As with Wikipedia, what I assumed how the organization operated and how it does is vastly different.<p>Basically everything here seems biazarre and makes trusting Mozilla very hard. Does anybody believe that they can stand up against Google, when Google, at any point they want to, could crash their whole operation?<p>I think it is quite likely that Google is keeping Mozilla afloat to avoid anti-trust allegations. Mozilla <i>existing</i> is worth a few hundred millions to Google. But Mozilla apparently has no real use for that money, they spend around 200M on software developmemt that means <i>one thousand</i> high paying software developer positions. And they could hire hundreds of more developers at any point.
Not going to argue the article, Mozilla should be doing better. But the author obviously is trying to push some politics not so subtly.<p><a href="https://old.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/muc18q/whats_the_deal_with_bryan_lunduke/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://old.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/muc18q/whats_the_dea...</a>
What a dumb hit piece. The author Cherry picked things to politicize.<p>How about the many millions of dollars the Mozilla Foundation spends on grands and research supporting so many individuals and organizations that help make the world a better place.<p>The full list can be found at <a href="https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2021/mozilla-fdn-990-ty21-public-disclosure.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2021/mozilla-fdn-990...</a>
Disgusting. I hope that Mozilla can re-focus on their original mission, and align their finances with building the best browser possible rather than wasting it on political activism.
Obviously relying on Google for money is fraught, but it isn't exactly clear where they'd get an equivalent source of income. Otherwise the subtext seems to be "I don't like their politics" which suggests maybe the author shouldn't donate any money to them. Personally I would be sad if Firefox was neglected, but that doesn't seem to be happening, as far as I can see.
From the report: During 2021, Mozilla paid $387 Thousand dollars to a Mckensie Mack Group whose LinkedIn page describes itself as “Black-led and nonbinary-led, MMG is a global social justice organization”.<p>And another $100K to an "Action research collaborative" that sounds like another social justice org?<p>WTF? This sounds like money laundering. I just want a good browser. I'm now regretful that I was donating regularly to Mozilla.
I sort of understand that Mozilla wants to care for the concept of an open internet which requires a lot more than just software development. I don't particularly understand or like the exact things they finance, but politics is a complex game in which you loose if you don't play.<p>What I absolutely fail to understand though is why they don't have long-term focus on diversifying income? All their alternative revenue sources are neglibile, and their strange attempts to provide paid products seem to be either hobby-projects of someone at mozilla (ex: pocket) or a cheap rebrand of a product (ex: vpn).<p>Am I wrong to expect more from such a technologically capable organisation?
Google is paying Mozilla to develop a web browser, to allow Google to develop a web browser without pissing off anti trust.<p>They're doing a merely ok job. It's not clear if that's intentional or because they're badly run.<p>There's a story there, this article seems to mostly be political winging.