This is the second layoff at Mozilla this year, the first affecting dozens of staff on the side of the organization that builds the popular Firefox browser.

cross-posted from: https://lemm.ee/post/46655413

The Mozilla Foundation, the non-profit arm of the Firefox browser maker Mozilla, has laid off 30% of its employees as the organization says it faces a “relentless onslaught of change.”

  • T156@lemmy.worldEnglish
    341·
    7 hours ago

    If Mozilla does become defunct, it does raise the question of whether Chrome would be considered a Google monopoly, and therefore subject to antitrust legislation.

    I can’t imagine any governments would look kindly upon internet access being guarded behind a single company’s product.

    • drathvedro@lemm.eeEnglish
      1·
      2 hours ago

      They could try to employ some kind of Apple defense, like, you wouldn’t hit Apple for having monopoly on iOS. As long as it’s not the only solution on the market. And for web, most of time, you could access the same resources and get similar experience by downloading… the apps… wait, they have a monopoly on that, too. Well, they are completely screwed in that case.

    • corsicanguppy@lemmy.caEnglish
      19·
      5 hours ago

      I can’t imagine any governments would look kindly upon internet access being guarded behind a single company’s product.

      laughs in 2001

    • ravhall@discuss.onlineEnglish
      92·
      6 hours ago

      There is a new browser based on WebKit (safari), called Orion that looks promising. However, it’s only on macOS and iOS at this point. Hopefully Linux and Android will be a consideration at some point.

      • dan@upvote.auEnglish
        4·
        2 hours ago

        There’s also a new browser based on Firefox/Gecko called Zen. There’s way too many browsers based on Webkit or Blink.

      • grue@lemmy.worldEnglish
        81·
        6 hours ago

        Chrome’s engine was originally forked from WebKit. That makes them too similar (even years later) for WebKit to count as a real alternative.

        • bamboo@lemm.eeEnglish
          1·
          4 minutes ago

          I strongly disagree with this. In practice, supporting chrome does not imply supporting safari and vice versa. In particular, Safari is much, much slower about adopting new web technologies. Google basically implements support for anything they can think up, Apple waits for it become a ratified standard and then implements it only if they want to. Their JavaScript implementations are also completely different.

        • ravhall@discuss.onlineEnglish
          62·
          5 hours ago

          The point is to leave a google controlled ecosystem… which means it counts as a valid alternative. What would you suggest besides chromium and gecko?

            • ravhall@discuss.onlineEnglish
              1·
              2 hours ago

              Haha. So I really do wish that all websites had a text version, or like markdown. Can you imagine how damn speedy things would be? Every website would have the same layout. As much as I appreciate good web design, there’s a lot of bad UI choices out there.

    • WldFyre@lemm.eeEnglish
      3·
      6 hours ago

      Splitting Chrome from Google wouldn’t make Chrome not a monopoly, though, right?

      • T156@lemmy.worldEnglish
        3·
        4 hours ago

        The split might leave a monopoly still, if it’s the only major browser.

        • ChapulinColorado@lemmy.worldEnglish
          3·
          4 hours ago

          It would be a lot easier to compete with though, since Google couldn’t treat it as a loss leader that still bring them in search revenue by default.