2 ms·

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 Mon

by 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.

by Vinnl 7y ago

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.