6 ms·

The State of Mozilla

47 points by atularora 16y ago

Encosia 16y ago
This stood out to me in the sustainability document: > As noted last year, the IRS has opened an audit of the Mozilla Foundation. We do not yet have a good feel for how long this process will take or the overall scope of what will be involved. With so much flagrant fraud and evasion dangled in front of our faces every day in the news, it's great to know this is how the IRS is allocating its resources.
- tmiller 16y ago
  I remember hearing that the structure they have, where a for-profit company (Mozilla Co) is owned by a non-profit (Mozilla Foundation) is highly unusual, which of course is going to attract scrutiny.
  - protomyth 16y ago
    Mayo does the same thing.
    - Perceval 16y ago
      Ikea is also a corporation owned by a charity: http://www.economist.com/node/6919139?story_id=6919139 http://www.economist.com/node/6919139?story_id=6919139
      - bryanlarsen 16y ago
        Wow. After reading that, I'm not surprised that they want to audit the Mozilla structure. To summarize: the charity that owns IKEA is almost certainly just a tax dodge.
  - wmf 16y ago
    IIRC the current structure is a response to the IRS audit. Originally, Google paid MoFo directly. Now Google pays MoCo, presumably MoCo pays taxes, and any surplus money can go to MoFo to be used tax-free.
  - celticjames 16y ago
    I don't think that's the issue. I think it is more of a case of whether or not the corporation and the foundation really are two separate organizations. Until the new director of the foundation arrived (Mark Surman), the foundation didn't really appear to do anything. To the IRS, this may have looked like the foundation was only a tax shelter for the corporation and not a real thing. Now there's all this Drumbeat Festival stuff, etc.. coming out the foundation. Clearly they are trying to position themselves as a non-profit that advocates for the open web rather than just a company that gives away a browser. Owning a corporation that gives away a browser is just part of that cause. Hopefully that's how the IRS sees it. Sadly, I don't think a lot of the foundation sponsored stuff really ever links up with anything happening on the corporate side. At least from the outside, it still looks like the corporation wags the foundation and not the other way around. Edit: Yes, the foundation does own the corporation.
    - techno-fitness 16y ago
      Spot on. For added weirdness, they've split the parts of the child company into another one called Mozilla Messaging that gives away Thunderbird. I definitely agree that the corporation appears to wear the pants in the relationship, but there is still a lot of link up that is organized by the foundation, especially with the Mozilla developer network stuff.
- protomyth 16y ago
  The IRS is probably a little concerned with a 501(c)(3) earning so much revenue from "search royalties". It has the feel of a real business not a traditional non-profit.
  - SkyMarshal 16y ago
    Mozilla, and organizations like it, weren't involved in blowing up the global economy either. The IRS has its priorities all wrong, and really needs to focus its audits first on domains where fraud can and has lead to asymmetrically negative results, like the financial industry. Once they take care of those, then they can turn their attention to companies and domains where the consequences of fraud are much more localized.
    - protomyth 16y ago
      The type of fraud that brought it all down was more the domain of the SEC. Money is money to the IRS. There only concern is filling the coffers.
matthew-wegner 16y ago
It's fascinating that "underdog" is such a big part of their identity. Don't they make $80+ million a year in revenue?
- wmf 16y ago
  Considering the skepticism that Canonical gets from the community, Mozilla's underdog positioning is really smart. (And now it's >$100M. Please donate!)
- mbrubeck 16y ago
  Let's look at the top competitors in the browser market, by revenue: Apple: $65.2 billion/year Microsoft: $62.5 billion/year Google: $23.7 billion/year Mozilla: $0.1 billion/year Mozilla's revenue might seem high out of context, but we certainly are not going to win any browser wars by outspending this competition.
sudonim 16y ago
Like so many people I know, I've ditched Firefox in the past few months for Chrome. I loved Mozilla Firefox when it came out but the fast couple of versions they seem to have lost the plot. I looked in "A competetive landscape" for some insight on how they would seek to be the best browser again. http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/annualreport/2009/a-competitive-world.html http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/annualreport/2009/a-compet... But, all I see is horn-tooting. Where's the Mozilla I fell in love with?
- zcid 16y ago
  I have been extremely impressed with the Firefox 4 betas. They have definitely restored my faith as it were. Previously, I had almost fully converted to Chrome myself.
- SkyMarshal 16y ago
  I read that page and can't imagine what else they could possibly say. What were you hoping for?
- QE2 16y ago
  I, too, would like to see Mozilla become more agile and cutting-edge. I still hold respect for them, though, as the organization that taught the masses "IE != The Internet".
- d0m 16y ago
  I think that what is so great about chrome is the lack of useless feature and focus on the core ones (speed to name only this one). Mozilla, by contrast, seems to say Yes to everything and by any means become really slow. On my mac, I need to test on both browser and the speed difference between those browsers is phenomenal. Seriously, if firebug was on chrome, I wouldn't need firefox anymore. (I'm a bit sad about that)
  - paulirish 16y ago
    > Seriously, if firebug was on chrome, I wouldn't need firefox anymore. I'm working with the Chrome Dev Tools team to make them even better. Would love to hear more from you on what needs to happen. :)
briandon 16y ago
The purple, blue and green-suited mascots in the foreground of the photo on the linked page are neat-looking. Photo: http://www.flickr.com/photos/gen/4784616521/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/gen/4784616521/ More photos featuring the same characters from the event: http://www.flickr.com/photos/fjoerfoks/5142119185/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/fjoerfoks/5142119185/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/fjoerfoks/5142111909/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/fjoerfoks/5142111909/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/fjoerfoks/5142708312/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/fjoerfoks/5142708312/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/fjoerfoks/5142103071/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/fjoerfoks/5142103071/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/fjoerfoks/5142096079/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/fjoerfoks/5142096079/
juddlyon 16y ago
I was curious where their company pic was taken. It's Whistler, British Columbia. Looks gorgeous.

47 points by atularora 16y ago

This stood out to me in the sustainability document: > As noted last year, the IRS has opened an audit of the Mozilla Foundation. We do not yet have a good feel for how long this process will take or the overall scope of what will be involved. With so much flagrant fraud and evasion dangled in front of our faces every day in the news, it's great to know this is how the IRS is allocating its resources.

tmiller 16y ago
I remember hearing that the structure they have, where a for-profit company (Mozilla Co) is owned by a non-profit (Mozilla Foundation) is highly unusual, which of course is going to attract scrutiny.
- protomyth 16y ago
  Mayo does the same thing.
  - Perceval 16y ago
    Ikea is also a corporation owned by a charity: http://www.economist.com/node/6919139?story_id=6919139 http://www.economist.com/node/6919139?story_id=6919139
    - bryanlarsen 16y ago
      Wow. After reading that, I'm not surprised that they want to audit the Mozilla structure. To summarize: the charity that owns IKEA is almost certainly just a tax dodge.
- wmf 16y ago
  IIRC the current structure is a response to the IRS audit. Originally, Google paid MoFo directly. Now Google pays MoCo, presumably MoCo pays taxes, and any surplus money can go to MoFo to be used tax-free.
- celticjames 16y ago
  I don't think that's the issue. I think it is more of a case of whether or not the corporation and the foundation really are two separate organizations. Until the new director of the foundation arrived (Mark Surman), the foundation didn't really appear to do anything. To the IRS, this may have looked like the foundation was only a tax shelter for the corporation and not a real thing. Now there's all this Drumbeat Festival stuff, etc.. coming out the foundation. Clearly they are trying to position themselves as a non-profit that advocates for the open web rather than just a company that gives away a browser. Owning a corporation that gives away a browser is just part of that cause. Hopefully that's how the IRS sees it. Sadly, I don't think a lot of the foundation sponsored stuff really ever links up with anything happening on the corporate side. At least from the outside, it still looks like the corporation wags the foundation and not the other way around. Edit: Yes, the foundation does own the corporation.
  - techno-fitness 16y ago
    Spot on. For added weirdness, they've split the parts of the child company into another one called Mozilla Messaging that gives away Thunderbird. I definitely agree that the corporation appears to wear the pants in the relationship, but there is still a lot of link up that is organized by the foundation, especially with the Mozilla developer network stuff.
protomyth 16y ago
The IRS is probably a little concerned with a 501(c)(3) earning so much revenue from "search royalties". It has the feel of a real business not a traditional non-profit.
- SkyMarshal 16y ago
  Mozilla, and organizations like it, weren't involved in blowing up the global economy either. The IRS has its priorities all wrong, and really needs to focus its audits first on domains where fraud can and has lead to asymmetrically negative results, like the financial industry. Once they take care of those, then they can turn their attention to companies and domains where the consequences of fraud are much more localized.
  - protomyth 16y ago
    The type of fraud that brought it all down was more the domain of the SEC. Money is money to the IRS. There only concern is filling the coffers.

matthew-wegner 16y ago

It's fascinating that "underdog" is such a big part of their identity. Don't they make $80+ million a year in revenue?

wmf 16y ago
Considering the skepticism that Canonical gets from the community, Mozilla's underdog positioning is really smart. (And now it's >$100M. Please donate!)
mbrubeck 16y ago
Let's look at the top competitors in the browser market, by revenue: Apple: $65.2 billion/year Microsoft: $62.5 billion/year Google: $23.7 billion/year Mozilla: $0.1 billion/year Mozilla's revenue might seem high out of context, but we certainly are not going to win any browser wars by outspending this competition.

sudonim 16y ago

Like so many people I know, I've ditched Firefox in the past few months for Chrome. I loved Mozilla Firefox when it came out but the fast couple of versions they seem to have lost the plot. I looked in "A competetive landscape" for some insight on how they would seek to be the best browser again. http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/annualreport/2009/a-competitive-world.html http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/annualreport/2009/a-compet... But, all I see is horn-tooting. Where's the Mozilla I fell in love with?

zcid 16y ago
I have been extremely impressed with the Firefox 4 betas. They have definitely restored my faith as it were. Previously, I had almost fully converted to Chrome myself.
SkyMarshal 16y ago
I read that page and can't imagine what else they could possibly say. What were you hoping for?
QE2 16y ago
I, too, would like to see Mozilla become more agile and cutting-edge. I still hold respect for them, though, as the organization that taught the masses "IE != The Internet".
d0m 16y ago
I think that what is so great about chrome is the lack of useless feature and focus on the core ones (speed to name only this one). Mozilla, by contrast, seems to say Yes to everything and by any means become really slow. On my mac, I need to test on both browser and the speed difference between those browsers is phenomenal. Seriously, if firebug was on chrome, I wouldn't need firefox anymore. (I'm a bit sad about that)
- paulirish 16y ago
  > Seriously, if firebug was on chrome, I wouldn't need firefox anymore. I'm working with the Chrome Dev Tools team to make them even better. Would love to hear more from you on what needs to happen. :)

briandon 16y ago

The purple, blue and green-suited mascots in the foreground of the photo on the linked page are neat-looking. Photo: http://www.flickr.com/photos/gen/4784616521/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/gen/4784616521/ More photos featuring the same characters from the event: http://www.flickr.com/photos/fjoerfoks/5142119185/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/fjoerfoks/5142119185/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/fjoerfoks/5142111909/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/fjoerfoks/5142111909/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/fjoerfoks/5142708312/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/fjoerfoks/5142708312/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/fjoerfoks/5142103071/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/fjoerfoks/5142103071/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/fjoerfoks/5142096079/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/fjoerfoks/5142096079/

juddlyon 16y ago

I was curious where their company pic was taken. It's Whistler, British Columbia. Looks gorgeous.