Hard call.

I don't doubt Mozilla, being the benificiary of such a deal, would be hurt significantly.

But I also don't think Google can be allowed to continue as it has.

Mozilla has needed to divest itself from its Google dependency for a long time now.

With respect to Mozilla, directly, I'd care more if Mozilla's leadership changes hadn't caused the organization to move in a shitty direction.

And, to be honest, if no browser-maker can figure out a way to survive without resorting to fuckery, I'd be fine going back to something like lynx.

Given that most of the "small browser makers" are just taking Chromium and layering on top, the (financial) barrier to entry seems pretty low. And, given that the browsing experience across the Chromium-based browsers is nowhere near as differentiated as back when IE was earning Microsoft its anti-trust remedies, swapping browsers is significantly less problematic than it used to be. Further, given that most are now chromium-based, it's going to be in those browser-makers' best interests (and the interest of large site-operators' best interests) to contribute funding and/or manpower to any organization that gets tapped to maintain Chromium.

If a small browser-maker wants to survive, differentiate (preferably in ways that support user-privacy) and charge a token fee for downloads (and rely on the rule of large numbers to make it worth the effort of being independent).

"In 2021-2022, Mozilla received $510 million from Google out of $593 million total revenue, according to its latest financial report."

I think Mozilla is correct. A DOJ ban on revenue sharing will hurt them a lot. There is an illusion that Mozilla is independent of Google instead of what they are: a mismanaged charity that is built on the largess of a search monopoly as a fig leaf of "competition".

Of course they are nervous. Of course they will be hurt.

tech.slashdot.org/story/24/08/…

The Biggest Loser in Google Search Ruling Could Be Mozilla and Firefox - Slashdot

Mozilla, the non-profit behind the Firefox browser, faces an uncertain future following Monday's landmark antitrust ruling against Google.

^{tech.slashdot.org}

Mozilla getting Google's money is less of a priority than not letting one ad-tech megacorp dictate the future of web standards through its browser and engine.

Chromium is too important to be owned by one non-neutral entity. It needs to be governed and developed under the same model as the Linux kernel for the benefit of everyone.

Mozilla CEO is actively trying to pivot away from the Firefox browser.

I don’t think that Mozilla is acting as a good steward. The CEO is overpaid. The original sin was probably DRM. Mozilla really has a very narrow purpose: acting as a watchdog on the W3C standards committee and the reference implementation browser.

Mozilla is correct and I'm worried. Some people here mention that Mozilla existed before and/or that they need to learn to exist on their own merit. But the problem is that that's not how companies work anymore.

Companies don't work by surviving and growing solely on their own merit, they work by being artificially inflated with VC money so they can develop a product and then get market share. Most popular tech companies just aren't profitable. Look at Twitter and Discord.

Which maybe brings about the question: is it even possible for a good product to exist on its own anymore (without VC funding)? And if so, what does that look like? I think open-source (like Mastodon or Blender) are a great place to start that conversation.