6 ms·

I hope I will never have to use Chrome again and I love Firefox but sometimes it's a PITA. It surely isn't generally "inferior" but let's say it has character.

I hope I will never have to use Chrome again and I love Firefox but sometimes it's a PITA. It surely isn't generally "inferior" but let's say it has character. I always thought it just needs a bit more attention, and I'm willing to donate, but I don't trust Mozilla for routing what we give towards Firefox development.

dorfsmay 5y ago
Agreed. I wish they created a dedicated fund for Firefox the way it was done for Thunderbird. Let's not forget the ridiculous pay for the executives which has been shown to not correlate with revenue (or anything else): https://calpaterson.com/mozilla.html https://calpaterson.com/mozilla.html I give to the Thunderbird fund every year but have not given to Mozilla for a long time!
- throwoutway 5y ago
  $2.5M?!
  - coldpie 5y ago
    How does that compare to executives in similar roles at similarly-sized software companies?
    - casralad 5y ago
      Similarly-sized software companies are also overpaying their executives at the expense of worker wages, so Mozilla is right on track.
      - coldpie 5y ago
        Bingo. And so you hit the dilemma of trying to be an ethical company in an unethical environment. If Mozilla decreases their executive compensation, then they can't compete for the same executives that less-ethical companies who don't care about worker wages can. People complaining about Mozilla's executive compensation are asking for Mozilla to hobble themselves.
        dorfsmay 5y ago
        Have you looked at the chart in the link I provided? Mozilla was doing better and had more revenue with previous management who's compensation was a fraction of current management's.
        fleddr 5y ago
        What ethics are we talking about here? Mozilla leadership carried out two large layoffs rounds whilst drastically increasing their own salaries. They already have unethical leaders. For countless years they've been handed some 400-500 million(!) for "free", just by keeping Google the default search engine. For a conventional company, this kind of money requires a massive operation, customer base, etc. Mozilla just gets a check. Half a billion for free. And then pisses away this money on projects where most are questionable, have no impact, etc. All the while the user base shrinking further and further, for over a decade now. If that is the situation, it seems pretty reasonable to me to just get rid of leadership altogether. Let the tech people figure it out, it's not like they can do worse.
  - mulmen 5y ago
    To contribute negative value to the company? Seems like a good deal, for the CEO.
- addicted 5y ago
  Executive pay does not follow the product's success. It follows the broader market for executives. If it followed the product's success, products that are going through a bad patch, or are going downwards, would not be able to attract good executives, when arguably they are the ones who need the best executives, relative to products that are doing well, which on many occasions can sustain themselves purely on momentum. This is further complicated for non profits which cannot use ownership stakes as an incentive either.
  - chrisseaton 5y ago
    So why do executives bother doing anything if they get paid no matter if they succeed or not?
    - GreenWatermelon 5y ago
      If the executives are bad they will be removed, and their reputation will suffer.
      - beebeepka 5y ago
        Does that happen, though? We've been hearing about golden parachutes for a while but are there cases supporting the logic that you just laid out?
    - mmastrac 5y ago
      In fairness, some executives are there just to fill a seat and not rock the boat when a company needs a face.
- gspr 5y ago
  > Let's not forget the ridiculous pay for the executives which has been shown to not correlate with revenue (or anything else) I may be a naive person who generally detests the organization chart gymnasts, but I honestly believe Mozilla would be better off if they just got rid of all C-suites and handed that cash to their developers to do whatever they want. So many open source projects are hugely successful without a CEO. Why would Mozilla be different? Keep the cash for the devs, and it's already miles ahead of any other big open source project financially!
throwoutway 5y ago
> I always thought it just needs a bit more attention, and I'm willing to donate, but I don't trust Mozilla for routing what we give towards Firefox development +1 A whole back I wanted to give to Firefox but I wanted to specify which projects it goes to. Many other orgs do this but last I checked Mozilla does not
eitland 5y ago
> I always thought it just needs a bit more attention, and I'm willing to donate, but I don't trust Mozilla for routing what we give towards Firefox development. In fact if they cannot avoid answering their answer is that donations are not even allowed to go to the browser. Something about Mozilla being a non-profit and Firefox being a fully owned commercial company. To which I have to say that this is weird: 1. non-profits are allowed to do maintenance of their buildings and machinery, why not something that keeps generating income 2. even if the above doesn't work because of tax reasons they could just stop bleeding it dry. Firefox alone without Mozilla is very cash positive. Summary: Donating to Firefox goes to Mozilla, the organization that keeps taking away all the money that Firefox generates. Update: Firefox VPN and maybe Pocket too goes through Mozilla Corporation I think, but verify this before buying 1000 subscriptions :-)
lkbm 5y ago
I'm skeptical of some of Mozilla's focus, but Firefox is over 20 years old and over 20MM lines of code. They've been putting a lot of attention to it for a long time (and some incredible work has come from it, including within the past five years). I'd love to see them pour more resources into it, but it's a huge project, so I think moving the needle likely is never as simple as "a bit" more attention. It would be neat if Mozilla added a "where do you want your money to go to" option in donations. The bulk of their funding would likely continue be from partnerships, but it would make it so much more tangible that the users really care about browser development. We're not just noisy people in the HN comments--we'll put money into it given the option.

dorfsmay 5y ago

Agreed. I wish they created a dedicated fund for Firefox the way it was done for Thunderbird. Let's not forget the ridiculous pay for the executives which has been shown to not correlate with revenue (or anything else): https://calpaterson.com/mozilla.html https://calpaterson.com/mozilla.html I give to the Thunderbird fund every year but have not given to Mozilla for a long time!

throwoutway 5y ago
$2.5M?!
- coldpie 5y ago
  How does that compare to executives in similar roles at similarly-sized software companies?
  - casralad 5y ago
    Similarly-sized software companies are also overpaying their executives at the expense of worker wages, so Mozilla is right on track.
    - coldpie 5y ago
      Bingo. And so you hit the dilemma of trying to be an ethical company in an unethical environment. If Mozilla decreases their executive compensation, then they can't compete for the same executives that less-ethical companies who don't care about worker wages can. People complaining about Mozilla's executive compensation are asking for Mozilla to hobble themselves.
      - dorfsmay 5y ago
        Have you looked at the chart in the link I provided? Mozilla was doing better and had more revenue with previous management who's compensation was a fraction of current management's.
      - fleddr 5y ago
        What ethics are we talking about here? Mozilla leadership carried out two large layoffs rounds whilst drastically increasing their own salaries. They already have unethical leaders. For countless years they've been handed some 400-500 million(!) for "free", just by keeping Google the default search engine. For a conventional company, this kind of money requires a massive operation, customer base, etc. Mozilla just gets a check. Half a billion for free. And then pisses away this money on projects where most are questionable, have no impact, etc. All the while the user base shrinking further and further, for over a decade now. If that is the situation, it seems pretty reasonable to me to just get rid of leadership altogether. Let the tech people figure it out, it's not like they can do worse.
- mulmen 5y ago
  To contribute negative value to the company? Seems like a good deal, for the CEO.
addicted 5y ago
Executive pay does not follow the product's success. It follows the broader market for executives. If it followed the product's success, products that are going through a bad patch, or are going downwards, would not be able to attract good executives, when arguably they are the ones who need the best executives, relative to products that are doing well, which on many occasions can sustain themselves purely on momentum. This is further complicated for non profits which cannot use ownership stakes as an incentive either.
- chrisseaton 5y ago
  So why do executives bother doing anything if they get paid no matter if they succeed or not?
  - GreenWatermelon 5y ago
    If the executives are bad they will be removed, and their reputation will suffer.
    - beebeepka 5y ago
      Does that happen, though? We've been hearing about golden parachutes for a while but are there cases supporting the logic that you just laid out?
  - mmastrac 5y ago
    In fairness, some executives are there just to fill a seat and not rock the boat when a company needs a face.
gspr 5y ago
> Let's not forget the ridiculous pay for the executives which has been shown to not correlate with revenue (or anything else) I may be a naive person who generally detests the organization chart gymnasts, but I honestly believe Mozilla would be better off if they just got rid of all C-suites and handed that cash to their developers to do whatever they want. So many open source projects are hugely successful without a CEO. Why would Mozilla be different? Keep the cash for the devs, and it's already miles ahead of any other big open source project financially!

throwoutway 5y ago

> I always thought it just needs a bit more attention, and I'm willing to donate, but I don't trust Mozilla for routing what we give towards Firefox development +1 A whole back I wanted to give to Firefox but I wanted to specify which projects it goes to. Many other orgs do this but last I checked Mozilla does not

eitland 5y ago

> I always thought it just needs a bit more attention, and I'm willing to donate, but I don't trust Mozilla for routing what we give towards Firefox development. In fact if they cannot avoid answering their answer is that donations are not even allowed to go to the browser. Something about Mozilla being a non-profit and Firefox being a fully owned commercial company. To which I have to say that this is weird: 1. non-profits are allowed to do maintenance of their buildings and machinery, why not something that keeps generating income 2. even if the above doesn't work because of tax reasons they could just stop bleeding it dry. Firefox alone without Mozilla is very cash positive. Summary: Donating to Firefox goes to Mozilla, the organization that keeps taking away all the money that Firefox generates. Update: Firefox VPN and maybe Pocket too goes through Mozilla Corporation I think, but verify this before buying 1000 subscriptions :-)

lkbm 5y ago

I'm skeptical of some of Mozilla's focus, but Firefox is over 20 years old and over 20MM lines of code. They've been putting a lot of attention to it for a long time (and some incredible work has come from it, including within the past five years). I'd love to see them pour more resources into it, but it's a huge project, so I think moving the needle likely is never as simple as "a bit" more attention. It would be neat if Mozilla added a "where do you want your money to go to" option in donations. The bulk of their funding would likely continue be from partnerships, but it would make it so much more tangible that the users really care about browser development. We're not just noisy people in the HN comments--we'll put money into it given the option.