3 ms·

2005 is when the Wikipedia table starts. The premise of your "they should have invested in Firefox" is just flawed. They are spending by far the most money on F

2005 is when the Wikipedia table starts. The premise of your "they should have invested in Firefox" is just flawed. They are spending by far the most money on Firefox, always have. And Firefox has always been a perfectly fine browser. They were behind Chrome on some metrics for some years, but have long since caught up. Quantum launched towards the end of 2017, more than 6 years ago. The idea that the lack of quality of Firefox is the dominant reason behind the declining marketshare just is not plausible to me, and I have seen no evidence posted for it. It's wishful thinking. Firefox and Internet Explorer both started declining when Chrome started eating the world. The speed of the decline does not in any way seem to relate to the gap in tech between the browsers.

withoutboats3 3y ago
They laid off hundreds of staff while they were massively in the black. If your thesis is that Firefox was doomed whatever Mozilla did, and so it's fine to lay off staff and build a warchest to support a post-browser advocacy foundation which pays its leadership 7 figure salaries, that's certainly a position - indeed, it seems to be the position of Mozilla leadership. But to me it is at odds with the thesis of change in which Mozilla keeps the web open by having enough market share to matter in the standards decision making. What is the point of Mozilla without Firefox except to pay the leadership massive salaries?