3 ms·

So the true benefit (to the community) is about $50M +- 10%. Heck, let's double it and call it $100M. The remaining expenses are fluff. In a corporation, one w

So the true benefit (to the community) is about $50M +- 10%. Heck, let's double it and call it $100M. The remaining expenses are fluff. In a corporation, one wouldn't be allowed to have non-essential expenses far exceed essential ones. In a non-profit, this philosophy needs doubling down on. I might be completely wrong, but Mozilla seems to be subsidizing the whims of a corrupt few at the top.

Immortalin 8y ago
Unlike at GOOG, MSFT, AAPL, Firefox isn't a loss leader or cost for Mozilla that can be subsidized by other products. Before criticizing their finances, go find an organisation that can afford to even build and maintain a full-fledge cross-platform browser with mobile support for less than that. Browsers are not simple things. You have to create an entire ecosystem of software and development tools to go along with it as well as maintaining full legacy support. Most software of similar complexity are all built by organisations with deep pockets.
st3fan 8y ago
"""So the true benefit (to the community) is about $50M +- 10%. Heck, let's double it and call it $100M.""" Your napkin "calculations" make zero sense. Go read the financial report. """Mozilla seems to be subsidizing the whims of a corrupt few at the top""" Ah it is clear what your real intent is.
- mankash666 8y ago
  "Ah it is clear what your real intent is." And what might that intent be? Are you suggesting Mozilla's top brass are bonafide angels doing God's work, above public scrutiny? They seem to position themselves as champions of the people and freedom, much like politicians