4 ms·
The problem is that there are various browsers that do this already, for free. Brave, Vivaldi, etc You might be able to get some people to pay, but the value h
by picklebutter 5y ago
The problem is that there are various browsers that do this already, for free. Brave, Vivaldi, etc
You might be able to get some people to pay, but the value has to really be there for it, imho.
- lucideer 5y agoYeah, you won't convince people to pay based on features. Leveraging Google's loss-leader work on Blink/Chromium and building slick features cheaply on top of that will always be an easy way to undercut any efforts there. The only way to monetise an audience like FF's is via ethos, and it's questionable whether that's enough. Wikimedia Foundation do this quite successfully, but I believe their revenue is a bit smaller than Firefox's. The problem may be that the Google deals are too generous, which traps Firefox into an overspend, crippling their ability to build alternative revenue streams that meet the same income level (why cut costs when you have enough income). Is it possible to maintain a browser of Firefox's scale at a WikiFoundation-level income of ~$120million?
- skinnymuch 5y agoDoesn’t Wiki Foundation income and expenses go up every year? There was the trending post earlier showing the numbers. I think expenses doubled in the last five years. So can Wiki Foundation likely can’t maintain an expense level of $120M unless they’ve stopped spending more this year. Edit: found the link. There’s discussions on HN, reddit, and other sites too. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_Cancer https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has...
- lucideer 5y agoYeah. WikiFoundation have their own problems. They're definitely not in a good position re: spending. I was more referring to fundraising just.