3 ms·

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 t

by 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.

jacquesm 6y ago
> The opinion specifically being that there is literally no way for Mozilla to survive. I note they just cut 25% of their workforce. That's not a sign of a healthy company, unless they had 25% excess people in the first place, and then it would be a sign of bad management. So I'm going on the assumption that they are letting go of people they could ill afford to miss. > Others in the thread think they can survive by focusing on Firefox (you disagree obviously.) I disagree because the writing has been on the wall for a long time. The diminishing market share tells a pretty clear story. What is happening now is that Mozilla will try to jump from one shrinking ice-floe onto another that they hope will be more stable and may even give them room to expand again. They fail to recognize - again, my opinion - that this lack of focus is one of the drivers of the exodus in the first place. > Some (like me) think they can survive by building new things people will pay for. (you think they are a 'one trick pony.') That's possible, but survival of Mozilla the software house making a lot of other stuff that generates revenue which is not the browser is none of my concern nor interest. I can see why as a Mozilla employee it would be your concern. But I see no difference between that work and that of any other software company. The browser is where the difference can be made. > A CEO who disagrees with your opinion isn't ignoring facts If that CEO has a great plan on making Mozilla survive and manage to stave off further decline of the browser market share then I haven't seen it. So either that plan does not exist or they have already given up but are just not telling you (or me, for that matter). > and a CEO who doesn't charter a strategy towards something other than catastrophic failure is not a good CEO. That depends on how avoidable the catastrophe is. Losing the browser would be a catastrophe, losing the rest would not even register, for everything else that Mozilla does that I'm aware of there are alternatives. But a browser with still some market share that is privacy focused and not beholden to some large advertising agency or hardware provider is a unique thing. I think the big difference between our points of view is that you are looking from the inside out and I'm looking from the outside in. You have by virtue of your position more information at your disposal, but your interests and mine are not necessarily 100% aligned. I would prefer for FireFox to be available as long as possible, you - apparently - would like Mozilla Inc as an entity to survive. Those two are not necessarily joined at the hip. Though obviously if Mozilla Inc survives FireFox may have a better chance of survival too. But it looks to me, reading between the lines here, that Mozilla effectively announces that they feel that the browser as a source of revenue is a dead end and that if they do not move into other markets that the company will go under.
- shock 6y ago
  > That's possible, but survival of Mozilla the software house making a lot of other stuff that generates revenue which is not the browser is none of my concern nor interest. I can see why as a Mozilla employee it would be your concern. But I see no difference between that work and that of any other software company. The browser is where the difference can be made. This, a thousand times. I care about Mozilla as the makers of Firefox - the browser for the users.
  - ryandrake 6y ago
    Between two (of many) possible outcomes: 1. Firefox dies and Mozilla dies and 2. Firefox dies and Mozilla survives by making a chat app These are identically bad to me as a user. In both cases, the only project users care about from the company is gone.
- eitland 6y ago
  > But it looks to me, reading between the lines here, that Mozilla effectively announces that they feel that the browser as a source of revenue is a dead end and that if they do not move into other markets that the company will go under. And here is the main point: for some reason Mozilla and their accountants seems to think that Firefox is just a source of income and that their main goal as a non profit is something else, while all the time the most important work they have done to improve the world has been to create an alternative and better browser that isn't owned by big media.
  - eitland 6y ago
    I guess I should note that these are my opinions, this is a rant, I'm not an accountant or a lawyer and this is not legal or financial advice ;-) It is just so extremely frustrating when I wish someone well and they - in my opinion - take the wrong choices.
  - notyourday 6y ago
    > And here is the main point: for some reason Mozilla and their accountants seems to think that Firefox is just a source of income and that their main goal as a non profit is something else, while all the time the most important work they have done to improve the world has been to create an alternative and better browser that isn't owned by big media. That's idealism. The difference between a non-profit and a corporation is that while a corporation seeks to provide return to the shareholders, a non-profit seeks to provide a good life to people who run it.

by gfodor 6y ago

jacquesm 6y ago

> The opinion specifically being that there is literally no way for Mozilla to survive. I note they just cut 25% of their workforce. That's not a sign of a healthy company, unless they had 25% excess people in the first place, and then it would be a sign of bad management. So I'm going on the assumption that they are letting go of people they could ill afford to miss. > Others in the thread think they can survive by focusing on Firefox (you disagree obviously.) I disagree because the writing has been on the wall for a long time. The diminishing market share tells a pretty clear story. What is happening now is that Mozilla will try to jump from one shrinking ice-floe onto another that they hope will be more stable and may even give them room to expand again. They fail to recognize - again, my opinion - that this lack of focus is one of the drivers of the exodus in the first place. > Some (like me) think they can survive by building new things people will pay for. (you think they are a 'one trick pony.') That's possible, but survival of Mozilla the software house making a lot of other stuff that generates revenue which is not the browser is none of my concern nor interest. I can see why as a Mozilla employee it would be your concern. But I see no difference between that work and that of any other software company. The browser is where the difference can be made. > A CEO who disagrees with your opinion isn't ignoring facts If that CEO has a great plan on making Mozilla survive and manage to stave off further decline of the browser market share then I haven't seen it. So either that plan does not exist or they have already given up but are just not telling you (or me, for that matter). > and a CEO who doesn't charter a strategy towards something other than catastrophic failure is not a good CEO. That depends on how avoidable the catastrophe is. Losing the browser would be a catastrophe, losing the rest would not even register, for everything else that Mozilla does that I'm aware of there are alternatives. But a browser with still some market share that is privacy focused and not beholden to some large advertising agency or hardware provider is a unique thing. I think the big difference between our points of view is that you are looking from the inside out and I'm looking from the outside in. You have by virtue of your position more information at your disposal, but your interests and mine are not necessarily 100% aligned. I would prefer for FireFox to be available as long as possible, you - apparently - would like Mozilla Inc as an entity to survive. Those two are not necessarily joined at the hip. Though obviously if Mozilla Inc survives FireFox may have a better chance of survival too. But it looks to me, reading between the lines here, that Mozilla effectively announces that they feel that the browser as a source of revenue is a dead end and that if they do not move into other markets that the company will go under.

shock 6y ago
> That's possible, but survival of Mozilla the software house making a lot of other stuff that generates revenue which is not the browser is none of my concern nor interest. I can see why as a Mozilla employee it would be your concern. But I see no difference between that work and that of any other software company. The browser is where the difference can be made. This, a thousand times. I care about Mozilla as the makers of Firefox - the browser for the users.
- ryandrake 6y ago
  Between two (of many) possible outcomes: 1. Firefox dies and Mozilla dies and 2. Firefox dies and Mozilla survives by making a chat app These are identically bad to me as a user. In both cases, the only project users care about from the company is gone.
eitland 6y ago
> But it looks to me, reading between the lines here, that Mozilla effectively announces that they feel that the browser as a source of revenue is a dead end and that if they do not move into other markets that the company will go under. And here is the main point: for some reason Mozilla and their accountants seems to think that Firefox is just a source of income and that their main goal as a non profit is something else, while all the time the most important work they have done to improve the world has been to create an alternative and better browser that isn't owned by big media.
- eitland 6y ago
  I guess I should note that these are my opinions, this is a rant, I'm not an accountant or a lawyer and this is not legal or financial advice ;-) It is just so extremely frustrating when I wish someone well and they - in my opinion - take the wrong choices.
- notyourday 6y ago
  > And here is the main point: for some reason Mozilla and their accountants seems to think that Firefox is just a source of income and that their main goal as a non profit is something else, while all the time the most important work they have done to improve the world has been to create an alternative and better browser that isn't owned by big media. That's idealism. The difference between a non-profit and a corporation is that while a corporation seeks to provide return to the shareholders, a non-profit seeks to provide a good life to people who run it.