4 ms·

> Of course, but then there's enough Chromium skins, no? Most of them are more than skins. A browser is the interface and whole workflow, not just the way the

> Of course, but then there's enough Chromium skins, no? Most of them are more than skins. A browser is the interface and whole workflow, not just the way the website is displayed. > as MS recently found out What do you mean? > They had some feeble attempts which largely failed. They had no SERIOUS attempt. Well until now at least. They did some half-assed with pocket and now VPN-reselling, but never touched real business.

The_Colonel 6y ago
> Most of them are more than skins. A browser is the interface and whole workflow, not just the way the website is displayed. The user interface is just minor part of the browser. Mozilla's mission is to "free the web". Something like that can't be done with slightly sleeker UI on top of monopolistic rendering engine. You need to have an influence on all levels. > as MS recently found out I've read it this week in some interview with the FF developers that ever since MS gave up on homegrown Edge engine and adopted Chromium/Blink their voice on the standards committee is weak and lacks clout. No wonder. It's google who keeps strict control over chromium/blink. MS can discuss, propose, even send PRs, but it's google who will decide what gets in and what doesn't. > They had no SERIOUS attempt. Well until now at least. They did some half-assed with pocket and now VPN-reselling, but never touched real business. Well yeah. But it just sounds a bit simplistic to say "just earn that $500 million profits somewhere so you can sponsor your side project Firefox".
- slightwinder 6y ago
  > Mozilla's mission is to "free the web". Something like that can't be done with slightly sleeker UI on top of monopolistic rendering engine. You need to have an influence on all levels. That depends on behaviour. > I've read it this week in some interview with the FF developers that ever since MS gave up on homegrown Edge engine and adopted Chromium/Blink their voice on the standards committee is weak and lacks clout. As if they had much to say before... But that's the point, your influence depends on what you do and who is backing you. Chrome-Edge is just too small and Microsoft is not doing much to build their influence at the moment. > Well yeah. But it just sounds a bit simplistic to say "just earn that $500 million profits somewhere so you can sponsor your side project Firefox". If you have a budget of some hundred million dollars and a very big and enthuastic community, then it's very easy to make money. Even having enough money at all can make you money, though this might be ruled out for Mozilla because of their legal status.
  - The_Colonel 6y ago
    > If you have a budget of some hundred million dollars and a very big and enthuastic community, then it's very easy to make money. Please send some of those "3 easy steps to start earning $500 million a year" to the Mozilla, they could use them.
  - Yoric 6y ago
    > If you have a budget of some hundred million dollars and a very big and enthuastic community, then it's very easy to make money. Even having enough money at all can make you money, though this might be ruled out for Mozilla because of their legal status. Do you have ideas that can help Mozilla make money? Preferably without abandoning Firefox on the way?
    - aplaice 6y ago
      I'm not OP, (and people at Mozilla have probably already considered this), but why doesn't Mozilla try a far more aggressive Wikipedia-like donation campaign? Admittedly: 1. Wikipedia has more "users" than Firefox. 2. Despite this, the donations Wikimedia receives are only about a fifth of Mozilla's budget. However, people use their browser far more than they use any single website and hence might be more willing to donate more to Mozilla. (For example, I love Wikipedia, but I've gotten even more value from Firefox.) Overall, this would be unlikely to cover all of Mozilla's expenses, but I'd also be surprised if donations (after such a campaign) would be less than 10% of current revenue; in any case it'd be a valuable source of diversification. It's possible that the legal relation between the Foundation and the Corporation doesn't make this possible.
      - ori_b 6y ago
        3. If wikipedia disappeared, there's no immediate, obvious, free alternative.
        aplaice 6y ago
        Encyclopedia Britannica[0] isn't free ("libre"), but it is now free (gratis). Arguably, being libre isn't quite as indispensable in the case of cultural/educational works as it is for software. [0] https://www.britannica.com/ https://www.britannica.com/

The_Colonel 6y ago

> Most of them are more than skins. A browser is the interface and whole workflow, not just the way the website is displayed. The user interface is just minor part of the browser. Mozilla's mission is to "free the web". Something like that can't be done with slightly sleeker UI on top of monopolistic rendering engine. You need to have an influence on all levels. > as MS recently found out I've read it this week in some interview with the FF developers that ever since MS gave up on homegrown Edge engine and adopted Chromium/Blink their voice on the standards committee is weak and lacks clout. No wonder. It's google who keeps strict control over chromium/blink. MS can discuss, propose, even send PRs, but it's google who will decide what gets in and what doesn't. > They had no SERIOUS attempt. Well until now at least. They did some half-assed with pocket and now VPN-reselling, but never touched real business. Well yeah. But it just sounds a bit simplistic to say "just earn that $500 million profits somewhere so you can sponsor your side project Firefox".

slightwinder 6y ago
> Mozilla's mission is to "free the web". Something like that can't be done with slightly sleeker UI on top of monopolistic rendering engine. You need to have an influence on all levels. That depends on behaviour. > I've read it this week in some interview with the FF developers that ever since MS gave up on homegrown Edge engine and adopted Chromium/Blink their voice on the standards committee is weak and lacks clout. As if they had much to say before... But that's the point, your influence depends on what you do and who is backing you. Chrome-Edge is just too small and Microsoft is not doing much to build their influence at the moment. > Well yeah. But it just sounds a bit simplistic to say "just earn that $500 million profits somewhere so you can sponsor your side project Firefox". If you have a budget of some hundred million dollars and a very big and enthuastic community, then it's very easy to make money. Even having enough money at all can make you money, though this might be ruled out for Mozilla because of their legal status.
- The_Colonel 6y ago
  > If you have a budget of some hundred million dollars and a very big and enthuastic community, then it's very easy to make money. Please send some of those "3 easy steps to start earning $500 million a year" to the Mozilla, they could use them.
- Yoric 6y ago
  > If you have a budget of some hundred million dollars and a very big and enthuastic community, then it's very easy to make money. Even having enough money at all can make you money, though this might be ruled out for Mozilla because of their legal status. Do you have ideas that can help Mozilla make money? Preferably without abandoning Firefox on the way?
  - aplaice 6y ago
    I'm not OP, (and people at Mozilla have probably already considered this), but why doesn't Mozilla try a far more aggressive Wikipedia-like donation campaign? Admittedly: 1. Wikipedia has more "users" than Firefox. 2. Despite this, the donations Wikimedia receives are only about a fifth of Mozilla's budget. However, people use their browser far more than they use any single website and hence might be more willing to donate more to Mozilla. (For example, I love Wikipedia, but I've gotten even more value from Firefox.) Overall, this would be unlikely to cover all of Mozilla's expenses, but I'd also be surprised if donations (after such a campaign) would be less than 10% of current revenue; in any case it'd be a valuable source of diversification. It's possible that the legal relation between the Foundation and the Corporation doesn't make this possible.
    - ori_b 6y ago
      3. If wikipedia disappeared, there's no immediate, obvious, free alternative.
      - aplaice 6y ago
        Encyclopedia Britannica[0] isn't free ("libre"), but it is now free (gratis). Arguably, being libre isn't quite as indispensable in the case of cultural/educational works as it is for software. [0] https://www.britannica.com/ https://www.britannica.com/