4 ms·

"Firefox needs new revenue streams to be sustainable. New products and services under Mozilla’s umbrella should reflect the same commitment to privacy that defi

"Firefox needs new revenue streams to be sustainable. New products and services under Mozilla’s umbrella should reflect the same commitment to privacy that defines Mozilla." This is admirable, but how what would Mozilla replace the 85% ( $555M) revenue with by ditching Google? I'm assuming a portion of the 15% of revenue is from Mozilla VPN, MDN Plus, etc and also the pay packets of the executives needs to significantly decrease. But this isn't enough to fill the 85% hole for when Mozilla ditches Google.

notpushkin 2y ago
This won’t happen overnight, of course – in the meantime they’ll have to try and be leaner (which isn’t a bad thing, if you ask me). Basically, I think that’s the only way Firefox even has a fighting chance: the alternatives are (1) always be the 5% browser Google wants it to be or (2) come crashing into the ground if the DOJ does go through with the search payment ban.
- kome 2y ago
  sorry, very random, but the effect on your personal website looks great!
  - notpushkin 2y ago
    Thank you so much! Just don’t leave it running for too long – it’s not the most optimized piece of code I’ve ever written :-)
jisnsm 2y ago
Maybe they will find out you don’t need $555M a year to make a web browser. First good step would be to fire that useless CEO.
- exploderate 2y ago
  Can you explain how? Or is your argument "One guy in a basement in Bulgaria could build Firefox for 50 Stotinki."?
  - ItsBob 2y ago
    Let's do some back-of-a-napkin maths here and see if we could... Just for fun of course :D === ANNUAL COSTS === 20 developers at $150k each = $3M Other staff costs, like pensions etc. = $1.5M Someone in charge of overall project = $250k (this doesn't have to be the case. He could easily be a dev on $150k but lets run with it) Infrastructure for testing and whatnot. Lets say Azure (expensive!) = $1M 2 x Marketing peeps = $250k Other expenses (travel, rubber ducks etc.) = $1M I literally pulled these figures out my ass (as you can no doubt tell!) but lets add it up: $3M + $1.5M + $0.25M + $1M + $0.25M + $1M = $7M per year. That's really, really expensive imo and you could do it for way less, but given their current revenue stream that's 80 years of development if they took in no more money ever! Now, I don't know how many it would take to program a browser but it's already written so it's not as hard as doing it from scratch so I reckon 20 good devs would give you something special. Honestly, if someone said to me "Mick, here's $560M, put a team together and fork Firefox and Thunderbird. Pay yourself 250k and go for it"... I'd barely let them finish the sentence before signing a contract :)
    - iggldiggl 2y ago
      Firefox has way more than 20 developers. Looking at https://firefox-source-docs.mozilla.org/mots/index.html https://firefox-source-docs.mozilla.org/mots/index.html, if I'm not mistaken in my count, there are currently 147 module owners and peers alone. Some of those might be volunteers, but I think the large majority of them are Mozilla staff. On top of that there are probably a number of further Mozilla staff developers who aren't owners or peers, QA staff, product managers, sysadmins and other support staff…
      - ItsBob 2y ago
        I know they have way more than that but I'd argue that you don't need that many. Hypothetically, if I was given the money and asked to build a team to fork Firefox I'd be more focused. Way more! The current devs work on stuff I'd scrap like Pocket, telemetry, anything with AI, and so on. I bet there is a load of stuff in there that I'd want out! There's probably a bunch of things in Firefox Labs they're working on too. So, I'd argue that 20 good devs (again, a number I pulled out of the air!) split into, say, 4 smaller teams could achieve a shit load of work under the right circumstances, with the right leadership and so on. I'm currently a senior architect with over 50 devs below me. Most are mid-level at best (not a slur, just where they are in their career!) but the few good ones are very good. A team of 20 of those could pull it off! It'd be a tall order building a browser from scratch with 20 devs maybe but it's already built.
- j_maffe 2y ago
  Mozilla is much larger than the browser.
  - mrweasel 2y ago
    True, but they only have like maybe three products that most people care about: Firefox, Thunderbird (maybe), and the MDN.
    - kevingadd 2y ago
      Just to provide one example, if Firefox suddenly no longer has bookmark/history/password syncing because Mozilla has refocused on its core products (Firefox/Thunderbird/MDN), suddenly you'll see Firefox's market share dwindle even more, because ordinary users are accustomed to every browser having a bunch of bells and whistles like profile syncing. The set of features people expect from a modern browser is really big now. To their credit, the Mozilla web standards people actively fought against a lot of the scope creep like "webpages should be able to flash firmware to USB devices" or "webpages should be able to talk to MIDI keyboards" but they lost, and now those are things a web browser is expected to do. Keeping up with all the scope creep is expensive.
      - aragilar 2y ago
        I'm not sure how sync for firefox isn't part of focusing on firefox?
        kevingadd 2y ago
        I've seen people argue that Mozilla shouldn't be offering cloud services and should just build a browser that never phones home to any servers at all, whether it's telemetry, automated updates, or profiles. I think all of those are part of shipping a modern browser, personally. Maintaining all those cloud services raises your company's operational costs a lot, you now need people on-call 24/7 to maintain everything, you need webdevs who can wrangle postgres or redis or whatever, you need security experts to make sure the cloud stack is secure end to end, etc. So I think it's also fair for people to call this cloud stuff out as a cost center for Mozilla.
- boomboomsubban 2y ago
  >Maybe they will find out you don’t need $555M a year to make a web browser. The only other browser spends significantly more than that. If it's so much cheaper, you'd expect organizations like Microsoft to have stayed in the game. >First good step would be to fire that useless CEO. The one who stepped down a year ago? Or do you have some issue with the interim? They're still looking for a permanent one
  - benatkin 2y ago
    All the way out the door, please. Edit: wow, it says here that "Mozilla announced her departure on February 19, 2025" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitchell_Baker https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitchell_Baker Yeah I'm calling it on this new one as well. The interim CEO isn't aligned with the rightful mission of Mozilla either.
whoopdedo 2y ago
The reason they're cozying up to ad-tech is because they're trying to ditch Google.
- noirscape 2y ago
  If they're turning to ads to replace Google, then maybe Mozilla deserves to die as an organization. Modern adtech goes entirely against their core values.
  - t43562 2y ago
    If it's already essentially paying for them then .... what is the difference if they get it via Google or directly?
  - dralley 2y ago
    The whole point of their foray into adtech was to figure out a privacy-preserving way to do it that doesn't involve wholesale selling people's browsing history.
    - AlotOfReading 2y ago
      How is that fundamentally different than what Google's done with chrome and the topics API? If you don't trust Google's solution, why would you trust Mozilla's?
      - wmf 2y ago
        Because most people in this discussion don't know or care about the tech, just "ads bad" and "Google bad".
ekianjo 2y ago
It does not have to happen overnight. Make a 5 years plan, reduce exposure to Google at 20% of the whole thing per year. Agressively pursue other revenue streams. If it fails, slim down your operations progressively and cut costs year after year. It's not that complicated. The problem is that Mozilla will suck the teat as long as it can because execs directly benefit from it. They will burn Mozilla to the ground and leave for their next opportunity when the time comes.
culi 2y ago
In 2023, it was 75% of their revenue that came from Google. https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2024/mozilla-fdn-2023-fs-final-short-1209.pdf https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2024/mozilla-fdn-202... 2023: 75.8 2022: 86.0 2021: 87.8 2020: 88.8 2019: [^a] 2018: 95.3 2017: 95.9 [^a]: this was a weird year where their "other" income got a massive one-time boost. I'm not sure what happened. Did they get a $338m grant? If you take that number out (which is normally at or near zero) the percentage is around 91%

notpushkin 2y ago

This won’t happen overnight, of course – in the meantime they’ll have to try and be leaner (which isn’t a bad thing, if you ask me). Basically, I think that’s the only way Firefox even has a fighting chance: the alternatives are (1) always be the 5% browser Google wants it to be or (2) come crashing into the ground if the DOJ does go through with the search payment ban.

kome 2y ago
sorry, very random, but the effect on your personal website looks great!
- notpushkin 2y ago
  Thank you so much! Just don’t leave it running for too long – it’s not the most optimized piece of code I’ve ever written :-)

jisnsm 2y ago

Maybe they will find out you don’t need $555M a year to make a web browser. First good step would be to fire that useless CEO.

exploderate 2y ago
Can you explain how? Or is your argument "One guy in a basement in Bulgaria could build Firefox for 50 Stotinki."?
- ItsBob 2y ago
  Let's do some back-of-a-napkin maths here and see if we could... Just for fun of course :D === ANNUAL COSTS === 20 developers at $150k each = $3M Other staff costs, like pensions etc. = $1.5M Someone in charge of overall project = $250k (this doesn't have to be the case. He could easily be a dev on $150k but lets run with it) Infrastructure for testing and whatnot. Lets say Azure (expensive!) = $1M 2 x Marketing peeps = $250k Other expenses (travel, rubber ducks etc.) = $1M I literally pulled these figures out my ass (as you can no doubt tell!) but lets add it up: $3M + $1.5M + $0.25M + $1M + $0.25M + $1M = $7M per year. That's really, really expensive imo and you could do it for way less, but given their current revenue stream that's 80 years of development if they took in no more money ever! Now, I don't know how many it would take to program a browser but it's already written so it's not as hard as doing it from scratch so I reckon 20 good devs would give you something special. Honestly, if someone said to me "Mick, here's $560M, put a team together and fork Firefox and Thunderbird. Pay yourself 250k and go for it"... I'd barely let them finish the sentence before signing a contract :)
  - iggldiggl 2y ago
    Firefox has way more than 20 developers. Looking at https://firefox-source-docs.mozilla.org/mots/index.html https://firefox-source-docs.mozilla.org/mots/index.html, if I'm not mistaken in my count, there are currently 147 module owners and peers alone. Some of those might be volunteers, but I think the large majority of them are Mozilla staff. On top of that there are probably a number of further Mozilla staff developers who aren't owners or peers, QA staff, product managers, sysadmins and other support staff…
    - ItsBob 2y ago
      I know they have way more than that but I'd argue that you don't need that many. Hypothetically, if I was given the money and asked to build a team to fork Firefox I'd be more focused. Way more! The current devs work on stuff I'd scrap like Pocket, telemetry, anything with AI, and so on. I bet there is a load of stuff in there that I'd want out! There's probably a bunch of things in Firefox Labs they're working on too. So, I'd argue that 20 good devs (again, a number I pulled out of the air!) split into, say, 4 smaller teams could achieve a shit load of work under the right circumstances, with the right leadership and so on. I'm currently a senior architect with over 50 devs below me. Most are mid-level at best (not a slur, just where they are in their career!) but the few good ones are very good. A team of 20 of those could pull it off! It'd be a tall order building a browser from scratch with 20 devs maybe but it's already built.
j_maffe 2y ago
Mozilla is much larger than the browser.
- mrweasel 2y ago
  True, but they only have like maybe three products that most people care about: Firefox, Thunderbird (maybe), and the MDN.
  - kevingadd 2y ago
    Just to provide one example, if Firefox suddenly no longer has bookmark/history/password syncing because Mozilla has refocused on its core products (Firefox/Thunderbird/MDN), suddenly you'll see Firefox's market share dwindle even more, because ordinary users are accustomed to every browser having a bunch of bells and whistles like profile syncing. The set of features people expect from a modern browser is really big now. To their credit, the Mozilla web standards people actively fought against a lot of the scope creep like "webpages should be able to flash firmware to USB devices" or "webpages should be able to talk to MIDI keyboards" but they lost, and now those are things a web browser is expected to do. Keeping up with all the scope creep is expensive.
    - aragilar 2y ago
      I'm not sure how sync for firefox isn't part of focusing on firefox?
      - kevingadd 2y ago
        I've seen people argue that Mozilla shouldn't be offering cloud services and should just build a browser that never phones home to any servers at all, whether it's telemetry, automated updates, or profiles. I think all of those are part of shipping a modern browser, personally. Maintaining all those cloud services raises your company's operational costs a lot, you now need people on-call 24/7 to maintain everything, you need webdevs who can wrangle postgres or redis or whatever, you need security experts to make sure the cloud stack is secure end to end, etc. So I think it's also fair for people to call this cloud stuff out as a cost center for Mozilla.
boomboomsubban 2y ago
>Maybe they will find out you don’t need $555M a year to make a web browser. The only other browser spends significantly more than that. If it's so much cheaper, you'd expect organizations like Microsoft to have stayed in the game. >First good step would be to fire that useless CEO. The one who stepped down a year ago? Or do you have some issue with the interim? They're still looking for a permanent one
- benatkin 2y ago
  All the way out the door, please. Edit: wow, it says here that "Mozilla announced her departure on February 19, 2025" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitchell_Baker https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitchell_Baker Yeah I'm calling it on this new one as well. The interim CEO isn't aligned with the rightful mission of Mozilla either.

whoopdedo 2y ago

The reason they're cozying up to ad-tech is because they're trying to ditch Google.

noirscape 2y ago
If they're turning to ads to replace Google, then maybe Mozilla deserves to die as an organization. Modern adtech goes entirely against their core values.
- t43562 2y ago
  If it's already essentially paying for them then .... what is the difference if they get it via Google or directly?
- dralley 2y ago
  The whole point of their foray into adtech was to figure out a privacy-preserving way to do it that doesn't involve wholesale selling people's browsing history.
  - AlotOfReading 2y ago
    How is that fundamentally different than what Google's done with chrome and the topics API? If you don't trust Google's solution, why would you trust Mozilla's?
    - wmf 2y ago
      Because most people in this discussion don't know or care about the tech, just "ads bad" and "Google bad".

ekianjo 2y ago

It does not have to happen overnight. Make a 5 years plan, reduce exposure to Google at 20% of the whole thing per year. Agressively pursue other revenue streams. If it fails, slim down your operations progressively and cut costs year after year. It's not that complicated. The problem is that Mozilla will suck the teat as long as it can because execs directly benefit from it. They will burn Mozilla to the ground and leave for their next opportunity when the time comes.

culi 2y ago

In 2023, it was 75% of their revenue that came from Google. https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2024/mozilla-fdn-2023-fs-final-short-1209.pdf https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2024/mozilla-fdn-202... 2023: 75.8 2022: 86.0 2021: 87.8 2020: 88.8 2019: [^a] 2018: 95.3 2017: 95.9 [^a]: this was a weird year where their "other" income got a massive one-time boost. I'm not sure what happened. Did they get a $338m grant? If you take that number out (which is normally at or near zero) the percentage is around 91%