4 ms·

So, I don't really know the context of the stuff you're writing about, if you would please indulge me... > Watching Mozilla leadership drive Mozilla into the g

So, I don't really know the context of the stuff you're writing about, if you would please indulge me... > Watching Mozilla leadership drive Mozilla into the ground over the last 8-10 years has been like watching a bus accident in slow motion. I honestly am not aware much of that. > FirefoxOS anyone? I can't tell if you're unhappy they started that project or unhappy they stopped it. I'm guessing you're unhappy, so I'm going to go along with the guys that were involved on that project for the rest of your post. I am curious though, since you seem to know so much about Mozilla driving itself into the ground, do you know the resources that were spent on FirefoxOS? > The only benefit Mozilla now provides is a warning to companies that place how liked and popular employees are over how skilled and hard working they are. I know that Andreas Gal was disliked, but how was he unskilled and what did his position have to do with the nature you're speaking of? > Mozilla has collected such a large group of well behaved and well liked underperformers to an absurd level like no other company in history. This is no more obvious than the woefully under-qualified and perennially under-performing leadership. How did you asses that Andreas Gal was under qualified and under performing? > Someone please explain to me how Mitchell Baker continues to have a job? Mitchell Baker is one of the oldest closely related employees to Netscape, Mozilla etc. She is very much the original culture of company. Her particular focus is the overall business aspect of operating the organisation rather than the technical. The technical work would have been people like Andreas Gal. > How is Mozilla still paying this person millions, yes millions, of dollars? That's not her sallary, that comes from compensation. Compensation is based on looking at what other similarly sized companies, usually in the same sector are paying based on similarly skilled people. Companies do not want to lose their CEOs etc. What might suprise you is that she's being paid at the lower end of the scale, and this is because she's a CEO sourced internally. If Mozilla were to replace her with an external CEO, they would likely end up needing to pay vastly more. The compenstion paid is usually pegged to performance. While the company might have not done well as a whole, there are likely things this person has navgiated the company through that you did not see? But, if you did, please share. > Pocket?! You are going to save Mozilla with a glorified bookmarking app? Mozilla is following a common technique to help bring stability to the company when one or more revenue stream starts struggling or drying up -- It is diversifying income. Mozilla appears to be a very R&D sort of company, so they seem to be doing what you see companies like Microsoft Garage or Alphabet do and try to create their own 'start ups' without the company bit to try to innovate new products. Hence where FirefoxOS came from. Many people originally scoffed at the idea of Apple doing a phone.

momokoko 6y ago
Honestly, and I mean this with full sincerity, your response is exactly the point. You just don’t seem to get the obviousness in front of you, just like almost all of Mozilla while the rest of the world sees how absurd and sad things are. Mozilla has zero chance of survival at its current size without the browser tech. Instead of working on creative ways to monetize that, back when Firefox still had enough market share for it to matter, precious time was wasted on a wide variety of valueless diversions. Mozilla without Firefox is dead. Pocket or a VPN service has zero chance of bringing in similar revenue. Zero. It was and is a giant waste of time. And so here we are. Years wasted on what could have been real honest and creative attempts at monetization from competent leadership. They had 10 years to figure it out. Instead they played with whatever new shiny toy fell in front of them. It would be a hilarious joke if it wasn’t so sad.
- Krisando 6y ago
  > You just don’t seem to get the obviousness in front of you, just like almost all of Mozilla while the rest of the world sees how absurd and sad things are. I don't know, I feel like I have more context you do right now. But maybe that is just experience from working in organisations like this. > Mozilla has zero chance of survival at its current size without the browser tech. Instead of working on creative ways to monetize that, back when Firefox still had enough market share for it to matter, precious time was wasted on a wide variety of valueless diversions. That's not really true though, is it? FirefoxOS derivatives took off significantly and did very well, but, unfortunately, it turned out listening to the public saying to cut it was an awful idea. > Pocket or a VPN service has zero chance of bringing in similar revenue. It's not about bringing in similar revenue on a single project, it's about having many different income generators though. > It was and is a giant waste of time Did you actually check the development effort involved? They didn't have to spend much on resources to do so, to do these alternate revenue streams, the organisation spent relatively little rather than putting all their money behind a big project and then if it doesn't work out, collapsing -- which is likely to occur trying to pursue large projects like you're suggesting?
pseudalopex 6y ago
Why was Andreas Gal disliked?

momokoko 6y ago

Honestly, and I mean this with full sincerity, your response is exactly the point. You just don’t seem to get the obviousness in front of you, just like almost all of Mozilla while the rest of the world sees how absurd and sad things are. Mozilla has zero chance of survival at its current size without the browser tech. Instead of working on creative ways to monetize that, back when Firefox still had enough market share for it to matter, precious time was wasted on a wide variety of valueless diversions. Mozilla without Firefox is dead. Pocket or a VPN service has zero chance of bringing in similar revenue. Zero. It was and is a giant waste of time. And so here we are. Years wasted on what could have been real honest and creative attempts at monetization from competent leadership. They had 10 years to figure it out. Instead they played with whatever new shiny toy fell in front of them. It would be a hilarious joke if it wasn’t so sad.

Krisando 6y ago
> You just don’t seem to get the obviousness in front of you, just like almost all of Mozilla while the rest of the world sees how absurd and sad things are. I don't know, I feel like I have more context you do right now. But maybe that is just experience from working in organisations like this. > Mozilla has zero chance of survival at its current size without the browser tech. Instead of working on creative ways to monetize that, back when Firefox still had enough market share for it to matter, precious time was wasted on a wide variety of valueless diversions. That's not really true though, is it? FirefoxOS derivatives took off significantly and did very well, but, unfortunately, it turned out listening to the public saying to cut it was an awful idea. > Pocket or a VPN service has zero chance of bringing in similar revenue. It's not about bringing in similar revenue on a single project, it's about having many different income generators though. > It was and is a giant waste of time Did you actually check the development effort involved? They didn't have to spend much on resources to do so, to do these alternate revenue streams, the organisation spent relatively little rather than putting all their money behind a big project and then if it doesn't work out, collapsing -- which is likely to occur trying to pursue large projects like you're suggesting?

pseudalopex 6y ago

Why was Andreas Gal disliked?