feature. If it's programmable through an API (such as with extensions) I could see some real personal use for that!
Let's not forget that Mozilla is one of the most important players in the open web. They made some big mistakes, but if they course correct and become what we need them to be, they could be one of the most important heroes of the time.
When the device sync finally works reliably or bookmark tags work on mobile, I will concede that you've turned a corner. What I expect is more theming and AI bullshit, time will tell.
Leaving XSLT in web standards and in Firefox would let it keep some comfy useful niche ("resilience" ?).
Is that right if Google don't want to keep it - then no one can have it ?!
----------
the truth is static and non-profit, but calculating something can be sold again and again, if you have a hammer (processing) everything looks like a nail, to sell well the word thinking had to be used instead of excuse for every time results being different - then, we can have only things that let someone else keep making profits: JS, LLM, whatever.. (just not.. "XSLT" alike) ? - mind work done already (once is enough) by non-profits or users just outpriced from the market for next few years.
41 comments
[ 1.4 ms ] story [ 56.5 ms ] threadRather, we all talk about people being in a bubble. (and these days, everyone is in a bubble) The PMC is for certain in their own bubble and I really have no idea what the inputs are. They're totally alien to me.
Bold words from a browser whose finances hinge almost entirely around pushing one search engine over others.
Sigh...
(And yeah, I know, Degoogled Chromium, *Fox, curl... But viable is not only doing heavy, but required lifting here...)
Eh yeah, killing the #1 reason why people still use your product is pretty much off-mission yes. I don't really understand how this would make money for them but either way it is the worst idea possible.
I understand more that he wants to be all in on AI. It's the big thing now. Billions are splashing around and Mozilla badly needs money. But everyone is doing AI browsers now. What would make Firefox so different from the rest? What is their moat? Better to focus on what makes it different rather than trying to play the same game as everyone else.
And yeah the web is in an existential crisis, but that's not really up to Mozilla to fix. I definitely won't stop adblocking that's for sure.
So they want to monetize the browser somehow outside of the Google deal. Future does't look good for Firefox
The seeming double down makes no sense to me. It won’t suddenly make Mozilla more popular. It could be useful, yes, however I doubt it’ll be radically different from other implementations of AI + Browser in such a way that it stands above the others.
What I wish they would realize in the Mozilla C-Suite is that there is real appetite browsers that get out of people’s way and focus on productivity. Given their small market share they could stand to grow by addressing that part of the market. Look at the previous success of Arc.
They keep chasing trends instead of creating them. And while it is a hard job to do that, I feel they haven’t given it an earnest attempt in some time
Firefox is still my daily browser of choice. I really want to see it do better and succeed
One of the findings Google shared as evidence in the DoJ's antitrust litigation was that Google's users consume "AI"-generated results more readily than "non-AI" results
Mozilla gets paid by sending search query data to Google
More user-facing "AI" potentially means more search data will be generated by (from) Mozilla's users
The number of gratuitous HTTP requests generated by mobile Firefox is, to me, nothing less than astounding. All this traffic is blocked from reaching the internet on the computers and networks I own but I would imagine most Firefox users allow this traffic to escape. I suspect "AI" will only increase the number of automatically-generated HTTP requests even further
"It won't suddenly make Firefox more popular."
Perhaps the goal is not necessarily to increase the number of Firefox users but to "extract" more data from existing users
"I really want to see it do better and succeed"
For Mozilla's CEO and senior management it looks like Mozilla is succeeding
Look at the steady increase in pay for Ms Baker
https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/200...
https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2024/b200-mozilla-fo...
Primarily, Mozilla serves website operators, advertisers and Google
Generally, Firefox users are data sources and ad targets
Mozilla distinguishes itself by allowing to use any AI, including open source private, local LLMs in their chatbot, not only proprietary Gemini like Chrome or Copilot like Edge. This is privacy-friendly.
I used to think that, but they no longer have as much of that trust, and announcements like this are part of the reason.
Their AI solution is all about trust, he says, and we can trust Mozilla because they're not incentivized to push any particular provider. But all we're trusting them with is a frontend for other AI providers, which really doesn't help much since the backend provider also needs to be trusted.
But wait! Since Mozilla is trusted, they're also going to provide their own AI backend service. And they're going to do placement deals with AI providers. Which of course incentivizes them to favor their own services and their partners, which nullifies the CEO's stated basis for trusting them, which makes the whole thing pointless.
https://zen-browser.app/
I think their logic is a bit wrong here. Microsoft is a "trusted" entity. Trust doing a lot of heavy lifting here, and even they had to roll back their AI ambitions after seeing the lackluster adoption rates of people using their AI features. The trust part just doesn't matter. It's the principal that we've had browsers for over 20+ years and we never needed AI in our browsers. I would quickly abandon Firefox for an alternative in a heartbeat that doesn't include AI in it.
The uncomfortable truth for all these companies though is that most people simply do not need AI in the places they are shoving it into. Like why does notepad need AI?
Brave got it right and then got it wrong with pushing crypto and its buggy.
2. Push for local AI. local tooling is going to get big when we get past the current drought. We need fast reactive systems not dependent on servers. Chatgpt is like gaming on the cloud - its still bad even when its good. Need to learn the meta and understand why people are buying 5090’s just to run agents.
3. Remove everyone that wont follow good engineering or otherwise is using your cashflow as jump. This means no diversity hiring. No h1b’s, no cultural or ethnic political warring. Ignore the fake resumes go for git history only. If its mass firing so be it theres no shortage.
4. youre going to make everyone very upset to get anything of value done.
However, we've got a new CEO, and one from the Firefox side who openly talks about Firefox being the core focus for Mozilla. This is exactly what we've been asking for! I think we should give them a chance.
On the AI thing - I don't personally want AI in my browser. However, I do see some inevitability there, and I appreciate the stated approach:
> there’s still an AI Mode coming to Firefox next year, which Enzor-DeMeo says will offer users their choice of model and product, all in a browser they can understand and from a company they can trust.
If I can easily turn it off or point it at my own provider, this seems fine to me (maybe even good). I'm quite hesitant to let AI take any actions, but if there is sufficient user control/configurability then it could end up being a useful feature. If it's programmable through an API (such as with extensions) I could see some real personal use for that!
Let's not forget that Mozilla is one of the most important players in the open web. They made some big mistakes, but if they course correct and become what we need them to be, they could be one of the most important heroes of the time.
Leaving XSLT in web standards and in Firefox would let it keep some comfy useful niche ("resilience" ?).
Is that right if Google don't want to keep it - then no one can have it ?!
----------
the truth is static and non-profit, but calculating something can be sold again and again, if you have a hammer (processing) everything looks like a nail, to sell well the word thinking had to be used instead of excuse for every time results being different - then, we can have only things that let someone else keep making profits: JS, LLM, whatever.. (just not.. "XSLT" alike) ? - mind work done already (once is enough) by non-profits or users just outpriced from the market for next few years.