Upon the demise of Netscape

Google can't really buy Mozilla, can they? It's an open source project with no clear owner any more. If it was possible, why wouldn't MS buy apache just so they could kill it?

Er, I think his point was that Google could and/or should *donate* resources to the Mozilla Foundation and then brand the results into a client-based Google app (in the end, wasn't Netscape just an AOL branded version of Mozilla?). Isn't that what AOL did: spin off Mozilla and then donate resources to it?

Anyway, a one-time $500 is a bit steep for me, as is $150 a year, and probably for other geeks with limited budgets, but I'd be inclined to pay *something* for what Anil describes, and at $50 (Canadian, alas) would not be unreasonable for me.

Would google be comfortable extending and re-releasing GPL software while at the same time basing their business model on it? They don't seem like the "release all code for free" type of people.

Google *does* run the bread-and-butter index boxes on Open Source software. And most desktops at the company run on free *nixes. They're already doing free-like-beer with the Toolbar. If you're giving a client away for free to get people to use the web services portion, what do you care about the code being open?

More to the point, Mozilla's code is dual-licensed, and *not* GPLed. Netscape's 6.x and 7.x browsers include non-open code, and a Google Client could very well do the same while giving back rendering engine improvements to the community.

I think Anil is right. Not only would Google be doing a good deed for everyone, they would be doing a good deed towards themselves.

It shouldn't even be an "I think I should invest" situation anymore. It shouldbe an "I will invest" situation

It would make much more sense to buy Opera. Opera would give Google: a) a for profit business model without any GPL baggage; b) an excellent cross-platform browser; c) an advertising-supported business which could easily integrate AdWords; d) a strong European presence.

It only makes sense for them to buy Opera if they want to be in the browser business. Investing in Mozilla by funding the foundation or hiring engineers and assigning them to work on Mozilla is a way of buying insurance. If Microsoft wants to kill the Web as we know it today (and they do), then we need competition in the browser market. The must be enough non-Internet Explorer clients out there that the Web can't simply be coopted. Opera, being that it is a commercial business, doesn't have the chance for widespread success that a completely free browser does, and spending some cash to support Mozilla is cheaper than buying a whole company and keeping it staffed. I would think that not only Google, but Yahoo, Amazon, eBay, and others would have a huge stake in trying to keep the browser market competitive. Otherwise, step one is being forced to use Microsoft-only technology and step two is having to pay lots of money to use it.

I was talking to a friend who works for one of those shady companies that increase your page rank with google and he gave me some interesting insight on the whole google/blogger deal. He was saying that the big bonus that google got by buying Blogger was access to their huge database of blog posts. The thing about blogs is that people tend to write very conversationally and you can analyze the structure of the posts and use it to tweak algorithms that analyze words and link structure on all pages. Using this you can make your searches more relevant, both for people searching the web and for targeting ads with google ads.

He used to work for Ask Jeeves which tried to make searching easier for the user. This kind of information really would have helped them because they wanted to let the user ask questions to the search engine conversationally as well.

I'm not sure how this relates to the google/mozilla discussion, but it gives you something to think about as to why google bought Blogger. It seems like most critiques I have read about the deal (on this site and many other blogs) haven't recognized that this is part of what google got out of the deal.

Instead of looking for google's next aquisition as a software company or platform/program, you might want to look at other large collections of user inputted databases (Epinions, imdb, what else?).

Just my two cents wrapped up in a ramble.

'"With Anil on board, we'll be even less evil," continued Brain. "Evil evil evil."'

That said, they might.

What a fantastic idea. If Google created a branded version of Firebird (with a few usability and stability tweaks) and made it available through google.com, promoting it in the same way they have been promoting their toolbar, I am sure it would be a sure-fire hit. It's simply a better browser than IE, and while most internet users have probably never even considered trying a different browser Google have the kind of brand recognition and trustworthy image that could convince people to try something new - it worked with the Google toolbar after all.

Imagine the effect this kind of development would have on the browser industry. IE would suddenly have a viable competitor! Web sites would be encouraged to support standards, Microsoft would practically be forced to start developing IE again, and the internet would start moving forward again.

One benefit for Google you forgot to mention was XUL. If Google are going to provide additional services through their browser, they could really take advantage of XUL and the ability to create new applications within the browser.

I've blogged some further thoughts on this here: http://simon.incutio.com/archive/2003/07/17/theGoogleBrowser

It's a real shame this is just wishful thinking for the moment. I'd love to see it happen for real.

Googler, anyone? Or if they can build in an interface to post to Blogger-powered weblogs, they could call it Goggler, or Bloogler, or something...(marketing genius, I am not.)

They would still need to heavily promote the existence of it -- I'm always amazed by the number of "uh.... I don't know" responses I get when I ask "what browser are you using" when trying to help people.

People simply don't even realize it's a "separate thing". It's part of the computer for most people. And the first time it didn't open a Windows Media file correctly most users would close it and go back to IE. So it can be done, but I don't think it's "a gimmee"[sic?]

As for the name-- Googlezilla? Urks! But how about "Google Firebird" (and maybe "Google Thunderbird")? I think these sound really neat.

People rave about Firebird, and although I use it as my main browser, I just don't see it as ready to recommend to say, my parents. It crashes more than IE6 on my WXP notebook, and the Bookmarks organiser is downright unstable, at least in the build of .6 I'd been using until last night.

I know that that wasn't the point of the post, but just thought I'd throw it in.

To all the people who have trouble with Google and the GPL: Mozilla is tri-licensed (http://mozilla.org/MPL/). It is really the MPL (mozilla public license) with NPL (netscape public license) bits hung over from legacy code. It does have a stipulation:

"Alternatively, the contents of this file may be used under the terms of either of the GNU General Public License Version 2 or later (the "GPL"), or the GNU Lesser General Public License Version 2.1 or later (the "LGPL"), in which case the provisions of the GPL or the LGPL are applicable instead of those above."

So they don't have to GPL it if they don't want to. Did anyone see any NS7 code? I didn't think so.

This is a terrific idea! It would have to wait until Firebird is more stable, but I agree: Mozilla's quality and open source model mixed with Google's brains and usability focus would be a powerful combination.

Given the runaway success of this new "Google browser" above and beyond all other Mozilla-based browsers, I imagine issues would start to surface concerning who really runs the Mozilla Foundation. Just a thought.

Great, great idea. I have done a quick blog entry about this, but I intend to spread the idea where I can. Encourage others to blog about this as it will only increase the exposure!

"Why didnt *I* think of this before?" *ex* VP Strategy, Google Inc.
:-)

It's an interesting suggestion except for one thing:

The Mozilla *Foundation* must operate *exclusively* for Scientific or Educational purposes. Any meaningful donation by Google would be at odds with this.

Conflating public interest organizations and commercial software is a reeeeeeeally bad idea! A software analog (with potentially Intl. scope) to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is a much preferable alternative,

http://www.usercreations.com/weblog/2002/12/20.html#a112

is mozilla owned by google