Featured Articles

IHS teardown reveals Galaxy S5 BOM

IHS teardown reveals Galaxy S5 BOM

Research firm IHS got hold of Samsung’s new flagship smartphone and took it apart to the last bolt to figure out…

Galaxy S5, HTC One M8 available selling well

Galaxy S5, HTC One M8 available selling well

Samsung’s Galaxy S5 has finally gone on sale and it can be yours for €699, which is quite a lot of…

Intel lists Haswell refresh parts

Intel lists Haswell refresh parts

Intel has added a load of Haswell refresh parts to its official price list and there really aren’t any surprises to…

Respawn confirms Titanfall DLC for May

Respawn confirms Titanfall DLC for May

During his appearance at PAX East panel and confirmed on Twitter, Titanfall developer Respawn confirmed that the first DLC pack for…

KFA2 GTX 780 Ti Hall Of Fame reviewed

KFA2 GTX 780 Ti Hall Of Fame reviewed

KFA2 gained a lot of overclocking experience with the GTX 780 Hall of Fame (HOF), which we had a chance to…

Frontpage Slideshow | Copyright © 2006-2010 orks, a business unit of Nuevvo Webware Ltd.
Monday, 26 December 2011 12:04

Google explains why it invests in Mozilla

Written by Nick Farell

We are not rivals

Google spokesman Peter Kasting has had a bit of a rant about why his outfit has invested shedloads of cash in its apparently rival Mozilla.

He said that since Google wrote a cheque to put its search engine in the Mozilla browser people have been wondering why. After all its own Chrome is doing rather well. Kasting said that people never seem to understand why Google builds Chrome no matter how many times he tries to pound it into their heads.

“It's very simple: the primary goal of Chrome is to make the web advance as much and as quickly as possible. That's it. It's completely irrelevant to this goal whether Chrome actually gains tons of users or whether instead the web advances because the other browser vendors step up their game and produce far better browsers. Either way the web gets better,” he said. Kasting believes Google would be willing to fund Mozilla because the outfit is committed to the betterment of the web, and they're spending their resources to make a great, open-source web browser.

Firefox is an important product because it can be a different product with different design decisions and serve different users well, he added.

“Mozilla's commitment to advancing the web is why I was hired at Google explicitly to work on Firefox before we built Chrome: Google was interested enough in seeing Firefox succeed to commit engineering resources to it, and we only shifted to building Chrome when we thought we might be able to cause even greater increases in the rate at which the web advanced,” Kasting said.

Chrome doesn't need to be a Microsoft Office, a direct money-maker, nor does it even need to directly feed users to Google. "Just making the web more capable is enough," he said.

Nick Farell

E-mail: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
blog comments powered by Disqus


0 #1 Peter Ong 2011-12-26 15:16
Sounds a bit fishy ... it reminds me that the principle donors of WWF are those logger company.
-1 #2 r444 2011-12-26 17:34
I've never known a multinational publicly traded corporation to be spending revenue on anything other than that which will increase revenue later. I don't buy this nonsense explanation at all.
+3 #3 dicobalt 2011-12-27 00:33
Google not being evil? Hard to believe, but I guess it's technically possible.
+2 #4 trajan2448 2011-12-27 14:26
Why do posters think Google is evil? A successful corporation which is self sustaining, pays salaries, benefits, and taxes, provides products and services which the public can choose NOT to use and yet still flourishes is a very difficult thing to achieve. This takes tremendous effort, discipline and character. Most of these companies operate on a far higher standard than governments, who don't have to compete, who confiscate money while they waste trillions, and where its almost impossible to fire anyone.
0 #5 r444 2011-12-27 19:14
@trajan2448 It's not that corporations are inherently good or evil. The difference (and I'm not sure where you live) but in a democracy, governments are at least accountable to their people and are democratically selected to represent their people, right or wrong. If you don't like what your government does, it is your own fault for electing them. On the other hand, a multinational company flies all flags, and shows no loyalty. They have a single bottom line and that is profit, so rather than naiively buying that public statement, I'd rather assume that the company may not be entirely forthright in stating that the reason they are cutting dividend payments to their shareholders is not simply to make the web better. Personally I like google products, but I don't trust them implicitly.

To be able to post comments please log-in with Disqus


Facebook activity

Latest Commented Articles

Recent Comments