In a previous thread (these "Mozilla is dead" threads appear perennially) someone pointed out that Firefox's apparent marketshare drop is potentially indistinguishable from their deployment of privacy-improving features, including stubbing out Google Analytics when "Enhanced Tracking Protection" is enabled.<p>I'm a Firefox user, so I have a vested interest in Mozilla's long term health and financial viability. But "marketshare nosedives" appears to be primarily an editorialization to fit the post's larger narrative.
I hope Mozilla leadership realises that Firefox is the only thing lending their company any credibility with their subscription products. Without Firefox, Mozilla VPN and any of their supposed "AI" products are just another also-ran in a saturated commodity market. That "subscription and advertising" line item on their balance sheet relies on Firefox, it doesn't replace it.<p>Firefox's nosediving market share should represent a catastrophic, company-endangering situation. It's depressing that they don't seem to understand that.
"The focus for the future of Mozilla -- according to Mozilla -- is primarily based around Artificial Intelligence services."<p>I sense a great disturbance in the Force...
Worrying about Mozilla CEO compensation when<p>1. Mitchell Baker is also chairwoman of the board of the Mozilla Foundation and is a founding member of Mozilla, and receives no stock compensation because there is none to give,<p>2. Google can definitionally outspend Mozilla on browser development and has used that to cement their market position for over a decade now, and<p>3. as long as Google is the primary source of Mozilla funding, they can (effectively) kill Firefox at any time, and diversifying revenue / building up a war chest of funds is the only defense against that,<p>just seems silly to me.<p>As a former Mozillian I don't like the choices Mitchell Baker has made (AI and services are poor plays IMO) but the obsession with CEO compensation at Mozilla has always smelled less like a genuine concern for alternatives to Chrome and more like holding a smaller player to an unreasonable standard.<p>A more interesting comparison would compare these numbers to the head of Chrome's compensation, and more specifically Chrome's spending and revenue vs Firefox's.
Governments have been creating web/native/mobile apps for some time, which is a trend that continues to accelerate. Firefox continues to limp along but seemingly can't even retain its most ardent fans, and there's no sign of this changing.<p>What if the EU were to fork Firefox (Openfox?) and fund its evolution of a privacy-first alternative? Among other benefits, this would:<p>• Help ensure that key digital infrastructure is not solely dependent on non-European entities.<p>• Balance the US's outsized role as a gatekeeper for web innovation.<p>• Support the EU's user privacy and data protection values and comply-by-default with EU regulations.<p>• Help bolster Europe's economic and tech independence.<p>What else?
Reposting what I wrote in 2021 [1], still holds true.<p><i>And here is another unpopular opinion. I dont care if her salary is 3 million or even 30 million. If she had managed to bring Firefox to 60% marketshare and bring down Chrome on Desktop, would you have still complained if she was paid 30 million?<p>The problem is Mozilla is in such a bad shape and she is under performing as a CEO.<p>Unfortunately people dont learn much from history. And history dictate the only way to solve this problem is that Mozilla think of it as a problem. Otherwise its current status at 10% marketshare is enough to sustain the operation. Nothing bad enough is happening, no interest or incentive for changes. Inertia. Let's keep thing this way.<p>So yes, it is counter intuitive. The only way to save Mozilla ( or change Mozill's direction, I guess the word "save" is a hyperbole, at least from Mozilla's perspective. ) isn't trying to get more user to use it. It is actually push people to abandon it.</i><p>[1] <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28961544">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28961544</a>
Direct link to the reports:<p><a href="https://stateof.mozilla.org/" rel="nofollow">https://stateof.mozilla.org/</a><p>2022 Audited Financial Statement: <a href="https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2022/mozilla-fdn-2022-fs-final-0908.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2022/mozilla-fdn-202...</a><p>2022 Form 990: <a href="https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2022/mozilla-fdn-990-ty22-public-disclosure.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2022/mozilla-fdn-990...</a>
Wikimedia compensation is far better than what Mozilla is doing, nobody there receives > 1million$ in compensation: <a href="https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_salaries" rel="nofollow">https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_salarie...</a><p>while in Mozilla a single person is receiving close to 7million dollars!
I believe the fault lies at the board. They are the ones who approve compensation for the CEO. The problem is it’s unclear to me how competent/independent the members of the board are. I don’t see any face I recognize, but that obviously means nothing. Do people know if there are any good people on the board?<p>The best option would be for someone to fork Firefox and perhaps get it sponsored by Apache foundation. Then we can write it off.<p>Firefox is my daily browser across multiple platforms, and I worry for its future.
Maybe, at some point the Mozilla Foundation will acknowledge Firefox as the fundamental pillar of their relevance and existence ... instead of seeing it as this vestigial organ that they can't 'cut loose'[1] ... one can hope.<p>[1] <a href="https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/mark-surman-mozilla-25-years/" rel="nofollow">https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/mark-surman-mozilla-25-y...</a>
People complain all the time and nothing changes. She doesn't care and in a month everybody forget that Firefox is in dire straits.<p>Google's Chromium project push new standards every month or so, and web developers are fast to adopt these standards and don't care about testing it on Firefox anymore. The Chromium monopoly is already a reality.
As long time Mozzilla user since the Navigator days, it is sad to see Firefox going down, while the CEO gets money for nothing.<p>When Firefox is no more, the legacy will be Thunderbird and Rust, not the Web browser, and despite how they won over PNaCL, it is Chrome that drives WebAssembly.
Not saying the complaint isn't valid, but I see things trending in the right direction. Firefox is fast, support for add-ons is coming (back) to mobile, and Firefox is as free and open and modifiable as always. If we're talking things that are in managers hands, like features and usability, as opposed to user numbers, then the last year was good.
(×_×) We need a modular, open source browser engine desperately; one not beholden to Google or any other for profit entity. The Servo people are trying, but the task is enormous. I don't know what can be done (｡•́︿•̀｡)
If they are prioritizing projects other than Firefox, what are people’s favorite non-Firefox, non-Chrome/Chromium (for obvious reasons) browsers?<p>Firefox makes a lot of noise about their anti-tracking and pro-privacy features. I liked Suckless surf, but missed the granular JavaScript setting of noscript. And, I have no idea, but Privacy Badger must be doing something I guess?
I guess the question - why can't Mozilla (or at least Firefox) - be like the Linux kernel or the Debian group? They are healthy open source projects, some funding from industry, sure, but they're staying current in the latest tech/comp-sci tech while not beholden to anyone in particular (I hope)<p>Organizational baggage?
Honest question: I use (and like) Firefox and rely on many of its features including password vault. However, should I be looking elsewhere? Any suggestions? (I avoid Google Chrome.)
It's almost as if a competing browser co is paying majority of their salaries and lobbying the CEO to kill the only remaining competition by slowly stopping all development.
I think the narrative provided in the article is actually reasonable. Firefox is practically dead, but even worse with Firefox almost all of Mozilla's income stream is literally <i>just a Google handout</i>.<p>The article states that revenue from services is up from 50 to 70 million. Still only about 10% of what they make from Firefox, but at least that's <i>independent revenue, going up</i>, directly from consumers.<p>Can someone please provide a rational argument, not a kneejerk emotional response why focusing on the source of revenue that is Google independent and growing is not the better way to fulfill their stated mission, that is creating a privacy respecting and open web? People are acting like Ahab and the whale when it comes to Firefox, there's no point in dumping more resources into the thing if's going down anyway and makes you subservient to a tech monopolist.
What's the over/under on Firefox still existing in 2030? Man that's a depressing thing to have to say but that feels like that's where things are heading?
Google is just funding mozilla to avoid the legal headache (browser monopoly), right?<p>For all those being annoyed by the decreasing usage of FF in favor of Chrome: If Mozilla & FF died, couldn't this create better scenarios?<p>Idea:
Google might get into legal trouble, maybe even having to lose chrome, opening the market or Chrome / Chromium base for a fresh start?
This isn't new [1].<p>There's a real opportunity here. People are increasingly distrustful of, say, Google. I use it because it's still performant, cross-platform and has sync. But , like many, are increasingly leerly abou tGoogle using Chrome's position to, say, attack ad blockers.<p>The ultimate question is how does and should Mozilla fund itself? Well, if the CEO can't lay out a vision and deliver on that then why are they still there? Why is their compensation still increasing despite not performing?<p>Instead we get platitudes about "add on services". Previously it was "VPN services" and now it's "AI services"? It's almost like the future revenue plan is always "<current buzzword> services".<p>[1]: <a href="https://calpaterson.com/mozilla.html" rel="nofollow">https://calpaterson.com/mozilla.html</a>
While I don't feel as if I have enough knowledge to make a comment specifically about how the Mozilla Foundation is run, I do feel as if Firefox's uncertain future resulting from poor adoption is something that should be given priority given that the web browser market is roughly Firefox vs everything else.<p>I use both Ungoogled Chromium and Firefox on my main workstation, which runs Fedora Asahi Linux exclusively on Apple Silicon (I never boot into macOS), and should add that on aarch64, my overall experience with every Firefox build has been stellar. Unfortunately, I can't say the same about Ungoogled Chromium.
This just saying, "Bob's rent skyrockets, while his grocery purchasing plummets." No <i>sht</i> Bob is having a hard time buying groceries.<p>CEOs are important -- not intrinsically, but to survival. Their actions are important. Their decisions are important. Their attention is important. And there's a lot of competition for good ones. If you get a bad one, it's an existential crisis, and the good ones can always go elsewhere for more money.<p>Want to help nonprofits and small corps? Support the passage of laws limiting CEO pay.
Source: <a href="https://stateof.mozilla.org/" rel="nofollow">https://stateof.mozilla.org/</a><p>Is it normal for Non-Profits to not the include Income Statement in their financials? Because Mozilla doesn’t.<p><a href="https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2022/mozilla-fdn-2022-fs-final-0908.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2022/mozilla-fdn-202...</a>
Owncloud was forked to become Nextcloud and seems to have gotten better for it.<p>Openoffice was forked to become Libreoffice and seems to have gotten beter for it.<p>Time to fork Firefox [1] and take over where Baker dropped the ball because she thought the rules of the game could be changed to make it no longer necessary to play to win.<p>[1] <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38533785">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38533785</a>
Most companies die from slow starvation instead of murder.<p>IMO Mozilla is default dead and so is Firefox. With 500M of revenue, ~$7M going to CEO is >1% of revenue being sucked by CEO (not even net profit).<p>From a distant observer, Mitchell is a parasite.<p>The Chromium Hegemony is winning and Safari is barely alive.
discussed a few months ago:
<a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37015592">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37015592</a><p>Moz seems like a controlled opposition at this point.
Mitchell Baker needs to go. I hold her responsible for much of Firefox's slide in use over the years. She keeps pulling in a larger and larger salary for doing less and less.
The best thing to do at this point is use one of the privacy-enhanced forks, Firefox is desperate for more cash and will sell you, the user, out for a song.
tl;dr: we need an open source browser & infra, and there are candidates.<p>How c[u]ome, with all the power of open source we still do not have an open browser with an open sync infra?.<p>emotions aside, this is dumb (some words cannot be used).
Why can't we, as a group, stop complaining, and actually devote real time hours into developing the serenity browser to work as chrome / brave / firefox?<p>Why can't we, use the knowledge we have gained from IPFS and actually work on a distributed no server sync platform?<p>Why can't I, simply stop using the mentioned above software and devote myself into something more hopefully reliable?<p>I think it is hard to lose your daddy and leave home, but it's something we all have to do in order to actually grow.
This Mozilla "situation" comes up here from time to time, unfortunately as a long time Firefox user all I have to say is: Mitchell Baker and their clique will only leave when Mozilla is completely dead and even by that time she'll retire and will make a wonderful post about her "legacy" in opensource and the Web.<p>I will not go further because it will turn into an all-bashing post, but Mozilla ( as you like to think of it ) is dead and has been dead for a long time.<p>Deal with it.
> Mozilla intends to focus on A.I. -- so we can expect more A.I. investment, and possible A.I. services, in the year ahead.<p>back in March Moziila announced $30m for A.I. services [0]<p>what's weird is that wound business strategy is usually "what are our core strengths?" instead we get<p>> A little over two years ago, Mozilla started an ambitious project: deciding where we should focus our efforts to grow the movement of people committed to building a healthier digital world. We landed on the idea of trustworthy AI. [1]<p>OK, despite my skeptisism what's the plan<p>> Mozilla.ai’s initial focus? Tools that make generative AI safer and more transparent. And, people-centric recommendation systems that don’t misinform or undermine our well-being. We’ll share more on these — and what we’re building — in the coming months. [0]<p>While that's all very nice, who on earth are the customers? Is there a eshop somewhere lamenting "our recommendation system is not people centric" ?<p>[0] <a href="https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/introducing-mozilla-ai-investing-in-trustworthy-ai/" rel="nofollow">https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/introducing-mozilla-ai-i...</a><p>[1] <a href="https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/mozillas-vision-for-trustworthy-ai/" rel="nofollow">https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/mozillas-vision-for-trus...</a>
Wow, nearly 7 million. That’s incredible for a nonprofit CEO. Much, much large orgs have CEOs that get paid 10-15x less. This should be criminal. The taxpayers are being stolen from.