8 ms·

The problem is you need money to hire venerable engineers. And you need to hire a lot to maintain a modern browser. Yet every attempt by Mozilla to monetize and

The problem is you need money to hire venerable engineers. And you need to hire a lot to maintain a modern browser. Yet every attempt by Mozilla to monetize and diversify has generally been met unfavorably here on Hackernews.

jacquesm 6y ago
They have money. Their CEO gets paid 2.5 million per year. That one time windfall they made from the search bar deal would have funded FireFox development for a sizeable fraction of eternity.
- phildenhoff 6y ago
  That's the price of a CEO, just like salaries in the hundreds of thousands are the prices of software devs. Of all places I would expect Hacker News to get this.
  - formerly_proven 6y ago
    > just like salaries in the hundreds of thousands are the prices of software devs Only in very specific locations and roles.
    - phildenhoff 6y ago
      Yes, and Mozilla is run out of Mountain View, California, so that's a very specific location where getting tech executives is expensive. Could they get someone cheaper elsewhere? Absolutely. Is it worth it to pay more to get a CEO that's well-connected or, at a minimum, knowledgeable about what's going on in that region? Absolutely. I'm not saying I agree with it morally — I think CEO's are paid an insane wage and the wealth disparity in the United States is disgusting — but those are the unfortunate economics.
  - throw_m239339 6y ago
    > That's the price of a CEO, No it isn't. And maybe it's time for these executives at the top to take a pay cut given the state of their business, in order for the latter to survive.
  - throwaway8941 6y ago
    https://twitter.com/withoutboats/status/1217558588857544704?s=21 https://twitter.com/withoutboats/status/1217558588857544704?...
  - jacquesm 6y ago
    I did not mean to imply that the CEO should cost less, simply that they are able to pay that much, conclusion is that they are not poor.
  - dom96 6y ago
    > That's the price of a CEO Can you explain why? What does this CEO do that is worth this much money? At the very least a CEO shouldn't be earning millions when the company is slowly dying. Have a sane base salary and give the CEO bonuses tied to the performance of the company if you must, anything else is plain ridiculous.
    - EdwinLarkin 6y ago
      Why is your 100-150k salary not ridiculous? You could be earning fraction of that in Poland. You of all people should understand this. A salary of 2M is not even 1% when it comes to the labor costs of the people they fired. Maybe they dont need the CEO in the first place but that's an entirely different discussion.
      - dom96 6y ago
        A salary of 2M could cover the salary of 5% of the employees that have been fired (assuming a 150k salary). I bet you their impact will be much bigger than a single CEOs. I know of no country/city where someone needs 2M to live comfortably, but I haven't even called it ridiculous. What I called ridiculous is that seemingly this CEO does not have their salary tied to the performance of this company.
        EdwinLarkin 6y ago
        Usually the bonus is tied to the performance of the company. Also 150k salary != labor costs. Anyway I find your analogy ridiculous. Lets just not hire CEOs or upper management at all. It will work for some and fail for some others but it does not prove your point.
        dom96 6y ago
        > Lets just not hire CEOs or upper management at all. Now that's ridiculous, it feels like you're misunderstanding me completely. I never suggested that CEOs or upper management shouldn't exist. I just think that in some cases they do not deserve the massive salary they are getting, millions per year is a crazy amount of money to earn anywhere, how can you possibly argue that it's not?
  - ric2b 6y ago
    > That's the price of a CEO Is it? I bet you'd get plenty of great candidates for a 250k salary.
- CarelessExpert 6y ago
  Do you know what Mozilla Corp's 2018 revenue was? $451 million. Do you know what their gross spend was? $451 million. So that CEO's salary represents half of one percent of their total spend. They could cut exec salaries to zero and they'd still be bleeding to death.
- exotree 6y ago
  This is not a competitive amount to pay a CEO of a company that is pretty substantial and integral to the web as we know it today. Additionally, there is no comp related to a successful IPO or acquisition because Mozilla has no shareholders, which is how many CEO and C-suite executives are compensated.
  - jacquesm 6y ago
    It is for one that is laying of a quarter of its staff.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- threatofrain 6y ago
  You have to pay extra to get a competent CEO to head a company that isn't expected to have big wins for a long time.
  - basch 6y ago
    this sounds like a "nobody got fired for buying IBM." there are plenty of capable people, but vetting those without experience is risky, and the wrong choice could be a death sentence. so everyone (except Kraft Heinz) chooses the safe low risk choice. what that risk calculation leaves out is the risk of buying an expensive ceo, having the company stagnate, and being irrelevant in a couple years.
  - jacques_chester 6y ago
    Or you hire someone who cares about the mission and can settle for a pittance like $1 million per year.
chii 6y ago
> monetize and diversify has generally been met unfavorably here on Hackernews. it's an entitled mentality i find exist here on HN about open source. It seems that there are many here who expect a high quality, free project. And apparently, the donations should be enough to sustain it.
- matheusmoreira 6y ago
  It's not entitlement. Most people here simply don't like conflicts of interest. It's not wise to assume a browser that's funded and developed by Google will respect the user's privacy. People who depend on advertising will never do or say anything that offends the advertisers. Scientific articles published by the pharmaceutical industry are regarded as suspect. Open source developers on some corporation's payroll have the same problem. Are they adding this feature because it's good or because the company wants it? Why they're working on the project matters. What's their priority? Good technology above all else, or meeting the needs of their current employer? If they're doing it for money, good technology will eventually be sacrificed in the name of profit. People will commit hacks that happen to work at their jobs and next thing we know we're stuck with them and have to maintain the stuff forever. And that's what happens when there's no malicious intent involved. Donations are regarded favorably here precisely because they don't create any obligations for the developer who receives them. They don't create a conflict of interest.

jacquesm 6y ago

They have money. Their CEO gets paid 2.5 million per year. That one time windfall they made from the search bar deal would have funded FireFox development for a sizeable fraction of eternity.

phildenhoff 6y ago
That's the price of a CEO, just like salaries in the hundreds of thousands are the prices of software devs. Of all places I would expect Hacker News to get this.
- formerly_proven 6y ago
  > just like salaries in the hundreds of thousands are the prices of software devs Only in very specific locations and roles.
  - phildenhoff 6y ago
    Yes, and Mozilla is run out of Mountain View, California, so that's a very specific location where getting tech executives is expensive. Could they get someone cheaper elsewhere? Absolutely. Is it worth it to pay more to get a CEO that's well-connected or, at a minimum, knowledgeable about what's going on in that region? Absolutely. I'm not saying I agree with it morally — I think CEO's are paid an insane wage and the wealth disparity in the United States is disgusting — but those are the unfortunate economics.
- throw_m239339 6y ago
  > That's the price of a CEO, No it isn't. And maybe it's time for these executives at the top to take a pay cut given the state of their business, in order for the latter to survive.
- throwaway8941 6y ago
  https://twitter.com/withoutboats/status/1217558588857544704?s=21 https://twitter.com/withoutboats/status/1217558588857544704?...
- jacquesm 6y ago
  I did not mean to imply that the CEO should cost less, simply that they are able to pay that much, conclusion is that they are not poor.
- dom96 6y ago
  > That's the price of a CEO Can you explain why? What does this CEO do that is worth this much money? At the very least a CEO shouldn't be earning millions when the company is slowly dying. Have a sane base salary and give the CEO bonuses tied to the performance of the company if you must, anything else is plain ridiculous.
  - EdwinLarkin 6y ago
    Why is your 100-150k salary not ridiculous? You could be earning fraction of that in Poland. You of all people should understand this. A salary of 2M is not even 1% when it comes to the labor costs of the people they fired. Maybe they dont need the CEO in the first place but that's an entirely different discussion.
    - dom96 6y ago
      A salary of 2M could cover the salary of 5% of the employees that have been fired (assuming a 150k salary). I bet you their impact will be much bigger than a single CEOs. I know of no country/city where someone needs 2M to live comfortably, but I haven't even called it ridiculous. What I called ridiculous is that seemingly this CEO does not have their salary tied to the performance of this company.
      - EdwinLarkin 6y ago
        Usually the bonus is tied to the performance of the company. Also 150k salary != labor costs. Anyway I find your analogy ridiculous. Lets just not hire CEOs or upper management at all. It will work for some and fail for some others but it does not prove your point.
        dom96 6y ago
        > Lets just not hire CEOs or upper management at all. Now that's ridiculous, it feels like you're misunderstanding me completely. I never suggested that CEOs or upper management shouldn't exist. I just think that in some cases they do not deserve the massive salary they are getting, millions per year is a crazy amount of money to earn anywhere, how can you possibly argue that it's not?
- ric2b 6y ago
  > That's the price of a CEO Is it? I bet you'd get plenty of great candidates for a 250k salary.
CarelessExpert 6y ago
Do you know what Mozilla Corp's 2018 revenue was? $451 million. Do you know what their gross spend was? $451 million. So that CEO's salary represents half of one percent of their total spend. They could cut exec salaries to zero and they'd still be bleeding to death.
exotree 6y ago
This is not a competitive amount to pay a CEO of a company that is pretty substantial and integral to the web as we know it today. Additionally, there is no comp related to a successful IPO or acquisition because Mozilla has no shareholders, which is how many CEO and C-suite executives are compensated.
- jacquesm 6y ago
  It is for one that is laying of a quarter of its staff.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
threatofrain 6y ago
You have to pay extra to get a competent CEO to head a company that isn't expected to have big wins for a long time.
- basch 6y ago
  this sounds like a "nobody got fired for buying IBM." there are plenty of capable people, but vetting those without experience is risky, and the wrong choice could be a death sentence. so everyone (except Kraft Heinz) chooses the safe low risk choice. what that risk calculation leaves out is the risk of buying an expensive ceo, having the company stagnate, and being irrelevant in a couple years.
- jacques_chester 6y ago
  Or you hire someone who cares about the mission and can settle for a pittance like $1 million per year.

chii 6y ago

> monetize and diversify has generally been met unfavorably here on Hackernews. it's an entitled mentality i find exist here on HN about open source. It seems that there are many here who expect a high quality, free project. And apparently, the donations should be enough to sustain it.

matheusmoreira 6y ago
It's not entitlement. Most people here simply don't like conflicts of interest. It's not wise to assume a browser that's funded and developed by Google will respect the user's privacy. People who depend on advertising will never do or say anything that offends the advertisers. Scientific articles published by the pharmaceutical industry are regarded as suspect. Open source developers on some corporation's payroll have the same problem. Are they adding this feature because it's good or because the company wants it? Why they're working on the project matters. What's their priority? Good technology above all else, or meeting the needs of their current employer? If they're doing it for money, good technology will eventually be sacrificed in the name of profit. People will commit hacks that happen to work at their jobs and next thing we know we're stuck with them and have to maintain the stuff forever. And that's what happens when there's no malicious intent involved. Donations are regarded favorably here precisely because they don't create any obligations for the developer who receives them. They don't create a conflict of interest.