Mozilla chose to waste most of it.
…compensating their CEO of all people doing good work in there
Maybe that’s not bad for firefox.
Maybe less money means less ridiculous side projects and just focus on delivering a good browser.
Algo the lack of google as financial support means they’ll rely more on donations, which would mean that they really need to focus on offering a good browser.
I’ll gladly donate to firefox if I would see they are really focusing on it.
I donate around 5 dollars to Wikipedia every month. Another 5 to Mozilla isn’t an issue for me.
… will you though?
I just signed up for monthly donations of 5 USD per month. 5.60 USD technically since I also opted to pay the transaction fees.
Suck it.
Present it. 😮
I have nothing to prove to you. Besides, even if I did present it, you wouldn’t believe it. Even if I presented it with doxxing information you would note it for future harassment campaigns and also claim you don’t believe it.
So… as I said previously… suck it.
5.60 USD to mozilla every month. Not much, but if everyone did it, they would be bigger than google and tell them to eat shit livestream.
Your dick dumbass. Not a copy of your fucking bank statement lmfao. Were my lips on my dick sucking emoji face not clear enough?
Ya’ll take yourselves way too seriously lol. I’m glad you contributed. I haven’t, besides hopefully spurring you on to, in which I’ll take some of the credit for it. So you’re welcome.
I donate to lemmy and mastodon instances. As I do believe they are using my money for good things.
I have donated in the past while still living in a third world country. I stopped when I realized how my donation was squandered.
I think in the future I will try to donate like 10 dollars a month for free software that I use, including Firefox, KDE, Thunderbird, Wikipedia, Lemmy, etc.
I think it’s very important to support open source financially, because without it we would all be fucked by huge corporations. And I might sound overly anti-capitalist, but I think that most of them should be broken up.
If I had the money, an extra $5 or so would definitely be something I’d spend monthly on donating to Mozilla/Firefox.
If I had the money, an extra $N or so would definitely be something I’d spend monthly on X
The moment that it’s possible to donate directly towards the development of firefox, there’s roughly 10€/yr with their name on it. As it stands however, Mozilla is not funding FF at all, but rather extracting money from the project.
Mozilla (not Google) got rid of the side projects, increased the CEO’s salary, and laid off a bunch of employees during the pandemic. It basically got rid of the innovation that could have made Firefox a faster, more secure, and pleasant experience. Rust and Rust-based Servo, as a replacement for Gecko, were two of those side projects. These are the things Mozilla needs to invest in.
Also, I think Mozilla needs to ask the user upon install what the default search engine should be from a list of search engines including Google, Duck Duck Go, Bing, and Yahoo. Maybe the order of those could be arranged based on how much they’re able to finagle from the search engines.
The real monopoly is their control over Chrome. That’s what they should be forced to split from the company that owns the search engine. Development and design of Chrome should not and cannot be done by the company that runs the search engine and gets its revenue from ads.
Google got rid of the side projects, increased the CEO’s salary, and laid off a bunch of employees during the pandemic.
How did Google do any of that? Wasn’t that all Mozilla Corp?
Major brain fart/typo, haha.
Not saying they did, if you’re paying for a thing, you a lot of control of that thing.
Development and design of Chrome should not and cannot be done by the company that runs the search engine and gets its revenue from ads.
I’d go so far as to argue the exact same for development of: Operating systems, automotive, smartphones, residential fiber…
The ulterior motive is simply never in a user’s best interest when every function ultimately becomes part of the “influence towards the purchase of goods and services” funnel.
While I find your assertion inspiring and very worthy of consideration, I have to wonder what the incentive is to sustain Android development. Apple sells the hardware that goes with its OS(es), so they get the hardware revenue (not to mention the App Store and iCloud subscription revenues). They would have to start charging devices to use their operating system or something, and I have to wonder if that would be possible under open source licenses.
I would love an open, sustained, and even open source, secure operating system for phones that’s the target of app development. I think the Linux stack should should develop an NPR/PBS type ecosystem public funding of development (with maybe the corporate underwriting of those networks being equivalent to contributions from corporate employed developers to the open source code) and I’d love for it to be a real competitor in the smart phone market (knowing the Android stack modifies and sits on top of Linux).
I have to wonder what the incentive is to sustain Android development
Cuts from app purchases and in-app purchases. Of course, developers can implement their own payment gateways and distribute their apps in third party stores, but nobody would do this at risk of being removed from play store.
Maybe the order of those could be arranged based on how much they’re able to finagle from the search engines.
That’s the issue that caused this. Google was paying Mozilla to be the default search engine at the top of the list in Firefox and other browsers.
-
Right now it’s already set as the default search engine and you have to work to change it to something else as I understand it. I’m proposing that no default is set and that the user is asked to select one upon first installing Firefox from an ordered list of search engines. If that’s already the case (it’s been a while since I installed Firefox from scratch), then I’d argue that’s fine. And it allows other search engines to contribute to be higher up in the rankings.
-
I can’t think of anything that would replace the revenue that Google pays Mozilla that sustains the development salaries to hopefully keep Mozilla competitive and hopefully making it the best performing, convenient and private browser.
-
Maybe less money means less ridiculous side projects
Like Firefox?
It really seemed like it’s been a bit of a side project those last few years…
They are throwing things at the wall hoping something sticks.
For some reason people don’t want Mozilla to make money or perhaps they assume browser development is lucrative.
For some reason people don’t want Mozilla to make money or perhaps they assume browser development is lucrative.
By their own account, it’s not meant to be lucrative.
"Corporation. Foundation. Not-for-profit.
Mozilla puts people over profit in everything we say, build and do. In fact, there’s a non-profit Foundation at the heart of our enterprise."
Straight from Mozilla’s About Us page for you. Maybe they ought to live up to their words and start focusing on making a solid browser that respects users’ privacy with the majority of their time, funding and energy, rather than squandering these assets on current tech hype nonsense that people don’t actually want.
You’re right of course, but you’re also wasting your breath.
In 2024 the business sociopaths have so many people so twisted and screwed up in the head that they can’t even CONCEIVE of the idea of a person or organization focused on delivering a product sustainably rather than “MONEY MONEY MONEY, NOM NOM NOM!” for eternity.
Maybe less money means less ridiculous side projects
Like Rust?
For userland code that basically fingerbangs every server on the web, some forced memory-safety might not be a bad idea
I really hope that’s sarcastic, because Rust is one of the most valuable additions to the whole IT field in a good while.
Entire industries have been stuck on C/C++ for decades. Industries, which are normally extremely late to any form of modern software development, are now practically jolting to get Rust integrated into their toolchains.
Similarly, languages without runtimes allow for building libraries that can be called from other programming languages, which so far meant C/C++. That’s a big reason why many widely used open-source projects like OpenSSL, SQLite, OpenGL etc. are written in those.
Even if, for whatever reason, you think Rust is awful, getting a third language into the mix will allow many more people to build similar libraries, which is again really good for everyone.
In reality it means they’ll have to focus more on monetization, which will create more enshittification and not less.
What they need is to focus on enterprise functionality and privacy services. Maybe they could even do some sort of consulting
The problem is that building a plain simple browser doesn’t pay.
Maybe you have noticed it, but they try to widem their portfolio with paid services in the last couple of years. They have seen it coming.
I pay for at least one of their new services.
true true. good point
Maybe they can stop paying their CEO 7 million per year
That CEO quit earlier this year.
Maybe they can stop paying the next CEO 7 million
Maybe that CEO will also quit, because other companies offer them a higher salary.
It’s so easy to say they should just pay their CEO less. I mean, I get it, it’s a ridiculous amount of money that no one needs. But few people, who are qualified for that job, will just do it out of the goodness of their hearts for a salary far below industry standards.
This is predicated on the assumption that a CEOs skill is directly related to their salary.
This may or may not be the case.
I don’t think companies care. If you’re the CEO of Mozilla for a year without it imploding, you’re looking very experienced compared to some of the applicants that medium-sized Silicon Valley companies, like Dropbox, Evernote and such, will get.
And if Mozilla is only paying you $200k, they’ll consider it an absolute bargain to give you tenfold that.
This may or may not be the case.
This is predicated on the assumption that people just give money away easily.
I mean, they do… the higher my pay goes the less actual work I do (thinking is not actual work). And I keep getting promoted.
It’s dumb as hell but the only answer I’ve come up with is maybe not everyone can do the “stupid monkey shit” (i.e. “Someone get this herd of removed cats to do literally anything”).
I’m still waiting for evidence these CEOs do anything special… They get paid millions whether the companies they lead succeed or flounder
what the fuck could the CEO possibly do for a company that seems to just fucking zombie its way along, it does literally nothing and hasnt died, what could the CEO possibly be qualified for, it’s not like they’re gaining more market share from having a good product
They are the face of the company. If they are shit at communicating it will affect share prices which could end a company. They have to say the right things at the right times or they could potentially break laws by saying the wrong things.
There’s a lot of stuff they need to know and it’s not cheap to get that knowledge.
I love all the vague, ambiguous examples that say nothing.
I mean, the Intel CEO just literally quote the Bible… I guess you need a lot of education for that
Look, I understand you can’t get a high school dropout to do this job, but can they really justify earning 10000x more than other people in their companies? Are they 10000x more valuable??
I would imagine they can find a perfectly good CEO with something like a 500k/yr salary
Look, I understand you can’t get a high school dropout to do this job, but can they really justify earning 10000x more than other people in their companies? Are they 10000x more valuable??
Everyone here is talking past each other. There’s one crowd raging that CEOs do literally nothing, which is objectively untrue. When that is pointed out, people assume it to be an argument that these CEOs should be paid that much, which it’s not.
CEOs do things. If they’re non-shit, they’ll work significantly more hours than normal workers. No, that does absolutely not justify paying them magnitudes more. Their salaries are inflated, because publicly traded companies pay them that much.
Because while the effort a CEO puts in does not match the salary, the impact of their work does so more closely. As in, if they’re doing a bad job, the losses for the company will far exceed that salary.
More importantly, though, you want to keep one CEO for as long as possible. Even if their strategies are mediocre, constantly changing CEOs and therefore flipflopping between strategies is worse.
I can’t even tell you who the CEO is off the top of my head, if they’re the face of the company they’re doing a bad job
If they are shit at communicating it will affect share prices which could end a company. They have to say the right things at the right times or they could potentially break laws by saying the wrong things.
I notice, very glaringly, you didn’t mention a SINGLE thing about the company running efficiently, being profitable, producing something of value…
It’s not that the company could end if it doesn’t do well at what it does. It’s that the company could end if fickle, short-term focused asshats aren’t happy, and to keep them happy, you need a head fickle, short-term focused asshat at the helm.
God, I wish every company could just be private.
If that’s all there is, it sounds like you just need good legal and marketing department and someone who is attractive to deliver their script.
Is Mozilla even publicly traded?
Nope, they aren’t. The Mozilla Corporation, which does Firefox development and has the CEO position that everyone’s talking about, is a 100% subsidiary of the non-profit Mozilla Foundation, which is the organization that you can donate to.
i dont even fucking know who C suites at mozilla, i havent even googled their company in years to see if they even still exist. The only sign of life from this company is when i update my system and firefox also gets updated.
Also, it’s pretty cheap to get that knowledge, just don’t ever say anything that might lose you money.
But few people, who are qualified for that job
CEOs do nothing. They rake in millions, and hire advisors to tell them what to do
Literally the “consulting” industry. Making millions off of boneheaded C-suites who only know how to pay others to think for them.
Then go be a CEO
Need to be a nepo baby for that
So if there are CEOs who aren’t related to the board of directors, would that overturn your theory?
When did I say I want to be a parasite? I want to abolish CEOs, not become one of them
This shit right here is why we have capitalism and classes, peolle believing a ceo does something so special no one could possibly do it.
Shit might be true for things like software development, science stuff not some overpaid C level exec.
Oh noo.
So anyway
Oh no, I’m sure there won’t be anyone else who would like to be CEO if they quit.
Define “qualified”. Seriously try.
What I primarily meant by that, is that you do need some knowledge about financials. Which isn’t hard to learn, but the group of people willing to learn about it has very little overlap with the people willing to do something out of the goodness of their heart.
Solution: H1B visa CEO
Too expensive. Just get someone undocumented to do it for pennies, then threaten to deport them if they ask for a raise.
All it takes is one person
Maybe they can stop fiddling around with A I.
I know many of us don’t really like AI stuff. But it is just a door opener - and Mozilla needs funding like any company.
The product we sell at our company also has AI features. So far AI got us to talk to many more customers. So far none of them bought the AI stuff - even if in my opinion it would provide productivity increases. For us AI is a net positive: it cost us 2 weeks of writing gluecode, didnt sell at all, opened many doors for selling the main product.
- Mozilla will take money from Microsoft
- Firefox gets Office 365, Exchange, and Azure AD integration
- Netflix partners with Microsoft for advanced HD and DRM
- Microsoft and Mozilla partner to deliver Microsoft-enhanced Firefox for Windows
- ActiveX 2.0
I upvoted you but I wasn’t happy about it.
- Firefox requires an account to use
I threw up in my mouth a little
On what planet?
The one where it is controlled by Microsoft
I had a good chuckle at how well that all came together.
Okay, Satan.
ActiveX 2.0
Every old ass exploit and C2 targeting internet explorer is gonna dig itself out of the grave lmao
You should clarify which Mozilla you are mentioning. Mozilla Foundation or Mozilla Corporation?
Meh. It’s just Monopoly money /j
I hope Mozilla put most of that Google money into index funds or something. At least it didn’t go into paying the developers.
I haven’t confirmed this but according to this
They didn’t
That… Is a weird link that doesn’t open
If tech giants such as Google cannot be broken up, then their services should be required to be compatible and all data exportable to competitors. See the EFFʼs “Competitive Compatibility” concept. Buy a movie off Google’s YouTube but Google misbehaves? It must be exportable to a market competitor that you do support. Don’t like how Google handles your email? You should be able to switch your email address to a competitor just like you can change phone companies without losing your phone number.
Basically, if the US Federal government cannot discipline monopolies by breaking them up directly, they should break up the moats and walled gardens the monopolies built to keep customers locked in to maintain their monopolies. See Chokepoint Capitalism by Rebecca Giblin and Cory Doctorow.
In my utopia, Google would be forced to continue to pay out the current annual contract sum, at a decreasing percentage every year, for some number of years, to all affected companies, giving them the opportunity to divest and pivot.
The root problem doesn’t get fixed if the company with enough money to be a monopolist still has the money when this is “resolved.”
That is actually fairly smart. That way you don’t shock the ecosystem and effect the economy.
Firefox; being open source as it is; is not in danger.
lets fucking gooooo down with Booble!!
I’d pay for a browser if it wouldn’t sell my data.
I wouldn’t mind paying for a browser, but I’m not thrilled with the idea of subscribing to a browser.
people pay for a search engine, they would subscribe for a browser if it does what they want
if Mozilla bundles a private, secure and well packaged browser with a good search engine and this browser performs well while still providing the current version for free, there’s a certain minority who would be compelled to pay for it
atm, a browser and search engine is the major gateway to the internet, google has always done that at the cost of the user being a product, but it is now fucking that up and an alternative is needed, Mozilla could and should step in for that
If a product requires constant maintaining and updates through out its lifetime (like a browser) then it’s make sense for a subscription model.
If a product is released in a defective or malfunctioning state, it makes sense to assign liability to the manufacturer.
if it’s a single player game or a mp3 converter software, then what you’re saying is true.
But the internet is ever changing, new exploits and security vulnerabilities are discovered almost every day. New standards, new formats, new features released so often, even after the full release it still requires a full development team instead of just a few core maintenance staff.
Unless you want to pay for every major version upgrade or risk using an outdated browser, a browser subscription model doesn’t sound so bad.
the internet is ever changing
We have standard protocols for communication that are system agnostic and simple to implement.
Claiming you need a subscription to your browser to use the Internet is akin to claiming you need a subscription to your radio to listen to music.
Radio gets revenue from advertisers, just like Firefox gets money from Google. If you cut off that revenue and move the cost to the consumer, then there’s no “one time payment” that could support a radio station indefinitely, so does Firefox.
Radio gets revenue from advertisers, just like Firefox gets money from Google.
Private For-Profit Radio Stations get revenue from advertisement. But Sony and JBP and Bose aren’t advertisement based. Mozilla isn’t a content provider, its an application developer.
there’s no “one time payment” that could support a radio station indefinitely
There’s no “one time payment” that supports radio manufacturers indefinitely, either. So the companies develop new models and improved features, then retail them as replacements to the old device. But I’ve got an old machine from the 1980s that picks up AM/FM just fine. Sony isn’t out of business because it continues to exist.
maybe firefox forks already do the trick for you, i’ve heared there are plenty free ones. no need to pay, but maybe donations are very welcome. also a complete open source solution that is ready to be compiled by anyone could also be patched by anyone for himself to disable a feature heshex dislikes or such.
welcome to free adult world ;-)
Should we buy Mozilla?
Sure, how much could a web browser cost anyways? Here’s $20.
I would actually like to know how much it cost. And how much each user “should” pay so it becomes viable.
Though I would really think that public institutions should use firefox as a base browser instead of edge/chrome as being open source is usually a big plus for public agencies that need to really control what’s going on in their computers. And thus being a big source of financial support for firefox.
Someone above posted that they have a revenue of 593 million dollars per year. Presumably somewhat below that is going to be their yearly costs.
And according to this, they have around 160 million desktop Firefoxes showing up, which is going to be roughly how many active users there are.
593 / 160 would be $3.71 per user.
Maybe ad-supported version?
Like the Opera browser in 2000s.
Yes. Can we ? Eh …
I have a very mouthy Jackson who says no.
Which would ironically give even more monopoly over how the web is viewed to Google. Chrome and Firefox are just about the only two players in that space right now.
No they’re not, there’s safari and Edge. Don’t forget about opera.
:|
Sorry. I’m having a hard time keeping a straight face while I say that…
Opera and Edge are Chromium based. Even most of the alternatives are still Google controlled.
There are still versions of Opera with their own original engine going around.
Damn, Presto should return. That thing could load like 300 tabs in like 30, maybe 60 MB RAM tops.
Edge is a Chrome clone. Safari exists purely because of Apple. It is designed to not work well so you get trapped in the Apple app store.
Lightweights!
Am I the only one who never realized how dead inside the lady looks in the first slide?
Oh no, they will have to stop paying their CEO a ridiculous amount of money. TRAGIC.
Why does this percentage keep going up? Who keeps inflating the numbers? The first time I heard about this, it was like 64%. Then 77%. Now 81%?! Tomorrow, I’m gonna see a meme stating 97% of Mozilla’s income is from Google.
The actual numbers are $510MM/y from Google out of $593MM/y total revenue. So 86% if my math is correct. It’s bonkers how dependent on a single deal they are.
Are they dependent?
All I see is Google throwing a fuck tonne of money at them, and Mozilla spaffing it on pointless crap. They could probably raise more if Google went away, but they could also reduce spend significantly if they didn’t have stupid money get thrown at them.
Its like giving your kids $100 a day. Sure they could blow it on pay to win games, but what would happen if you reduced it to $10 a day? Probably nothing of note, just less spending on crap.
They could probably raise more if Google went away
I’m interested in how you think Mozilla would raise more than half a billion dollars if they didn’t take any money from Alphabet/Google. Genuinely. In what ways could Mozilla raise money that they’re not doing right now?
Fire their overpriced C-Suite for starters
That’s not what I said. Their fundraising is dead because they don’t need to raise any more cash.
They literally throw cash away each month. Without Googles dump truck money I am sure they could increase fundraising to raise what they actually need to operate. Not that they could increase fundraising to match Googles current contributions.
I think it’s fair to think that they could refocus their efforts on the browser if they didn’t have that large slush fund from Google. I don’t think “hey we don’t take Google money anymore” is going to lead to a lot of new donations, however.
Completely agree that it will require effort. But considering there is literally no way for me to donate, the bar for improvement is stupidly low.
What would be nice is that having a better feedback loop could encourage community engagement. Having proper profiles would be my request.
As I understand, their fundraising is dead / not used for Firefox, because covering costs with them is not considered viable.
More specifically, they currently have around 200 million active users, according to this: https://data.firefox.com/dashboard/user-activity
So, even if they somehow cut costs, they’ll still basically need all users to donate $2 per year. Or 1% of users to donate $200 per year. That’s just more than realistically comes in through donations…
I can’t say if they are completely dependent without seeing where the other ~$80MM comes from. If they come from products that require significant staff and server cost, then yes they are fully dependant. If the $$ comes from something they can keep going for much less than ~$80MM, then they are not.
Um, it’s actually 114% of Mozilla’s total income.
