19 ms·

That's the last call for anybody who thinks "it's good that Mozilla exists, and its mission is important, but I'm still using Chrome and derivatives". Mozilla c

by kvark 6y ago

That's the last call for anybody who thinks "it's good that Mozilla exists, and its mission is important, but I'm still using Chrome and derivatives". Mozilla can't exist solely because people think it has a good mission: it needs products that can pay the bills, or at least a large population of active users.

fsflover 6y ago
Also, please make a monthly donation to Mozilla if you can. You will contribute to saving the world. https://donate.mozilla.org/ https://donate.mozilla.org/
- pricecomstock 6y ago
  Do this! I procrastinated on switching from Chrome to Firefox for several months because I wasn't sure how much time and effort it would take. I set up a monthly donation to Mozilla during this time because it was easy and supported browser diversity. When I did finally switch, it turned out to be pretty easy and fast to transfer my bookmarks and passwords to Firefox, and there are some features like the built-in containers and add-ons like Tree Style Tab [0] that I find pretty valuable. [0] https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/tree-style-tab/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/tree-style-ta...
  - sjtindell 6y ago
    As some have pointed out above, the donations don’t go towards the browser by the way.
  - pbhjpbhj 6y ago
    TST is pretty valuable, is it supported at all by Mozilla? They seem not to make it easy to use it.
- mikece 6y ago
  I wonder if it would work for companies/services to offer perks to their users in exchange for donation to Mozilla? It's a weak example but if, for a $50 donation, you could get an icon on your HN profile -- and that shows up with your comments -- that you're a financial supporter of Mozilla that might drive donations. Granted, HN is a pretty small community but if, say, Facebook offered a perk level for supporting Mozilla it might get the network effect going perhaps.
  - marmshallow 6y ago
    Reddit has been somewhat successful in this regard, but it doesn't feel like the most stable business model.
  - wussboy 6y ago
    I would happily pay for a “premium” Firefox experience, even if that premium was only cosmetic. I have received so much value from Firefox over the years that it would be an honour to support them directly. Yes I know I can donate. But I want to pay, and that’s different somehow.
    - ForHackernews 6y ago
      Pay for their VPN! https://vpn.mozilla.org/ https://vpn.mozilla.org/
      - cure 6y ago
        Huh, no Linux (or Mac) version yet.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - dencodev 6y ago
        I signed up on day 1 and have really liked it. Works much better than the other vpn software I've had. And having it on Android too had been great
- pjmlp 6y ago
  Indeed, I do an occasional one every now and then, also for Thunderbird.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- dblohm7 6y ago
  While donating to Mozilla Foundation is a great cause [1], none of those funds go to funding Mozilla Corporation, and thus Firefox. If you want your funds to go toward MoCo (and thus Firefox development), your best bet is to subscribe to Mozilla VPN or Pocket Premium. [1] https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/initiatives/ https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/initiatives/
  - skyfaller 6y ago
    What does the Mozilla Foundation do if it doesn't develop Firefox? What do they spend their money on?
    - dom96 6y ago
      The salary of their senior employees[1] 1 - https://twitter.com/withoutboats/status/1217558588857544704 https://twitter.com/withoutboats/status/1217558588857544704
    - dx87 6y ago
      "The not-for-profit Mozilla Foundation supports open-source apps, web literacy curriculum, gender equality in tech and more." Found on https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/
    - dblohm7 6y ago
      https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/initiatives/ https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/initiatives/
  - staktrace 6y ago
    Money is fungible and dollars are dollars. Donating money to the Foundation means less of the Corporation's dollars have to go to supporting the Foundation (which they do via dividend payments), and so more of the Corporation's dollars go to Firefox.
    - dblohm7 6y ago
      I don't disagree with your concept in theory, but I also don't think there is any evidence to suggest that MoCo's trademark royalty payments (as IIRC that's how they are structured according the financial docs) to MoFo are adjusted based on MoFo's donations. Has that been mentioned in a meeting somewhere?
- shock 6y ago
  I wonder how many more people would donate if they knew the donation would be spent on making Firefox better and not on political activism.
  - input_sh 6y ago
    That doesn't work with their current structure. Foundation can receive donations, Corporation (itself a subsidiary of the foundation) can sell products (like Mozilla VPN).
    - shock 6y ago
      I wonder why the current structure is set up like that. I mean I don't think it's by accident – if it were set up like that by accident, surely, it could have been set up so people could direct donations directly at Firefox, if the CEO wanted that.
      - staktrace 6y ago
        The structure is set up that because it reflects the goals of Mozilla. Firefox the browser is not the end goal, it's a means to making the internet a better place. And that's what the Foundation is about. The corporation also pays dividends to the Foundation in order to help fund their efforts, because it's the Foundation's work that matters more (in the long term) than Firefox.
      - input_sh 6y ago
        It was established precisely so that the Corporation could pursue commercial operations that the Foundation legally couldn't before that, like business partnerships. Also Mozilla Foundation didn't qualify as a public charity since it received less than 1/3rd of its revenue via donations, though I don't know if it can be considered as one now (15 years after the split).
    - detaro 6y ago
      AFAIK non-profits can receive donations bound to a specific purpose - they just don't like the accounting headache?
- kgraves 6y ago
  While donations is a noble cause, it is a merely a drop in the ocean in the sea of money provided by Google. I wonder how much of their money is from donations though, does Mozilla release these numbers? > You will contribute to saving the world. Cringed a bit there but to each to their own.
- whywhywhywhy 6y ago
  After hearing how their corporation is run and what their execs spend on flights I'm not convinced they deserve it. Would rather they fall and a Phoenix rises out of the ashes for a second time.
giancarlostoro 6y ago
What kills me is when people say they use Chrome cause they don't trust Mozilla cause they embedded Pocket, but like Chrome is literally shoved with a million Google bits, even Chromium (the open source variant of Google Chrome which is the proprietary variant almost everyone installs) has Google crapware at a much larger scale. Mozilla's Firefox still feels like the lesser of the two evils. Edit: Added clarification about Chromium in case someone doesn't know the difference between Chromium (open source) vs Google Chrome (proprietary).
- lmedinas 6y ago
  Well i think Mozilla made very clear in the past that they did all they can to avoid Pocket to be evasive, and they made it to respect your privacy, in case you choose to use it. Of course you can always turn it off on your Firefox and never come across it again.
  - ForHackernews 6y ago
    I actively enjoy the Pocket integration, and I especially appreciate that it's suggesting things locally.
    - lmedinas 6y ago
      i also have no issues with it, if it was Google on the other hand i would probably disable it.
      - emptyparadise 6y ago
        If it was Google, I don't think you'd be able to.
  - jorvi 6y ago
    Somehow I feel like they could have avoided a lot of the backlash by renaming Pocket to Firefox Pocket (and thus being part of the Firefox Lockwise, Firefox Send, Firefox Sync etc suite). Instead of being / feeling like it’s own separate entity, it would have felt like an integral part of Firefox and thus enjoying the same privacy commitments. Even though I have Pocket disabled I don’t see much of a problem with it being in the browser. Isn’t it the same concept as Safari’s Reading List?
tmaly 6y ago
I donate $20 a year to Mozilla. I like the product. I hope they will keep focus making great browser and not get distracted with other things.
- dblohm7 6y ago
  While donating to Mozilla Foundation is a great cause [1], none of those funds go to funding Mozilla Corporation, and thus Firefox. If you want your funds to go toward MoCo (and thus Firefox development), your best bet is to subscribe to Mozilla VPN or Pocket Premium. [1] https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/initiatives/ https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/initiatives/
  - tmaly 6y ago
    Why not just offer a paid version of firefox then? That is really what I am offer. I don't use pocket or the VPN. I am willing to pay for a license if they continue to support the browser.
  - adsjhdashkj 6y ago
    This is actually sad - because i have limited use for either of those products. I likely want the VPN, but the value of having it on my phone is minimal to me. So while i think i will get the VPN, Pocket on the otherhand... is just meh to me. Products where i give some cloud company a ton of data, even if a good company, is just not an interesting problem for an honest company to solve. VPN is meaningful. Privacy in general is meaningful. Basic necessities like identity and communication are meaningful. Pocket is a really nice feature and a good UX, but just not interesting to me for the company goals. If it makes them money i'm happy, but it's just mildly more interesting to me than Mozilla Tiktok might be. I really hope they embrace the essentials to the web, and make a profit doing so. VPN seems like the right direction (though i'm dying for it on desktop). Pocket, less so... to me.
ecmascript 6y ago
Well, I want to use products from companies that I support. Mozilla is simply pushing too much politics that I strongly disagree with so I cannot support them. Brave is more private and respecting of the user, without the politics. It's all whats good with Mozilla leaving out the bad part. We could have had that in Mozilla today, but because virtue signaling they had to fire Brendan. This was probably the nail that lead to the coffin for Mozilla.
- jamienicol 6y ago
  "Firing Eich because of his political views is virtue signalling. I don't use Firefox because of Mozilla's political views."
  - ecmascript 6y ago
    Yes, do you have something to say or do you just like to quote me? I dislike companies that push a political agenda when the product or service itself has little to do with it. Privacy politics is fine, since that is a core part of Mozilla and Firefox and is very neutral since everyone can enjoy privacy. It is also part of the browsing experience. But pushing stuff like "white privilege" is just pushing away users like me. I use Brave, which is a company founded by Brendan and they don't push anti gay marriage politics on me even if that is what they may support. I just don't want that in my browser, it makes it a shitty experience. I don't understand what's hard to understand about that. I am also a web developer, so pissing me off will just result in me not testing the website in Firefox unless my users specifically requests it.
    - stnmtn 6y ago
      Is gay marriage anti-marriage to you?
    - AlexandrB 6y ago
      > I just don't want that in my browser, it makes it a shitty experience. How? If you don't care about politics, why would the politics of the organization running the browser affect your experience? Aren't you therefore virtue signalling (in this case for maximal free speech) by not using Firefox for political reasons? You haven't mentioned any product features/decisions made as a result of Mozilla's "virtue signalling" that affected the day-to-day experience of using Firefox.
rvz 6y ago
> Mozilla can't exist solely because people think it has a good mission: it needs products that can pay the bills, or at least a large population of active users. Absolutely. It has to stand on its own feet. Yet the only reason Mozilla is being kept alive is due to Google paying them to be the default search engine as part of a deal which is where the majority of their revenue is from. [0] Funny how their mission in "supporting internet privacy" also somehow means we must have deals with companies with the likes of Google who don't believe in Mozilla's own mission in order to survive. [0] https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/annualreport/2018/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/annualreport/2018/
- kvark 6y ago
  Well, you have to pick your battles, right? Maybe in some future when Mozilla has their own privacy-oriented open-source search engine, as well as an independent solid source of income, it would cease to sign contracts with Google. We aren't there yet, and may never be.
- auslegung 6y ago
  Wow. > Today, the majority of Mozilla Corporation revenue is generated from global browser search partnerships, including the deal negotiated with Google in 2017 following Mozilla’s termination of its search agreement with Yahoo/Oath (which was the subject of litigation the parties resolved in 2019.)
Barrin92 6y ago
>it needs products that can pay the bills the alternative is cutting the bills down somewhat. They made about 500 million in revenue in 2018, that's a healthy pile of cash. They've got a pretty huge engineering team and still development on their products is painfully slow. Just take the password manager they've been offering, it can't even import or export passwords and it misses half of the features any of the free competitors have. Adding even more stuff on top of it doesn't really give me a lot of confidence.
_the_inflator 6y ago
Yes, I agree. And the best product is a product that is useful to users. To me, Mozilla felt like an ideology and not so much like a browser. That repelled me from Mozilla. I was annoyed by their attitude and puns toward Chrome, especially the prefix war and the comparison between IE6 and Chrome. That was way too much for me, even though they had a point. Ironically one of their evangelists, that made a lot of noise against Chrome, later moved on to Microsoft. Microsoft has settled the prefix war in the way that they adopted Chromium. Coming from Netscape, which I loved, and going through almost every iteration of the Internet and browsers, Mozilla feels like Assembler or C to me. Yes, Assembler was cool when you had your C64, and yes, you can do everything with C, but that is not the point. People need to get a job done, and yes, automated Garbage Collection is ok most of the time - I mean you Java, C#, Python, etc. Maybe the comparison is not the best, but Mozilla's priority seems right this time: new product(s). Best of luck, Mozilla!
yamrzou 6y ago
I would pay for firefox if that's what it takes for it to continue existing and to be as good as other browsers.
shajznnckfke 6y ago
Is it actually true that Mozilla’s core business (develop Firefox, funded by search bar traffic) loses money? Or is the crises that this core business doesn’t generate enough surplus to fund the overhead of other activities that Mozilla engages in?
nikisweeting 6y ago
I subscribe to Pocket Premium to support Firefox development because I think it's critical for it to continue existing, but I use Chrome as my daily driver because it's almost 2x faster on my Mac. I give FF a try every few months and will happily switch if they ever manage to get it to having comparable performance to Chrome or Safari on my architecture.
rubber_duck 6y ago
I spent the last month switching to FF because Chrome is getting dog slow and I wanted to support it, despite multiple issues since switching I stuck along. Seeing this "diversification" strategy I just installed Edge and am giving it a try, FF wasn't a great experience but I was willing to stick with it to support Chrome alternatives - but it's obvious it needs a lot of work - and removing focus is a signal people should be moving off not coming back to it.

by kvark 6y ago

fsflover 6y ago

Also, please make a monthly donation to Mozilla if you can. You will contribute to saving the world. https://donate.mozilla.org/ https://donate.mozilla.org/

pricecomstock 6y ago
Do this! I procrastinated on switching from Chrome to Firefox for several months because I wasn't sure how much time and effort it would take. I set up a monthly donation to Mozilla during this time because it was easy and supported browser diversity. When I did finally switch, it turned out to be pretty easy and fast to transfer my bookmarks and passwords to Firefox, and there are some features like the built-in containers and add-ons like Tree Style Tab [0] that I find pretty valuable. [0] https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/tree-style-tab/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/tree-style-ta...
- sjtindell 6y ago
  As some have pointed out above, the donations don’t go towards the browser by the way.
- pbhjpbhj 6y ago
  TST is pretty valuable, is it supported at all by Mozilla? They seem not to make it easy to use it.
mikece 6y ago
I wonder if it would work for companies/services to offer perks to their users in exchange for donation to Mozilla? It's a weak example but if, for a $50 donation, you could get an icon on your HN profile -- and that shows up with your comments -- that you're a financial supporter of Mozilla that might drive donations. Granted, HN is a pretty small community but if, say, Facebook offered a perk level for supporting Mozilla it might get the network effect going perhaps.
- marmshallow 6y ago
  Reddit has been somewhat successful in this regard, but it doesn't feel like the most stable business model.
- wussboy 6y ago
  I would happily pay for a “premium” Firefox experience, even if that premium was only cosmetic. I have received so much value from Firefox over the years that it would be an honour to support them directly. Yes I know I can donate. But I want to pay, and that’s different somehow.
  - ForHackernews 6y ago
    Pay for their VPN! https://vpn.mozilla.org/ https://vpn.mozilla.org/
    - cure 6y ago
      Huh, no Linux (or Mac) version yet.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - dencodev 6y ago
      I signed up on day 1 and have really liked it. Works much better than the other vpn software I've had. And having it on Android too had been great
pjmlp 6y ago
Indeed, I do an occasional one every now and then, also for Thunderbird.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
dblohm7 6y ago
While donating to Mozilla Foundation is a great cause [1], none of those funds go to funding Mozilla Corporation, and thus Firefox. If you want your funds to go toward MoCo (and thus Firefox development), your best bet is to subscribe to Mozilla VPN or Pocket Premium. [1] https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/initiatives/ https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/initiatives/
- skyfaller 6y ago
  What does the Mozilla Foundation do if it doesn't develop Firefox? What do they spend their money on?
  - dom96 6y ago
    The salary of their senior employees[1] 1 - https://twitter.com/withoutboats/status/1217558588857544704 https://twitter.com/withoutboats/status/1217558588857544704
  - dx87 6y ago
    "The not-for-profit Mozilla Foundation supports open-source apps, web literacy curriculum, gender equality in tech and more." Found on https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/
  - dblohm7 6y ago
    https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/initiatives/ https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/initiatives/
- staktrace 6y ago
  Money is fungible and dollars are dollars. Donating money to the Foundation means less of the Corporation's dollars have to go to supporting the Foundation (which they do via dividend payments), and so more of the Corporation's dollars go to Firefox.
  - dblohm7 6y ago
    I don't disagree with your concept in theory, but I also don't think there is any evidence to suggest that MoCo's trademark royalty payments (as IIRC that's how they are structured according the financial docs) to MoFo are adjusted based on MoFo's donations. Has that been mentioned in a meeting somewhere?
shock 6y ago
I wonder how many more people would donate if they knew the donation would be spent on making Firefox better and not on political activism.
- input_sh 6y ago
  That doesn't work with their current structure. Foundation can receive donations, Corporation (itself a subsidiary of the foundation) can sell products (like Mozilla VPN).
  - shock 6y ago
    I wonder why the current structure is set up like that. I mean I don't think it's by accident – if it were set up like that by accident, surely, it could have been set up so people could direct donations directly at Firefox, if the CEO wanted that.
    - staktrace 6y ago
      The structure is set up that because it reflects the goals of Mozilla. Firefox the browser is not the end goal, it's a means to making the internet a better place. And that's what the Foundation is about. The corporation also pays dividends to the Foundation in order to help fund their efforts, because it's the Foundation's work that matters more (in the long term) than Firefox.
    - input_sh 6y ago
      It was established precisely so that the Corporation could pursue commercial operations that the Foundation legally couldn't before that, like business partnerships. Also Mozilla Foundation didn't qualify as a public charity since it received less than 1/3rd of its revenue via donations, though I don't know if it can be considered as one now (15 years after the split).
  - detaro 6y ago
    AFAIK non-profits can receive donations bound to a specific purpose - they just don't like the accounting headache?
kgraves 6y ago
While donations is a noble cause, it is a merely a drop in the ocean in the sea of money provided by Google. I wonder how much of their money is from donations though, does Mozilla release these numbers? > You will contribute to saving the world. Cringed a bit there but to each to their own.
whywhywhywhy 6y ago
After hearing how their corporation is run and what their execs spend on flights I'm not convinced they deserve it. Would rather they fall and a Phoenix rises out of the ashes for a second time.

giancarlostoro 6y ago

What kills me is when people say they use Chrome cause they don't trust Mozilla cause they embedded Pocket, but like Chrome is literally shoved with a million Google bits, even Chromium (the open source variant of Google Chrome which is the proprietary variant almost everyone installs) has Google crapware at a much larger scale. Mozilla's Firefox still feels like the lesser of the two evils. Edit: Added clarification about Chromium in case someone doesn't know the difference between Chromium (open source) vs Google Chrome (proprietary).

lmedinas 6y ago
Well i think Mozilla made very clear in the past that they did all they can to avoid Pocket to be evasive, and they made it to respect your privacy, in case you choose to use it. Of course you can always turn it off on your Firefox and never come across it again.
- ForHackernews 6y ago
  I actively enjoy the Pocket integration, and I especially appreciate that it's suggesting things locally.
  - lmedinas 6y ago
    i also have no issues with it, if it was Google on the other hand i would probably disable it.
    - emptyparadise 6y ago
      If it was Google, I don't think you'd be able to.
- jorvi 6y ago
  Somehow I feel like they could have avoided a lot of the backlash by renaming Pocket to Firefox Pocket (and thus being part of the Firefox Lockwise, Firefox Send, Firefox Sync etc suite). Instead of being / feeling like it’s own separate entity, it would have felt like an integral part of Firefox and thus enjoying the same privacy commitments. Even though I have Pocket disabled I don’t see much of a problem with it being in the browser. Isn’t it the same concept as Safari’s Reading List?

tmaly 6y ago

I donate $20 a year to Mozilla. I like the product. I hope they will keep focus making great browser and not get distracted with other things.

dblohm7 6y ago
While donating to Mozilla Foundation is a great cause [1], none of those funds go to funding Mozilla Corporation, and thus Firefox. If you want your funds to go toward MoCo (and thus Firefox development), your best bet is to subscribe to Mozilla VPN or Pocket Premium. [1] https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/initiatives/ https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/initiatives/
- tmaly 6y ago
  Why not just offer a paid version of firefox then? That is really what I am offer. I don't use pocket or the VPN. I am willing to pay for a license if they continue to support the browser.
- adsjhdashkj 6y ago
  This is actually sad - because i have limited use for either of those products. I likely want the VPN, but the value of having it on my phone is minimal to me. So while i think i will get the VPN, Pocket on the otherhand... is just meh to me. Products where i give some cloud company a ton of data, even if a good company, is just not an interesting problem for an honest company to solve. VPN is meaningful. Privacy in general is meaningful. Basic necessities like identity and communication are meaningful. Pocket is a really nice feature and a good UX, but just not interesting to me for the company goals. If it makes them money i'm happy, but it's just mildly more interesting to me than Mozilla Tiktok might be. I really hope they embrace the essentials to the web, and make a profit doing so. VPN seems like the right direction (though i'm dying for it on desktop). Pocket, less so... to me.

ecmascript 6y ago

Well, I want to use products from companies that I support. Mozilla is simply pushing too much politics that I strongly disagree with so I cannot support them. Brave is more private and respecting of the user, without the politics. It's all whats good with Mozilla leaving out the bad part. We could have had that in Mozilla today, but because virtue signaling they had to fire Brendan. This was probably the nail that lead to the coffin for Mozilla.

jamienicol 6y ago
"Firing Eich because of his political views is virtue signalling. I don't use Firefox because of Mozilla's political views."
- ecmascript 6y ago
  Yes, do you have something to say or do you just like to quote me? I dislike companies that push a political agenda when the product or service itself has little to do with it. Privacy politics is fine, since that is a core part of Mozilla and Firefox and is very neutral since everyone can enjoy privacy. It is also part of the browsing experience. But pushing stuff like "white privilege" is just pushing away users like me. I use Brave, which is a company founded by Brendan and they don't push anti gay marriage politics on me even if that is what they may support. I just don't want that in my browser, it makes it a shitty experience. I don't understand what's hard to understand about that. I am also a web developer, so pissing me off will just result in me not testing the website in Firefox unless my users specifically requests it.
  - stnmtn 6y ago
    Is gay marriage anti-marriage to you?
  - AlexandrB 6y ago
    > I just don't want that in my browser, it makes it a shitty experience. How? If you don't care about politics, why would the politics of the organization running the browser affect your experience? Aren't you therefore virtue signalling (in this case for maximal free speech) by not using Firefox for political reasons? You haven't mentioned any product features/decisions made as a result of Mozilla's "virtue signalling" that affected the day-to-day experience of using Firefox.

rvz 6y ago

> Mozilla can't exist solely because people think it has a good mission: it needs products that can pay the bills, or at least a large population of active users. Absolutely. It has to stand on its own feet. Yet the only reason Mozilla is being kept alive is due to Google paying them to be the default search engine as part of a deal which is where the majority of their revenue is from. [0] Funny how their mission in "supporting internet privacy" also somehow means we must have deals with companies with the likes of Google who don't believe in Mozilla's own mission in order to survive. [0] https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/annualreport/2018/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/annualreport/2018/

kvark 6y ago
Well, you have to pick your battles, right? Maybe in some future when Mozilla has their own privacy-oriented open-source search engine, as well as an independent solid source of income, it would cease to sign contracts with Google. We aren't there yet, and may never be.
auslegung 6y ago
Wow. > Today, the majority of Mozilla Corporation revenue is generated from global browser search partnerships, including the deal negotiated with Google in 2017 following Mozilla’s termination of its search agreement with Yahoo/Oath (which was the subject of litigation the parties resolved in 2019.)

Barrin92 6y ago

>it needs products that can pay the bills the alternative is cutting the bills down somewhat. They made about 500 million in revenue in 2018, that's a healthy pile of cash. They've got a pretty huge engineering team and still development on their products is painfully slow. Just take the password manager they've been offering, it can't even import or export passwords and it misses half of the features any of the free competitors have. Adding even more stuff on top of it doesn't really give me a lot of confidence.

_the_inflator 6y ago

Yes, I agree. And the best product is a product that is useful to users. To me, Mozilla felt like an ideology and not so much like a browser. That repelled me from Mozilla. I was annoyed by their attitude and puns toward Chrome, especially the prefix war and the comparison between IE6 and Chrome. That was way too much for me, even though they had a point. Ironically one of their evangelists, that made a lot of noise against Chrome, later moved on to Microsoft. Microsoft has settled the prefix war in the way that they adopted Chromium. Coming from Netscape, which I loved, and going through almost every iteration of the Internet and browsers, Mozilla feels like Assembler or C to me. Yes, Assembler was cool when you had your C64, and yes, you can do everything with C, but that is not the point. People need to get a job done, and yes, automated Garbage Collection is ok most of the time - I mean you Java, C#, Python, etc. Maybe the comparison is not the best, but Mozilla's priority seems right this time: new product(s). Best of luck, Mozilla!

yamrzou 6y ago

I would pay for firefox if that's what it takes for it to continue existing and to be as good as other browsers.

shajznnckfke 6y ago

Is it actually true that Mozilla’s core business (develop Firefox, funded by search bar traffic) loses money? Or is the crises that this core business doesn’t generate enough surplus to fund the overhead of other activities that Mozilla engages in?

nikisweeting 6y ago

I subscribe to Pocket Premium to support Firefox development because I think it's critical for it to continue existing, but I use Chrome as my daily driver because it's almost 2x faster on my Mac. I give FF a try every few months and will happily switch if they ever manage to get it to having comparable performance to Chrome or Safari on my architecture.

rubber_duck 6y ago

I spent the last month switching to FF because Chrome is getting dog slow and I wanted to support it, despite multiple issues since switching I stuck along. Seeing this "diversification" strategy I just installed Edge and am giving it a try, FF wasn't a great experience but I was willing to stick with it to support Chrome alternatives - but it's obvious it needs a lot of work - and removing focus is a signal people should be moving off not coming back to it.