All four major web browsers are about to lose 80% of their funding

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Pace of Browser Innovation vs. Stability

  • Some welcome a slowdown in new features, arguing most users just need solid HTML/CSS and fast security fixes, not constant API expansion.
  • Others insist the rapid post‑IE6 evolution (flexbox, grid, PWAs, WebRTC, WebGPU, better JS engines, sandboxing) is what made the web competitive with native apps; they fear a return to stagnation.
  • There’s nostalgia for the lighter, pre‑“web as app platform” era, but also recognition that older layouts (tables, float hacks) and plugin‑heavy days (Flash, ActiveX, applets) were genuinely worse in many ways.

Google’s Role and the Antitrust Remedy

  • Many see Google’s funding of Safari and Firefox search defaults as a deliberate way to maintain control of the web while propping up “sock‑puppet competitors” to avoid monopoly charges.
  • Cutting these deals and potentially forcing a Chrome divestiture is viewed by supporters as necessary to restore real competition, even at the cost of short‑term disruption.
  • Critics think the article overstates how directly Apple and Microsoft browser budgets depend on Google; they argue those companies can easily afford browsers and will keep investing for strategic reasons.
  • Several note that Google’s dominance has let it push complex, Chrome‑first standards at high velocity, effectively setting the web’s agenda.

Firefox, Safari, and the Funding Shock

  • Consensus: Mozilla is the most exposed; ~80%+ of its revenue comes from Google search royalties. Without that, layoffs or major strategic changes seem likely, and some fear Firefox could shrink or die.
  • Opinions diverge on Mozilla’s management: some accuse it of wasting money on “side bets” and activism; others argue those were attempts to diversify revenue that never reached the scale of browser spend.
  • On Apple, some think the loss of ~$18B “pure profit” will reduce Safari/WebKit investment; others insist WebKit is mission‑critical (system web views, App Store, Mail) and will be funded regardless.

Complexity, Security, and Standards

  • One camp blames Google (and, historically, Apple/Microsoft) for driving the spec surface into near‑unmanageable complexity, making it impossible for “one person in a basement” to implement a modern engine and entrenching oligopoly.
  • Others counter that much of the work is now maintenance (bugs, CVEs, interop), that backwards compatibility is inherently hard, and that high‑power features (WASM, WebRTC, File System APIs) enable valuable apps.
  • Some argue browsers should remain powerful sandboxes to keep untrusted code out of native space; others would prefer simpler browsers and more native apps, despite app‑store lock‑in and malware risks.

Future Funding Models and Ecosystem Scenarios

  • Ideas floated: paid browsers (Horse, Orion), worker‑owned Mozilla, government or multi‑national “digital infrastructure” funds, or more diversified corporate sponsorship (IBM/Red Hat, cloud vendors, AI companies).
  • Skeptics doubt users will pay directly or that new revenue will cover current multi‑hundred‑million‑dollar budgets; they expect reduced feature velocity and slower standards adoption.
  • Optimists think a slowdown could curb “API‑of‑the‑week” churn, open space for simpler engines (Servo, Ladybird, Goanna), and re‑balance the web away from ad‑tech‑driven priorities.