4 ms·
Mozilla Foundation, as owner of Mozilla Corp, is a non-profit. Thus the second argument is not that important. Also a single feature can be unprofitable if it h
by johannes1234321 6y ago
Mozilla Foundation, as owner of Mozilla Corp, is a non-profit. Thus the second argument is not that important. Also a single feature can be unprofitable if it helps to drive the related products.
First argument is more relevant, I see it as underestimated the risk there and coming out of a technical experiment ...
That all said: Mozilla Corp's "focussing" doesn't convince me.
- elithrar 6y ago> Mozilla Foundation, as owner of Mozilla Corp, is a non-profit. Thus the second argument is not that important. “Non-profit” doesn’t mean “don’t make profits” or “set a pile of money on fire”.
- kace91 6y ago> Mozilla Foundation, as owner of Mozilla Corp, is a non-profit. Thus the second argument is not that important. I included that argument because it's mentioned explicitly by them: > as we weighed the cost of our overall portfolio and strategic focus, we made the decision not to relaunch the service.
- heftig 6y agoThis doesn't imply the benefits that were weighted against the costs were monetary.