6 ms·

This is a reminder that Mozilla only exists because of google, in the Mozilla Foundation's 2021–2022 financial statement, Mozilla states to have made $593 Milli

This is a reminder that Mozilla only exists because of google, in the Mozilla Foundation's 2021–2022 financial statement, Mozilla states to have made $593 Million, $510 Million of that came from Google. Mozilla is bitching because they dont exist without Google, and while they may claim to be independent or whatever, if the DOJ forces Google to end default search deals, Mozilla disappears.

dsr_ 2y ago
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/annualreport/2024/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/annualreport/2024/ Yup.
- mossTechnician 2y ago
  If I'm counting right, that page (minus header/footer) mentions Firefox three times, and AI 17 times. And one of the mentions of Firefox is practically pejorative: "Mozilla has been incorrectly thought of by many as 'the Firefox company.'"
  - jckahn 2y ago
    This is depressing. Firefox is the only browser I'm willing to daily drive because it's the only one that's good and built by a nonprofit. I love Firefox, but loving Mozilla gets harder every day.
    - Dalewyn 2y ago
      >only one that's good and built by a nonprofit. Firefox is developed by Mozilla Corporation, a for-profit.
      - jckahn 2y ago
        I hadn’t realized that. :(
  - kstrauser 2y ago
    They’re right. Mozilla is ‘the Firefox company who imagines themselves otherwise’.
Apocryphon 2y ago
At some point this is Mozilla’s own fault for not finding an alternative revenue scheme after all these decades. Addicted to an easy money spigot.
- LightHugger 2y ago
  They appear to actively scorn the idea of making a good browser as a method of funding as well, they seem to prioritize everything but firefox, and want to blow what's left of the budget on company events at fancy hotels. There's a reason firefox forks get so much more goodwill than mozilla itself for the past several years...
  - dralley 2y ago
    Making the browser itself paid would instantly doom them to irrelevance. It's already bad enough trying to make developers care about a browser with 2% marketshare, it will be impossible to do so if their marketshare drops to 0.1%, which it will if you make it paid. That strategy only works for browsers that are basically just thin wrappers around Chrome or Webkit, with basically no development cost for the core browser tech and low divergence from those platforms. It's not going to sustain a fully independent browser stack.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - LightHugger 2y ago
      I was not suggesting a paid browser, that's a bit of a leap. But right now mozilla has burned all their goodwill. If they wanted to, for example, focus on making firefox really good and solicit donations specifically to support continued firefox development, it wouldn't work anymore. They could have followed the model of other large open source projects that do the same. But now i would never want to support them. The goodwill is just gone and if you give money to mozilla right now it gets wasted on nonsense, they have so little interest in firefox. I'd rather support any of the forks.
- 2y ago
tivert 2y ago
Maybe they should think of starting to spend "Mozilla Foundation" money on browser development, like most donors expect them to, instead of other random things no one cares about.
- echelon 2y ago
  To be fair, the Rust thing was really great. All the lackluster AI, VR, and other toys have been wasted efforts though.
  - everfrustrated 2y ago
    Didn't they lay off all the rust devs they funded? I'm unclear what Mozilla actually did to _actively_ foster Rust. I get the impression it was more like Tim Berners-Lee and Cern.
- dralley 2y ago
  >Maybe they should think of starting to spend "Mozilla Foundation" money on browser development That would be tax fraud. Tax-exempt charitable donations from MoFo can't be used for product development by MoCo, a for-profit company.
  - ForHackernews 2y ago
    It sounds like MoCo doesn't make any profit anyway, it's just an antitrust shield for Google.
    - dralley 2y ago
      It does make profit. The Corportation-owned-by-Foundation model is not that uncommon.
      - tivert 2y ago
        > It does make profit. The Corportation-owned-by-Foundation model is not that uncommon. How, exactly? Excess from Google's money drops? If their corporate structure is a barrier to using donations for development, I think they need to change it. If "MoFo" can't send money to "MoCo," but I bet the opposite could be made to work. Maybe "MoCo" should gift the browser software and development teams to "MoFo," and pay the Google money (as long as it lasts) to the foundation to license it back to distribute it with search engine-placements, etc.
seanw444 2y ago
It doesn't help that they're bleeding their minimal customer-base with political bullshit: https://blog.mozilla.org/blogarchive/blog/2021/01/08/we-need-more-than-deplatforming/ https://blog.mozilla.org/blogarchive/blog/2021/01/08/we-need...
- PKop 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - unethical_ban 2y ago
    I suspect we have different definitions of "political speech" and "silence" and how that applies to the 1st amendment. Jan 6 was an abomination, and it should not be controversial for a tech company that values democratic values to call for algorithm and advertising transparency.
    - PKop 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - unethical_ban 2y ago
        >We're beyond engaging in these discussions as if they're in good faith. Due to the inevitable abuse that unfettered viral social media, black-box algorithms and dark money in social media advertising lead to. I 100% believe Elon Musk's PAC should be shamed and possibly punished for simultaneously running "Kamala stands with Israel" in Muslim Michigan while running "Kamala stands with Palestine" in Jewish Philadelphia. Then again, punished? Maybe America should be punished for electing these charlatans. Support cutting taxes for the rich and recycling the bodies of the poor to feed into a new Monsanto product? Fine. But lie about facts, spin up millions of fake accounts to promote lies, and try to hide where the lies are coming from? Nah, fuck that. Social media should stop disinformation. > It's never not going to be "controversial" for a faction to oppose things that are obviously bad for them. If spewing disinformation is all the right has going for them, then I don't care what they think - cut them off. Just like I'm not surprised that CEOs hate unions and taxes.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

dsr_ 2y ago

https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/annualreport/2024/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/annualreport/2024/ Yup.

mossTechnician 2y ago
If I'm counting right, that page (minus header/footer) mentions Firefox three times, and AI 17 times. And one of the mentions of Firefox is practically pejorative: "Mozilla has been incorrectly thought of by many as 'the Firefox company.'"
- jckahn 2y ago
  This is depressing. Firefox is the only browser I'm willing to daily drive because it's the only one that's good and built by a nonprofit. I love Firefox, but loving Mozilla gets harder every day.
  - Dalewyn 2y ago
    >only one that's good and built by a nonprofit. Firefox is developed by Mozilla Corporation, a for-profit.
    - jckahn 2y ago
      I hadn’t realized that. :(
- kstrauser 2y ago
  They’re right. Mozilla is ‘the Firefox company who imagines themselves otherwise’.

Apocryphon 2y ago

At some point this is Mozilla’s own fault for not finding an alternative revenue scheme after all these decades. Addicted to an easy money spigot.

LightHugger 2y ago
They appear to actively scorn the idea of making a good browser as a method of funding as well, they seem to prioritize everything but firefox, and want to blow what's left of the budget on company events at fancy hotels. There's a reason firefox forks get so much more goodwill than mozilla itself for the past several years...
- dralley 2y ago
  Making the browser itself paid would instantly doom them to irrelevance. It's already bad enough trying to make developers care about a browser with 2% marketshare, it will be impossible to do so if their marketshare drops to 0.1%, which it will if you make it paid. That strategy only works for browsers that are basically just thin wrappers around Chrome or Webkit, with basically no development cost for the core browser tech and low divergence from those platforms. It's not going to sustain a fully independent browser stack.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - LightHugger 2y ago
    I was not suggesting a paid browser, that's a bit of a leap. But right now mozilla has burned all their goodwill. If they wanted to, for example, focus on making firefox really good and solicit donations specifically to support continued firefox development, it wouldn't work anymore. They could have followed the model of other large open source projects that do the same. But now i would never want to support them. The goodwill is just gone and if you give money to mozilla right now it gets wasted on nonsense, they have so little interest in firefox. I'd rather support any of the forks.
2y ago

tivert 2y ago

Maybe they should think of starting to spend "Mozilla Foundation" money on browser development, like most donors expect them to, instead of other random things no one cares about.

echelon 2y ago
To be fair, the Rust thing was really great. All the lackluster AI, VR, and other toys have been wasted efforts though.
- everfrustrated 2y ago
  Didn't they lay off all the rust devs they funded? I'm unclear what Mozilla actually did to _actively_ foster Rust. I get the impression it was more like Tim Berners-Lee and Cern.
dralley 2y ago
>Maybe they should think of starting to spend "Mozilla Foundation" money on browser development That would be tax fraud. Tax-exempt charitable donations from MoFo can't be used for product development by MoCo, a for-profit company.
- ForHackernews 2y ago
  It sounds like MoCo doesn't make any profit anyway, it's just an antitrust shield for Google.
  - dralley 2y ago
    It does make profit. The Corportation-owned-by-Foundation model is not that uncommon.
    - tivert 2y ago
      > It does make profit. The Corportation-owned-by-Foundation model is not that uncommon. How, exactly? Excess from Google's money drops? If their corporate structure is a barrier to using donations for development, I think they need to change it. If "MoFo" can't send money to "MoCo," but I bet the opposite could be made to work. Maybe "MoCo" should gift the browser software and development teams to "MoFo," and pay the Google money (as long as it lasts) to the foundation to license it back to distribute it with search engine-placements, etc.

seanw444 2y ago

It doesn't help that they're bleeding their minimal customer-base with political bullshit: https://blog.mozilla.org/blogarchive/blog/2021/01/08/we-need-more-than-deplatforming/ https://blog.mozilla.org/blogarchive/blog/2021/01/08/we-need...

PKop 2y ago
[flagged]
- unethical_ban 2y ago
  I suspect we have different definitions of "political speech" and "silence" and how that applies to the 1st amendment. Jan 6 was an abomination, and it should not be controversial for a tech company that values democratic values to call for algorithm and advertising transparency.
  - PKop 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - unethical_ban 2y ago
      >We're beyond engaging in these discussions as if they're in good faith. Due to the inevitable abuse that unfettered viral social media, black-box algorithms and dark money in social media advertising lead to. I 100% believe Elon Musk's PAC should be shamed and possibly punished for simultaneously running "Kamala stands with Israel" in Muslim Michigan while running "Kamala stands with Palestine" in Jewish Philadelphia. Then again, punished? Maybe America should be punished for electing these charlatans. Support cutting taxes for the rich and recycling the bodies of the poor to feed into a new Monsanto product? Fine. But lie about facts, spin up millions of fake accounts to promote lies, and try to hide where the lies are coming from? Nah, fuck that. Social media should stop disinformation. > It's never not going to be "controversial" for a faction to oppose things that are obviously bad for them. If spewing disinformation is all the right has going for them, then I don't care what they think - cut them off. Just like I'm not surprised that CEOs hate unions and taxes.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]