Fuck. I just last year integrated this in a project of mine. Thinking: "Yeah, Google fucked me over here before when I used their, but it's Mozilla, it will be fine."
It is not okay to stop providing a service like this. Not if you are Mozilla, with that mission and money, not something that is so deeply entrenched. Though, reading it more calmly, I can see how them being hit by a patent troll can make their investment in this project untenable.
There is a comment about the Graphene Foundation maybe providing an alternative. That would be great - but having https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4To-F6W1NT0 in mind, with that maintainer still active the project and foundation is a complete no-go. The organic maps comment is the one to follow instead.
Mozilla is funded by Google. Mozilla doesn't seem to have much of a clue what it ought to be doing, either. I use Firefox, but I wouldn't trust anything else to last unfortunately.
You aren't saying it, but it is implied or can easily misread as such. But Google is not directly funding Mozilla.
Mozilla gets its funds from many places, and one of them is Google; paying for being the default search engine. It's by far the largest amount. But not the only, nor a direct funding.
Being paid directly for a service by a company (Google paying for the privilege of being the default) is to be directly funded by that company. You're right that it's not the only source of revenue, but it's absolutely a direct source of funding.
No but if Walmart distributes 81% of the production of that particular cracker brand, it could suddenly find itself in a huge crisis if Walmart decided to cease distributing it and fill the shelves with great value crackers.
It would be if you were willing to pay an ungodly amount for that box of crackers that not only made Walmart a viable business but was also an amount no one else was willing to pay.
Mitchell got Google to pay nearly double what Yahoo was willing to pay and has gotten Google to pay more each year for a dwindling user base.
If someone was going to Walmart and paying millions for a box of crackers, you’d be right in assuming the transaction wasn’t about the crackers.
You're entirely right. I was mostly just picking nits at op saying the funding wasn't direct. But it's functionally both direct and exclusive in that if Google pulls out, even if e.g Bing comes in with a bid it'll likely be drastically less, and Mozilla would be stuck restructuring pretty substantially in order to survive.
Without Google funding, Mozilla wouldn't be able to maintain its operations. That is more than enough to treat the "Mozilla is funded by Google" statement as objectively true.
Without Google, Mozilla would be selling their default search setting to the next highest bidder instead. They've done so in the past (selling the US search box to Yahoo).
It's a bit of an odd market, since there aren't that many buyers or sellers, and since Firefox users are about the least valuable user segment. But that should already be reflected in the money Firefox is making from Google. And just back of the envelope it doesn't look like Google is overpaying Firefox compared to other browsers where they buy being the default search engine. We know from the recent lawsuit that Google paid Apple $26B in 2021. We also know from Mozilla's financials that the Firefox deal pays only about $400M/year.
Microsoft should definitely be interested in this, based on the statements their execs made under oath about the value of economies of scale and of query/click streams just last year. DuckDuckGo is already more than happy to pay Apple for being a non-default search (i.e. they pay Apple, and rather that complain about it being unfair they tried to keep it secret). There's no reason why Firefox couldn't get in on that action too.
It means Google doesn't actually get to say how Mozilla runs Firefox. They have a contract for a service ("make us the default search for the next N years, and we'll pay you X% revenue share on those searches"), Mozilla fulfills their part of that contract, and that's it. Google can't, for example, demand that Firefox must support some web standard proposal as a condition of being paid. If they tried making such demands, Mozilla would just sell their service to somebody not making such unreasonable demands.
And the reason people keep parrotting this idea on HN is to imply that there is some kind of wrongdoing and malicious use of funding as leverage going on. But that idea only works if this isn't a normal commerical arrangement with multiple potential bidders.
Another way it matters is that the utterly moronic ideas people throw around for this being an antitrust figleaf. Paying for default search engine placement is just how that business works, and worked before Chrome even existed.
> Google can't, for example, demand that Firefox must support some web standard proposal as a condition of being paid
They don't need to demand that, but how would you explain that Mozilla (despite all their talk about privacy and safety in the Internet) never considered putting an ad-blocker in the default install?
The point is: Mozilla needs funding from any of the Big Tech more than any of the Big Tech need Mozilla. They have, for all intents and purposes, sold out to the highest bidder and it doesn't matter who it is.
Easy to write a summary that would risk being banned for ;) But that basically says it all, the user hostile and insulting behavior and his vendetta against projects he hallucinates at somehow being hostile to him - completely delusional - makes the project something that never should be on anyone's hardware, especially not something security relevant. That guy would have root.
But best to watch the video, there are a plethora of sources.
Last time I wrote something like that here someone else from GrapheneOS accused me of being unfair, since he is out by now - now I see the old maintainer writing in the name of the foundation and that he still commits to the project.
How would GrapheneOS target a specific person? You said "that guy would have root." To be frank, I do not think that's true.
He is definitely not "out by now." He said he would step down, but I am under the impression that gesture (and the original Twitter post) was retracted. He's still listed as a director with the Canadian Business Registry record on GrapheneOS Foundation:
The GrapheneOS project, and its sub-projects, are a net positive. You can dislike any individual person or aspect of the project and still take from its success. "Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater."
That said, you and I might just have differing views on the project and its management. I feel the project itself should be assessed/characterized on its security-focused initiatives first and foremost.
To make it short and to be agreeable: I think it's been unproductive for Micay to spend time addressing attacks on himself or on GrapheneOS, and I agree that it has tarnished his public reputation.
To express my more complete opinion: I do not think that Micay’s responses are endangering the GrapheneOS project to the extent that users should be concerned about its security. I don't believe he has unrestricted access ("has root") or that his involvement poses any risk to GrapheneOS' users. Instead, I think his participation has been crucial to the technical achievements of this security-focused project. Micay appears to be technically adept. It's his signature to write in complete detail in response to a technical matters. His other signature, though, is marked by tension/escalation that derails the technical conversation. I wish he would moderate the less constructive aspects of his engagement style.
I think this GH conversation summary looks like this:
The community is in need. MLS is shutting down, and they're insisting on a timeline during which the community must coordinate. Micay is offering that the GrapheneOS project has a viable arrangement. (1) He discusses that GrapheneOS Foundation has already invested time on a plan and has already received funding and are willing to share their funding. (2) He also discusses consideration for the quality of data submissions that could benefit from other GrapheneOS projects. (3) He discusses that Mozilla might have legal hurdles in the way of simply handing off the existing data.
Someone objects to using data based on hardware attestation, and Micay addresses the concern with care, and mentions that third-party OSes (not GrapheneOS) could provide data; he directly names Google and Apple, which would significantly cover "all users." That same someone objects that attested data would compete with anonymity, and Micay replies with a strategy that accounts for privacy/anonymization with configurable levels (so as not to throw away unattested data, but still maintain privacy).
Then somebody tells him his grammar is bad a slings an XKCD comic at him in mockery. The grammar was correct, but I understood the way in which the somebody misinterpreted it as "its." The comic jab is silly because Mozilla is literally shutting down the service, due to patent (troll?) hazard, and Micay is offering a solution to work around the known problems such as that.
Finally, both Marvin Weisfeld and Micay have an exchange about technical details relating to implementation. I didn't find either response to be technically complete. Micay diverts the technical conversation and launches an accusation, and I felt it had no place in the discussion. Marvin ended the discussion right there, and I think that ended the opportunity for escalation.
GrapheneOS doesn't use this though on Android. microG does but they hate microG with a passion, for some reason. They have their sandboxed Google play as an alternative.
Imho that location service is an important piece of infrastructure for web apps that need IP geolocation, especially for FOSS software given that there is no alternative, and useful for Android without Google services. Both things Mozilla should support.
Do you understand what you just said? Raw GPS is universally unusable, requiring up to half an hour of waving your phone under clear sky, hoping it a) will actually work; b) will not loose signal; c) will not drain the battery before you reach your destination.
The only way to get reasonable estimation of location? Location services. Guess who are the only providers? About 5 or something companies, all with expensive licenses and weird terms of use.
And here comes Mozilla, providing this same expensive exclusive service for free as a convenient API. Just send some WiFi SSIDs and signal strength, cell towers, and Bluetooth devices, and without even having to turn on the actual GPS, you get a faster, more accurate estimate of geolocation, down to a few meters.
This service is vital to mobile Linux or even deGoogled Android or non-Chrome browsers. In its time Canonical had to plead with Here maps for years to give their devices proper GPS. To say a project unique in its entire domain on which hinges the existence of entire ecosystems is less important than a yet VPN or email alias service seems downright silly.
Besides, it's not like Mozilla did it on their own volition. A patent troll had come to destroy their competitor on shaky legal footing, knowing they won't fight back...
What year did you last use GPS, it’s even usable deep within cities now. Modern devices use GPS, GLONASS, GALILEO, and various regional ones too. Locking on is super fast and it’s hard to lose unless you walk inside of a big building. I can even get a good GPS lock inside my house, it’s really good these days.
You’re right that it can use more power, but it’s really not that bad with modern hardware.
With an up to date AGPS database, GPS is quite usable. AGPS is also distributed as a service, though, often by companies that made the GPS receiver chips. If that were to fall away, you'd struggle to make GPS usable for phones.
You may not need Google for a GPS lock, but you certainly can't get a good fix without an external party. I've unwittingly tried this, when I saw a weird HTTP URL on my network being polled in the background; I blocked it in my Pihole and found out not much later that my phone's GPS started taking longer and longer to get a fix. Not "waving your phone 30 minutes at a clear sky" long, but definitely to the point where using Google Maps with cell/WiFi scanning disabled become very annoying.
I run a modest fleet of mostly-offline data collection devices that rely on GPS; we pay a lot of attention to how long it takes before they can sync. With a good sky view, the GPS chip often has a 3D position lock before Linux has finished booting.
It's not really a limitation of GPS, it's about using the external service to let you minimize the time your GPS receiver is active. You can get a great fix without AGPS, but you can't both keep the GPS off 99.9% of the time _and_ get a fast, great position fix.
Yes, after waiting minutes with good line of sight for almanac and ephemerides to download from the satellites. Anything that gets a fix faster is already "assisted", usually either by fresh data downloaded online or not-yet-fully-out-of-date data stored locally.
I've been working on a phone that didn't have well-integrated AGNSS and used MLS for WiFi and cellular-based location when it didn't have GNSS fix. I'm perfectly aware that what you're saying is technically true, but try to explain that to the users :P
From the user perspective, it's not going to be a good experience if you rely on cold GNSS only on a mobile device (unless the user is already well aware of what to expect and how to behave).
Fair enough, I suppose. I think in the context of smartphones, continuously operating the GPS chip is simply not an option, but in other types of devices that isn't as big of a problem.
Fun fact: almanac and ephemeris data that makes (at least basic) AGNSS work is mostly available publicly, either from agencies that operate the constellations or from observatories worldwide. After reverse engineering the expected format I was able to feed the module I worked with with fresh data without having to use the proprietary (and unreliable) AGNSS service it came with.
SatStat is a handy free tool for understanding what is going on "under the hood".
On the map page, the red "pin" and "circle" represent data originating from GPS. Blue color is data originating from Network Location provider(s). And you may also see "Fused Location", this is used by 3rd-parties like microG as one way to provide network location data to the OS.
> Raw GPS is universally unusable, requiring up to half an hour of waving your phone under clear sky,
Sigh. The increasing amount of unsubstantiated FUD finding its way on to HN recently is depressing.
Two glaringly obvious points to make at your nonsense:
1. What you describe is ancient history. It applied to old previous-generation devices with single-frequency chipsets (L1 GPS signals). However, effectively 100% of devices released within the last 3–5 years (and more in the case of certain manufacturers !) (a) have L1,L2,L5 GPS chipsets and (b) have multi-frequency GPS chipsets whch work not only with the "original" GPS but also Galileo, QZSS and others.
2. Even if we accept your argument, which we should not, then the rapid adoption of Apple's FindMy network (and the equivalent for Google) surely cannot have escaped your attention ? These serve to increase accuracy.
The reality is there is fast becoming no need for a third-party service such as the one Mozilla provided, because there is now first-class support for sufficiently robust high-accuracy positioning.
It's you who doesn't make much sense in this thread.
> released within the last 3–5 years
So, pretty much only the very fresh devices then.
> have L1,L2,L5 GPS chipsets
That's not going to reduce cold TTFF to seconds without online assistance (which, by the way, is not what MLS is about).
> work not only with the "original" GPS but also Galileo, QZSS and others
Same as above. None of the constellations or assistance data help when you can't see the sky.
> then the rapid adoption of Apple's FindMy network (and the equivalent for Google) surely cannot have escaped your attention
How is it relevant and how can it be used by anyone who isn't Apple or Google?
> The reality is there is fast becoming no need for a third-party service such as the one Mozilla provided
The reality is that I'm not aware of any currently existing alternatives to MLS that could be used by Geoclue or microG, which provide non-GNSS location on many phones out there, which is essential to provide anything resembling a good user experience when it comes to location. The opposite of what you said is true - there's a rapidly growing need for this kind of service as more FLOSS starts to be used on mobile phones.
> How is it relevant and how can it be used by anyone who isn't Apple or Google?
It is relevant because most people on the planet are not like you.
Most people on the planet use Apple, Google or indeed both.
Meanwhile, services such as the one Mozilla used to offer cost time and money to maintain. There's servers to maintain, software to maintain, CDN bills to pay.
If your user base is effectively a bunch of die-hard anti-Apple, anti-Google people, then its not worth the time or effort.
We are afterall, talking about location services here, not e.g. email where sure there's a market for non-Apple, non-Google.
For location services in 2024 there is little reason for people to not use what their device comes with, frankly.
Ah, okay. So you have no idea what you're talking about and don't care about what we're discussing here then, thanks for clarifying. There are devices that don't come from Apple or Google at all that rely on MLS and need a location service, regardless of whether you believe it's worth the effort or not.
> the rapid adoption of Apple's FindMy network (and the equivalent for Google) surely cannot have escaped your attention ? These serve to increase accuracy.
Do you mean Apple's and Google's Wi-Fi positioning databases? These are different from Find My: Find My is crowdsourced positioning of (themselves usually unconnected) trackers; the positioning databases are (at least partially) crowdsourced Wi-Fi (and maybe Bluetooth) signal to location mappings.
This is correct. I use GPS in RC planes and only the initial sync is that slow (when it has to download the ephemerides). Subsequent boots/syncs only take a few seconds, and you obviously get great resolution with just the GPS unit.
I'm assuming you're using a UBlox M8 or F9P or something similar? Most of the built units have a small battery or supercap that allows them to retain almanac and ephemeris data while powered off. If the ephemeris data is less than 4 hours old this will allow it to very quickly re-sync to the visible SVs and get a lock again.
It's quite impressive, though, at how the hardware has improved. For a complete cold start one of the challenging issues is to actually find a single satellite to listen to. For GPS there's 32 different spreading codes and each transmitted signal is affected by Doppler shift depending on its position and velocity relative to where you are on the Earth. You basically have to iterate through (spreading code, Doppler shift) pairs and run a correlator to see if there's a signal present. Contemporary hardware has a ton of correlators that can run in parallel which can significantly improve the TTFF (time to first fix). As soon as you find one SV and start to get a bit of almanac data you can quickly eliminate (spreading, Doppler) options from the problem space by dropping SVs that you know are not going to be visible.
I use the Mozilla location services to have my Linux desktops and laptops automatically figure out where they are in order to properly apply blue-light filtering at night. How might one be able to integrate either the aforementioned Apple or Google services into the system to provide the appropriate location data? Or would it instead require the purchase of separate GPS units for these computers in order to have them know just where they are?
Dismissal of Mozilla being forced to bring down an essential service like this because the concerned post has some FUD in it, and that proprietary alternatives exist so what's the worry, is frankly disgusting. Especially when it's done via the blatantly immortal (but technically legal!) abuse of the legal system like this.
And it's not even FUD. The phone I use has no working GPS since it got degoogled, as it takes too long to get a poosition. Yes, it's older than 3 years, but maybe being able to integrate the mozilla location service (with something more adequate than LineageOS) was a factor in me thinking the ungoogled Android route was viable anyway. But here we are.
I have a watch that I don't connect to my phone that gets GPS signal and lat lon and it works better than you describe. You made general claims despite your situation being specific to you - intentional or not, that's FUD.
Is that watch de-googled, running only with FOSS software, without a proprietary location service? How it the AGPS system mentioned in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39725522 working, who provides the data? Was it stale?
If you can't answer that or if it's backed by (recently acquired) proprietary data, then you just do not know how GPS behaves in the scenario we are talking about.
AGPS provided by the mobile carriers is sufficient. It is downloading the ephemeris that is slow, not getting the fix. That isn't considered Location Services.
You could test this by disabling WiFi, downloading AGPS from mobile, and then driving to place without service or putting in airplane mode. GPS fix will be fast cause ephemeris is good for days and corrections are small.
It is not okay to stop providing a service like this. Not if you are Mozilla, with that mission and money, not something that is so deeply entrenched. Though, reading it more calmly, I can see how them being hit by a patent troll can make their investment in this project untenable.
There is a comment about the Graphene Foundation maybe providing an alternative. That would be great - but having https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4To-F6W1NT0 in mind, with that maintainer still active the project and foundation is a complete no-go. The organic maps comment is the one to follow instead.