3 ms·

I would imagine that there is caution about becoming beholden to user donations to continue operations. Such a situation would give users a measure of effective

I would imagine that there is caution about becoming beholden to user donations to continue operations. Such a situation would give users a measure of effective voting power in the development of the browser.

lolinder 2y ago
If you were starting a project from scratch I could see that as a valid concern, but the current world is one where 80% of the funds to pay for Firefox comes from Google. No one can seriously argue that becoming beholden to your users is a worse situation than becoming beholden to your primary competitor.
- coldtea 2y ago
  >No one can seriously argue that becoming beholden to your users is a worse situation than becoming beholden to your primary competitor. The C-level execs getting their salaries off that Google money can!
  - immibis 2y ago
    Hypothesis: They are paid (by Google) to keep Firefox unpopular.
    - wkat4242 2y ago
      I don't think so, but close. I think they're indirectly paid by Google to keep Firefox around as a token competitor for antitrust purposes. I'm sure that's what the "search deal" is really about. Because Google already owns the search market, they don't have to pay for it. However with falling marketshare there comes a point that when that won't fool regulators anymore. And then there's no point for Google to keep paying.
- PmTKg5d3AoKVnj0 2y ago
  I would present that situation as evidence that the "competition" isn't really a serious one. But perhaps I am ignorant.
  - lolinder 2y ago
    It seems more likely to you that Google isn't serious about Chrome's dominance than that they're totally serious about it and are using Firefox as a guard against antitrust and using their funding of Firefox as leverage to get Mozilla to cave?
wongarsu 2y ago
That's the same situation basically any for-profit company with a paid product is in, is it not? If people don't like your product or don't see a future in it they will be less willing to pay for it (or donate for it). How is that bad?
- PmTKg5d3AoKVnj0 2y ago
  That's the difference between profit and rent: the optionality of the product.
coldtea 2y ago
>Such a situation would give users a measure of effective voting power in the development of the browser. Yes, better give it to Google and golden-parachuting C-level execs
llm_trw 2y ago
As opposed to being dependent on Google. Which is your main competitor. Galaxy brain move from the brain trust at Mozilla, sorry I mean Mozi//a.
kazinator 2y ago
Why that is unacceptable; so give it all to Google?

lolinder 2y ago

If you were starting a project from scratch I could see that as a valid concern, but the current world is one where 80% of the funds to pay for Firefox comes from Google. No one can seriously argue that becoming beholden to your users is a worse situation than becoming beholden to your primary competitor.

coldtea 2y ago
>No one can seriously argue that becoming beholden to your users is a worse situation than becoming beholden to your primary competitor. The C-level execs getting their salaries off that Google money can!
- immibis 2y ago
  Hypothesis: They are paid (by Google) to keep Firefox unpopular.
  - wkat4242 2y ago
    I don't think so, but close. I think they're indirectly paid by Google to keep Firefox around as a token competitor for antitrust purposes. I'm sure that's what the "search deal" is really about. Because Google already owns the search market, they don't have to pay for it. However with falling marketshare there comes a point that when that won't fool regulators anymore. And then there's no point for Google to keep paying.
PmTKg5d3AoKVnj0 2y ago
I would present that situation as evidence that the "competition" isn't really a serious one. But perhaps I am ignorant.
- lolinder 2y ago
  It seems more likely to you that Google isn't serious about Chrome's dominance than that they're totally serious about it and are using Firefox as a guard against antitrust and using their funding of Firefox as leverage to get Mozilla to cave?

wongarsu 2y ago

That's the same situation basically any for-profit company with a paid product is in, is it not? If people don't like your product or don't see a future in it they will be less willing to pay for it (or donate for it). How is that bad?

PmTKg5d3AoKVnj0 2y ago
That's the difference between profit and rent: the optionality of the product.

coldtea 2y ago

>Such a situation would give users a measure of effective voting power in the development of the browser. Yes, better give it to Google and golden-parachuting C-level execs

llm_trw 2y ago

As opposed to being dependent on Google. Which is your main competitor. Galaxy brain move from the brain trust at Mozilla, sorry I mean Mozi//a.

kazinator 2y ago

Why that is unacceptable; so give it all to Google?