I do not see these two as being in opposite to each other, or more specifically i do not see the second contradicting the first. Firefox's owners can be corrup

I do not see these two as being in opposite to each other, or more specifically i do not see the second contradicting the first. Firefox's owners can be corrupted and focused on the wrong things (i'm not saying they are, btw - actually i do not exactly agree with the idea of Firefox having "owners" in the first place, at least not the same way as Microsoft owns Windows) and have the wrong priorities. If you consider that Firefox needs to do things right, you may want to prioritize making Firefox "good" (whatever that means, e.g. making it the fastest and/or most secure browser and/or giving the most control to the user, etc) and then (in terms of priority) try to promote and create a marketing campaign that focuses on those aspects of Firefox. It isn't like marketing is all about style. And even if it focused on the style, one might disagree that the proper way to go about it is to copy Chrome. There are many ways to interpret these two paragraphs as not being contradicting.