5 ms·

Back when I worked there (2010-2012), a lot of people thought Google wouldn't renew the deal. So there was a scramble to figure out how to make enough money to

Back when I worked there (2010-2012), a lot of people thought Google wouldn't renew the deal. So there was a scramble to figure out how to make enough money to avoid layoffs. Basically, how do you make another ~$100M/yr in case Google money goes away? It's 2024, and Google still pays (more like ~$500M/yr from Google now) and Mozilla still exists. But it was hovering over people's heads back then, and still is.

pas 3y ago
okay, but did they figure it out? it seems they are stuck between two worlds. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Corporation#Finances https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Corporation#Finances they are spending serious startup money every year on nothing. it's as if they got the google disease with the google funds. :/
- Rapzid 3y ago
  Yeah you'd think if FireFox is their golden advertising goose they'd, you know, make it embeddable and add the ability to fully style scrollbars so it'd be suitable across the board for modern development. And you'd think 500m a year would be enough to do this. But here we are. And with FireFox fading I'm wondering how they plan on having a real impact with their mission.
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    If FF dies Mozilla is over.
MrMember 3y ago
Wouldn't someone else step in? It was Yahoo for a while. Firefox market share is pretty pitiful these days but the default search engine is still worth something.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
sirsinsalot 3y ago
Google will keep propping up Firefox to keep placate anti-comp. I recon Mozilla have more leverage than they think.
strix_varius 3y ago
And I suspect Google pays that $500M in order to have something to point to and say, "See! We're not a monopoly!"
- latency-guy2 3y ago
  Yes, quite literally. And the answer is, Chrome is the better product, the users continue to choose the better option, if the government wants to consider that Chrome acts monopolistic, then the government is acting in extreme bad faith. The statement or existence of "monopoly" is not one way direction to being "bad for the economy", the government knows this and speaks out the side of their mouth declaring it always is the case, and does not care, so Google is funding the opposition, as they must.
  - batiudrami 3y ago
    The only place I see Chrome is the objectively better product is when using google services, so your monopoly argument somewhat falls apart.
    - latency-guy2 3y ago
      So why doesn't the government get in and break apart that monopoly that is Chrome, today? Chrome has the highest market share of internet browsers ~this side of the great firewall~ worldwide (just checked, still is the case in China today, assumed it changed)! Far worse has been done to companies with less control over their respective markets. I am being a bit facetious when it comes to features though, fully admit, FF is better in getting a few of those, and don't deny history especially with Firebug.
      - kibwen 3y ago
        > So why doesn't the government get in and break apart that monopoly that is Chrome, today? Wake me up when the government finds the gumption to break up any of the monopolies that are begging for it. Google is but one of dozens that should have been broken up before now.
geoelectric 3y ago
Pretty sure it popped up to closer to $300M/yr around the time you left, at least based on the internal rumor mill around the value of the three-year Google contract immediately prior to the Y! debacle. That said, since it was MoCo and not MoFo, I think the specific numbers were never divulged. Take the rumor mill and my recollection with a grain of salt.
jacquesm 3y ago
I guess that makes sense but for me the equation would be a different one: since Mozilla is for me synonymous with Firefox I'd allocate all of the resources to FireFox and that would result in (1) a much more secure future for FireFox, (2) reduced loss of marketshare (so a better negotiation position vis-a-vis Google) and (3) a much lower per annum expense to keep that mission alive. By burning a ton of money on unrelated things FireFox is now actively at risk of disappearing. Google can point at Edge now and say they're not a monopoly, they may not need FireFox for much longer.

pas 3y ago

okay, but did they figure it out? it seems they are stuck between two worlds. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Corporation#Finances https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Corporation#Finances they are spending serious startup money every year on nothing. it's as if they got the google disease with the google funds. :/

Rapzid 3y ago
Yeah you'd think if FireFox is their golden advertising goose they'd, you know, make it embeddable and add the ability to fully style scrollbars so it'd be suitable across the board for modern development. And you'd think 500m a year would be enough to do this. But here we are. And with FireFox fading I'm wondering how they plan on having a real impact with their mission.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  If FF dies Mozilla is over.

MrMember 3y ago

Wouldn't someone else step in? It was Yahoo for a while. Firefox market share is pretty pitiful these days but the default search engine is still worth something.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

sirsinsalot 3y ago

Google will keep propping up Firefox to keep placate anti-comp. I recon Mozilla have more leverage than they think.

strix_varius 3y ago

And I suspect Google pays that $500M in order to have something to point to and say, "See! We're not a monopoly!"

latency-guy2 3y ago
Yes, quite literally. And the answer is, Chrome is the better product, the users continue to choose the better option, if the government wants to consider that Chrome acts monopolistic, then the government is acting in extreme bad faith. The statement or existence of "monopoly" is not one way direction to being "bad for the economy", the government knows this and speaks out the side of their mouth declaring it always is the case, and does not care, so Google is funding the opposition, as they must.
- batiudrami 3y ago
  The only place I see Chrome is the objectively better product is when using google services, so your monopoly argument somewhat falls apart.
  - latency-guy2 3y ago
    So why doesn't the government get in and break apart that monopoly that is Chrome, today? Chrome has the highest market share of internet browsers ~this side of the great firewall~ worldwide (just checked, still is the case in China today, assumed it changed)! Far worse has been done to companies with less control over their respective markets. I am being a bit facetious when it comes to features though, fully admit, FF is better in getting a few of those, and don't deny history especially with Firebug.
    - kibwen 3y ago
      > So why doesn't the government get in and break apart that monopoly that is Chrome, today? Wake me up when the government finds the gumption to break up any of the monopolies that are begging for it. Google is but one of dozens that should have been broken up before now.

geoelectric 3y ago

Pretty sure it popped up to closer to $300M/yr around the time you left, at least based on the internal rumor mill around the value of the three-year Google contract immediately prior to the Y! debacle. That said, since it was MoCo and not MoFo, I think the specific numbers were never divulged. Take the rumor mill and my recollection with a grain of salt.

jacquesm 3y ago

I guess that makes sense but for me the equation would be a different one: since Mozilla is for me synonymous with Firefox I'd allocate all of the resources to FireFox and that would result in (1) a much more secure future for FireFox, (2) reduced loss of marketshare (so a better negotiation position vis-a-vis Google) and (3) a much lower per annum expense to keep that mission alive. By burning a ton of money on unrelated things FireFox is now actively at risk of disappearing. Google can point at Edge now and say they're not a monopoly, they may not need FireFox for much longer.