2019 年 07 月 20 日 • 经济学人

本期经济学人杂志【经济金融】板块下熊彼特专栏这篇题为《What open-source culture can teach tech titans and their critics》的文章介绍了火狐浏览器所在的 Mozilla 组织的历史和它目前面临的挑战,以及科技巨头及其批评者们可以从火狐和开源文化上学到哪些东西。

The Economist, July 20th-26th 2019.

Mozilla 组织创建于 1998 年,那时候微软和网景的“浏览器大战”刚结束。Mozilla 旗下的 火狐浏览器在促进行业发展、保护用户利益方面作出的很大贡献,它是第一个做到屏蔽弹窗广告,允许用户匿名冲浪的浏览器,在它之后很多浏览器纷纷效仿。在过去的 10 年里,随着手机 APP 的兴起,火狐浏览器遇到了一些挑战,PC 端的份额从 30% 下滑到 10%,这跟火狐的决策慢也有一定关联。

作为一个运营开源软件的组织,火狐在做决策前要倾听志愿者(注一)的反馈意见,这一过程要花很长时间甚至几年,比如太晚放弃手机操作系统 Firefox OS,这一项目白白耗费了几百万美元。火狐也存在科技企业决策依赖创始人的问题。火狐的收入来源单一,太依赖浏览器业务,主要通过在首页给谷歌、百度、Yandex 等引流变现。

尽管火狐存在这些问题,文章认为火狐及其所在的 Mozilla 基金会仍有许多地方值得硅谷科技巨头及其批评者们学习。主要有以下三点: 一、火狐浏览器速度要快于谷歌 Chrome 浏览器,这证明开源软件能更好地服务用户;二、有长远视角的 Mozilla 董事会可以不被狭隘的商业束缚、坚持正被科技巨头们放弃的互联网精神——不作恶。三、像开源操作系统 Linux、半开源手机操作系统 Android 一样,Mozilla 证明在数字市场上一个非商业的替代品有助于维护用户利益。


注一: Mozilla 有 23,000 名志愿者,他们贡献了公司一半的代码,Mozilla 也有 1,100 名领工资的正式员工。

What open-source culture can teach tech titans and their critics

What open-source culture can teach tech titans and their critics
Firefox and friends

Print edition | Business
Jul 20th 2019
The greatest fear of an ambitious technology firm is to be condemned to “legacy”, tech speak for irrelevance. Its products may still be used, but out of inertia. The damning judgment could apply to Mozilla, the maker of the Firefox browser. Even on personal computers, where it used to excel, its market share has dropped steeply over the past ten years, from 30% to 10%, at a time when browsers have been losing ground to apps on smartphones. You could argue that Mozilla is kept alive by its main competitor, Google, whose Chrome browser accounts for 60% of the market and which provides most of Mozilla’s revenue in exchange for the privilege of being Firefox’s default search engine.

Put all this to Mitchell Baker, Mozilla’s intense but approachable chairwoman and spiritual leader, and she is unfazed. Quite the opposite: more than ever, she counters, the digital realm needs an organisation that “puts people first and doesn’t squeeze every last penny out of the system”—unlike most of today’s tech giants. Is Ms Baker right? And if she is, what does the 20-year Mozilla experiment mean for the penny-squeezing parts of Big Tech?

Mozilla has always been a strange beast. It began life in 1998 after the “browser war” of the first dotcom boom, between Microsoft’s Internet Explorer and Netscape’s Navigator. Even though the fight got Microsoft into deep trouble with competition authorities, which nearly broke it up, Netscape, an internet pioneer, had to capitulate. But as a parting shot it released the Navigator’s source code, so that an alliance of volunteer developers could keep the browser alive—and fight the “borg”, as Microsoft was called then, referring to a universe-conquering alien group from “Star Trek”.

Even compared with other such open-source projects, Mozilla remains an unusual hybrid. It boasts a volunteer workforce of nearly 23,000 that mostly catches bugs and helps with customer service in exchange for little more than recognition from their peers and the satisfaction of chipping in to a project they believe in. But it also has 1,100 paid employees, two-thirds of them programmers. It chiefly develops software, but offers services, too, including things like file transfer. And it is two organisations in one: the Mozilla Foundation and the Mozilla Corporation, both based in Silicon Valley. The first is a charity, which owns the second and makes sure that it does not stray from its mission. The corporate arm is in charge of products and gets the cash that search engines pay for appearing on Firefox’s start page. Together Google, China’s Baidu, Russia’s Yandex and a host of smaller firms forked out $542m for the traffic they got from Firefox in 2017, the last year for which data are available, more than Mozilla’s expenses of $422m.

The set-up is less than optimal. Firefox’s falling market share is partly down to slow decision-making, which must involve the volunteers. It took years to begin collecting data about how its software is used, which helps improve it but raised privacy concerns that were only allayed recently. Mozilla was slow to kill an ill-fated mobile operating system, which cost it hundreds of millions of dollars. It has yet to find sources of revenue beyond the browser; details of plans to charge for add-on services, such as secure storage or virtual private networks, are scarce. And, in an echo of founder-dominated tech firms, too much responsibility rests on Ms Baker, who chairs both the foundation and the corporation.

Yet Mozilla turns out to be much more consequential than its mixed record and middling numbers would have you believe. There are three reasons for this.

For one thing, Mozilla has shown that the open-source approach can work in consumer software, which even its champions doubted when the outfit got going. Some studies have shown that Firefox now beats Chrome in terms of speed, for instance. Second, an oversight board that looks beyond the narrow business can help tech firms live up to Google’s original credo, abandoned last year, of “Don’t be evil”—potentially useful when the likes of Google and Facebook stand accused of monopolising markets, playing fast and loose with user data, even undermining democracy.

Lastly, like Linux, an open-source operating system, and to an extent Android, Google’s semi-open software that powers mobile devices, Mozilla has demonstrated that a non-commercial alternative minded to defend users’ interests is good for consumers in digital markets. Although Mozilla is not solely responsible for the widespread adoption of open standards for browsers, even rival firms concede that it helped to chivvy them along. Firefox was the first browser to block pop-up ads and allow users to surf anonymously, prompting commercial browsers to offer similar features. Google’s plans to make it harder for other firms to track Chrome users on the web may have been precipitated by Firefox’s decision last month to turn on anti-tracking features as the default setting.

Don’t expect Silicon Valley to transform itself into an agglomeration of Mozillas anytime soon. But tech giants are toying with some Mozilla-esque ideas. Last month Facebook announced another step towards an independent “oversight board”—not unlike the board of the Mozilla Foundation—to make the tough calls on what content should be allowed on the site. Earlier this year Google convened an expert group to ponder the ethics of its artificial-intelligence endeavours (it was disbanded after employee protests over its composition).

Outfoxing Big Tech
To rivals and critics of dominant tech firms Mozilla shows a way to keep them honest. Hints of what it has done to browsers can be discerned in other corners of cyberspace, from open-source wallets where people can keep their digital identities to social networks that are not controlled by one company. Mozilla itself is working on Common Voice, a rival to digital assistants like Amazon’s Echo and Apple’s Siri. Breaking up the tech giants is a satisfying war cry—but probably futile. Perhaps it would be better to breed more Firefoxes instead.■

Correction (July 24th 2019): A bug snuck into this piece. We said that volunteers contribute half of Mozilla’s computer code. In fact, they mostly help with software patches and customer service. Sorry.

This article appeared in the Business section of the print edition under the headline"Firefox and friends"


2016~2020 年经济学人合集 ( PDF+EPUB+MOBI )
经济学人 2020 年音频赞助版

  • Efay: 爱了,期待持续更新!
  • jessica: 感谢!这里是宝藏!站主辛苦了!@(彩虹)
  • leilei: 太好了,以后就来这里啦
  • 555: 我的404页面搞了半天都没生效 要吐了 我的那个文件里面没有那行代码
  • 榨汁饮用: ❤️