Brian Kardell: Hi, I am Brian Kardell. I'm a developer advocate at Igalia.
Eric Meyer: And I'm Eric Meyer. I'm also a developer advocate at Igalia. And we thought we'd jump on the mics and talk about the Mozilla situation. Yeah, Mozilla announced changes to the terms of use for Firefox, and then they got a whole lot of heat and they updated the terms of use for Firefox. And we thought about leaving it there, but it actually illustrates a number of interesting things that they fit in with stuff that we talk about regularly. They also highlight some differences in terminology and differences in what we think of the meaning of certain words as opposed to, let's say the state of California thinks are the meanings of certain words. So that's what we're going to talk about today.
Brian Kardell: Yeah, they've been announcing a lot of things recently. So this was the privacy and terms of use. So the terms of use had to do with, a lot of things that people got upset about had to do with privacy, and they had updated their privacy notice for I think maybe the first time ever. And they also announced changes in leadership very recently. Just in the past year or two, they've made announcements about them getting into ads on their end, them getting into some AI stuff on their own end. So there's a lot and there's a lot of, also kind of like blowback. I know one of the things that I noticed is that sometimes we have a story that goes viral. It's like hundreds of points on Hacker News or something like that, right? Within the last week, Mozilla has had eight of those about this.
Eric Meyer: Yeah.
Brian Kardell: Yeah, I find it really interesting. Do you have any thoughts?
Eric Meyer: I mean, the fact that Mozilla and or Firefox have had so many multi hundred point things on Hacker News and showing up in TechCrunch and various and sundry industry publications and getting all of this response, I mean, it's just that people care. People care about Firefox, but they care about the Firefox that they want to use, which nothing wrong with that, right? I care about the text editor that I want to use, and that's why I stuck by a particular text editor, BBEdit, for two decades now. And same thing with browsers. People have chosen Firefox, many of them for very specific reasons. Such as the fact that their terms of use used to say, 'We don't sell your data. We never have. We never will. That's a promise.' And then they took that out and people made sort of the natural conclusion, oh, they're like Google when Google removed, 'Don't be evil' from their mission statement or whatever. I guess that they're planning to do that now. Reasonable assumption to make and perhaps even reasonable conclusion to make after the clarifications. But that's more of a personal view on that.
Brian Kardell: There's a lot of people who commented on, especially that. There are very specific bits that people seem to latch onto, and I guess for good reason, you want to say, 'What is your problem with it?' 'It's this thing.' But one of the nice things about the social media and blogs and comment sections is that you can see a lot of conversation happening. And when I was watching a lot of the conversations happen, specifically when it came to this thing about we won't ever do that, a lot of people commented like, 'Well, Firefox's whole thing about privacy just out the window now. They have no credibility left.' And making various arguments about that from different angles. But one that kind of surprised me is, I'm not sure that everybody agrees on the meaning of what they even mean when they talk about privacy, right?
Eric Meyer: Yes.
Brian Kardell: Or what does it mean to sell your data because you are the product for Mozilla. Make no mistake. Mozilla's entire existence is subsidized by the fact that it sells you.
Eric Meyer: Okay. In what way do you mean that?
Brian Kardell: It sells you to Google every time you type something into the search bar-
Eric Meyer: And Google, you haven't switched off with Google, then-
Brian Kardell: That request goes to Google and very probably if you have any Google accounts, you're logged in so they know exactly who you are.
Eric Meyer: So in that sense, yes, they've absolutely been selling users really for more than two decades now. Going back to the original search engine deals, the default search engine deals, when Google said, 'Hey, we'll pay you a bunch of money to make Google the default search in your search bar.' Knowing, because of course Google knew that almost nobody would change that preference, and they were correct. And Mozilla is saying, 'We like lots of money and users want to search, and most people like Google. Hard to see how this could be a bad thing.' And at the time, sure. 20 years on, we can and have had that conversation as to whether or not it was a good thing long-term. But the point being Firefox has been selling you, in this sense, has been selling you as a product to Google for a very long time. Or if they have deals with other search engines for compensation for traffic, same thing. I don't know if they do. I haven't dug that deeply, but point is this is what we mean when we say or this is what you meant. And I agree with you when you say Firefox has been selling you as a product for, or Mozilla has been selling you as a product, I guess for a very long time.
Brian Kardell: In fact, they're the ones that started it back in 2004. And the reason that they did is because there was no other business model for the [inaudible 00:07:03]. Netscape who had a plan to sell it. We had this IE come along and eat their lunch, but they were subsidizing it and it was then down to you basically had to be Windows to compete. That plan worked really well, actually, the default search idea. It has way more than paid for all of the browsers put together. Way, way, way more. There are all kinds of things that people will disagree with about what kind of data Google collects and how they share that with their partners and how they try to identify you and who they share it with and all that kind of stuff. Sure, that's true. There are all kinds of levels of subtle debate in there, but it does surprise me that people made this comment about, 'Well, all arguments about privacy are completely over.' Because I don't think it ever has been a completely black and white thing, and I do think that to have been, whatever the browser does, they receive money for your eyeballs and every time you search, which is the way that you pretty much get around. Even this is not entirely black and white. We have the wonderbar and the wonderbar can match if you type in a URL it will go there, and if not, it will do a search. But it also has autocomplete and who starts typing with HTTP or HTTPS, colon slash slash. I mean, that's how it knows that you're typing and it won't autocomplete for you by doing a search. It will look for your local history and stuff like that. But anything other than that is probably just going to Google, because it's got to get all those tokens and everything. So yeah, they get a lot of data.
Eric Meyer: And I mean, this is one of the things that was clarified later when Firefox basically said, 'So a couple of days ago, we updated our terms of use and people got real mad. And so here's what we're talking about.' I mean, one of the things that they say is, and I should stop saying they, Ajit Varma, who is a vice president at Firefox and who had done the original post and then did the clarification. Basically said, 'We're still not selling your data in the way that people think of selling your data.' Most people, when they think a company is selling my data, they're selling personally identifying information that they have collected. So what people assume is Firefox collects information about me and who I am, and then they're going to sell it to other people. Which again, semantically we can have an argument about are they already doing that with Google? Yes and no. They're not collecting data and selling that data to Google. They're just selling Google the pass through review to Google who has all that data. So kind of a thing. But they say, 'Part of the reason that we've stepped away from making blanket claims that we never sell your data is that as an example, the California Consumer Privacy Act... '. And California is where Firefox is headquartered, but it's also a very large market. '... defines sale as the... ', and this is a quote, '... 'Selling, renting, releasing, disclosing, disseminating, making available, transferring or otherwise communicating orally in writing or by electronic or other means a consumer's personal information by a business to another business or a third party.' In exchange monetary or other valuable consideration.' So you can make the argument, and I'm sure somebody would love to make this argument in court, and who knows how the court would rule that what Firefox has been doing for 21 years now falls under this, right? And so they can't say, 'We won't do this.' Because then someone has a hook to take them to court. And California is not the only state like this. They said Virginia and Colorado have similar privacy laws and there are probably other states. There wasn't a comprehensive list. And so basically what they're saying is, 'Because of the way laws are starting to be written, we have to change how we describe this.' But here's where I take some issue. This could have been easily foreseen.
Brian Kardell: Oh yeah.
Eric Meyer: We're going to take that thing that says, 'Do we sell your data? No, we never have. We never will. That's a promise.' And if you're going to take that and delete it, the reaction is predictable, easily predictable. Anyone who has been in this industry for more than probably two months could figure that one out. So what I don't get here is why they didn't have their explanation post as their first post. And then hopefully there would be no need for explanation. I mean, there probably would be, but there wouldn't be the same need where they would say, 'Hey, we're making some changes.' And then people freak out and then they say, 'Hey, this is what we actually meant by those changes, and we're making some clarifying changes.' I feel like somebody should have been able to say at some point in the process, 'You know, if we do it this way, we're going to get dumped on and we're going to have to clarify. So let's just pretend we've already been dumped on, and I'll write the dump on posts that we use internally and then let's update.' That's what I don't get about this. Why did they not have it better explained from the outset and have made the changes or already made the clarifying changes and then have those as their first set of changes? I don't know. Part of me is like, this is what happens when you try to do things by committee. But I've been in committees that were more forward-seeing than this. I don't know. I wonder if it's just a, 'We have to do this. We're doing it now. We'll do it live.' And nobody really stopped to think about how could this be bad for us? Because a lot of-
Brian Kardell: It seems impossible, though. It seems impossible, right? It's just so-
Eric Meyer: You can't get it perfect. I'm not saying that they could have done this perfectly and everyone would've said, 'Oh, great.' No, that can't happen. But it could have been more clear and there would've been more of a conversation instead of just everybody piling on. Full disclosure, I use Firefox, actually Firefox Nightly as my daily browser. I use it for almost everything, with the exception of services that literally will not let me log in with Firefox because they require Chrome or whatever. Usually it's Chrome. There are a lot of reasons why I like Firefox and I depend on it. And when I first heard this news and I hadn't dug into it yet, I was like, do I have to think about migrating? Is this-
Brian Kardell: Well, this is what a lot of people said, but migrate to what?
Eric Meyer: Sure, of course. I mean, I'm on a Mac, so I could migrate to WebKit slash Safari. They have gotten much better in recent years, but of course, moving from one browser to another is kind of a major thing in the kinds of lives that at least I lead and probably you lead. It's not... Once you've tuned your setup. And for me, I have certain extensions installed and this and that and the other thing. And I've gotten used to how these tools work and making the jump is a huge thing. But I was thinking about it, and then as it started to become more clear, I said, 'Okay, I'm going to put that back sort of on the rear shelf because I don't feel quite the same need. I mean, there's still, maybe I need to pay a little closer attention to what's going on in the next few weeks to see how this shakes out.' But yeah, I saw a lot of people talking about how, actually I saw several people say, 'Consider supporting Servo.' And these were not plants. We swear.
Brian Kardell: No, yeah.
Eric Meyer: They were not Igalians either. Just people who are saying, 'Servo has a lot of promise. It's not ready as a daily driver yet.' Which Igalia, we would agree with. 'But support it and maybe we can get a browser that the community supports and that we don't have to worry about these kinds of updates to terms of service based on the fact that there's really no viable long-term business model for a browser that isn't the one that we have.'
Brian Kardell: But I mean, that is the nature of the question that it feels like, I guess there is discussion, but there's not any real discussion on. Because everybody is like Firefox, Mozilla has always been this bastion of the one that we believe in-
Eric Meyer: Privacy respecting.
Brian Kardell: Yeah. Right. I don't know, something super ethical feeling about Mozilla always has been a champion. You know what I mean? The ones that don't have a big corporation behind them, even though they do, there's Mozilla Corporation, but you know what I mean? They don't have products, but that's also the problem. That they don't have a revenue stream other than this. So it is a problem and how they're really trying to solve it. They have done some other things. They offer the Mozilla VPN. That has to be very expensive. I think that it's like a resale thing. I am not positive about that, but I think it's white labeled VPN that they just put their name on and resell. But I don't know if that's a lucrative thing for them. I did... And they acquired Pocket a couple of years ago, which it's a bookmarking thing. When they bought it in, when did they buy it? 2019, 2020, something like that.
Eric Meyer: I just looked it up. Pocket announced that it had been acquired on February 27th. So the anniversary was just a couple of weeks ago, 2017.
Brian Kardell: It was for an undisclosed amount, but it was tens of millions anyway, probably. Based on the kind of money that they had raised already, had be at least that much money. When they bought them, Pocket had tens of millions of users. But I think really a lot of those users were on Firefox. This was an opportunity for them to try to brand something into their product where you could also use it as a plugin with, you can download an app, there is an app, and you can also get a plugin for Chrome and Safari, I guess. And the advantage of that is that then they're in sort of this search engine position where everybody goes to them, right? But I don't think that it's probably generating a lot of money. Mozilla's statements are public, but they're also I think two years old. And I think that the most recent court thing said that a little over 80% of their revenue is from the default search deal, which is better than the 95 that it was, but it's still very, very high. I shouldn't even be guessing with the numbers, but it's still very, very high. And those things aren't making the kind of dent yet that you would need. So why not just buy a browser? This way, I mean, it just feels like it would be so simple if we had just bought browsers. If we had just bought them like they were software.
Eric Meyer: Yeah. I mean, that is the argument that many have made over the years and people are making more often now, which I know for you, and I think a little bit for me, kind of feels like, 'Welcome. So glad you could join us.' Because we've been worrying about this for a while. But yeah, it had browsers always been you pay 20 bucks or 40 bucks or whatever for a major version, and then you get updates. And then the next major version, like operating systems. And originally at the very outset, there was all this talk about how the web would become sort of the internet operating system. It would become the universal operating system that it didn't matter what your hardware was or even what your hardware's operating system was, you would be on the web and the web would sort of act like its own operating system, and-
Brian Kardell: It is. It is that.
Eric Meyer: ... that is fairly reasonable, but it's an operating system that we don't pay for the way that we pay for operating, at least some operating systems.
Brian Kardell: I mean, we do, we pay for it, but we pay for it through-
Eric Meyer: We don't pay directly.
Brian Kardell: ... the race to the bottom of advertising.
Eric Meyer: We don't pay for it directly. We don't pony up 40 or 50 or 100 or however many dollars for a major version. And then the next time a major version comes out, you do it again. Yes, I hear you Linux users, you do not do that. I get it. But Windows users do.
Brian Kardell: But somebody does. Even there, somebody pays, right?
Eric Meyer: I mean, yeah.
Brian Kardell: Somebody pays, they pay with their time or their companies pay for somebody's time or it's not-
Eric Meyer: But the users do not themselves pay.
Brian Kardell: The users do not themselves pay. And Firefox could try to be that, right?
Eric Meyer: They could.
Brian Kardell: So currently there's this breakdown. The vast majority of their thing is in salaries, I think for the people who are there, but it's not the only thing. I mean, they also have buildings. They also have a very expensive all-hands meeting where they go to Hawaii or something, fly a bunch of people there and do big events. That can't be cheap. But I don't know, even if you knock that down, I mean, what is that one million, maybe two million, that's not going to really move the needle super significantly. It's mostly, I think salaries and build systems, IT stuff, you know what I mean? That's similar for us. I mean, the vast, vast majority of Igalia is Igalians, right?
Eric Meyer: That's where most of the money goes, is to pay the people who do the work because-
Brian Kardell: Which is a good thing.
Eric Meyer: Yes, as we've said, it turns out in capitalism, money comes in pretty handy if you want to eat and have a place to live, for example. So yeah, it is not a bad thing. It is how it works. And yeah, you are correct no matter what the system, some form of payment is or some form of investment, I guess you can view salaries as an investment. Many people do. And for free and open software, a lot of the investment is people's time.
Brian Kardell: But Firefox could be that, right? It could be that. But when we look at what the people who are paid to work on Firefox contribute versus the vast, and I mean it is a lot of independent contributors to Firefox. It's just overwhelmingly the people who are paid to work on Firefox who really do the work on Firefox. So it seems like a non-realistic option because I don't know, Linux I guess is, I mean, it's not competing in the same kind of way as a web browser.
Eric Meyer: No, I mean that's true. Of course, we have pushed ourselves down the road of how do we fund browsers, because we keep-
Brian Kardell: Well, that's the core of the question. So the whole reason that this is the question at all is because they are trying to address that, and so they're introducing some AI stuff, but they don't really have any AI stuff. So they're also trying to build this in a way that's sort of modular that you can work with other providers so they can offer, 'Should we offer a translation service where you can say, here's who my translation service is.' And maybe they have a default one and they get paid for default translation. Maybe they have default chatbots. Maybe they get paid for that just search. They're looking for really any opportunity they can, and I know that that also made people upset, but keep in mind that all of these are only for the browser that is compiled. So if you are a Linux user, if you are a power user, you can download the thing, you can compile Firefox on your own. None of those things apply. You can disable whatever you want. It is only for the Mozilla provided binary that those license agreements apply.
Eric Meyer: And there's LibreWolf that I know some people use, which is Firefox with the stuff disabled. What's the Chromium project that does that?
Brian Kardell: They all disable something. Brave disable something. Samsung disables something.
Eric Meyer: I was going to say, Vivaldi is I think the one that I hear the most where people say, 'Well, it's Chromium, but it has all the Google stuff stripped out.' And whether or not it has-
Brian Kardell: DuckDuckGo similar-
Eric Meyer: ... all the Google stuff stripped out, who knows? But yeah, DuckDuckGo similar. Yeah, right. So yeah, I mean we keep coming back to this that yeah, we're in a tough spot and it could get real tough depending on how things turn out with the US Department of Justice. I mean, there's a whole lot of changes on the US Department of Justice side right now. Will those affect the Google case? No idea. We just don't know. There's no way to guess if it could make it worse for Google or better for Google, or not really change or whatever. And if the final result, the final ruling, and then it goes through all of the various appeals and the blah, blah, blah, and the 5, 6, 8 years from now, Google is told, 'Nope, you can't have search deals anymore.' Which was one of the remedies proposed and probably the primary remedy proposed. If they get told that, then what's Mozilla going to do, which in fairness, the people of Mozilla also know this. This is why they keep trying to figure out like, 'If we put some AIS stuff in it, can we get some money out of that? If we put this in, can we get some money out of that? If we go to a more open net ad network, could that replace what we're getting from Google? Because we can't just blithely assume that it will be there forever. The United States Department of Justice has signaled that they might take it away.'
Brian Kardell: 'Could we maybe sell some education on MDM, like MDM Plus?' That's a thing that they also looked into, right? They're really looking at everything. And I mean, I am kind of with a lot of the sentiment to be clear that people are like, 'This is a bad idea.' I'm not totally on board with all, or maybe even almost any of the Mozilla's ideas, but I appreciate the problem that they have, and I don't envy trying to solve it because I mean, there's only so much room you have. You could, I think that probably the most pragmatic thing in a way is to borrow the Wikipedia model and kind of pester when you open the browser. Not all the time, but every now and then, and just remind people that if they love Firefox, it's-
Eric Meyer: Not free to make.
Brian Kardell: ... not free. And I mean, I don't know. I think it is a problem also because everyone shouldn't have to pay. Do you know what I'm saying?
Eric Meyer: Yeah.
Brian Kardell: I do believe that having access to the web and having access to the browser is almost a fundamental right at this point that I want people to have, too much relies on your ability to be online. And that's always been a challenge. Even Netscape, when they were going to sell it, they were still planning on giving it away for free, but they were going to sell it for corporate use. So if you used it for business purposes or something like that.
Eric Meyer: Then it was a per seat license, wasn't it?
Brian Kardell: I think it was per seat, yeah.
Eric Meyer: Anyway.
Brian Kardell: But yeah, it's tricky. I don't have any good answers. If you were the first one to do that, I think it's very likely that you'll lose users, not gain them. Well, I don't know if you follow sports or football or anything, but in the US, in the NFL you have, every year there's a draft of the new players and your position in the draft is determined by how well you did last season. So if you were the best team, then you pick last. If you're the worst team, you pick first kind of thing. And that's to sort of keep it competitive. And so they talk about sometimes when you lose your star quarterback or something that, 'Yeah, this is a rebuilding year, we don't expect to do really well. We expect to probably play really poorly, but then we'll get a higher draft pick and we can build the team around some new people.' And maybe, I'm not rooting for it, but maybe somebody needs to go through a rebuilding year where maybe they do even lose a bunch of users, but the users that they retain or establish a stabler model that allows it to grow into what it needs to be. But this is problem on so many levels because it's not just, you still need to search. So you're just giving it away for free. Nothing changes about the things we talked about about you're logged into Google, your search goes to Google, they can track you. Nothing changes about the fact that the way that newsrooms, news websites are paid for are by putting 8 trillion ads on there where every three sentences is interrupted by another ad or something. All of this I feel like is very intertwined and related. It would be great if there was an effort to solve this. I feel like this is a sort of a moonshot effort that we need to take on as a community of web people. How to fix the thing that feels broken to me that, not that there is advertising and the advertisers, it's fine, but I think we need to get a control over how, its role in things.
Eric Meyer: Yeah, I don't disagree. I mean, it would be interesting. Wikipedia, what is it, once a year, twice a year, I don't know. They do the NPR pledge drive thing essentially where they say, they put the banners up that say, 'Only 3% of people donate to the Wikimedia Foundation or the Wikipedia or whatever. If you just chuck in five bucks, you can be one of the people who helps us keep going. And so far it's mostly worked out. 3% of Firefox's users, if they got a similar uptake, kicked in 10 bucks every pledge drive, let's say, how much money is that? How many people is that? How many people is 3% of Firefox's user base?
Brian Kardell: Currently monthly active users as of February 23rd, 2025. 164 million roughly.
Eric Meyer: Okay, so 164 million. Well, 1% of that would be 1.64 million. So 3% of that, call it 5 million people put in 10 bucks each. That's $50 million. That's about 10% of their annual budget? Yeah.
Brian Kardell: But that's 10% of their annual budget if they put in $10. And no, I think honestly, I think for me, I think people who make the web alone almost could support it. We generally make a decent living. I don't know about you, but I, have 1800 subscription services. I have so many subscription services. Why don't we have a professional, why don't we think about it like a professional subscription service where I'll give Mozilla, create it, I'll give Mozilla $5 a month. That's a lot of money, that's probably more than they make.
Eric Meyer: I take your larger point that if they could get enough people to do that sort of low, if I could say, 'The thing that you use every day and it costs less than your monthly Netflix, a lot.' Or Amazon or Paramount Plus or whatever, and you figure out a way to get enough people to sign up for it, you start to get that sort of critical mass of people. Yeah, I mean the thing about that is though, I feel like it requires committing to that for a good five years. Not letting up on it, keep pushing it, start to introduce things like, 'If you're one of our monthly subscribers, then you don't get the nag banner when the time comes for the yearly comedian type thing.' Maybe there's something else, but you just keep sort of pushing on it and you commit to, 'If in two years we only have 10% of the people we need, we don't cut it at that point. We have to keep going. We have to keep pushing.' It's the kind of thing that takes time to sort of shift the expectations on the culture around it to where people start to say instead of, why would I do that? They start to think, yeah, why am I not doing that? Because so many other people are. I mean, as you've pointed out, you could do that now, essentially. You could donate money to Mozilla, and there are people who do, but it doesn't have that sort of sustained campaign of-
Brian Kardell: You can't donate money to Firefox.
Eric Meyer: Oh, right. But you can to Mozilla.
Brian Kardell: So this is a thing that came up in some of the conversations that I was looking at online. You could, but do you? And no, but not just because you don't want to. It's like, well, but let's say that all of us give money to Mozilla. What are they going to spend it on? There's sort of the rub, I guess, because a bunch of people are like, 'I don't want them to spend it on AI. I don't want them to spend it on changing. I want to keep it the Firefox that I love.' Kind of. So yeah, I don't know. Another thing, when they were talking about the things, the way that they use your information and stuff like that, they mentioned the new page thing. Which you and I have talked about that maybe on this podcast. I know I've blogged about it. Mozilla used this to probably pretty good effect when they use Pocket, which is like whenever there's an update, they have an opportunity to launch a What's New tab, which is basically a full page advertising.
Eric Meyer: Yes. But thus far, only for Firefox is basically, because I get this, whatever Nightly is updated to the next major milestone. It's like, 'You're now on Firefox 129.' And that's a big thing about Firefox.
Brian Kardell: Yeah, thus far. But they could use it. And whenever you click to launch a new tab, actually most browsers like Vivaldi, Opera, most of them, Edge, definitely. Edge is overwhelming. It makes my eyes glaze over how many things are on there, but that's an opportunity for them to sell eyeballs, the new tabs page. And sometimes it's really subtle. With most browsers, they sell placement, so there will be one in there for Amazon, almost always. There will be one for, I don't know, whoever's willing to pay and isn't actively offensive or something.
Eric Meyer: The latest huge Hollywood release could be in there.
Brian Kardell: Yeah, could be, right? Could be. So yeah, people were kind of upset about that, mentioning specifically, and I was like, 'Oh.' But again, everybody is doing this. It's not only Firefox and they need a way to pay for stuff. I don't know. I feel like, I hope it doesn't sound like I'm oversimplifying or really even suggesting that they should make people pay. And I'm not trying to also be an apologist for Mozilla or anything, but I would like it if people would use this as an opportunity to talk about how would you Mozilla to fix this problem? What would you like them to do? Would it be to [inaudible 00:41:54]? If you have ideas, you can text them to us on all of your favorite social media things. You can email us. I would love to hear people's ideas, actually. Start a big Hacker News thread. Do Reddit, whatever you want. But I would like to see a really active conversation that is not about just the things that we hate that are being done, but how do you fix it?
Eric Meyer: How do we get to the place where things are being done that we like, instead of things that we hate? It would be nice to hear some really good thoughts about how do we make this work at the kind of scale that needs to happen in order to fund an ongoing browser project.
Brian Kardell: Yeah.
Eric Meyer: Cool. Well-
Brian Kardell: Cool. Good chat.
Eric Meyer: Yeah, good luck to Mozilla and Firefox, and I'm sure we'll be talking about this kind of stuff again in the future.
Brian Kardell: Send us your thoughts. If we get a lot of interesting thoughts-
Eric Meyer: Yeah.
Brian Kardell: ... maybe we would just do a show where we talk about people's thoughts.
Eric Meyer: Yeah, absolutely. I mean, if we do get a good response, I would love to do a follow-up show where we just go through, 'Here's what people suggested.'
Brian Kardell
Eric Meyer