4 ms·

That's one aspect. The deeper problem though, is that all the other products offered under the firefox brand are revenue failures, and no one really uses them b

That's one aspect. The deeper problem though, is that all the other products offered under the firefox brand are revenue failures, and no one really uses them beyond those who already use the firefox browser anyway. And that also explains the move. If they had a great second product, it would stand for itself, no matter the name. This move is a desperate attempt of saving a product that is becoming increasingly meaningless (the browser). - Firefox Monitor is simply a copy of HIBP, so no innovation here. It's a nice-to-have, and maybe would have it's use case if it was directly implemented inside the browser. - Firefox Lockwise doesn't have many use cases, and apparently also not many users. It is hard to know what kind of product it wants to be, or what kind of problem it wants to solve, as it is no competition for the more well known password management tools. - Firefox Send offers a quick way to send some files. Not bad, but already offered by countless competitors. So basically all three products are simply nice-to-have gimmicks, they are no stand-alone products and they certainly don't need a branding. They all have in common that in the current state you can't make any money with them, and Mozilla doesn't monetize them. What they do instead, is use each of the above services to get people to register for a Firefox Account, in an attempt to bring people into the "Firefox ecosystem". And this brings us to the problem with Mozilla. They want to be part of the big players, but they are just a 1000 employee company. They will never establish an ecosystem. They will never profit off the email addresses they collect with Send, Lockwise, and Monitor. They will not be profitable with Pocket. Everything they do to save their brand from going under is, at the moment, a money-losing business. Ironically the only product that is indeed at least a stand-alone product, namely Pocket, is not included in the re-branding.

Vinnl 7y ago
The products you mention are not meant to be money-makers. They all contribute to making internet users safe, which is part of Mozilla's mission. - Firefox Monitor reaches more people to minimise the adverse effects of data leaks, and helps internet users to prevent them in the future. Potential further integration with Firefox will help make this usable by more people. - Firefox Lockwise likewise can help getting the benefits of password managers to more people. - Firefox Send offers a quick and private way to send some files. They all also get people into the "Firefox ecosystem", reinforcing each other and giving Mozilla more leverage to help people be part of an open and accessible internet. In the end, all they need to do is remain solvent while doing so - not make money. So far, their search engine deal is sufficient for that. Hopefully they'll find more ways to diversify their income streams, but that should never be the the sole criterium of whether or not to run a service or produce a product.
- user17843 7y ago
  If the move is really not motivated by money, that would make it a very suicidal move, as this means the Foundation holds the Corporation hostage and uses the Corporation's long-term reputation to push products that no one really wants. It means the Foundation willingly puts the business at risk for political moves of "keeping users safe", which I don't really know what it means, but the image that comes to mind is that of pre-school children being protected by overly protective helicopter parents. I have long thought that Mozilla should essentially dissolve the Foundation, as the Foundation under Baker is abusing the work of the corporation. Unfortunately the Foundation holds all the power, which explains why Mozilla is behaving so erratically. The CEO is basically reporting to the Foundation, so the people who work for the corporation have a boss that is not acting independent, but in the interests of a shadowy group of people who don't even interact with the employees. Most of the people managing the Foundation get enourmous salaries, while some of them only appear on site a couple of times a year when it comes to voting.
  - Vinnl 7y ago
    > this means the Foundation holds the Corporation hostage It does; it's the sole owner. > It means the Foundation willingly puts the business at risk While I agree there might be a risk of diluting the brand, I wouldn't describe that as anything near "suicidal". In any case, the business exists to support the foundation, not the other way around. Mozilla shouldn't put its mission at risk for business moves of "making lots of money". > which I don't really know what it means In the case of Monitor and Lockwise: that their passwords do not get stolen or abused. In the case of Send: that their files are not stolen.

Vinnl 7y ago

The products you mention are not meant to be money-makers. They all contribute to making internet users safe, which is part of Mozilla's mission. - Firefox Monitor reaches more people to minimise the adverse effects of data leaks, and helps internet users to prevent them in the future. Potential further integration with Firefox will help make this usable by more people. - Firefox Lockwise likewise can help getting the benefits of password managers to more people. - Firefox Send offers a quick and private way to send some files. They all also get people into the "Firefox ecosystem", reinforcing each other and giving Mozilla more leverage to help people be part of an open and accessible internet. In the end, all they need to do is remain solvent while doing so - not make money. So far, their search engine deal is sufficient for that. Hopefully they'll find more ways to diversify their income streams, but that should never be the the sole criterium of whether or not to run a service or produce a product.

user17843 7y ago
If the move is really not motivated by money, that would make it a very suicidal move, as this means the Foundation holds the Corporation hostage and uses the Corporation's long-term reputation to push products that no one really wants. It means the Foundation willingly puts the business at risk for political moves of "keeping users safe", which I don't really know what it means, but the image that comes to mind is that of pre-school children being protected by overly protective helicopter parents. I have long thought that Mozilla should essentially dissolve the Foundation, as the Foundation under Baker is abusing the work of the corporation. Unfortunately the Foundation holds all the power, which explains why Mozilla is behaving so erratically. The CEO is basically reporting to the Foundation, so the people who work for the corporation have a boss that is not acting independent, but in the interests of a shadowy group of people who don't even interact with the employees. Most of the people managing the Foundation get enourmous salaries, while some of them only appear on site a couple of times a year when it comes to voting.
- Vinnl 7y ago
  > this means the Foundation holds the Corporation hostage It does; it's the sole owner. > It means the Foundation willingly puts the business at risk While I agree there might be a risk of diluting the brand, I wouldn't describe that as anything near "suicidal". In any case, the business exists to support the foundation, not the other way around. Mozilla shouldn't put its mission at risk for business moves of "making lots of money". > which I don't really know what it means In the case of Monitor and Lockwise: that their passwords do not get stolen or abused. In the case of Send: that their files are not stolen.