4 ms·

There is exactly zero chance of maintaining an up to date, reasonably fast and secure browser without a large, dedicated team of highly qualified developers. Go

There is exactly zero chance of maintaining an up to date, reasonably fast and secure browser without a large, dedicated team of highly qualified developers. Good luck with forking... Mozilla has definitely failed with most of their side projects, many of them really redundant. And shutting them down is really bad for their reputation. But they also need to find some funding source that doesn't make them beholden to Google or Microsoft. They have been desperately trying to do that. Ignoring the fact that many of those side projects probably took one or two part time devs, with the vast majority working on the browser ... only working on Firefox won't get them any revenue. And no, a subscription model probably won't work. As things stand they would need maybe 30-40 million subscribers paying 10$/year to match Googles money. That's never happening.

gjsman-1000 5y ago
"But they also need to find some funding source that doesn't make them beholden to Google or Microsoft. They have been desperately trying to do that." I agree. How about we do some executive cuts at Mozilla then? $2.4 million for the top exec over there, maybe to $300K or so which is closer to average for a nonprofit, would be a free $2 million per year. It's not like those executives have been successful in any way to merit that cash. I'm just stuck with that, I want Firefox to succeed, but the leadership has real problems. And they need cash flow, but side projects aren't doing it, so double-down already on your success and try to claw back slowly - don't flee from what's working. Maybe even Fight Dirty. I have never figured out why Firefox doesn't pretend to be Chrome on Google websites or try to hide the "Download Chrome" or "Unsupported Browser" popups. Microsoft doesn't care in their quest, Firefox shouldn't either.
- afavour 5y ago
  I agree the top execs could be paid less but it’s still a rounding error in their overall funding. It would be a symbolic gesture, welcomed by many. But it wouldn’t make a massive difference.
- emn13 5y ago
  While I agree that the CEO's pay seems unreasonable, let's not pretend it's a singular factor that's going to make a significant dent overall. The best thing people can do is simply use firefox; the longer we avoid a chromium monoculture; the better - and while mozilla the corp may suffer, as long as the userbase doesn't entirely vanish, they might survive based on the scraps microsoft or google throws them.
- the_duke 5y ago
  Don't get so hung up on that salary. Managing a 400 million + revenue company with 700+ employees is a big job with lots of responsibility and legal liability. Considering what US developers make, 2 million is not a lot of money for that job in SF and perfectly fine for a qualified CEO. Mozilla did not find a qualified candidate and had to make due with a weak one, probably in part due to the low compensation.

gjsman-1000 5y ago

"But they also need to find some funding source that doesn't make them beholden to Google or Microsoft. They have been desperately trying to do that." I agree. How about we do some executive cuts at Mozilla then? $2.4 million for the top exec over there, maybe to $300K or so which is closer to average for a nonprofit, would be a free $2 million per year. It's not like those executives have been successful in any way to merit that cash. I'm just stuck with that, I want Firefox to succeed, but the leadership has real problems. And they need cash flow, but side projects aren't doing it, so double-down already on your success and try to claw back slowly - don't flee from what's working. Maybe even Fight Dirty. I have never figured out why Firefox doesn't pretend to be Chrome on Google websites or try to hide the "Download Chrome" or "Unsupported Browser" popups. Microsoft doesn't care in their quest, Firefox shouldn't either.

afavour 5y ago
I agree the top execs could be paid less but it’s still a rounding error in their overall funding. It would be a symbolic gesture, welcomed by many. But it wouldn’t make a massive difference.
emn13 5y ago
While I agree that the CEO's pay seems unreasonable, let's not pretend it's a singular factor that's going to make a significant dent overall. The best thing people can do is simply use firefox; the longer we avoid a chromium monoculture; the better - and while mozilla the corp may suffer, as long as the userbase doesn't entirely vanish, they might survive based on the scraps microsoft or google throws them.
the_duke 5y ago
Don't get so hung up on that salary. Managing a 400 million + revenue company with 700+ employees is a big job with lots of responsibility and legal liability. Considering what US developers make, 2 million is not a lot of money for that job in SF and perfectly fine for a qualified CEO. Mozilla did not find a qualified candidate and had to make due with a weak one, probably in part due to the low compensation.