Google does not want to pay Mozilla less. They don't care about Firefox's market share, it's virtually 0. But in the moment Firefox disappears, Chrome will be undeniably a monopoly. As long as Firefox exists, Google can easily deflect such monopoly claims - they even "encourage and foster" competition on the browser market.
This argument is silly. Google buying the default search is currently being used as evidence in an antitrust case over Google search being a monopoly.
Chrome only exists to make more money for Google search, there's no way that Google would risk their (alleged) search monopoly just to prevent a browser monopoly. Google genuinely believes the money they pay Mozilla and Apple is worth it.
It is all for show. Everything companies do is for show. They will always do what makes them look best and make sure to do all the needed covering-their-butt tactics at the same time as to ensure no problems. Nothing anyone does or says is going to change things much. Even if the company were to break up, I doubt that would hinder them much. Look at other big companies that had to break up, they aren't sweating it out.
If they wouldn't pay Mozilla, Firefox simply wouldn't exist - there would be no other browser where Google would have to buy the default search position. It would be one less problem for Google, if the goal of their payment would be really only to be the default search engine in Firefox. If that would be true, it would be silliest waste of money from them - worse than Google Glass.
Don't try to build a house out of this argument, because the wolves are going to blow it away.
If the top search engine spot in Firefox would be so valuable, than there would be real bidding wars. $400M/year is nothing when it comes to BigTech. Frankly, anyone could pitch a business plan for an investment bank to get a few billions and outbid Google. If anyone cared... but being the default search engine in a browser that virtually nobody uses isn't worth a lot. But it's a fantastic decoy, if you have nothing better.
(Also, Yahoo offered more when both Firefox and Yahoo still mattered. Which is not the case anymore. The only viable search engine today is Bing, who stopped caring about search, as AI seems to be more lucrative for them. Marginalia is also here, but that guy has less money than MS, prolly)
Safari exists exclusively on iOS and MacOS. On Android, Windows and Linux Chrome has virtually 100% market share.
Do you know why Google spends more money on Safari? Because on that platform they want to be the default browser. Safari doesn't depend on Google at all. Not like Firefox.
Firefox dies in 2 minutes once Google decides that it has outlived their usefulness, at which point all their users default to Chrome, where they don't have to pay to be the default search engine. And at the point they would have to pay only Safari, without any negative impact on their search traffic. But as it stands today, they would have no competitor on the vast majority of the consumer computing systems.
>Don't try to build a house out of this argument, because the wolves are going to blow it away
The core of my argument is that Google isn't stupid enough to risk their search monopoly just to prevent a browser monopoly, and you haven't even addressed that.
>If the top search engine spot in Firefox would be so valuable, than there would be real bidding wars.
There is a real bidding war, that's where the price Google pays comes from. The reason they don't get more is as you say, virtually no one uses Firefox.
>Also, Yahoo offered more when both Firefox and Yahoo still mattered
Really? In 2015 both Firefox and Yahoo probably had double their current user base, but that would still make them fairly insignificant players. Yahoo search had already been powered by Bing for years.
>Do you know why Google spends more money on Safari?
Because Safari has at least ten times more users than Firefox.
I don't know why you think there needs to be more to this than "a person's default search engine is a valuable commodity that Google will pay even their competitors for."
I upvoted your comment for the comprehensive reply, but I think @marginalia_nu[0] would laugh at you for putting him in the same category as Yahoo/MSFT...
From my understanding he's very much indie just like Marginalia is.
I've got to believe this is the phone call that saved Apple in the 90's too.
For all the different interpretations of history and motivations that happened at that time it was clear to everyone that Microsoft stepped in because of the anti-trust investigations already happening and couldn't afford to have them expand beyond Internet Explorer, which would have definitely happened if the Mac disappeared.
Google's in a much safer place with Chrome (its open-source and other browsers are actively using the engine in the market), but why risk it? It's cheap insurance.
I get that and probably should’ve clarified. What I mean is they can hold up Chromium and say “we made it so that literally anyone can take what we made and make their own copy without our branding and talking to our services, for free”. That’s an incredibly strong defence against being a monopoly.
it used to exist in windows and it can exist again, would be trivial for google to pay for slight development costs to port safari to windows again if they really needed it to.
I can't use Safari on my HP Linux laptop and on my Android phone. Apple doesn't make it for those OSes. That's a choice like any other one. What I don't like is that deny other companies to run their own browser engines on iOS. They have to reskin Safari. Luckily this is going to change soon at least in the EU.
