5 ms·

They have tried to move away from Google. The problem is none of their other ideas have worked out.

by slyall 3y ago

tempest_ 3y ago
In fact they get chided around here for anything that isnt a firefox specific endevour. Browser engines are not a money making business (if it was Microsoft would still be in the game)
- johannes1234321 3y ago
  The issue is: A browser engine is what is needed from them. VPN can be done by many organisations.
  - pseudalopex 3y ago
    Mozilla VPN is done by Mullvad mostly.
- freeAgent 3y ago
  Many (most?) non-Firefox endeavors of the Mozilla Foundation have been half-hearted flops for which they deserve chiding. I struggle to name any non-Firefox Mozilla project that has been successful and which they've continued to support.
wkat4242 3y ago
Because they're harebrained ideas. I don't want to pay Mozilla for a limited version of mullvad when I can get the full mullvad for less. I don't think they actually ever expected any of these ideas to work. In the meantime you can't even donate to firefox if you want to, only to the foundation. I mean, I give money to KDE every month and they manage to build a whole desktop environment. Why can't I do that with Mozilla? Oh wait, how much money does KDE waste on a CEO?
lolinder 3y ago
Here's an idea: provide a donations bucket that gives a guarantee that they'll be earmarked exclusively for Firefox development. Nothing off the top for CEO salaries, nothing siphoned off for random side projects—this bucket should be guaranteed to pay the salaries of Firefox developers. It might not make millions, but I'd donate in a heartbeat if I knew that my money would actually go to Firefox and not to one of the dozens of random side quests that Mozilla keeps picking up.
- yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
  > provide a donations bucket that gives a guarantee that they'll be earmarked exclusively for Firefox development I've head that there are tax problems with that. So maybe there needs to be a paid "Firefox Pro" or whatever?
  - lolinder 3y ago
    That'd work just as well for me. I just want a way to give Mozilla a clear signal that I pay them for Firefox, not for Pocket or a VPN or for whatever the flavor of the month is for the nonprofit. As is, there is no way for me to send them that signal, and I'm not prepared to endorse any of the non-Firefox projects Mozilla's put out.
  - wkat4242 3y ago
    The tax problems were because of the Google deal, not the donations.
- pseudalopex 3y ago
  Money is fungible. How should they guarantee your donation paid Firefox developers only?
  - lolinder 3y ago
    You're correct, and this is a general problem with earmarking—there's nothing to stop the organization from just shifting unrestricted funds out of that bucket to compensate. I still would donate in this scenario, because the main point is that I want to be explicit about which activities Mozilla is engaging in that I find valuable. Donating to Mozilla right now would send the wrong message.
vidarh 3y ago
For starters that'd be a reason to cut cost and allocate an increasing proportion of current revenue into a diversified investment portfolio to eventually gradually shift towards being able to at a minimum know they can cost-cut and survive of that investment return should they need to. If I was aiming to set up a company like Mozilla, I'd want all earnings to go into such a fund, and all costs to come out of buffered investment returns... Yes, significantly slows down the rate you can spend, but it also significantly increases the odds of longevity and independence. Of course that presumes the goal is to build the organization, not to get personally rich off it.
pseudalopex 3y ago
Mozilla's subscriptions and advertising grew from nothing in 2016 to 13% of revenue in 2022.
Nextgrid 3y ago
Here's an idea: an enterprise/power-user focused browser. The market for productivity tools is huge, and likewise for enterprise security snake oil. The browser, being at the front of most security threats would be a great place to implement security features that might not be entirely snake oil, and The Enterprise will gobble it up and pay up.

They have tried to move away from Google. The problem is none of their other ideas have worked out.

by slyall 3y ago

They have tried to move away from Google. The problem is none of their other ideas have worked out.

In fact they get chided around here for anything that isnt a firefox specific endevour. Browser engines are not a money making business (if it was Microsoft would still be in the game)

johannes1234321 3y ago
The issue is: A browser engine is what is needed from them. VPN can be done by many organisations.
- pseudalopex 3y ago
  Mozilla VPN is done by Mullvad mostly.
freeAgent 3y ago
Many (most?) non-Firefox endeavors of the Mozilla Foundation have been half-hearted flops for which they deserve chiding. I struggle to name any non-Firefox Mozilla project that has been successful and which they've continued to support.

wkat4242 3y ago

Because they're harebrained ideas. I don't want to pay Mozilla for a limited version of mullvad when I can get the full mullvad for less. I don't think they actually ever expected any of these ideas to work. In the meantime you can't even donate to firefox if you want to, only to the foundation. I mean, I give money to KDE every month and they manage to build a whole desktop environment. Why can't I do that with Mozilla? Oh wait, how much money does KDE waste on a CEO?

lolinder 3y ago

Here's an idea: provide a donations bucket that gives a guarantee that they'll be earmarked exclusively for Firefox development. Nothing off the top for CEO salaries, nothing siphoned off for random side projects—this bucket should be guaranteed to pay the salaries of Firefox developers. It might not make millions, but I'd donate in a heartbeat if I knew that my money would actually go to Firefox and not to one of the dozens of random side quests that Mozilla keeps picking up.

yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
> provide a donations bucket that gives a guarantee that they'll be earmarked exclusively for Firefox development I've head that there are tax problems with that. So maybe there needs to be a paid "Firefox Pro" or whatever?
- lolinder 3y ago
  That'd work just as well for me. I just want a way to give Mozilla a clear signal that I pay them for Firefox, not for Pocket or a VPN or for whatever the flavor of the month is for the nonprofit. As is, there is no way for me to send them that signal, and I'm not prepared to endorse any of the non-Firefox projects Mozilla's put out.
- wkat4242 3y ago
  The tax problems were because of the Google deal, not the donations.
pseudalopex 3y ago
Money is fungible. How should they guarantee your donation paid Firefox developers only?
- lolinder 3y ago
  You're correct, and this is a general problem with earmarking—there's nothing to stop the organization from just shifting unrestricted funds out of that bucket to compensate. I still would donate in this scenario, because the main point is that I want to be explicit about which activities Mozilla is engaging in that I find valuable. Donating to Mozilla right now would send the wrong message.

vidarh 3y ago

For starters that'd be a reason to cut cost and allocate an increasing proportion of current revenue into a diversified investment portfolio to eventually gradually shift towards being able to at a minimum know they can cost-cut and survive of that investment return should they need to. If I was aiming to set up a company like Mozilla, I'd want all earnings to go into such a fund, and all costs to come out of buffered investment returns... Yes, significantly slows down the rate you can spend, but it also significantly increases the odds of longevity and independence. Of course that presumes the goal is to build the organization, not to get personally rich off it.

pseudalopex 3y ago

Mozilla's subscriptions and advertising grew from nothing in 2016 to 13% of revenue in 2022.

Nextgrid 3y ago

Here's an idea: an enterprise/power-user focused browser. The market for productivity tools is huge, and likewise for enterprise security snake oil. The browser, being at the front of most security threats would be a great place to implement security features that might not be entirely snake oil, and The Enterprise will gobble it up and pay up.