4 ms·

This might be a sign for other employees that they need to focus on the things that can help Mozilla actually earn more and not just be a good guy. It may sound

This might be a sign for other employees that they need to focus on the things that can help Mozilla actually earn more and not just be a good guy. It may sound horrible, but considering their market share dynamics it makes sense.

Hydraulix989 7y ago
Remember the PR disaster they had when they bundled Pocket?
- ameshkov 7y ago
  Well, yeah, but focusing on earning does not mean they should start doing stupid things like that or adding a banner place to the start page. For instance, I would have considered paying for some premium features like additional privacy-related functionality or a VPN.
  - Yoric 7y ago
    Well, Mozilla is selling VPN services (in some countries). Are you a user?
- untog 7y ago
  Remember how it really didn’t matter at all in the long run? Even “disaster” is overselling it, I doubt many outside of HN circles are aware of it at all. Did they even lose a noticeable number of users from it? I don’t mean to imply that it was absolutely nothing, but the day Mozilla gives up launching new money making features because they’re terrified of the backlash from an absolutely tiny set of vocal users is the day they should give up trying to make money at all.
- endorphone 7y ago
  It wasn't so much of a disaster as a poorly-considered move. Speaking of Pocket, the Pocket you see on the fresh Firefox instance often provided me interesting, enjoyable articles. I went to sign up -- keep this good stuff coming, I thought -- to learn that Pocket demanded the social element, requiring that I link up with other Pocket users to drive my feed. Yet it had done a great job without that, and now had turned completely stupid. Which of course is by design to drive engagement, and it is absolutely obnoxious. Fuck social as a trend. If the only way a network gains users is by trying to make them pitchmen to other people, the network should die.
falcolas 7y ago
Employees don't drive a large company's focus. Driving the focus and direction of the company is the job of Mozilla's leadership. It's the directors' job to transform that direction and focus into actionable plans, the managers' job to drive those plans, and the employee's job to implement the plans. The employees, in all reality, don't have the power to drive the direction and focus of a large company; that's a benefit limited to startups and small businesses.
- asperous 7y ago
  Bower's 1970 book "Managing the Resource Allocation Process" discusses how in reality it's the other way around. Leadership often struggles to manage the company strategically. Often how employees are measured (in this case looking at who was let go) drives strategy. For example, if a company states privacy is it's #1 goal but bonuses on revenue generation, privacy efforts may go nowhere. With that in mind I think the parent comment is right. Leadership can say what they will but it's ultimately up to the people doing the work that drives the actual strategy.
  - falcolas 7y ago
    If it's the employees who are really driving the company strategy and focus... the board needs to fire the everliving fuck out of the leadership (and optionally find the nexii of communication at the employee level and promote them). It's quite literally leadership's primary job to set the strategy and focus of the company. It's what they're being paid to do. If they aren't doing that, they need to be let go.
    - asperous 7y ago
      It's a balance. Leadership does have a role here (and in some organizations like the military it is more strictly top down). But in most companies leadership can at most set goals, incentive behavior, and approve budgets and projects and it's ultimately up to the employees to implement and adapt strategy
      - 7y ago
rob74 7y ago
Or it might be a sign for other employees (typically the ones the company would actually like to keep) to start looking for other, safer, jobs. Layoffs are always bad for morale...

Hydraulix989 7y ago

Remember the PR disaster they had when they bundled Pocket?

ameshkov 7y ago
Well, yeah, but focusing on earning does not mean they should start doing stupid things like that or adding a banner place to the start page. For instance, I would have considered paying for some premium features like additional privacy-related functionality or a VPN.
- Yoric 7y ago
  Well, Mozilla is selling VPN services (in some countries). Are you a user?
untog 7y ago
Remember how it really didn’t matter at all in the long run? Even “disaster” is overselling it, I doubt many outside of HN circles are aware of it at all. Did they even lose a noticeable number of users from it? I don’t mean to imply that it was absolutely nothing, but the day Mozilla gives up launching new money making features because they’re terrified of the backlash from an absolutely tiny set of vocal users is the day they should give up trying to make money at all.
endorphone 7y ago
It wasn't so much of a disaster as a poorly-considered move. Speaking of Pocket, the Pocket you see on the fresh Firefox instance often provided me interesting, enjoyable articles. I went to sign up -- keep this good stuff coming, I thought -- to learn that Pocket demanded the social element, requiring that I link up with other Pocket users to drive my feed. Yet it had done a great job without that, and now had turned completely stupid. Which of course is by design to drive engagement, and it is absolutely obnoxious. Fuck social as a trend. If the only way a network gains users is by trying to make them pitchmen to other people, the network should die.

falcolas 7y ago

Employees don't drive a large company's focus. Driving the focus and direction of the company is the job of Mozilla's leadership. It's the directors' job to transform that direction and focus into actionable plans, the managers' job to drive those plans, and the employee's job to implement the plans. The employees, in all reality, don't have the power to drive the direction and focus of a large company; that's a benefit limited to startups and small businesses.

asperous 7y ago
Bower's 1970 book "Managing the Resource Allocation Process" discusses how in reality it's the other way around. Leadership often struggles to manage the company strategically. Often how employees are measured (in this case looking at who was let go) drives strategy. For example, if a company states privacy is it's #1 goal but bonuses on revenue generation, privacy efforts may go nowhere. With that in mind I think the parent comment is right. Leadership can say what they will but it's ultimately up to the people doing the work that drives the actual strategy.
- falcolas 7y ago
  If it's the employees who are really driving the company strategy and focus... the board needs to fire the everliving fuck out of the leadership (and optionally find the nexii of communication at the employee level and promote them). It's quite literally leadership's primary job to set the strategy and focus of the company. It's what they're being paid to do. If they aren't doing that, they need to be let go.
  - asperous 7y ago
    It's a balance. Leadership does have a role here (and in some organizations like the military it is more strictly top down). But in most companies leadership can at most set goals, incentive behavior, and approve budgets and projects and it's ultimately up to the employees to implement and adapt strategy
    - 7y ago

rob74 7y ago

Or it might be a sign for other employees (typically the ones the company would actually like to keep) to start looking for other, safer, jobs. Layoffs are always bad for morale...