8 ms·

Your two claims (Mozilla can't do anything other than Firefox, Firefox is not failing) are easy to provide counter-evidence to. You're making strong statements

by gfodor 6y ago

Your two claims (Mozilla can't do anything other than Firefox, Firefox is not failing) are easy to provide counter-evidence to. You're making strong statements here as fact that are not only subjective but which run against evidence.

jacquesm 6y ago
So provide the counter evidence. Mozilla is letting 250 people go, that's not because their things other than Firefox are a resounding success, but mostly because none of those things pay the bills and are failures in the market place. Firefox is falling behind on Chrome and Edge, it is really annoying that since a couple of weeks I'm more or less forced to use Chrome because FireFox languishes in domains that matter to me personally. That's a pretty strong sign because if there is one thing that I never thought would happen it is that I would switch away from FF. So no, it is not failing - yet. But it may come to that. If people like me are considering to switch that future is closer than you might like. So maybe my strong statements are subjective but they are actually backed by some evidence, you did not provide any whatsoever other than naysaying.
- gfodor 6y ago
  Happy to, I figured it was self-evident. Firefox has been losing market share steadily for years. The biggest efforts to turn that around have at best slowed it. Your subjective experience backs it up. That's evidence it is a failing product. Mozilla has shipped successful products other than Firefox. Rust being a strong example, and then there are moderately less successful ones that have varying impacts. I worked on one (Hubs) that had a strong trajectory when I left, both in terms of user and revenue growth.
  - jacquesm 6y ago
    No, it is evidence of Google taking steady marketshare away from FF through underhanded tactics such as a basically unlimited advertising budget. You simply can not fight such a war and win, you can only lose gracefully. Rust is not a product. And for Mozilla it was a huge distraction, one they could ill afford. So my point stands: this is a rearguard action. Eventually they will lose, accelerating that is in nobody's interest.
    - staktrace 6y ago
      > And for Mozilla it was a huge distraction, one they could ill afford. This is demonstrably false. Rust was designed for use in browser development, and it has successfully been adopted into Firefox. The payback is increased security, stability, and Firefox developer productivity.
      - jacquesm 6y ago
        You don't design a language for 'browser development'. You design a language because you feel there is a need for a language and none of the existing languages meet your needs. If Mozilla had adopted D instead of developing Rust the world would have kept on turning and they'd be further along compared to where they are today. None of the other major browsers are written in Rust, there does not seem to be a huge difference in the number of security issues listed for any of those. I once worked at a company where they wanted to build everything, preferably including their own operating system programming language and database. And all that four a payment processor, something you could probably write in any language available. Guess where that story ended? If something isn't core to your proposition it is a distraction.
        AsyncAwait 6y ago
        > If Mozilla had adopted D instead of developing Rust the world would have kept on turning and they'd be further along compared to where they are today. D has the complexity of C++ with major drawbacks, (the stdlib was tightly tied to GC for example). Just look at D's marketshare and its overall time on the market. If you argument is that literally any Turing-complete language would somehow do then bravo for missing the point of basically every language besides asm.
        jacquesm 6y ago
        D's market share is still much larger than Rust's, though clearly Rust is winning that battle in the longer term. Not that 'D' isn't without its flaws but those could have been fixed for a small fraction of the effort that went into making Rust. And no, your strawman doesn't hold.
  - lnanek2 6y ago
    > Mozilla has shipped successful products other than Firefox. Rust being a strong example Isn't Rust a language? https://research.mozilla.org/rust/ https://research.mozilla.org/rust/ How is that going to keep the lights on? Doesn't seem like it contributes to the bottom line in any way, so they would have been better off allocating those people to keeping Firefox competitive. Seems like they need a "more wood behind fewer arrows" moment like Google had. Or a "sell everything but consulting" since consulting is the only thing making money moment like IBM had when they sold laptop, storage, printer, etc. divisions.
    - staktrace 6y ago
      The original purpose of Rust and Servo was to build a better browser. Rust was designed with browser development in mind, and is used increasingly in Firefox. That was an investment that has paid off in spades. (Edited to add: But I agree it's not a "product" in the "provides revenue" sense)
    - gfodor 6y ago
      "Mozilla is a one trick pony" implies they can't ship useful software. The definition of "product" isn't the point. If those products (or languages, or whatever) can't generate revenue that also wasn't the point of this thread. If one believes that Mozilla cannot create new things that the world finds extremely valuable, then things like Rust provide counter evidence of that claim.
    - stallmanite 6y ago
      So you think IBM turning into a consulting husk was a good thing?
  - kgraves 6y ago
    > Mozilla has shipped successful products other than Firefox. Rust being a strong example. If you think Rust is a 'successful product' in regards to business given the Mozilla Corporation's financial situation, then this is extremely worrying. I would posit that this (one) of the reasons why 250 people had to be let go. Mozilla focusing on 'distractions' rather than anything that makes them money.
    - gfodor 6y ago
      I mean, I started a team of a growing, revenue generating product at Mozilla but I still don't define if something is a successful product based upon if it generates revenue or not. The scope of this thread is if Mozilla has the potential to make successful products (or, things, I guess) beyond Firefox. The OP claims its not possible for the organization to do so. In my mind, showing they have created software that has traction (some revenue generating, some not) disproves this. A PM considers a product successful if it is adopted and loved by users. Other people consider it successful if its team is cash flow positive. Others consider it successful if it bolsters the company brand. The definition of successful I was working with is one that shows Mozilla can ship useful software.
      - jacquesm 6y ago
        It is successful if it generates more revenues than went into it and if it strengthens the company that decided to put the time, effort and funds in it in the first place. The problem with your view is that if you don't have a plan on how a product will generate revenue that you are effectively taking a huge gamble that may not pay off. So you'll be 'successful' by your definition while filing for chapter 11, something that Mozilla is flirting with in the medium term if they pursue this route. Only companies with very deep pockets can pursue bets like that, and even then it could hurt. Microsoft Xbox' story is a good example of a bet that worked out, there are many examples of such bets not working out, quite a few of them killing the companies that made the bets.
        gfodor 6y ago
        It's hard to keep up with all the goal post shifting (the definition of "product", "successful", and so on) - in any case, it's common for companies to start with the problem of delivering user value first, and then figuring out revenue later. One doesn't need a clear plan for revenue when starting out. The project I worked on at Mozilla itself is evidence of this: we had ideas for how to generate revenue for it when we started out, but the one we ended up doing was not on the list since we discovered the opportunity in the process of developing the product.
  - jlarocco 6y ago
    IMO, this thread is a great example of why Mozilla and Firefox are becoming irrelevant. Potential users are saying, "Here are things I want in Firefox," and a Firefox/Mozilla advocate is telling them that's not what they really want, and Mozilla is going to work on something else. It's been this way for years, and at the end of the day users realize it's pointless to argue and switch to Chrome.
    - gfodor 6y ago
      I never claimed there aren't unmet needs for Firefox users, or that their needs are invalid. My claim is that there's a good chance the strategy of trying to compete in the browser market is a failing strategy. That is backed up by the evidence. Mozilla has put a ton of resources into improving Firefox, and yet people are still, on-net, leaving. Executives have a tough decision to make in terms of where and how to place bets. The OP's approach is to just concede that Mozilla will be dead some day and they may as well just slow the decline. If you are the CEO, accepting this and acting in accordance with that would be a dereliction of duty. I am not claiming to know the answer. I worked on a team that tried to place a strong bet to backstop things if Firefox ultimately failed. But I don't think the confidence that it's self-evident that they should just go all-in on Firefox is justified.
      - jacquesm 6y ago
        > If you are the CEO, accepting this and acting in accordance with that would be a dereliction of duty. Why is that dereliction of duty? Actually accepting the facts as they are is the hallmark of a good CEO. Trying to pretend reality and facts don't matter and that FireFox will win this battle is - pardon the word choice - delusional at this point in time. So if your choices are between fighting a losing battle as good as you can or accelerating the drop then I'd be all for fighting that battle and drawing it out as long as I could. Accelerating it with wild-ass gambles is what got Mozilla where it is today.
        gfodor 6y ago
        The "facts" you are claiming are just your opinion. The opinion specifically being that there is literally no way for Mozilla to survive. Others in the thread think they can survive by focusing on Firefox (you disagree obviously.) Some (like me) think they can survive by building new things people will pay for. (you think they are a 'one trick pony.') A CEO who disagrees with your opinion isn't ignoring facts, and a CEO who doesn't charter a strategy towards something other than catastrophic failure is not a good CEO.
  - spanhandler 6y ago
    FF (Phoenix, Firebird) gained market share because a bunch of geeks & power users installed it on any computer they could get ahold of, because it was an obvious safety, performance, and usability win over default browsers, and especially IE. Maybe others are still doing that, but the situation's a lot murkier now. Firefox's UI is more confusing than it used to be (every time you open an application and it does something it doesn't normally, that's confusing to non-nerds—looking at you, update-announcement tabs and "hey come look at Pocket!" messages), other browsers have gotten better, and FF requires extensions to deliver an obviously-better browsing experience than other browsers (it may provide more privacy than Chrome or Edge out-of-the-box, sure, but my mom can't tell that, unlike automatic pop-up blocking, which was obviously a improvement over IE when FF was getting started). It's also not so lightweight that it draws comments from normies when you launch it, because it comes up so fast (this was an actual thing back when it first came out, vs. IE)
- forgotmysn 6y ago
  I recently switched back from ffx to chrome as well. there are so many nice features in ffx, but none of them matter if the core product begins lagging.
yread 6y ago
What other not failing products are there? Are people standing in long lines to get their shiny new Firefox OS phones? Did Pocket flourish under Mozilla?
mardifoufs 6y ago
I agree that the browser side is not doing very well in terms of market share, but I don't see any evidence that Mozilla has been or is able to make a successful product that isn't firefox. Sure, they made quite a few different things but they have not show any ability to really get them any traction. They wouldn't really be in this situation if they did.
baud147258 6y ago
> Mozilla can't do anything other than Firefox Do you have example of this?

by gfodor 6y ago

jacquesm 6y ago

So provide the counter evidence. Mozilla is letting 250 people go, that's not because their things other than Firefox are a resounding success, but mostly because none of those things pay the bills and are failures in the market place. Firefox is falling behind on Chrome and Edge, it is really annoying that since a couple of weeks I'm more or less forced to use Chrome because FireFox languishes in domains that matter to me personally. That's a pretty strong sign because if there is one thing that I never thought would happen it is that I would switch away from FF. So no, it is not failing - yet. But it may come to that. If people like me are considering to switch that future is closer than you might like. So maybe my strong statements are subjective but they are actually backed by some evidence, you did not provide any whatsoever other than naysaying.

gfodor 6y ago
Happy to, I figured it was self-evident. Firefox has been losing market share steadily for years. The biggest efforts to turn that around have at best slowed it. Your subjective experience backs it up. That's evidence it is a failing product. Mozilla has shipped successful products other than Firefox. Rust being a strong example, and then there are moderately less successful ones that have varying impacts. I worked on one (Hubs) that had a strong trajectory when I left, both in terms of user and revenue growth.
- jacquesm 6y ago
  No, it is evidence of Google taking steady marketshare away from FF through underhanded tactics such as a basically unlimited advertising budget. You simply can not fight such a war and win, you can only lose gracefully. Rust is not a product. And for Mozilla it was a huge distraction, one they could ill afford. So my point stands: this is a rearguard action. Eventually they will lose, accelerating that is in nobody's interest.
  - staktrace 6y ago
    > And for Mozilla it was a huge distraction, one they could ill afford. This is demonstrably false. Rust was designed for use in browser development, and it has successfully been adopted into Firefox. The payback is increased security, stability, and Firefox developer productivity.
    - jacquesm 6y ago
      You don't design a language for 'browser development'. You design a language because you feel there is a need for a language and none of the existing languages meet your needs. If Mozilla had adopted D instead of developing Rust the world would have kept on turning and they'd be further along compared to where they are today. None of the other major browsers are written in Rust, there does not seem to be a huge difference in the number of security issues listed for any of those. I once worked at a company where they wanted to build everything, preferably including their own operating system programming language and database. And all that four a payment processor, something you could probably write in any language available. Guess where that story ended? If something isn't core to your proposition it is a distraction.
      - AsyncAwait 6y ago
        > If Mozilla had adopted D instead of developing Rust the world would have kept on turning and they'd be further along compared to where they are today. D has the complexity of C++ with major drawbacks, (the stdlib was tightly tied to GC for example). Just look at D's marketshare and its overall time on the market. If you argument is that literally any Turing-complete language would somehow do then bravo for missing the point of basically every language besides asm.
        jacquesm 6y ago
        D's market share is still much larger than Rust's, though clearly Rust is winning that battle in the longer term. Not that 'D' isn't without its flaws but those could have been fixed for a small fraction of the effort that went into making Rust. And no, your strawman doesn't hold.
- lnanek2 6y ago
  > Mozilla has shipped successful products other than Firefox. Rust being a strong example Isn't Rust a language? https://research.mozilla.org/rust/ https://research.mozilla.org/rust/ How is that going to keep the lights on? Doesn't seem like it contributes to the bottom line in any way, so they would have been better off allocating those people to keeping Firefox competitive. Seems like they need a "more wood behind fewer arrows" moment like Google had. Or a "sell everything but consulting" since consulting is the only thing making money moment like IBM had when they sold laptop, storage, printer, etc. divisions.
  - staktrace 6y ago
    The original purpose of Rust and Servo was to build a better browser. Rust was designed with browser development in mind, and is used increasingly in Firefox. That was an investment that has paid off in spades. (Edited to add: But I agree it's not a "product" in the "provides revenue" sense)
  - gfodor 6y ago
    "Mozilla is a one trick pony" implies they can't ship useful software. The definition of "product" isn't the point. If those products (or languages, or whatever) can't generate revenue that also wasn't the point of this thread. If one believes that Mozilla cannot create new things that the world finds extremely valuable, then things like Rust provide counter evidence of that claim.
  - stallmanite 6y ago
    So you think IBM turning into a consulting husk was a good thing?
- kgraves 6y ago
  > Mozilla has shipped successful products other than Firefox. Rust being a strong example. If you think Rust is a 'successful product' in regards to business given the Mozilla Corporation's financial situation, then this is extremely worrying. I would posit that this (one) of the reasons why 250 people had to be let go. Mozilla focusing on 'distractions' rather than anything that makes them money.
  - gfodor 6y ago
    I mean, I started a team of a growing, revenue generating product at Mozilla but I still don't define if something is a successful product based upon if it generates revenue or not. The scope of this thread is if Mozilla has the potential to make successful products (or, things, I guess) beyond Firefox. The OP claims its not possible for the organization to do so. In my mind, showing they have created software that has traction (some revenue generating, some not) disproves this. A PM considers a product successful if it is adopted and loved by users. Other people consider it successful if its team is cash flow positive. Others consider it successful if it bolsters the company brand. The definition of successful I was working with is one that shows Mozilla can ship useful software.
    - jacquesm 6y ago
      It is successful if it generates more revenues than went into it and if it strengthens the company that decided to put the time, effort and funds in it in the first place. The problem with your view is that if you don't have a plan on how a product will generate revenue that you are effectively taking a huge gamble that may not pay off. So you'll be 'successful' by your definition while filing for chapter 11, something that Mozilla is flirting with in the medium term if they pursue this route. Only companies with very deep pockets can pursue bets like that, and even then it could hurt. Microsoft Xbox' story is a good example of a bet that worked out, there are many examples of such bets not working out, quite a few of them killing the companies that made the bets.
      - gfodor 6y ago
        It's hard to keep up with all the goal post shifting (the definition of "product", "successful", and so on) - in any case, it's common for companies to start with the problem of delivering user value first, and then figuring out revenue later. One doesn't need a clear plan for revenue when starting out. The project I worked on at Mozilla itself is evidence of this: we had ideas for how to generate revenue for it when we started out, but the one we ended up doing was not on the list since we discovered the opportunity in the process of developing the product.
- jlarocco 6y ago
  IMO, this thread is a great example of why Mozilla and Firefox are becoming irrelevant. Potential users are saying, "Here are things I want in Firefox," and a Firefox/Mozilla advocate is telling them that's not what they really want, and Mozilla is going to work on something else. It's been this way for years, and at the end of the day users realize it's pointless to argue and switch to Chrome.
  - gfodor 6y ago
    I never claimed there aren't unmet needs for Firefox users, or that their needs are invalid. My claim is that there's a good chance the strategy of trying to compete in the browser market is a failing strategy. That is backed up by the evidence. Mozilla has put a ton of resources into improving Firefox, and yet people are still, on-net, leaving. Executives have a tough decision to make in terms of where and how to place bets. The OP's approach is to just concede that Mozilla will be dead some day and they may as well just slow the decline. If you are the CEO, accepting this and acting in accordance with that would be a dereliction of duty. I am not claiming to know the answer. I worked on a team that tried to place a strong bet to backstop things if Firefox ultimately failed. But I don't think the confidence that it's self-evident that they should just go all-in on Firefox is justified.
    - jacquesm 6y ago
      > If you are the CEO, accepting this and acting in accordance with that would be a dereliction of duty. Why is that dereliction of duty? Actually accepting the facts as they are is the hallmark of a good CEO. Trying to pretend reality and facts don't matter and that FireFox will win this battle is - pardon the word choice - delusional at this point in time. So if your choices are between fighting a losing battle as good as you can or accelerating the drop then I'd be all for fighting that battle and drawing it out as long as I could. Accelerating it with wild-ass gambles is what got Mozilla where it is today.
      - gfodor 6y ago
        The "facts" you are claiming are just your opinion. The opinion specifically being that there is literally no way for Mozilla to survive. Others in the thread think they can survive by focusing on Firefox (you disagree obviously.) Some (like me) think they can survive by building new things people will pay for. (you think they are a 'one trick pony.') A CEO who disagrees with your opinion isn't ignoring facts, and a CEO who doesn't charter a strategy towards something other than catastrophic failure is not a good CEO.
- spanhandler 6y ago
  FF (Phoenix, Firebird) gained market share because a bunch of geeks & power users installed it on any computer they could get ahold of, because it was an obvious safety, performance, and usability win over default browsers, and especially IE. Maybe others are still doing that, but the situation's a lot murkier now. Firefox's UI is more confusing than it used to be (every time you open an application and it does something it doesn't normally, that's confusing to non-nerds—looking at you, update-announcement tabs and "hey come look at Pocket!" messages), other browsers have gotten better, and FF requires extensions to deliver an obviously-better browsing experience than other browsers (it may provide more privacy than Chrome or Edge out-of-the-box, sure, but my mom can't tell that, unlike automatic pop-up blocking, which was obviously a improvement over IE when FF was getting started). It's also not so lightweight that it draws comments from normies when you launch it, because it comes up so fast (this was an actual thing back when it first came out, vs. IE)
forgotmysn 6y ago
I recently switched back from ffx to chrome as well. there are so many nice features in ffx, but none of them matter if the core product begins lagging.

yread 6y ago

What other not failing products are there? Are people standing in long lines to get their shiny new Firefox OS phones? Did Pocket flourish under Mozilla?

mardifoufs 6y ago

I agree that the browser side is not doing very well in terms of market share, but I don't see any evidence that Mozilla has been or is able to make a successful product that isn't firefox. Sure, they made quite a few different things but they have not show any ability to really get them any traction. They wouldn't really be in this situation if they did.

baud147258 6y ago

> Mozilla can't do anything other than Firefox Do you have example of this?