Can anyone comment on Mozilla's future revenue plans? Are they aiming to license Firefox OS?
Please everyone, stop sensationalizing this. Google doesn't "sell users" or "sell your privacy" any more than, e.g., NBC, which sells ads alongside its content.
NBC does too--they are a business that depends on readership/viewership because they make their money from advertising. That means that their business is to attract as many consumers of their content as they can so that their advertisers can reach them.
I'm surprised that this would even be considered a controversial point to make. Perhaps you don't like the wording: calling you their "product" and the advertisers their "customers". But there's not meant to be a personal element to it. It's simply an explanation of what their business model is.
What I don't think is particularly helpful is the characterization of that business model as "selling users" or "selling privacy", which are phrasings that you and other commenters here have used. Those phrasings are designed to spread FUD about Google.
I don't think people usually say things like "NBC is selling it's users/viewers to advertisers." The normal thing to say is "NBC sells advertisement slots during its programs."
However, I don't understand how it is spreading FUD to point out that an advertising company sells eyeballs. It seems like you're focusing on connotations of terminology, but rephrasing what Google or NBC does doesn't change what it is they do: selling eyeballs. Why do you think Super Bowl spots are so expensive?
Maybe this clashes with the image you have of Google as a benevolent group of engineers who just want to make the world a better place. Certainly, a company can be comprised of employees who care about technology but also rely on a business model that might be cynically criticized or, at the least, described in a way that may not appear as benevolent as you previously thought.
However, that wasn't even my intent. I was just being concise.
I do take you at your word though that it was not your intention. Take this discussion then as a warning that your statement may not have come off as you intended it to.
It is not FUD to point out that a company sells eyeballs. If you had said "Google sells users' eyeballs to its customers: advertisers" you would have received no complaint from me. Adding that single word, "eyeballs", entirely clarifies your statement. Without it, people will need to fill in something else since we all know Google isn't literally selling its users to advertisers. A lot of people will interpret your statement as "Google sells users' personal information to its customers: advertisers."
Leaving out the clarification made it seem as though you wanted to allow the reader to draw a more frightening conclusion about Google's business model than is justified by reality.
Anyway I think we both agree. I have friends at Google, but they are in ad sales and HR not engineering. So I certainly don't think of Google as merely a "benevolent group of engineers." I have no problem calling out their business model for what it is. But accuracy and precision is important, especially when being concise.
They just seem to want all of your data on their servers all of the time. I don't like it and I actively work against it.
Honest question: what actions have they taken that make you believe they are working against the anonymous internet, outside of Google services?
Any one company having access to such a big database of information about pretty much everyone that has ever used a web browser should never happen, but it happens at Google.
Like I said, I can really only judge them by what I see - but here is my full disclosure - I honestly believe that in all probability...Google is working very closely with at least one despicable intelligence agency (most likely the NSA). I can't prove it, but if I could those agencies just wouldn't be worth their salt. It's certainly not outside the realm of possibility. Far from it.