".. we can't build a better browser without good information on how it's behaving in the wild." Who decides what is a "better" browser? 1. Is it the authors?

".. we can't build a better browser without good information on how it's behaving in the wild." Who decides what is a "better" browser? 1. Is it the authors? Do they write the software for themselves and agree to share it for free with anyone who may want to use it? 2. Is it the users? Do the authors solicit feedback from users to determine what users want? If users demanded a browser with no default telemetry, would the authors comply? 3. Is it third parties who have an interest in the behavior of users? For example, domain name industry, ad-supported businesses, their employees or advertisers themselves. Are the authors on salary, compensated indirectly from advertising revenue? Or does it come from somewhere else? 4. Is it all of the above? If we follow the money where does it lead? Whose decision of what is "better" is the most important? Mozilla is descended from a defunct 1990's company that aimed to license a web browser to corporations for a fee. It would have been very clear in that case who the browser was being written for. But today, it is not so clear who Mozilla is serving. It resembles some sort of "multi-stakeholder" project. It would be nice to have a browser that fits description 1 or 2. I believe there are plenty of folks, including some developers, who would appreciate a browser with no default telemetry. By virtue of the total absence of data collection, they might consider it "better" than alternative browsers that "need telemetry" for whatever reason.