3 ms·

I don't think they've given up on it - they're still making pretty big technical changes. But they would be daft to bet that they will somehow manage to win bac

I don't think they've given up on it - they're still making pretty big technical changes. But they would be daft to bet that they will somehow manage to win back significant market share from Chrome, given the resources Google can put into it.

stingraycharles 6y ago
But if they’re not betting on winning market share from Chrome, then what are they doing that’s worth betting on? From my perspective, the Chrome monoculture is one of the largest threats of the Internet right now, and I don’t see how Mozilla could be relevant without challenging that. But I guess this goes back to Mozilla the corporation, rather than Mozilla the non-profit org. They want to maintain some form of independence, at the cost of making bit bets.
- takluyver 6y ago
  To take one example, Mozilla's 'privacy not included' guides. They rate hardware and software products for privacy protections. This is a topic that people care about in the abstract but couldn't easily make concrete decisions on. You may disagree with how they do it, but it's definitely relevant. I get the feeling from this thread that some people think the only conceivable purpose of Mozilla is to maintain an independent browser, and if they can't do that they may as well shut down. Mozilla sees itself in a larger role of supporting a healthy internet, and kind of has to think about what else that might mean besides an independent browser.
  - stingraycharles 6y ago
    > I get the feeling from this thread that some people think the only conceivable purpose of Mozilla is to maintain an independent browser, and if they can't do that they may as well shut down This is exactly how I feel about Mozilla indeed. Their only relevance to me is their browser, I don’t care much about the rest. If a “privacy not included guide” is the best example of other value they add, this strongly confirms it from my point of view.
    - takluyver 6y ago
      Perhaps the disconnect is that Mozilla's goals are not just the bits you care about. If all you're saying is that they should double down on Firefox and ignore everything else because that's what you want, that's not a very interesting argument. Even if you believe Firefox is the only goal, though... Mozilla needs money to develop it. Despite all the technical effort that's gone into it in recent years, Firefox is still losing marketshare. Maybe there's some killer feature that will turn it around. But so far tracking protection doesn't seem to have done it, and there's not that many other features that Google can't copy. So if you still want Firefox to be useful in 10 years, there's a real chance it will be need to be subsidised by something like Mozilla VPN.
      - stingraycharles 6y ago
        > If all you're saying is that they should double down on Firefox and ignore everything else because that's what you want, that's not a very interesting argument. I started this discussion with the point that I’m not donating to Mozilla, because I don’t want my donations to go to their other projects. Mozilla is of course free to do with their resources what they want, it’s just that they should not be expecting my support in that case. I personally prefer to fund established projects and developers with donations, I just don’t consider Mozilla very good at starting new projects. I want to fund and support Firefox and that’s it, and there’s currently no way to do so. And with that, comes my criticism of how they are using their resources that I can fund.
        jacquesm 6y ago
        Precisely. All they would have to do is to allow you to earmark your funds 'Just for FireFox' and to pinky swear they would not commingle that with their general pot for pet projects. But it is set up exactly in the contrary manner, without much in terms of any guarantees about what the budgetary division will be leaving FireFox as the collector but not the recipient of the bulk of those funds. Imagine where FireFox would be if not for all those non-starter projects and products that drain resources make it to launch and then get axed quietly 3 months later.

stingraycharles 6y ago

But if they’re not betting on winning market share from Chrome, then what are they doing that’s worth betting on? From my perspective, the Chrome monoculture is one of the largest threats of the Internet right now, and I don’t see how Mozilla could be relevant without challenging that. But I guess this goes back to Mozilla the corporation, rather than Mozilla the non-profit org. They want to maintain some form of independence, at the cost of making bit bets.

takluyver 6y ago
To take one example, Mozilla's 'privacy not included' guides. They rate hardware and software products for privacy protections. This is a topic that people care about in the abstract but couldn't easily make concrete decisions on. You may disagree with how they do it, but it's definitely relevant. I get the feeling from this thread that some people think the only conceivable purpose of Mozilla is to maintain an independent browser, and if they can't do that they may as well shut down. Mozilla sees itself in a larger role of supporting a healthy internet, and kind of has to think about what else that might mean besides an independent browser.
- stingraycharles 6y ago
  > I get the feeling from this thread that some people think the only conceivable purpose of Mozilla is to maintain an independent browser, and if they can't do that they may as well shut down This is exactly how I feel about Mozilla indeed. Their only relevance to me is their browser, I don’t care much about the rest. If a “privacy not included guide” is the best example of other value they add, this strongly confirms it from my point of view.
  - takluyver 6y ago
    Perhaps the disconnect is that Mozilla's goals are not just the bits you care about. If all you're saying is that they should double down on Firefox and ignore everything else because that's what you want, that's not a very interesting argument. Even if you believe Firefox is the only goal, though... Mozilla needs money to develop it. Despite all the technical effort that's gone into it in recent years, Firefox is still losing marketshare. Maybe there's some killer feature that will turn it around. But so far tracking protection doesn't seem to have done it, and there's not that many other features that Google can't copy. So if you still want Firefox to be useful in 10 years, there's a real chance it will be need to be subsidised by something like Mozilla VPN.
    - stingraycharles 6y ago
      > If all you're saying is that they should double down on Firefox and ignore everything else because that's what you want, that's not a very interesting argument. I started this discussion with the point that I’m not donating to Mozilla, because I don’t want my donations to go to their other projects. Mozilla is of course free to do with their resources what they want, it’s just that they should not be expecting my support in that case. I personally prefer to fund established projects and developers with donations, I just don’t consider Mozilla very good at starting new projects. I want to fund and support Firefox and that’s it, and there’s currently no way to do so. And with that, comes my criticism of how they are using their resources that I can fund.
      - jacquesm 6y ago
        Precisely. All they would have to do is to allow you to earmark your funds 'Just for FireFox' and to pinky swear they would not commingle that with their general pot for pet projects. But it is set up exactly in the contrary manner, without much in terms of any guarantees about what the budgetary division will be leaving FireFox as the collector but not the recipient of the bulk of those funds. Imagine where FireFox would be if not for all those non-starter projects and products that drain resources make it to launch and then get axed quietly 3 months later.