4 ms·

And it's not like they need to sell ads to make money. This can only generate bad PR without getting anything in return. Whoever authorized this change is essen

And it's not like they need to sell ads to make money. This can only generate bad PR without getting anything in return. Whoever authorized this change is essentially working against Firefox.

fshbbdssbbgdd 5y ago
Are you saying whoever they sold the ads to would give them the money whether or not they showed the ad?
- CompuHacker 5y ago
  It looks like you skipped over the first idea they presented; that Mozilla doesn't need the money in any case.
  - fshbbdssbbgdd 5y ago
    Didn’t Mozilla recently lay off a bunch of good engineers? Seems like the organization thinks it needs money, although you could debate whether they are spending it the right way.
    - squarefoot 5y ago
      True, but at the same time they also raised to 4x their top executive pay.
slightwinder 5y ago
> And it's not like they need to sell ads to make money. Not at the moment, but long term they need to diversify their income. They lose users and the management doesn't work for free.
- fzzzy 5y ago
  Mozilla management promised they would diversify income in 2016. Mozilla management is a miserable failure.
  - Yoric 5y ago
    And they've been trying to since 2016 at least. Every attempt was met with scorn and/or pitchforks. It's hard to be Mozilla.
    - GekkePrutser 5y ago
      Of course it is if they're going to embrace the very industry they proclaim to be fighting against. The VPN thing was a nice idea but too niche to count. I don't want a VPN linked to my browser anyway. I'd pay for Firefox Sync though. I'm surprised they never made that paid.
      - fzzzy 5y ago
        I worked on Sync. It's staffed with a skeleton crew. We had 3 people on our team and 5 bosses.
    - Causality1 5y ago
      They deluded themselves into thinking they could somehow obtain Chrome's market share by making Firefox more like Chrome. They threw the ten percent of users who loved what Firefox was under the bus in order to chase the 40 percent they will never, ever sway. Remember when you could make Firefox look and behave exactly like you wanted it to? Because I sure as hell do.
- slig 5y ago
  >management doesn't work for free. Looks like they are very well paid. So much that they had to let go 250 engineers last year.
cbtacy 5y ago
> And it's not like they need to sell ads to make money. Actually, they likely do need to sell ads if they want to keep Firefox alive.
- squarefoot 5y ago
  Not quite. https://www.zdnet.com/article/sources-mozilla-extends-its-google-search-deal/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/sources-mozilla-extends-its-go... Tl;Dr: Mozilla gets no less than $400 million yearly from Google just by keeping it as default search engine. I was happy to donate to Mozilla in the past, and would do again even knowing about the agreement with Google; I want to support them. But I'm donating to support development and promotion, not to make some rich execs even more richer. If that's the case, then I'll use my wallet elsewhere.
- bluGill 5y ago
  No they don't. The way Mozilla is currently setup they need to sell ads, but there are other ways to manage firefox (note that separation between Mozilla and firefox!).
  - cbtacy 5y ago
    Former Mozilla employee here... I'm not sure you're correct unless you are talking about turning Firefox into a non-commercial open source project supported by volunteers.
wodenokoto 5y ago
Yes they do. Practically all revenue is from Google being a middle-man for selling ads in Firefox. Getting some of those adsales away from the middleman is a big deal for they financial independence.
- GekkePrutser 5y ago
  Not exactly, the money is for Google being the default search provider. Nothing else.
  - pure_simplicity 5y ago
    It's a difference without a distinction. They're paying to be the default search engine so that they can show Firefox users ads in their search results. Either way, they're a middle man selling ads and giving a small percentage of their profits to Mozilla when Mozilla helps them show more ads (mainly to avoid anti trust, mind you ).
nextos 5y ago
Given Mozilla management is a bit misguided, is it realistic to try a hard fork and fund it without selling ads / user data?
- kreeben 5y ago
  Realistic, maybe not. But if we skip the whole funding part, fork out from v92, skip all new features and cherry-pick security patches and nothing but, then I'm in!
- waingake 5y ago
  I've often thought this myself. As I'm reluctant to donate money to Mozilla knowing they have a record of firing developers and splurging on executive salaries. What if a fork was funded in a kickstarter like way, enough ideally to pay the salaries of the development team. I'd happily pay ~$20 per month knowing that the money was going where it should.

And it's not like they need to sell ads to make money. This can only generate bad PR without getting anything in return. Whoever authorized this change is essentially working against Firefox.

fshbbdssbbgdd 5y ago

Are you saying whoever they sold the ads to would give them the money whether or not they showed the ad?

CompuHacker 5y ago
It looks like you skipped over the first idea they presented; that Mozilla doesn't need the money in any case.
- fshbbdssbbgdd 5y ago
  Didn’t Mozilla recently lay off a bunch of good engineers? Seems like the organization thinks it needs money, although you could debate whether they are spending it the right way.
  - squarefoot 5y ago
    True, but at the same time they also raised to 4x their top executive pay.

slightwinder 5y ago

> And it's not like they need to sell ads to make money. Not at the moment, but long term they need to diversify their income. They lose users and the management doesn't work for free.

fzzzy 5y ago
Mozilla management promised they would diversify income in 2016. Mozilla management is a miserable failure.
- Yoric 5y ago
  And they've been trying to since 2016 at least. Every attempt was met with scorn and/or pitchforks. It's hard to be Mozilla.
  - GekkePrutser 5y ago
    Of course it is if they're going to embrace the very industry they proclaim to be fighting against. The VPN thing was a nice idea but too niche to count. I don't want a VPN linked to my browser anyway. I'd pay for Firefox Sync though. I'm surprised they never made that paid.
    - fzzzy 5y ago
      I worked on Sync. It's staffed with a skeleton crew. We had 3 people on our team and 5 bosses.
  - Causality1 5y ago
    They deluded themselves into thinking they could somehow obtain Chrome's market share by making Firefox more like Chrome. They threw the ten percent of users who loved what Firefox was under the bus in order to chase the 40 percent they will never, ever sway. Remember when you could make Firefox look and behave exactly like you wanted it to? Because I sure as hell do.
slig 5y ago
>management doesn't work for free. Looks like they are very well paid. So much that they had to let go 250 engineers last year.

cbtacy 5y ago

> And it's not like they need to sell ads to make money. Actually, they likely do need to sell ads if they want to keep Firefox alive.

squarefoot 5y ago
Not quite. https://www.zdnet.com/article/sources-mozilla-extends-its-google-search-deal/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/sources-mozilla-extends-its-go... Tl;Dr: Mozilla gets no less than $400 million yearly from Google just by keeping it as default search engine. I was happy to donate to Mozilla in the past, and would do again even knowing about the agreement with Google; I want to support them. But I'm donating to support development and promotion, not to make some rich execs even more richer. If that's the case, then I'll use my wallet elsewhere.
bluGill 5y ago
No they don't. The way Mozilla is currently setup they need to sell ads, but there are other ways to manage firefox (note that separation between Mozilla and firefox!).
- cbtacy 5y ago
  Former Mozilla employee here... I'm not sure you're correct unless you are talking about turning Firefox into a non-commercial open source project supported by volunteers.

wodenokoto 5y ago

Yes they do. Practically all revenue is from Google being a middle-man for selling ads in Firefox. Getting some of those adsales away from the middleman is a big deal for they financial independence.

GekkePrutser 5y ago
Not exactly, the money is for Google being the default search provider. Nothing else.
- pure_simplicity 5y ago
  It's a difference without a distinction. They're paying to be the default search engine so that they can show Firefox users ads in their search results. Either way, they're a middle man selling ads and giving a small percentage of their profits to Mozilla when Mozilla helps them show more ads (mainly to avoid anti trust, mind you ).

nextos 5y ago

Given Mozilla management is a bit misguided, is it realistic to try a hard fork and fund it without selling ads / user data?

kreeben 5y ago
Realistic, maybe not. But if we skip the whole funding part, fork out from v92, skip all new features and cherry-pick security patches and nothing but, then I'm in!
waingake 5y ago
I've often thought this myself. As I'm reluctant to donate money to Mozilla knowing they have a record of firing developers and splurging on executive salaries. What if a fork was funded in a kickstarter like way, enough ideally to pay the salaries of the development team. I'd happily pay ~$20 per month knowing that the money was going where it should.