9 ms·

So, where in your plan do they make money?

by multiplegeorges 4y ago

claudiulodro 4y ago
Same way anyone with a platform product makes money: premium tiers or paid extensions.
- paulryanrogers 4y ago
  And yet the market leader by a wide margin doesn't do any of that. They are bankrolled by a near monopoly on ads in various markets.
nmilo 4y ago
They're a non-profit.
- yjftsjthsd-h 4y ago
  They still have bills to pay. Being a non-profit doesn't mean they don't need revenue.
  - thrown_22 4y ago
    For starters they can fire the CEO that's seen their market share decrease by an order of magnitude while seeing her pay increase by an order of magnitude. After that go down the org chart and fire everyone not coding for the browser. Then you can live off donations until the end of time.
    - paulryanrogers 4y ago
      This strategy won't work if no one is organizing the work ahead. They can't be coding full time and administrating a project as complex as a modern browser. Especially not when competing against a complex beast like Chrome. (Though I do agree there may be too much money going into admin.)
      - thrown_22 4y ago
        Well it isn't working now so not much will change.
    - pacifika 4y ago
      You can’t live off donations unless you make it look like a subscription
- Rebelgecko 4y ago
  Mozilla Corp (the company that does most of the dev work) isn't a non-profit, although given their relationship with Mozilla Foundation (which is a non profit) maybe it's not a big distinction.
prepend 4y ago
Apache had $3M in revenue and $1.5M in expenses in 2021 [0] with about $1M in donations. Mozilla spent $262M in 2020 [1]. They manage money poorly. [0] https://www.apache.org/foundation/docs/FY2021AnnualReport.pdf https://www.apache.org/foundation/docs/FY2021AnnualReport.pd... [1] https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2020/mozilla-fdn-2020-short-form-0926.pdf https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2020/mozilla-fdn-202...
- abeppu 4y ago
  I think those are comparing very different organizations with different aims. There's a big difference between employing a bunch of people to actually build a complex product that you expect normal people to actually use, vs supporting the governance of OSS projects that are built by other people, largely employed by companies using or offering services around those projects.
  - prepend 4y ago
    They are very different. But my point is that Apache is very successful and produces lots of great software. You don’t have to pay $100M in developer salaries to produce great software. Mozilla is not that great despite having lots and lots of employees. Perhaps rethinking their approach would be useful. But if their revenue goes away, it doesn’t mean Mozilla the browser goes away. Maybe Mozilla should just be a governance process rather than a software developer. The browser would probably have similar quality.
    - fabrice_d 4y ago
      The Apache Foundation doesn't produce the software, people paid by various companies do. This is quite similar to the Mozilla Foundation and Corporation relationship. Who would employ people to work on Firefox if the corp side shuts down eg. because they lose their revenue?
    - tdeck 4y ago
      It's hit or miss. Many Apache projects are basically open source abandonware. It's great that there's an organization to manage the rights to these projects but Apache doesn't have much power to keep them going.

So, where in your plan do they make money?

claudiulodro 4y ago

Same way anyone with a platform product makes money: premium tiers or paid extensions.

paulryanrogers 4y ago
And yet the market leader by a wide margin doesn't do any of that. They are bankrolled by a near monopoly on ads in various markets.

nmilo 4y ago

They're a non-profit.

yjftsjthsd-h 4y ago
They still have bills to pay. Being a non-profit doesn't mean they don't need revenue.
- thrown_22 4y ago
  For starters they can fire the CEO that's seen their market share decrease by an order of magnitude while seeing her pay increase by an order of magnitude. After that go down the org chart and fire everyone not coding for the browser. Then you can live off donations until the end of time.
  - paulryanrogers 4y ago
    This strategy won't work if no one is organizing the work ahead. They can't be coding full time and administrating a project as complex as a modern browser. Especially not when competing against a complex beast like Chrome. (Though I do agree there may be too much money going into admin.)
    - thrown_22 4y ago
      Well it isn't working now so not much will change.
  - pacifika 4y ago
    You can’t live off donations unless you make it look like a subscription
Rebelgecko 4y ago
Mozilla Corp (the company that does most of the dev work) isn't a non-profit, although given their relationship with Mozilla Foundation (which is a non profit) maybe it's not a big distinction.

prepend 4y ago

Apache had $3M in revenue and $1.5M in expenses in 2021 [0] with about $1M in donations. Mozilla spent $262M in 2020 [1]. They manage money poorly. [0] https://www.apache.org/foundation/docs/FY2021AnnualReport.pdf https://www.apache.org/foundation/docs/FY2021AnnualReport.pd... [1] https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2020/mozilla-fdn-2020-short-form-0926.pdf https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2020/mozilla-fdn-202...

abeppu 4y ago
I think those are comparing very different organizations with different aims. There's a big difference between employing a bunch of people to actually build a complex product that you expect normal people to actually use, vs supporting the governance of OSS projects that are built by other people, largely employed by companies using or offering services around those projects.
- prepend 4y ago
  They are very different. But my point is that Apache is very successful and produces lots of great software. You don’t have to pay $100M in developer salaries to produce great software. Mozilla is not that great despite having lots and lots of employees. Perhaps rethinking their approach would be useful. But if their revenue goes away, it doesn’t mean Mozilla the browser goes away. Maybe Mozilla should just be a governance process rather than a software developer. The browser would probably have similar quality.
  - fabrice_d 4y ago
    The Apache Foundation doesn't produce the software, people paid by various companies do. This is quite similar to the Mozilla Foundation and Corporation relationship. Who would employ people to work on Firefox if the corp side shuts down eg. because they lose their revenue?
  - tdeck 4y ago
    It's hit or miss. Many Apache projects are basically open source abandonware. It's great that there's an organization to manage the rights to these projects but Apache doesn't have much power to keep them going.