2 ms·

I think if they believed there would be enough people to justify charging for the software to make that model work, they would do it. But I don't think it's act

I think if they believed there would be enough people to justify charging for the software to make that model work, they would do it. But I don't think it's actually viable, I think the number of people that would pay for firefox is much lower than you think. Consider how many other similarly popular software programs charge small fees for their app... I can't even think of a single one. And you can only really charge for binaries, because as soon as one person gets the source, they can distribute it, and then they (or others) can make their own (free) binaries, and then why would anyone pay money anymore.

Silhouette 2y ago
I don't expect a high proportion of people would pay for a browser. My point is that if you're starting at 200M users you don't need a high proportion. You just need a loyal core of fans who see enough value to play the "whale" role and prop up the rest. Given the kind of people that Firefox has traditionally appealed to in the first place I don't think that's an entirely unrealistic scenario. As for other apps - for my own small development businesses we have spent a lot more than $10/user on all-day-every-day development tools like text editors and diff tools. Also on several other areas like graphics, business admin and communications. For a browser and related resources that we also use on a daily basis whenever we're working on web projects it would be a very quick decision. I don't accept your premise about only charging for the binaries. You're not going after the people who would rip you off anyway with this model. You're going after the people who genuinely value your product and want to support its continued development. They're going to pay a modest amount without much thought just as we do for several of the software packages we use - despite almost all of them having free (but not necessarily as good in our opinion) competitors available.
- ranger_danger 2y ago
  > They're going to pay a modest amount without much thought Highly disagree... I think if you've been providing a free and open source product to your loyal fans for over 20 years, then suddenly start charging for it, isn't going to get people stepping over each other to hand their money over.
wtallis 2y ago
I also doubt whether that business model could work. But I don't think doubt is the reason Mozilla hasn't tried it. They won't go that route because the best-case outcome is that it becomes a sustainable but small business. They aren't interested in something that doesn't have a chance at turning into a jackpot.

Silhouette 2y ago

I don't expect a high proportion of people would pay for a browser. My point is that if you're starting at 200M users you don't need a high proportion. You just need a loyal core of fans who see enough value to play the "whale" role and prop up the rest. Given the kind of people that Firefox has traditionally appealed to in the first place I don't think that's an entirely unrealistic scenario. As for other apps - for my own small development businesses we have spent a lot more than $10/user on all-day-every-day development tools like text editors and diff tools. Also on several other areas like graphics, business admin and communications. For a browser and related resources that we also use on a daily basis whenever we're working on web projects it would be a very quick decision. I don't accept your premise about only charging for the binaries. You're not going after the people who would rip you off anyway with this model. You're going after the people who genuinely value your product and want to support its continued development. They're going to pay a modest amount without much thought just as we do for several of the software packages we use - despite almost all of them having free (but not necessarily as good in our opinion) competitors available.

ranger_danger 2y ago
> They're going to pay a modest amount without much thought Highly disagree... I think if you've been providing a free and open source product to your loyal fans for over 20 years, then suddenly start charging for it, isn't going to get people stepping over each other to hand their money over.

wtallis 2y ago

I also doubt whether that business model could work. But I don't think doubt is the reason Mozilla hasn't tried it. They won't go that route because the best-case outcome is that it becomes a sustainable but small business. They aren't interested in something that doesn't have a chance at turning into a jackpot.