3 ms·

and it can't do much either. Other FOSS browsers like Brave are independently funded and have a better survival rate than Firefox which has been losing millions

and it can't do much either. Other FOSS browsers like Brave are independently funded and have a better survival rate than Firefox which has been losing millions of MAUs every year. The only thing that can save Firefox is a better management and a better business model but we all know that's not going to happen. The current management has been unable to do anything of value.

Mountain_Skies 3y ago
The management seems to be extracting lots of value into their own personal wealth. Sure, that might end up killing the company long term but the amount of wealth they're extracting has the top management set for life.
- xhkkffbf 3y ago
  Aren't they a non-profit?
  - muro 3y ago
    What does being a non-profit have to do with management compensation? People don't work there for free.
    - olyjohn 3y ago
      No but that seems to be the expectation. People act like if it's a non-profit that they have to be held to the highest standards, and everybody there should be volunteering out of the goodness of their heart. Meanwhile, anything done by a for-profit company is okay, because they're a business and they have to make money. Fucking bullshit.
  - jstarfish 3y ago
    Yes. All that means is that the money siphoned off by management was never taxed as revenue. Non-profits are not charities (though some are). It is just a business model. The fucking NFL is a non-profit organization. See also: Boy Scouts of America. Nearly bankrupt from sex abuse lawsuits, the program itself may fold, but no executive is going hungry. See also: the Susan Komen foundation, whose only function is to raise money to talk about breast cancer. Not to cure it, just to raise awareness of it.
    - runlaszlorun 3y ago
      > Yes. All that means is that the money siphoned off by management was never taxed as revenue. Non-profits are not charities (though some are). It is just a business model. The fucking NFL is a non-profit organization. Honestly, every sentence in there is incorrect. Are many senior non-profit execs overpaid for underperforming? You’re prob right. But the hyperbole takes away from your point, IMHO.
      - throwaway-blaze 3y ago
        Salaries and benefits are generally deducted from taxable gains at every company in the western world, not even just in the USA.
      - jstarfish 3y ago
        > Honestly, every sentence in there is incorrect. The NFL's non-profit status has been contentious for years. > Section 501(c)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code specifically defines professional football leagues as exempt organizations under that section. These organizations are exempt whether or not they administer a pension fund for football players. (Irs.gov)
        okprod 3y ago
        To be clear, the difference between the NFL (when it was a 501(c)(6)) and Mozilla as a 501(c)(3) is the former tax status specifies an entity's purpose as serving members of an association, while 501(c)(3)s have a purpose to serve the public good. Strictly from a nonprofit financial perspective and from reviewing its most recently filed public 990, Mozilla doesn't pay its senior staff an exorbitant amount; it looks to be an entity with $20-$30M in revenue and double that in assets, so seeing its highest paid employees making $200-$300K isn't out of the ordinary. It does look to pay quite a bit to Upwork, which I assume is their rent expense. It can be difficult to tell from a 990 if there is fraud going on however.
rcme 3y ago
Brave is independently funded, but it's leveraging Chromium, so it's kind of receiving funding indirectly.
- NayamAmarshe 3y ago
  That's a great point but I think Chromium closing down source code would be less of a problem (as chromium developers could create a common fork) than Firefox losing Google as its oxygen.
  - chii 3y ago
    If firefox could remain community contributed, the loss of google as a source of funding might be painful in the short term (for their paid employees), but might be good for the future of firefox. I highly suspect that the management at mozilla is merely using google as a source of income, with no real intention of attempting to dethrone chrome.
deafpolygon 3y ago
> Other FOSS browsers like Brave are independently funded Which relies on Chromium, which means they aren't doing 100% of the development (and a large part of development is driven by Google, which in turn means, Brave relies on Google).

Mountain_Skies 3y ago

The management seems to be extracting lots of value into their own personal wealth. Sure, that might end up killing the company long term but the amount of wealth they're extracting has the top management set for life.

xhkkffbf 3y ago
Aren't they a non-profit?
- muro 3y ago
  What does being a non-profit have to do with management compensation? People don't work there for free.
  - olyjohn 3y ago
    No but that seems to be the expectation. People act like if it's a non-profit that they have to be held to the highest standards, and everybody there should be volunteering out of the goodness of their heart. Meanwhile, anything done by a for-profit company is okay, because they're a business and they have to make money. Fucking bullshit.
- jstarfish 3y ago
  Yes. All that means is that the money siphoned off by management was never taxed as revenue. Non-profits are not charities (though some are). It is just a business model. The fucking NFL is a non-profit organization. See also: Boy Scouts of America. Nearly bankrupt from sex abuse lawsuits, the program itself may fold, but no executive is going hungry. See also: the Susan Komen foundation, whose only function is to raise money to talk about breast cancer. Not to cure it, just to raise awareness of it.
  - runlaszlorun 3y ago
    > Yes. All that means is that the money siphoned off by management was never taxed as revenue. Non-profits are not charities (though some are). It is just a business model. The fucking NFL is a non-profit organization. Honestly, every sentence in there is incorrect. Are many senior non-profit execs overpaid for underperforming? You’re prob right. But the hyperbole takes away from your point, IMHO.
    - throwaway-blaze 3y ago
      Salaries and benefits are generally deducted from taxable gains at every company in the western world, not even just in the USA.
    - jstarfish 3y ago
      > Honestly, every sentence in there is incorrect. The NFL's non-profit status has been contentious for years. > Section 501(c)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code specifically defines professional football leagues as exempt organizations under that section. These organizations are exempt whether or not they administer a pension fund for football players. (Irs.gov)
      - okprod 3y ago
        To be clear, the difference between the NFL (when it was a 501(c)(6)) and Mozilla as a 501(c)(3) is the former tax status specifies an entity's purpose as serving members of an association, while 501(c)(3)s have a purpose to serve the public good. Strictly from a nonprofit financial perspective and from reviewing its most recently filed public 990, Mozilla doesn't pay its senior staff an exorbitant amount; it looks to be an entity with $20-$30M in revenue and double that in assets, so seeing its highest paid employees making $200-$300K isn't out of the ordinary. It does look to pay quite a bit to Upwork, which I assume is their rent expense. It can be difficult to tell from a 990 if there is fraud going on however.

rcme 3y ago

Brave is independently funded, but it's leveraging Chromium, so it's kind of receiving funding indirectly.

NayamAmarshe 3y ago
That's a great point but I think Chromium closing down source code would be less of a problem (as chromium developers could create a common fork) than Firefox losing Google as its oxygen.
- chii 3y ago
  If firefox could remain community contributed, the loss of google as a source of funding might be painful in the short term (for their paid employees), but might be good for the future of firefox. I highly suspect that the management at mozilla is merely using google as a source of income, with no real intention of attempting to dethrone chrome.

deafpolygon 3y ago

> Other FOSS browsers like Brave are independently funded Which relies on Chromium, which means they aren't doing 100% of the development (and a large part of development is driven by Google, which in turn means, Brave relies on Google).