5 ms·

Yeah I get impatient with the "they need to make money" apologist argument. Oh, I get it, you're saying I should trust them because they're in it for the money

Yeah I get impatient with the "they need to make money" apologist argument. Oh, I get it, you're saying I should trust them because they're in it for the money like everybody else. Makes sense thanx.

FireBeyond 9y ago
Especially as a company with over $440M in assets, $330M of which is invested, with less than $60M/year in accounts payable and liabilities, that received $500M in royalties last year.
throwaway2048 9y ago
I think the real issue is mozilla essentially gets an infinite supply of money from parties like Google, no matter how shockingly incompetent they are.
marten-de-vries 9y ago
No, they're not in it for money. In the end (the foundation owns the corporation), Mozilla is a non-profit. They need money to achieve their mission though: maintaining a browser (in a landscape of evolving security challenges, performance & web standards) and research (e.g. projects like Rust, Servo & pdf.js originated that way) is not cheap. And currently it mostly comes from search engine deals. If they cannot get a similar one, it all collapses. I can see why they try to diversify their income. That said, I don't agree with the way they do it here.
- arkh 9y ago
  If they want to diversify they can work on other projects making money instead of fucking up their current userbase. IMO coding missile software to pay for those projects would be a lot more ethical than what they're doing. Yeah I consider the ad industry and its privacy crushing consequences worse than weapons almost never fired.
- jessaustin 9y ago
  "Non-profit" just means that shareholders don't profit. Nonprofits offer many opportunities for executives to personally profit.