4 ms·

Mozilla's principal source of revenue is a fat check from Google every month. Anti-trust is a mixed blessing for Mozilla.org, at best, and a huge negative for

Mozilla's principal source of revenue is a fat check from Google every month. Anti-trust is a mixed blessing for Mozilla.org, at best, and a huge negative for Mozilla.com.

dleslie 6y ago
And an enormous negative for the rather well-compensated executive.
colordrops 6y ago
A mixed blessing only if antitrust action doesn't target the browser monopoly. If they do something to constrain Chrome, this could be a boon to Mozilla.
- zamadatix 6y ago
  It doesn't matter how constrained Chrome becomes if Mozilla can't pay any developers. Hence Mozilla's reaction being one focusing on "collateral damage" and "Unintended harm".
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - colordrops 6y ago
    That's a huge lack of imagination. If Mozilla gets a large percentage of users they will find funding one way or another.
    - MauranKilom 6y ago
      So why haven't they done that that in the past 10 years?
      - zaphirplane 6y ago
        See antitrust allegations ;)
      - colordrops 6y ago
        Because they've had a monopoly to compete with and a very easy source of funding.
    - MattGaiser 6y ago
      How? What does Mozilla have to sell? User data?
  - Barrin92 6y ago
    to be fair while i have some sympathy with the general issue of having to go up against Google in the browser market, Mozilla should have long done something to diversify their income. On that very page they mention they have a long history of innovative products, but apart from the browser they don't really have anything that seems to generate significant revenue, with almost ~750 employees and a pretty huge budget.
- hapless 6y ago
  If they do something to Chrome, Google no longer has a reason to write checks to Mozilla. Those fat checks are written in part to keep anti-trust regulators off their backs. A constrained Chrome be good for Mozilla.org, as an open source effort, but devastating for Mozilla.com because they would no longer have the vast funds to pay millions to executives.

Mozilla's principal source of revenue is a fat check from Google every month. Anti-trust is a mixed blessing for Mozilla.org, at best, and a huge negative for Mozilla.com.

dleslie 6y ago

And an enormous negative for the rather well-compensated executive.

colordrops 6y ago

A mixed blessing only if antitrust action doesn't target the browser monopoly. If they do something to constrain Chrome, this could be a boon to Mozilla.

zamadatix 6y ago
It doesn't matter how constrained Chrome becomes if Mozilla can't pay any developers. Hence Mozilla's reaction being one focusing on "collateral damage" and "Unintended harm".
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- colordrops 6y ago
  That's a huge lack of imagination. If Mozilla gets a large percentage of users they will find funding one way or another.
  - MauranKilom 6y ago
    So why haven't they done that that in the past 10 years?
    - zaphirplane 6y ago
      See antitrust allegations ;)
    - colordrops 6y ago
      Because they've had a monopoly to compete with and a very easy source of funding.
  - MattGaiser 6y ago
    How? What does Mozilla have to sell? User data?
- Barrin92 6y ago
  to be fair while i have some sympathy with the general issue of having to go up against Google in the browser market, Mozilla should have long done something to diversify their income. On that very page they mention they have a long history of innovative products, but apart from the browser they don't really have anything that seems to generate significant revenue, with almost ~750 employees and a pretty huge budget.
hapless 6y ago
If they do something to Chrome, Google no longer has a reason to write checks to Mozilla. Those fat checks are written in part to keep anti-trust regulators off their backs. A constrained Chrome be good for Mozilla.org, as an open source effort, but devastating for Mozilla.com because they would no longer have the vast funds to pay millions to executives.