5 ms·

The good news is that development could easily be funded by donations. It's only a few million. Enough to keep a few dozen people employed. The bad news is tha

The good news is that development could easily be funded by donations. It's only a few million. Enough to keep a few dozen people employed. The bad news is that donations are unlikely to happen with the current massive misspending on overpaid people with no technical background that don't code that spend 95% of their budget on themselves, support staff that also doesn't code, offices they don't need, commercial products that flop, monetization schemes that fail, etc. I wouldn't. And I'm a user! Mozilla needs to be restructured. And ideally they diversify their commercial ecosystem as well. Because they are way too dependent on Google. If you look at Rust, created by Mozilla, they are set up in a more sane way. There's a foundation. It's well funded with sponsorships from the big companies that use and depend on Rust. Those companies employ people that contribute to Rust. Many OSS organizations are set up like that. It works. The diversity of contributors and commercial sponsors ensures neutrality and longevity. No single company has veto power. As long as valuable tech comes out, companies stay involved. Some disappear, new ones come along. Linux development works like that as well. Ironically, Chromium at this point is better positioned to become like that. The main issue is that Google still employs most of the developers and controls the roadmap. But there are quite a few commercial chromium based products: Edge, Brave, Opera, etc. that each have development teams using and contributing to it. Add Electron (has its own foundation, based on chromium) to the mix and the countless commercial applications using that and you have a healthy ecosystem that could survive Google completely disengaging if they'd be forced to split off their browser activities. I use Firefox mainly because of the iron grip keeps over Chromium and it's clear intent to cripple ad blocking, grab user data, and exploit its user base. But I worry about the dysfunctional mess that is Mozilla.

notpushkin 2y ago
The better news are, Mozilla gets around $30 million as investment income ($37M in 2023 [1]). Some people argue that it’s not enough to maintain Firefox but that sounds weird to me. Chromium is not a good alternative: 95% of Chromium commits come from Google. [2] [1]: https://wiki.rossmanngroup.com/wiki/File:501c3_2023_990_Mozilla_Foundation_-_Full_Filing_-_Nonprofit_Explorer_-_ProPublica.pdf https://wiki.rossmanngroup.com/wiki/File:501c3_2023_990_Mozi... [2]: https://chromiumstats.github.io/cr-stats/authors/company_authors.html https://chromiumstats.github.io/cr-stats/authors/company_aut...
- jqpabc123 2y ago
  Chromium is not a good alternative: 95% of Chromium commits come from Google. Or ... Chromium is the perfect alternative ... as long as it remains open source and privacy invasion can be easily stripped out of it. Let Google fund most of the development of a privacy respecting browser (i.e. Brave). And if it doesn't remain open source? Then it's time for a fork --- just like it is now with Firefox. Bottom line: If you reject Chromium, shouldn't you also reject Mozilla/Firefox? Virtually all development over the past decade was funded by Google. https://eligrey.com/ https://eligrey.com/
  - notpushkin 2y ago
    > Let Google fund most of the development of a privacy respecting browser (i.e. Brave). Why would they do that? (I mean, they wouldn’t stop it in one go, but they sure as hell will try to push users off the web.) > If you reject Chromium, shouldn't you also reject Mozilla/Firefox? Virtually all development over the past decade was funded by Google. Which is exactly the problem :-) If Chromium can live on without Google – I don’t mind it. My primary concern is Firefox, though.
    - jqpabc123 2y ago
      but they sure as hell will try to push users off the web. ??? Google's revenue stream is almost wholly dependent on the web and the privacy invasion it facilitates. Pushing users off the web would be self defeating.
      - n_ary 2y ago
        May be… the OP means mobile apps? Apps are easier to instrument with massive data mining and tracking capabilities and the core distributor is also google for at least the Android ecosystem. If you try to sideload or provide OSS apps, generic users will be frightened by google’s mafia banner warnings … “I see you trying to install an app from outside playstore, would be a shame if it had infinite spy and tracking malware, we can’t protect you unless you come over here and only use our apps from playstore…”
theandrewbailey 2y ago
> The bad news is that donations are unlikely to happen with the current massive misspending on overpaid people with no technical background that don't code that spend 95% of their budget on themselves, support staff that also doesn't code, offices they don't need, commercial products that flop, monetization schemes that fail, etc. Mozilla already solicits donations, but I wonder if people who donate to them know that Mozilla funds things that are wildly not Firefox-related, like feminist AI conferences in Africa. Meanwhile Firefox looks more and more like an also-ran compared to its competition. All I ever wanted from Mozilla was a browser, not this. https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/donate/ https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/donate/ https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/blog/mozfest-house-zambia-2024-recap-a-celebration-of-solidarity/ https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/blog/mozfest-house-zambia-...
- Raed667 2y ago
  I'm not sure how common this sentiment is, but I had a discussions with colleges who will NOT donate unless they can guarantee that their money is going to the development of a chosen product or even more granularity to a chosen feature.
  - fabrice_d 2y ago
    Then they should pool funds to pay consulting companies like Igalia to implement these features.
    - Raed667 2y ago
      I think it is more up to Mozilla to put its act together and implement more transparency. So that people start trusting the organization not to waste their donations on executive salaries.
  - poulpy123 2y ago
    There is very little probability that your friend would donate any money even if they could have a say at the feature. But even if it was the case it would not be enough to fund the development. And finally you don't manage a company like that.
sidewndr46 2y ago
My understanding is that donating to Mozilla doesn't actually fund anything explicitly. You donate to the foundation and then they spend it on whatever. So there exists no actual mechanism to do what you state "could easily be funded"
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> good news is that development could easily be funded by donations Mozilla’s donations are roughly equal to their CEO’s compensation [1][2]. [1] https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/annualreport/2024/article/financing-an-open-internet-mozillas-path-forward/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/annualreport/2024/a... ”$7.8M in donations from the public, grants from foundations, and government funding” in 2023 [2] https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2022/mozilla-fdn-990-ty22-public-disclosure.pdf https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2022/mozilla-fdn-990... $6.9mm in 2022, page 7
- fireburning 2y ago
  this is hilarious
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
st3fan 2y ago
> The good news is that development could easily be funded by donations. It's only a few million. Enough to keep a few dozen people employed. These numbers are highly unrealistic.
- fireburning 2y ago
  you know keyboard warriors? keyboards CEOs also exist apprently
alfiedotwtf 2y ago
I welcome the oncoming hate, but THIS is what DAOs are for… A DOA specifically setup to build a user-respecting browser run by a Foundation where token holders could vote out the waste we’ve seen Mozilla and the like do, could work. And for those crypto-haters, I’m not sqying token-based as an speculative investment, I’m saying here token specifically here for voting rights to control asset allocation and business decisions
wmf 2y ago
$260M isn't a few million.
- xxs 2y ago
  260M is not for firefox entirely, e.g. Mozilla AI (and VPN) is part of that. I don't think there are official numbers for firefox alone but i doubt it's over 30%
psunavy03 2y ago
[flagged]
nightpool 2y ago
The good news is that development could easily be funded by donations. It's only a few million. Enough to keep a few dozen people employed. Huh? Mozilla currently spends $260M on browser development, of which >90% is salaries. Where are you getting this "it's only a few million" idea from?
- subsistence234 2y ago
  > Mozilla currently spends $260M on browser development, Mozilla spends that on development, but firefox is only a small part of that.
  - sciurus 2y ago
    What makes you say it's a small part of that?
mmooss 2y ago
> The good news is that development could easily be funded by donations. It's only a few million. It's $260M. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43341830 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43341830 Where do you get "a few million"? Do they only have less than 20 developers? Why denigrate Mozilla? > If you look at Rust, created by Mozilla, they are set up in a more sane way. There's a foundation. It's well funded with sponsorships from the big companies that use and depend on Rust. Firefox isn't used by companies, but by consumers.

notpushkin 2y ago

The better news are, Mozilla gets around $30 million as investment income ($37M in 2023 [1]). Some people argue that it’s not enough to maintain Firefox but that sounds weird to me. Chromium is not a good alternative: 95% of Chromium commits come from Google. [2] [1]: https://wiki.rossmanngroup.com/wiki/File:501c3_2023_990_Mozilla_Foundation_-_Full_Filing_-_Nonprofit_Explorer_-_ProPublica.pdf https://wiki.rossmanngroup.com/wiki/File:501c3_2023_990_Mozi... [2]: https://chromiumstats.github.io/cr-stats/authors/company_authors.html https://chromiumstats.github.io/cr-stats/authors/company_aut...

jqpabc123 2y ago
Chromium is not a good alternative: 95% of Chromium commits come from Google. Or ... Chromium is the perfect alternative ... as long as it remains open source and privacy invasion can be easily stripped out of it. Let Google fund most of the development of a privacy respecting browser (i.e. Brave). And if it doesn't remain open source? Then it's time for a fork --- just like it is now with Firefox. Bottom line: If you reject Chromium, shouldn't you also reject Mozilla/Firefox? Virtually all development over the past decade was funded by Google. https://eligrey.com/ https://eligrey.com/
- notpushkin 2y ago
  > Let Google fund most of the development of a privacy respecting browser (i.e. Brave). Why would they do that? (I mean, they wouldn’t stop it in one go, but they sure as hell will try to push users off the web.) > If you reject Chromium, shouldn't you also reject Mozilla/Firefox? Virtually all development over the past decade was funded by Google. Which is exactly the problem :-) If Chromium can live on without Google – I don’t mind it. My primary concern is Firefox, though.
  - jqpabc123 2y ago
    but they sure as hell will try to push users off the web. ??? Google's revenue stream is almost wholly dependent on the web and the privacy invasion it facilitates. Pushing users off the web would be self defeating.
    - n_ary 2y ago
      May be… the OP means mobile apps? Apps are easier to instrument with massive data mining and tracking capabilities and the core distributor is also google for at least the Android ecosystem. If you try to sideload or provide OSS apps, generic users will be frightened by google’s mafia banner warnings … “I see you trying to install an app from outside playstore, would be a shame if it had infinite spy and tracking malware, we can’t protect you unless you come over here and only use our apps from playstore…”

theandrewbailey 2y ago

> The bad news is that donations are unlikely to happen with the current massive misspending on overpaid people with no technical background that don't code that spend 95% of their budget on themselves, support staff that also doesn't code, offices they don't need, commercial products that flop, monetization schemes that fail, etc. Mozilla already solicits donations, but I wonder if people who donate to them know that Mozilla funds things that are wildly not Firefox-related, like feminist AI conferences in Africa. Meanwhile Firefox looks more and more like an also-ran compared to its competition. All I ever wanted from Mozilla was a browser, not this. https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/donate/ https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/donate/ https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/blog/mozfest-house-zambia-2024-recap-a-celebration-of-solidarity/ https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/blog/mozfest-house-zambia-...

Raed667 2y ago
I'm not sure how common this sentiment is, but I had a discussions with colleges who will NOT donate unless they can guarantee that their money is going to the development of a chosen product or even more granularity to a chosen feature.
- fabrice_d 2y ago
  Then they should pool funds to pay consulting companies like Igalia to implement these features.
  - Raed667 2y ago
    I think it is more up to Mozilla to put its act together and implement more transparency. So that people start trusting the organization not to waste their donations on executive salaries.
- poulpy123 2y ago
  There is very little probability that your friend would donate any money even if they could have a say at the feature. But even if it was the case it would not be enough to fund the development. And finally you don't manage a company like that.

sidewndr46 2y ago

My understanding is that donating to Mozilla doesn't actually fund anything explicitly. You donate to the foundation and then they spend it on whatever. So there exists no actual mechanism to do what you state "could easily be funded"

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> good news is that development could easily be funded by donations Mozilla’s donations are roughly equal to their CEO’s compensation [1][2]. [1] https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/annualreport/2024/article/financing-an-open-internet-mozillas-path-forward/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/annualreport/2024/a... ”$7.8M in donations from the public, grants from foundations, and government funding” in 2023 [2] https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2022/mozilla-fdn-990-ty22-public-disclosure.pdf https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2022/mozilla-fdn-990... $6.9mm in 2022, page 7

fireburning 2y ago
this is hilarious
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

st3fan 2y ago

> The good news is that development could easily be funded by donations. It's only a few million. Enough to keep a few dozen people employed. These numbers are highly unrealistic.

fireburning 2y ago
you know keyboard warriors? keyboards CEOs also exist apprently

alfiedotwtf 2y ago

I welcome the oncoming hate, but THIS is what DAOs are for… A DOA specifically setup to build a user-respecting browser run by a Foundation where token holders could vote out the waste we’ve seen Mozilla and the like do, could work. And for those crypto-haters, I’m not sqying token-based as an speculative investment, I’m saying here token specifically here for voting rights to control asset allocation and business decisions

wmf 2y ago

$260M isn't a few million.

xxs 2y ago
260M is not for firefox entirely, e.g. Mozilla AI (and VPN) is part of that. I don't think there are official numbers for firefox alone but i doubt it's over 30%

psunavy03 2y ago

[flagged]

nightpool 2y ago

The good news is that development could easily be funded by donations. It's only a few million. Enough to keep a few dozen people employed. Huh? Mozilla currently spends $260M on browser development, of which >90% is salaries. Where are you getting this "it's only a few million" idea from?

subsistence234 2y ago
> Mozilla currently spends $260M on browser development, Mozilla spends that on development, but firefox is only a small part of that.
- sciurus 2y ago
  What makes you say it's a small part of that?

mmooss 2y ago

> The good news is that development could easily be funded by donations. It's only a few million. It's $260M. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43341830 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43341830 Where do you get "a few million"? Do they only have less than 20 developers? Why denigrate Mozilla? > If you look at Rust, created by Mozilla, they are set up in a more sane way. There's a foundation. It's well funded with sponsorships from the big companies that use and depend on Rust. Firefox isn't used by companies, but by consumers.