Archive for the 'Apple' Category

Curated computing: jargon (sometimes) is a good thing

May 16, 2010
This is supposed to *herald* curated computing. Nonsense.

This is supposed to *herald* curated computing. Nonsense.

Curated Computing: Fancy cynical analyst term. Here is Forrester Research declaring a new era (‘Post-iPad’, no less).

A consumer can do anything with a Windows PC or Mac… the iPad operates very differently. [It] works more like a jukebox than a desktop — consumers choose (and pay for) applications from a predetermined set list. Each of those applications is, in itself, also curated; the publisher selects content and functionality that’s appropriate to the form factor, just as a museum curator selects artworks from a larger collection…

Rubbish. ‘Curated computing’  has been Apple’s design philosophy for all this decade – that’s only now making its way into industry consciousness.

But it’s a good thing.

If anything, it indicates mobile manufacturers hitting reality. In the short years after the realization that people wanted to ‘do more’ with their phones, manufacturers packed in as many features as they could. A few really took off (cameras, music players, even email), and most others just didn’t (bluetooth, mobile office packages, bar-code readers).

In another way, it’s a sign of the industry beginning to mature. Even as hardware has gotten more capable (faster processors, storage, memory, larger displays, touch-screens) and networks have invested massively to build capacity, there’s a discernible trend to do less better. Manufacturers are (belatedly?) realizing that a mobile device isn’t a smaller personal computer, but something ‘very personal’. And that very personal is very different from personal.

Which is also why everyone in the industry wants ‘vertical integration’ – control over the hardware, operating system, software platform, applications/content, and network. It’s so that having bet on what (limited) tasks a device will perform, a manufacturer has greater control over the quality of what the customer experiences.

Expect, in the next couple of years, for all major smartphone players (in addition to Apple, RIM, Google) to create (curate?)  really great out-of-the-box experiences for the 20% of tasks that matter most – email, web browsing, facebook/twitter updating, maps, and playing music/movies (yes, better than what we’ve seen). Expect  new devices to ship with fewer radios and sensors, and very few basic applications out-of-the-box. All other features and applications will be available via an App Store, to which there will be a prominent link on the home screen.

If this sounds very much like what Apple’s been doing with iPhone all along, of course you’re right. Forrester’s just woken up, declared it a trend and slapped on an alliteration.

Footnote: also, this isn’t as global, industry-churning a movement as Forrester would have you believe: the Japanese, for the most part, like cellphones crammed with bells and whistles (TV, bar-code readers,credit cards, suchlike). And this doesn’t look to be changing anytime soon.

About the smartphone category called iPhone-like

January 8, 2010

From an email exchange with a friend asking about the Nexus One (the ‘Google phone’) launch.

Thoughts about the Nexus One’s prospects

Does it have better hardware, a better screen, better battery life, better price, more freedom, better apps, better multitasking, better camera than the iPhone? Yes. Is it the iPhone? No.

People who’ll buy the Nexus One say they want to buy something like the iPhone that isn’t the iPhone, and they’re lying even though they don’t know it. They want the iPhone because it’s the iPhone. And nothing else. When you create in your mind a category called iPhone-like, there’s only one member that’s ever going to be a full, incontrovertible member of that category.

These buyers are going to be disappointed even though they won’t know quite why. They’ll blame it on the phone instead of their own expectations, and demand won’t spike the way it did for the iPhone.

Would I buy it?

I don’t like the iPhone, but I like this current crop of Android devices even less. If, in a (thankfully) fictional dystopian universe I had to choose only between the iPhone and the Nexus, I’d take Apple’s baby (and lament long and hard about the lack of alternatives).

Reason #3: form factor wise no Android device has nailed the iPhone. This is HTC and Motorola and Samsung, not Apple we’re talking about. So there. These firms are known for specs, not sex.

Reason #2: I will not buy a phone with a trackball. Ever. Would you buy a Skoda that featured a manually-operated crank to start the engine? Heck, even Blackberrys have moved on.

Reason #1: Polish. I posit that no one has been able to nail the touchscreen experience other than Apple. Not Palm, Not Android. Not (shudder) RIM and most certainly not Microsoft. Since 2007, for instance, Android phones have been underpowered and have had user experience (UX) issues where the phone hasn’t been able to keep up with text or touch input. Now three years later,

Some animations are very smooth, some are janky as hell. The Nexus One has a faster processor than the iPhone 3GS and has twice the RAM, and yet it still cannot have as fluid a UI as the iPhone OS. This is great proof that your software is key—throwing raw power at things won’t necessarily make them better.

And it doesn’t even have to run Android. Every touchscreen phone apart from iPhone suffers from this.

I think it’s worth demonstrating how Apple nails the experience with an example.

In Mobile Safari, the iPhone browser, if you scroll (swipe) too fast, instead of text you’ll see a chequered pattern – the processor can’t render the text fast enough – but the scrolling experience itself is smooth as ever. Once you stop scrolling, text will eventually appear. On any other mobile browser, the scrolling itself will stutter as the processor tries to render everything.

When you’re using a device all day every day as essentially an extension of your body and mind, stuff like this matters more than features.

I’d pick the iPhone. As, sadly, will folks who upgrade from the Nexus One eventually.

Update (10 Jan 2010): Another example of polish in design:

Other issues that I can’t live with day to day? How do I copy text from non-editable field like an email, webpage, or SMS, or even a 3rd party application? Oh, I can’t. Say what you want about the iPhone not having copy and paste for two years — a joke — it’s the single best implementation on the planet for a smartphone and Google’s approach is almost as bad as RIM’s with the Storm-series.

(From Boy Genius Report, via John Gruber)

Bigger pie, more slices

July 3, 2009

For the longest time, the only two entities that made money from a mobile phone were the carrier and the handset manufacturer. Open and shut [1].

No longer. Not only are more mobile phones being sold now than ever before, there are more types of folks making money off it. For smartphones with an ecosystem such as iPhone, there is

- Apple, the iPhone manufacturer

- AT&T (in the U.S.) that provides cell phone connectivity

- tens of thousands of developers who sell their iPhone applications through the App Store (with Apple getting a cut). And this is not just indie developers. Amazon stands to make a huge bundle through book sales via its Kindle Reader app for iPhone [2]

- businesses that create free iPhone applications but make money off ads within their applications [3]

- record labels that offer their music for sales on the iTunes Music Store

- television networks and Hollywood studios that offer their TV shows and movies (respectively) for sale/rent, also on the iTunes Music Store

Of course, this runaway success has inspired every smartphone label to scramble to bake its own pie. Witness the plethora of application stores (Palm, Nokia, Blackberry, Windows Mobile, Android) [4], and Nokia’s attempts to sell music.

 

Open or closed?

The more mature a product category gets, the more players there are that stand to make money off it. That’s because the pioneer quickly realizes that for true scale, it must “open up”  the product to entities other than itself. And that’s where it seems we have from history, a clear lesson: IBM opened up the specs of its original PC, and hordes of beige box manufacturers crowded Big Blue out of its own market. Apple itself nearly destroyed all that the Macintosh stood for when it licensed the Mac to other manufacturers.

“Opening up” a successful product and creating an open ecosystem divides the pie into so many slices that the pioneer is left picking up only crumbs. Apple’s iPhone ecosystem has been “opened up” to all those players above through the iPhone OS developer API, the iTunes Music Store and the iPhone App Store, but the ecosystem itself remains tightly closed.

 

[1] OK, so there were (are) electronic component manufacturers on the source side and advertising agencies on the sell side. But let’s limit ourselves to those that gained directly from the mobile phone. 

[2] Also with iPhone OS 3.0, developers can now charge for features within the application (unlocking extra weapons and purchasing weaponry within games being the most commonly cited examples), so you could have a free basic application with paid features if you like. Before OS 3.0, the best that developers could do was offer separate “free” basic and “paid” full-featured apps.

[3] Take Twitterific, for instance. The free version of the application inserts ads into your tweetstream.

[4] With comical attempts to make them sound different (Palm Software Store, Nokia Ovi Store, Blackberry App World, Windows Mobile Marketplace, Android Market). 

The combination that makes iPhone so compelling

January 25, 2009

iPhone is revolutionary not just because of its (multi-touch) touchscreen. There are, after all, other touchscreen phones on the market, and none have achieved iPhone’s popularity. Why?

iPhone is revolutionary not because of its Internet browser. Mobile Safari has limitations that other browsers don’t – most notably the lack of Flash support, no text search, no scrolling to the end, among others. But iPhone users are among the most heavy users of the web. Why?

It turns out that when you put both these features together, you end up with something very different.

The web browser is one of the most mouse-heavy applications on your (desktop/laptop) computer. Maintaining that experience on the mobile phone is tough when you have to manipulate physical keys. Open a web page in a browser on your computer and imagine moving the cursor using only the arrow keys.

Your finger on a touchscreen is the best proxy for a mouse on a mobile phone.

This is, in essence, what makes iPhone so compelling. There are awesome touchscreen phones with average browsers, and great browsers trapped in keypad-based phones. iPhone has managed to bridge that gap. And how.

Opera Mini and S60 Browser – both not quite there yet

October 17, 2008

On my N82: spent some time with Opera Mini after a while – had been using Nokia’s built-in S60 Browser exclusively over  the past few months.

Here’s a list of peeves and loves about each browser.

 

Opera Mini Good

  • Faster page load times
  • Snappier controls
  • Smoother scrolling
  • Slightly better font rendering (all of above relative to S60 Browser)
  • Address TLD auto-complete: (type www.opera. and  a drop-down list appears with opera.com, opera.org , opera.net)
  • Speed Dial-like shortcuts for bookmarks

Opera Mini Bad

  • No support for multiple tabs
  • “Small” font too small, “Medium” too big
  • Screen does not occupy entire width when phone tilted (in portrait mode). I don’t think the browser is accelerometer-aware
  • Not possible to copy URL

S60 Browser Good

  • Does not ask for permission to connect; allows selection of default access point. This is because, unlike Opera Mini, which is a Java app, the S60 browser is a native S60 app.
  • Page overview – a shrunk view of the current page which you can quickly scroll around on.
  • Attractive Back/Forward implementation. Page previews flip forward and back, like moving your mouse across the OS X dock.

S60 Browser Bad

  • Supports multiple tabs but cannot open new one!
  • No “top”, “bottom”, “pgup”, “pgdn” keypad shortcuts
  • Tedious process to copy URL. Bookmark current page, navigate to Edit bookmarks, copy URL, delete bookmark.

Conclusion

Opera Mini’s a better browser, the S60 Browser is a better application.  Goes to show that you can’t get the best of both worlds. If only Opera and Nokia would learn from one another. Finally, now that Nokia is shipping phones with reasonably high resolution screens, it really, really needs to improve font rendering. Mobile Safari kicks ass and sets the standard.

What else

Haven’t had a chance to check out Skyfire yet; the founders have decided, in a sadly common blinkered move, to limit launch to the US. A mobile browser from Mozilla’s been “just around the corner” for a while now (and won’t show up on S60 first). Google’s promised a mobile version of Chrome, but my guess is that Android will get it before S60 does. I don’t see mobile Safari on S60 ever. And it hurts to even speak of mobile IE.

What do Apple's App Store rejections mean for you users and startups?

September 13, 2008

Yesterday, Apple pulled an application named Podcaster from the iPhone App Store. With Podcaster, iPhone/iPod Touch users could “update podcasts directly on the device over wifi.” Apple rejected the application because

Podcaster assists in the distribution of podcasts, it duplicates the functionality of the Podcast section of iTunes.

This is about as anti-competitive as it gets – applications that threaten iTunes’s monopoly over loading content to/from iPhone/iPod Touch will not be allowed on to Apple’s iPhone App Store. John Gruber of Daring Fireball fame has more to say about Apple’s exclusionary policies.

So some apps are banned. So what?

This is a big deal because App Stores are becoming an important way (and for iPhone/iPod Touch, the only way) to add functionality to a mobile device – whether it’s from Apple or Nokia or Android. Installing applications on your mobile phone is tricky at best and throw-your-hands-up-it’s-impossible at worst, which is why such App Stores (which make the job much simpler) will gain a lot of traction in the months to come. This places enormous power in the hands of App Store owner – either the handset or mobile OS manufacturer.

Simultaneously, as mobile devices become ubiquitous, more capable and more functional (because of these apps), an application ecosystem will begin to form – there are already over 3000 applications for iPhone/iPod Touch on Apple’s App Store, with small startups entirely dependent on the money they make from sales through the Store. Indeed, Kleiner Perkins has set up an iFund to invest in startups that make apps for iPhone, and there’s a RIM-backed Blackberry Fund too. How much longer before we start seeing the same interest in Nokia/Android application startups?

But this rosy picture could be in jeopardy if such rejections – either arbitrary or anti-competitive – become more commonplace. It’ll scare application developers, and drive away investors. And a multi-billion dollar (because of the sheer numbers of mobile devices) global opportunity could be lost, lost even to the party behind the App Store itself.

What are mobile app startups and users likely to do?

There are two things, both of which are likely to happen:

1.) Web apps that try to offer the same functionality will pick up speed. No App Store will be able to restrict what web-based applications users choose to use. Tomorrow, the Twitter client Twitterrific might be in the soup (because it has a built-in browser and mimics the functionality of Apple’s own Mobile Safari browser – you never know),  but the web-based Hahlo twitter client for iPhone/iPod Touch will face no such problems because Apple has nothing to do with it (and vice versa).

Ordinarily, I’m a strong proponent of native applications for mobile devices (at this stage of the industry). But circumstances are going to push app developers harder to write Good Web Apps.

2.) More jailbroken iPhones. Ironically, this warranty-voiding way of installing third-party applications is also the most open, offering several more native applications with fewer Apple-enforced restrictions. Developers will work harder to make it easier for customers to jailbreak their iPhones and iPods Touch.

Both these trends will represent a move away from the App Store.

Conclusion

As the technology industry becomes more open than ever (open software and hardware standards, community-based platforms for communication, convergence of desktop and mobile), this move towards closed application ecosystems is an anachronism.

More restrictions will mean more effotrs to circumvent (or just abandon) the App Store – whether from Apple or Nokia or Google’s Android. From the App Store owner’s ponit of view, this will be killing the golden goose – and the loss of possibly billions of dollars in revenue.

The Kindle presents an Amazon Associates opportunity

August 27, 2008

Arrington on Techcrunch talks about the possibility of Amazon licensing its Kindle ebook reader hardware specs and trademark to third-party manufacturers:

…a licensing program that gave hardware manufacturers the ability to build Kindle clones, along with an incentive to sell them at near-zero margins. Amazon would give those manufacturers access to the core Kindle hardware specs (there’s no real magic there anyway) and the right to call it a Kindle device so long as they also put the core Kindle software on the device. That software links the device to Amazon’s store, meaning downloads revenue flows through Amazon.

Amazon would then share a percentage of net margin generated from downloads with the hardware manufacturers.

Techcrunch has put into words what I’ve felt since the day the Kindle was announced. After all, Amazon isn’t in the hardware business at all; it’s in the product and content retail business. I can imagine that in the initial days of the Kindle launch, Amazon needed its own device to build a strong association between Amazon’s brand and the mobile ebook model. Now that that purpose is served, manufacturing and selling the Kindle hardware is an overhead that Amazon could avoid.

Just like Associates?

This isn’t very different from the masterstroke that Amazon played years ago with its Associates affiliate program. Before Affiliate Marketing became the wild jungle that it is today, Amazon launched a series of innovative tools – aStore, Omakase Links, Product Previews – to let publishers (people who owned websites/blogs/suchlike) add links to Amazon’s content onto their web pages. These publishers then earned a cut of the sale generated by clicks from the links on their web pages.

Kindle is Associates all over again, except instead of web-based tools, we’re talking hardware specs.

For instance, Amazon’s aStore let developers build their own focused online “stores” (which displayed Amazon’s books). (A religion-focused website would be able to draw viewers and sell that category of books better than Amazon.com itself.) In the same vein, a student version of Kindle with access to e-textbooks and additional bookmarking features would be better marketed and sold by a third party which is focused on only that market.

With such an Affiliate/Franchise/Licensing model, manufacturers would fall over themselves for a chance to access Amazon’s massive ebook and newspapers database – and a cut of the subsequent revenues.

The Mobile Opportunity

Once third party manufacturers have licensed the Kindle specs, they are no longer restricted to building anything that looks like the Kindle today. I can readily think of well-designed iPhone/iPod Touch ebook applications like the New York Times app. This fits in with American universities doling out iPods Touch and iPhones to their incoming freshmen.  A market for Nokia’s S60 devices would be many times larger.

What do you think? Would you purchase a Kindle application for your mobile device?

Aside: Of course, manufacturers would then be free to choose the carrier of their choice for wireless content delivery. That sure isn’t going to make Sprint-Nextel happy.

Why I won't be buying the iPhone 3G

August 8, 2008

iPhone 3G, finally, will be available in India on August 22nd through Airtel. While I’m excited about the world’s most revolutionary phone meeting the world’s fastest growing market, I’m not buying one for myself. Instead, last month I purchased a Nokia N82 Black, having decided that iPhone 3G was not for me. Why would I pass up the chance to own perhaps the sexiest piece of electronic hardware in the country?

In a nutshell, iPhone is peculiar. It is generations ahead of its peers when it comes to user experience, but has inexplicably glaring flaws. Some of these are deal-killers for my usage pattern. Nokia’s Nseries phones, specifically the N82, fit my mobile lifestyle like a glove. Well, almost. But this post isn’t about the N82. Here’s what struck iPhone off my list:

Applications cannot run in the background

This is the number one flaw that clinched it for me. This article on Mashable about the release of Google Talk for iPhone first alerted me to it:

Therefore, you can’t have Google Talk sit idly in the back and have a conversation every now and then – which is the default pattern of usage for most users, I believe. This limitation is due to Apple’s silly “apps can’t run in the background” rule, the official explanation of which goes along the lines of “we can’t let people do that, it would consume too much battery.”

In fact, Google’s blog post about this said

“…in order to receive instant messages with Google Talk on your iPhone, the application needs to be open in your Safari browser. When you navigate away to another browser window or application, your status will be changed to “unavailable” and your Google Talk session will be restarted when you return.”

This is shocking. For instance, during my commute, I use the S60 browser, Google Maps, the Gmail App and the music player simultaneously. I also cycle between these applications pretty frequently. Having to shut down an active application and start another one is simply unacceptable.

Poor battery life; no replaceable battery

Paul Stamatiou, who knows a thing or two about iPhone, has this to say about the battery:

The battery life is excruciatingly horrible. I woke up at 2pm today, unplugged my iPhone from the charger, went about my day, came home at 2am and received a 10% battery warning. It should come with a car charger for free.

This would be tolerable if you could purchase a second battery to pop into your iPhone while on the road. But no go; the battery cannot be replaced (by the average user at least). The N82, on the other hand, only needs to be charged every 3 days. This is with 45 minutes of music playback, one hour of web browsing on EDGE, several hours of Fring in the background and 15 minutes of Google Maps for mobile. Daily.

Touchscreen keyboard

For a heavy text user like me, the lack of a physical keyboard is serious. I send up to 20 messages a day, compose email and the occasional blog post draft. And this is on a 9-key dialpad.

I’ve tried using the iPhone keyboard, and while I’m a huge fan of the autocorrect mechanism, the overall experience is still not good enough. I might even consider it if you could use the keyboard in landscape mode, but iPhone is incapable of even that.

No copy-paste out-of-the-box

While there is an application on the iPhone App Store that enables copy and paste, I am once again apalled at the lack of native support for this. My Nokia 6670 could copy and paste text back in 2005, and now it’s ubiquitous. No one would even call it a feature any longer. Copying phone numbers, addresses, names, conversations snippets, text from web pages, into other apps are things I do almost daily. I do not want to rely on a third-party app to give me this functionality.

Poor camera

Users forgave the sub-par camera on the original iPhone, but to continue to ship with the exact same camera a year later is unforgivable. iPhone’s 2 megapixel camera does not have either a flash or autofocus. Most of Samsung’s and Nokia’s high-end phones ship with 3MP cameras with LED flash. Nokia’s flagship phone, the N96, ships with a 5MP camera with Xenon flash (the same one as on the N82). Samsung’s Innov8 sports a monstrous 8MP camera (which, arguably, is overkill).

In addition, iPhone cannot record video. At all. In contrast, the N82 can record video at a smooth 30fps.

No modem capabilities

iPhone cannot be used as a modem for your computer out-of-the-box. The iPhone App Store (the only place from where you can legally install third-party applications) hosted Netshare, an application to do just that – “tether” your iPhone to your computer. Only briefly, though. It was pulled down in two hours. The only way to use iPhone as a modem is to “jailbreak” it (install a firmware hack) and install alternative applications. On the other hand, I’ve been able to use my Nokia phones as a modem since 2005.

Operator Bundling

There is still no clarity on whether existing Airtel users will be allowed to migrate their current tariff plans to iPhone 3G. The current plans in the U.S. charge an awful lot of money for data. 

Conclusion

In summary, although iPhone 3G offers a compelling user interface, large screen and gobs of storage, it has a few fatal flaws in its design, intentional or not. On the other hand, the Nokia N82, while not perfect, fits into my mobile usage lifestyle perfectly. Consequently, I have decided in favor of the N82.

What will you choose on August 22nd?

Update:

More recent developments add to my reasons to not purchase iPhone 3G:

Steve Jobs admitted to the Wall Street Journal that Apple has the ability to remotely disable software it deems malicious on an iPhone 3G. I am not comfortable with Apple (or any other company) retaining control of what I can do with my iPhone after I have purchased it.

The performance of the 3G chip on iPhone 3G seems to be below customers’ expectations. So low, in fact, that there have been strong rumours circulating about a device recall. This is not encouraging news for someone who’s been awaiting 3G rollout in India for over a year now.

The price of iPhone 3G in India is about Rs. 31000 for the 8GB model and Rs. 37000 for the 16GB one, which is inordinately high. I would be willing to pay about Rs. 16000 for the 8GB model and Rs. 18000 for the 16GB model, without an operator contract subsidy). I wonder how many potential customers Apple will lose by pricing iPhone 3G that high.

Tarek writes about what he can do with his Nokia S60 phone that he can’t with his iPhone.

Misguided iPhone/Safari strategy analysis

June 22, 2007
More iPhone strategy from Bob Cringely. While he’s spot-on with most of his columns, I don’t agree with his line of thought in this week’s column.

In a nutshell, Cringely believes that forcing developers to develop Safari-compliant AJAX applications will aid simlilar Safari-compliant applications on the iPhone (now that Steve Jobs has declared that third-party applications will be overwhelmingly web-based):

With the AJAX economy dictating that browsers with big market share like IE and Firefox get most of the effort, that leaves Safari as a second-class browser and, potentially, a liability for the iPhone.

Whaddayado? Introduce a Windows version of Safari, get a million people to download it in the first week, and scare developers into moving Safari customization higher on their AJAX priority list.

Non. That’s shockingly naive. The bottom line is that Safari just doesn’t matter. A million downloads in the first week (and projecting forward from there) isn’t even a microscopic scratch on the total number of IE and Firefox browsers surfing the Internet. Half of Google’s applications don’t work well with Opera yet – and it’s a browser which has a substantial number of users, most of whom are more likely to be heavy users of Google’s application services.

Besides, how long has Safari for Windows been around? 3 weeks? And it’s about another week to the iPhone launch. That’s simply not long enough to gain traction. For Safari to make any sort of difference, it’d have to be launched at least a year ago, and promoted heavily by Apple, a la
the community effort by the Firefox junta.

So why launch Safari for Windows after all? It’s simpler than most commentators are making it out to be. Hark back to my post last Friday. The iPhone is cool enough for developers to want to develop applications for it anyway. Safari for Windows gives them a browser to test compatibility on with without having to invest in iPhones and/or Macbooks. Jobs stressed in his Walt Mossberg interview at the D conference about the OS and browser being the same Mac applications:

.. It’s REAL Safari, REAL OS X. We put a different user interface on it to work with a multi-touch screen… it’s an amazing amount of software.

It’s about dramatically lowering the entry barrier for developers to write applications for the iPhone, not compelling them to be compliant with Safari on Windows.

More on Safari for Windows

June 16, 2007
This time by John Dvorak, on Dow Jones’ Marketwatch:

First, Dvorak’s take on the browser strategy is the same as mine (read yesterday’s post):

“… this particular browser is necessary if anyone wants to develop applications for the iPhone. Apparently, third-party iPhone applications will be nothing more than browser-based applications running on the Safari browser… Apple seems intent on locking down the iPhone to real application development, where programmers can actually go into the phone’s software and fiddle with whatever they want. The company is keeping all that power to itself.”

He also offers another interesting perspective on why the Search era could have opened up a new revenue stream for browser makers:

In the upper right-hand corner of a Firefox browser, for example, you’ll find a little search box. Look at the Safari browser; it is there, too. That little box brings the Mozilla organization, the developers and promoters of the Firefox browser, more than $50 million in income — free money. This number has been jumping substantially over the years as people get used to typing casual searches into the little box. The search then goes over to Google (or other engines that users can select), and if that search translates to a hit on an advertisement, Mozilla gets a cut.