4 ms·

Here's reality, though: The minimum annual cash burn to have a high quality browser engine, js runtime, and UI seems to be several hundred million dollars. FF

by x0x0 8y ago

Here's reality, though: The minimum annual cash burn to have a high quality browser engine, js runtime, and UI seems to be several hundred million dollars. FF is now utterly dependent on google for cash (and to be fair, google really needs FF to exist to pretend chrome isn't close to a monopoly). But who knows how long that will last and if/when google will exert control. One of the best things for Mozilla to do as an org is to figure out a non-google-dependent revenue stream. Privacy respecting ads are a good compromise.

mprev 8y ago
Yes but Mozilla does a lot more now than produce and maintain software. For example, in 2017 it spent $24m on its internet health project [1]. I’m making no judgement about that but there are two sides to fiscal longevity: getting more money is one, the other is to focus spending. 1. https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/annualreport/2017/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/annualreport/2017/
- kbenson 8y ago
  If Firefox proved they could survive with less money, they would likely be given less money. What's their incentive to do that? Firefox exists partially outside the regular market, so normal strategies may not apply quite the same way.
- x0x0 8y ago
  Oh, don't get me wrong: Mozilla wanking about with firefox phone from 2011 to 2015 while watching their browser marketshare crater from 30% to 15% is infuriating. However, they're the only alternative we've got.
- metajack 8y ago
  Those are entirely different buckets of money. Money the foundation spends on things like the IHR, do not come out of the revenue from the Google search deal. Mozilla Foundation and Mozilla Corp are two different entities (though MoFo owns MoCo). In the same way, donations to MoFo do not pay for browser developer salaries.
csande17 8y ago
I sometimes wonder why Firefox needs to be actively developed at all. The Web already has all the features it needs to be insanely successful, as evidenced by the fact that it's insanely successful. Why do we need to add more? Sure, security fixes are important, but it seems like browser developers spend more of their time on new features. Things like a new and exciting way to use asterisks in JavaScript, or another UI redesign, or an API for websites to interact directly with smart waffle irons. Maybe if Mozilla didn't develop these things, they wouldn't need to spend hundreds of millions of dollars a year on their browser.
- agwa 8y ago
  Even if you were right about that, Firefox doesn't really have a say. Chrome is intent on rapidly adding more Web features. If Firefox doesn't keep up with the pace, websites will stop working in Firefox because they use the new Chrome-supported features. This is a huge threat to Firefox, and has been made even worse by Edge adopting Chromium. Chromium now has huge market share, making any feature adopted by Chrome essentially mandatory for all browsers. This is why Mozilla needs a stable source of revenue - both for the engineering work to remain competitive, and for marketing so they can persuade users to use Firefox and lessen Google's influence over the Web.
  - zzzcpan 8y ago
    Is there a reason to keep doing that? I mean what is the point in reimplementing Chromium as Firefox? Shouldn't they just fork Chromium and stop wasting resources chasing it? And focus those resources on something that can give them competitive advantage over Google.
    - zaarn 8y ago
      If they fork Chromium then Google has won and we enter the next IE-era of the web; one browser engine to rule them all, terrible for everyone involved except Google.
  - csande17 8y ago
    I'm not sure I agree that Mozilla bears no responsibility for Web feature bloat. While you're right that Google currently appears to be stuffing every feature imaginable into their web browser at a breakneck pace in a desperate attempt to make it literally impossible for anyone else to write one, other browser vendors don't need to take it lying down. Imagine if Mozilla, Apple, and (pre-Chromium-fork) Microsoft all collectively agreed not to implement any more Web features: would websites really give up ~30% of their audience (including the lucrative iPhone crowd!) just to use some Chrome-only dingus? As a nonprofit, Mozilla is in a great position to lead a charge like that. But they've chosen instead to make the problem even worse. On top of everything Google does, Mozilla also creates and implements its own dubiously necessary features (WebVR comes to mind) and uses venues like the Mozilla Hacks blog to promote them to developers.

by x0x0 8y ago

mprev 8y ago

Yes but Mozilla does a lot more now than produce and maintain software. For example, in 2017 it spent $24m on its internet health project [1]. I’m making no judgement about that but there are two sides to fiscal longevity: getting more money is one, the other is to focus spending. 1. https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/annualreport/2017/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/annualreport/2017/

kbenson 8y ago
If Firefox proved they could survive with less money, they would likely be given less money. What's their incentive to do that? Firefox exists partially outside the regular market, so normal strategies may not apply quite the same way.
x0x0 8y ago
Oh, don't get me wrong: Mozilla wanking about with firefox phone from 2011 to 2015 while watching their browser marketshare crater from 30% to 15% is infuriating. However, they're the only alternative we've got.
metajack 8y ago
Those are entirely different buckets of money. Money the foundation spends on things like the IHR, do not come out of the revenue from the Google search deal. Mozilla Foundation and Mozilla Corp are two different entities (though MoFo owns MoCo). In the same way, donations to MoFo do not pay for browser developer salaries.

csande17 8y ago

I sometimes wonder why Firefox needs to be actively developed at all. The Web already has all the features it needs to be insanely successful, as evidenced by the fact that it's insanely successful. Why do we need to add more? Sure, security fixes are important, but it seems like browser developers spend more of their time on new features. Things like a new and exciting way to use asterisks in JavaScript, or another UI redesign, or an API for websites to interact directly with smart waffle irons. Maybe if Mozilla didn't develop these things, they wouldn't need to spend hundreds of millions of dollars a year on their browser.

agwa 8y ago
Even if you were right about that, Firefox doesn't really have a say. Chrome is intent on rapidly adding more Web features. If Firefox doesn't keep up with the pace, websites will stop working in Firefox because they use the new Chrome-supported features. This is a huge threat to Firefox, and has been made even worse by Edge adopting Chromium. Chromium now has huge market share, making any feature adopted by Chrome essentially mandatory for all browsers. This is why Mozilla needs a stable source of revenue - both for the engineering work to remain competitive, and for marketing so they can persuade users to use Firefox and lessen Google's influence over the Web.
- zzzcpan 8y ago
  Is there a reason to keep doing that? I mean what is the point in reimplementing Chromium as Firefox? Shouldn't they just fork Chromium and stop wasting resources chasing it? And focus those resources on something that can give them competitive advantage over Google.
  - zaarn 8y ago
    If they fork Chromium then Google has won and we enter the next IE-era of the web; one browser engine to rule them all, terrible for everyone involved except Google.
- csande17 8y ago
  I'm not sure I agree that Mozilla bears no responsibility for Web feature bloat. While you're right that Google currently appears to be stuffing every feature imaginable into their web browser at a breakneck pace in a desperate attempt to make it literally impossible for anyone else to write one, other browser vendors don't need to take it lying down. Imagine if Mozilla, Apple, and (pre-Chromium-fork) Microsoft all collectively agreed not to implement any more Web features: would websites really give up ~30% of their audience (including the lucrative iPhone crowd!) just to use some Chrome-only dingus? As a nonprofit, Mozilla is in a great position to lead a charge like that. But they've chosen instead to make the problem even worse. On top of everything Google does, Mozilla also creates and implements its own dubiously necessary features (WebVR comes to mind) and uses venues like the Mozilla Hacks blog to promote them to developers.