3 ms·

What percentage of Mozilla revenues are spent on Firefox development?

bzbarsky 8y ago
Per https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2017/mozilla-fdn-2017-fs-short-form-final-0927.pdf https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2017/mozilla-fdn-201... the breakdown seems to be as follows, rounding to the nearest percentage point: 50% directly spent on Firefox development. 12% spent on marketing (for comparison, rumor has it that Chrome's marketing spend is comparable to Mozilla's total revenue). 13% general and administrative expenses (this includes things like leases on office space, as far as I can tell from the usual definition of this category). 9% (of revenue; it's 36% of profit) income taxes. Which Mozilla apparently pays, unlike some other tech corporations. 16% money going into the rainy-day fund. Disclaimer: I work for Mozilla; pardon my snark about taxes. It's a sore point.
- ksec 8y ago
  Why do they pay tax when they are from what I know partly non profits?
  - bzbarsky 8y ago
    The Mozilla Foundation is a nonprofit. It is involved in a number of efforts, including policy advocacy, but does not itself develop a web browser. When people make donations to "Mozilla", those go to the Foundation. The Mozilla Corporation is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Foundation. It is _not_ a nonprofit and develops a web browser as well as most other software you would associate with "Mozilla". It pays dividends to the Foundation which the Foundation uses, alongside donations, to fund its work. The Corporation pays taxes on its profits, like any other corporation that is not explicitly a nonprofit. Note that I am explicitly not using "for-profit" to describe the Corporation, because profit is not the Corporation's goal. Again, the only shareholder in the Corporation is the Foundation, though they do have separate boards and somewhat separate governance.
    - jannes 8y ago
      And why do they need to be a corporation in the first place? Can't the foundation develop the web browser?
      - bzbarsky 8y ago
        I don't know the legal details, but I think there are constraints on how much revenue a nonprofit can receive from non-donation sources. So back when the initial search deal with Google was signed that created the initial funding stream for developing Firefox, the Foundation could not have signed it itself. Again, this is my best guess about an area way outside my expertise; you'd really want to talk to a lawyer specializing in this area for details.
- millstone 8y ago
  > rumor has it that Chrome's marketing spend is comparable to Mozilla's total revenue Google advertises Chrome on the Google start page, literally on google.com. I wonder how much that web real estate would go for if Google were to auction it off?

Per https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2017/mozilla-fdn-2017-fs-short-form-final-0927.pdf https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2017/mozilla-fdn-201... the breakdown seems to be as follows, rounding to the nearest percentage point: 50% directly spent on Firefox development. 12% spent on marketing (for comparison, rumor has it that Chrome's marketing spend is comparable to Mozilla's total revenue). 13% general and administrative expenses (this includes things like leases on office space, as far as I can tell from the usual definition of this category). 9% (of revenue; it's 36% of profit) income taxes. Which Mozilla apparently pays, unlike some other tech corporations. 16% money going into the rainy-day fund. Disclaimer: I work for Mozilla; pardon my snark about taxes. It's a sore point.

ksec 8y ago
Why do they pay tax when they are from what I know partly non profits?
- bzbarsky 8y ago
  The Mozilla Foundation is a nonprofit. It is involved in a number of efforts, including policy advocacy, but does not itself develop a web browser. When people make donations to "Mozilla", those go to the Foundation. The Mozilla Corporation is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Foundation. It is _not_ a nonprofit and develops a web browser as well as most other software you would associate with "Mozilla". It pays dividends to the Foundation which the Foundation uses, alongside donations, to fund its work. The Corporation pays taxes on its profits, like any other corporation that is not explicitly a nonprofit. Note that I am explicitly not using "for-profit" to describe the Corporation, because profit is not the Corporation's goal. Again, the only shareholder in the Corporation is the Foundation, though they do have separate boards and somewhat separate governance.
  - jannes 8y ago
    And why do they need to be a corporation in the first place? Can't the foundation develop the web browser?
    - bzbarsky 8y ago
      I don't know the legal details, but I think there are constraints on how much revenue a nonprofit can receive from non-donation sources. So back when the initial search deal with Google was signed that created the initial funding stream for developing Firefox, the Foundation could not have signed it itself. Again, this is my best guess about an area way outside my expertise; you'd really want to talk to a lawyer specializing in this area for details.
millstone 8y ago
> rumor has it that Chrome's marketing spend is comparable to Mozilla's total revenue Google advertises Chrome on the Google start page, literally on google.com. I wonder how much that web real estate would go for if Google were to auction it off?