6 ms·

Part of what the DOJ is seeking against Google would severely impact Mozilla financially however, as they want to ban them from paying to be the default search

Part of what the DOJ is seeking against Google would severely impact Mozilla financially however, as they want to ban them from paying to be the default search engine.

bad_user 2y ago
Which is why Mozilla are getting desperate to diversify their revenue.
- Mailtemi 2y ago
  Mozilla diversifies by increasing the CEO's salary for nothing. Wiki: In 2020, after returning to the position of CEO, Baker's salary was more than $3 million. In 2021, her salary rose again to more than $5 million, and again to nearly $7 million in 2022. The new CEO brings computing for AI money bleed that almost no one wants.
  - bad_user 2y ago
    I don't agree with Mozilla paying that huge CEO salary, but… Do you know Firefox's handy new offline translation feature? That's AI a well. And Firefox is the only browser that doesn't leak your web page when translating it. There are plenty of other uses for AI, such as describing images without alt-text for the blind, or summarization. I, for one, want AI in my browser, you can't really say that “nobody wants it”, when many people clearly do.
    - Mailtemi 2y ago
      Really? Fire the Rust Servo team and double the CEO's salary in the same year? Almost the same money.
      - bad_user 2y ago
        I said I don't agree with them wasting that much money on the CEO, maybe I wasn't clear (perhaps it's due to English not being my first language).
        ziddoap 2y ago
        You were clear. Mailtemi is just talking past the point of your comment, rather than engage with it.
  - glenstein 2y ago
    What's the news on them getting into AI?
    - ac29 2y ago
      Firefox translate uses an on device language model to do webpage translations. There's also an experimental chatbot integration in Firefox. It seems to be opt in at least for now.
  - culi 2y ago
    We know this because of Mozilla's commitment to transparency. These figures come from their annual reports https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/annualreport/2024/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/annualreport/2024/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/annualreport/2023/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/annualreport/2023/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/annualreport/2022/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/annualreport/2022/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/annualreport/2021/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/annualreport/2021/ etc I'm not defending it at all, but I think it's worth pointing out this pay rate is below the rate most CEOs of tech companies of this size are making. I don't really know what the solution here is but I imagine any CEO they replace her with would also seek a high salary. I'd love for them to become a worker-owned cooperative like Igalia but I really don't see that happening any time soon
- nottorp 2y ago
  If only their goal would be to provide an excellent privacy browser, instead of getting revenue :) All they need is to accept donations that go strictly to the browser and not to the latest blockchain/AI hysteria.
  - bad_user 2y ago
    Name a project whose development costs as much as Firefox and that survives from donations. Many people want AI in their browser. And what does Firefox have to do with crypto?
    - jordanb 2y ago
      > Name a project whose development costs as much as Firefox and that survives from donations. Wikipedia.
      - bad_user 2y ago
        Wikimedia does not raise $200 million per year.
        jordanb 2y ago
        You're right. They only raise $180 million a year. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fundraising_statistics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fundraising_statisti... Still feels like it aught to be enough to make a browser.
      - forgotpwd16 2y ago
        Similar to Mozilla & Firefox, there isn't an exact breakdown for Wikimedia expenditures to know the costs associated with Wikipedia. For Firefox, it's often stated its costs are ~200m but those are all expenses Mozilla categorizes under software development. For Wikimedia, within their operation expenses, ~3m were in hosting and ~84m in salaries (related to programs). The salaries are stated to be for multiple initiatives, among which platform development is mentioned*. *Although arguably the most important part of Wikipedia, and their other collaborative projects, are the volunteers maintaining and contributing to it, rather the developers.
MYEUHD 2y ago
That would be a good thing. If Firefox is funded by donations, rather than by Google, it ensures there is no enshittification in the future. And yes, donations can fund a big project, as evidenced by Thunderbird and Ladybird.
- tombert 2y ago
  I mostly agree, but I am slightly worried that it would lead to slower progress in Firefox. As it stands, Google's funding of Firefox is enough to hire a bunch of engineers to make Firefox a pretty competitive browser.
- bad_user 2y ago
  Nobody uses Ladybird, at this point it's vaporware. And Thunderbird is still based on Firefox. The development of Firefox costs around $200 million per year. That's more than what Wikimedia can get from donations, and Wikipedia is a website that everyone uses. And you want to rely on donations from people that ad-block YouTube instead of paying for Premium. And let's say that it manages to bring those costs down to $100 million per year or less and manages to get it from donations (when pigs will fly) … it still has to compete with a Chrome whose estimated cost goes over $1 billion per year.
  - nottorp 2y ago
    > And you want to rely on donations from people that ad-block YouTube instead of paying for Premium. Does Google guarantee it won't spy on me if i pay for Premium? ... no, didn't think so. Besides not everyone uses youtube to the point where paying for it is worth it. > The development of Firefox costs around $200 million per year. Does it? Or that's what the mozilla organization wastes on harebrained initiatives overall? > it still has to compete with a Chrome whose estimated cost goes over $1 billion per year. But that's to add features that benefit Google not the Chrome users. Plus Google has money from their ad quasi monopoly so they can afford to be wasteful.
    - bad_user 2y ago
      YouTube is a 1st party service for Google, so you can't ad-block their tracking. And you aren't ad-blocking YouTube due to the spying, so don't be disingenuous. Yes, it really costs that much. Given Chrome's vast market share, I'm pretty sure its users like it. And you know what? Most users won't mind switching to uBlock Origin Lite, and the elephant in the room is that “manifest v3” also increases security, with Chrome being indeed the most secure browser.
tomrod 2y ago
Indeed. Kagi proves users are willing to pay for search (me included, recently).
- carlosjobim 2y ago
  At the moment it has only proven that 0.00000000001% of users are willing to pay for search.
  - lolinder 2y ago
    That's enough to be (apparently) profitable. It doesn't matter if most people don't pay for search as long as enough people do that paid search can exist. https://blog.kagi.com/what-is-next-for-kagi https://blog.kagi.com/what-is-next-for-kagi
    - carlosjobim 2y ago
      Agreed. But let's not say that it's evidence that "people" in the aggregate are willing to pay for web search.
      - lolinder 2y ago
        Why not? People is the plural of person.
  - tomrod 2y ago
    Ah yes, the mystical 0.0073 units of people paying for search, assuming every person searches. Over a year ago, Kagi hit 20k paying members. This puts monthly ARR between $200k and $500k ($10 to $25/head), roughly. That's 0.000273% of all people -- quite a jump!
  - dzaima 2y ago
    It's more like 0.005%-0.02% of queries and like 0.001% of users depending on what statistics for Google you go by, but of course still very insignificant.
- 2y ago
iteratethis 2y ago
This to me is the ultimate sign that Mozilla has zero values or principles. They've long advocated that Big Tech is a problem, but as soon as somebody tries to actually address it and this coincidentally impacting Mozilla, they abandon any and all principles.

Part of what the DOJ is seeking against Google would severely impact Mozilla financially however, as they want to ban them from paying to be the default search engine.

bad_user 2y ago

Which is why Mozilla are getting desperate to diversify their revenue.

Mailtemi 2y ago
Mozilla diversifies by increasing the CEO's salary for nothing. Wiki: In 2020, after returning to the position of CEO, Baker's salary was more than $3 million. In 2021, her salary rose again to more than $5 million, and again to nearly $7 million in 2022. The new CEO brings computing for AI money bleed that almost no one wants.
- bad_user 2y ago
  I don't agree with Mozilla paying that huge CEO salary, but… Do you know Firefox's handy new offline translation feature? That's AI a well. And Firefox is the only browser that doesn't leak your web page when translating it. There are plenty of other uses for AI, such as describing images without alt-text for the blind, or summarization. I, for one, want AI in my browser, you can't really say that “nobody wants it”, when many people clearly do.
  - Mailtemi 2y ago
    Really? Fire the Rust Servo team and double the CEO's salary in the same year? Almost the same money.
    - bad_user 2y ago
      I said I don't agree with them wasting that much money on the CEO, maybe I wasn't clear (perhaps it's due to English not being my first language).
      - ziddoap 2y ago
        You were clear. Mailtemi is just talking past the point of your comment, rather than engage with it.
- glenstein 2y ago
  What's the news on them getting into AI?
  - ac29 2y ago
    Firefox translate uses an on device language model to do webpage translations. There's also an experimental chatbot integration in Firefox. It seems to be opt in at least for now.
- culi 2y ago
  We know this because of Mozilla's commitment to transparency. These figures come from their annual reports https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/annualreport/2024/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/annualreport/2024/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/annualreport/2023/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/annualreport/2023/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/annualreport/2022/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/annualreport/2022/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/annualreport/2021/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/annualreport/2021/ etc I'm not defending it at all, but I think it's worth pointing out this pay rate is below the rate most CEOs of tech companies of this size are making. I don't really know what the solution here is but I imagine any CEO they replace her with would also seek a high salary. I'd love for them to become a worker-owned cooperative like Igalia but I really don't see that happening any time soon
nottorp 2y ago
If only their goal would be to provide an excellent privacy browser, instead of getting revenue :) All they need is to accept donations that go strictly to the browser and not to the latest blockchain/AI hysteria.
- bad_user 2y ago
  Name a project whose development costs as much as Firefox and that survives from donations. Many people want AI in their browser. And what does Firefox have to do with crypto?
  - jordanb 2y ago
    > Name a project whose development costs as much as Firefox and that survives from donations. Wikipedia.
    - bad_user 2y ago
      Wikimedia does not raise $200 million per year.
      - jordanb 2y ago
        You're right. They only raise $180 million a year. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fundraising_statistics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fundraising_statisti... Still feels like it aught to be enough to make a browser.
    - forgotpwd16 2y ago
      Similar to Mozilla & Firefox, there isn't an exact breakdown for Wikimedia expenditures to know the costs associated with Wikipedia. For Firefox, it's often stated its costs are ~200m but those are all expenses Mozilla categorizes under software development. For Wikimedia, within their operation expenses, ~3m were in hosting and ~84m in salaries (related to programs). The salaries are stated to be for multiple initiatives, among which platform development is mentioned*. *Although arguably the most important part of Wikipedia, and their other collaborative projects, are the volunteers maintaining and contributing to it, rather the developers.

MYEUHD 2y ago

That would be a good thing. If Firefox is funded by donations, rather than by Google, it ensures there is no enshittification in the future. And yes, donations can fund a big project, as evidenced by Thunderbird and Ladybird.

tombert 2y ago
I mostly agree, but I am slightly worried that it would lead to slower progress in Firefox. As it stands, Google's funding of Firefox is enough to hire a bunch of engineers to make Firefox a pretty competitive browser.
bad_user 2y ago
Nobody uses Ladybird, at this point it's vaporware. And Thunderbird is still based on Firefox. The development of Firefox costs around $200 million per year. That's more than what Wikimedia can get from donations, and Wikipedia is a website that everyone uses. And you want to rely on donations from people that ad-block YouTube instead of paying for Premium. And let's say that it manages to bring those costs down to $100 million per year or less and manages to get it from donations (when pigs will fly) … it still has to compete with a Chrome whose estimated cost goes over $1 billion per year.
- nottorp 2y ago
  > And you want to rely on donations from people that ad-block YouTube instead of paying for Premium. Does Google guarantee it won't spy on me if i pay for Premium? ... no, didn't think so. Besides not everyone uses youtube to the point where paying for it is worth it. > The development of Firefox costs around $200 million per year. Does it? Or that's what the mozilla organization wastes on harebrained initiatives overall? > it still has to compete with a Chrome whose estimated cost goes over $1 billion per year. But that's to add features that benefit Google not the Chrome users. Plus Google has money from their ad quasi monopoly so they can afford to be wasteful.
  - bad_user 2y ago
    YouTube is a 1st party service for Google, so you can't ad-block their tracking. And you aren't ad-blocking YouTube due to the spying, so don't be disingenuous. Yes, it really costs that much. Given Chrome's vast market share, I'm pretty sure its users like it. And you know what? Most users won't mind switching to uBlock Origin Lite, and the elephant in the room is that “manifest v3” also increases security, with Chrome being indeed the most secure browser.

tomrod 2y ago

Indeed. Kagi proves users are willing to pay for search (me included, recently).

carlosjobim 2y ago
At the moment it has only proven that 0.00000000001% of users are willing to pay for search.
- lolinder 2y ago
  That's enough to be (apparently) profitable. It doesn't matter if most people don't pay for search as long as enough people do that paid search can exist. https://blog.kagi.com/what-is-next-for-kagi https://blog.kagi.com/what-is-next-for-kagi
  - carlosjobim 2y ago
    Agreed. But let's not say that it's evidence that "people" in the aggregate are willing to pay for web search.
    - lolinder 2y ago
      Why not? People is the plural of person.
- tomrod 2y ago
  Ah yes, the mystical 0.0073 units of people paying for search, assuming every person searches. Over a year ago, Kagi hit 20k paying members. This puts monthly ARR between $200k and $500k ($10 to $25/head), roughly. That's 0.000273% of all people -- quite a jump!
- dzaima 2y ago
  It's more like 0.005%-0.02% of queries and like 0.001% of users depending on what statistics for Google you go by, but of course still very insignificant.
2y ago

iteratethis 2y ago

This to me is the ultimate sign that Mozilla has zero values or principles. They've long advocated that Big Tech is a problem, but as soon as somebody tries to actually address it and this coincidentally impacting Mozilla, they abandon any and all principles.