4 ms·
Mozilla are doing other things that a browser, yes. And this is good. Browsers are special and don't make money by themselves, and Firefox in particular is enti
by sofixa 2y ago
Mozilla are doing other things that a browser, yes. And this is good. Browsers are special and don't make money by themselves, and Firefox in particular is entirely dependent on Google's money. Having alternative projects that can bring revenue (e.g. Pocket) helps them remove that singular dependency and ensure they can survive long term.
And having a specific "donate to Firefox only" would probably end in disaster. They might end up in a situation where they're forced to waste money on Firefox because that's what the donations are for while not having enough money to keep the lights on in offices. For a fun example of what happens when you have fixed budgets that don't have any flexibility, Atlanta's MARTA was founded with an agreement providing public funding, with a fixed 50/50 split between capex and opex. So they found themselves with brand new trains because there's capex budget to spend, but falling apart infrastructure because 50% wasn't enough for opex.
- DiabloD3 2y agoBut you just described what Mozilla is doing right now! 0% of what anyone donates goes to the browser, and its a disaster!
- sofixa 2y agoWhy do you think it's 0%? I doubt it, it's not like the money goes into separate buckets and engineering salaries for Firefox only come from the Google bucket, and donations get spent on lobster and champagne parties for the C-levels.
- diggernet 2y agoIt does go in separate buckets. The money flow between the for-profit that develops Firefox and the non-profit foundation is one-way: From for-profit to non-profit. This is because it is illegal for the non-profit to give money to the for-profit. Any donations you make go to the non-profit. They are not used and cannot legally be used for Firefox development. Edit to add: Mozilla chose this legal structure. Mozilla chooses to disallow donations or payments directly to the for-profit. For example, nothing prevents using a shareware model, where Firefox is free but you can choose to pay for it. And Mozilla chooses to avoid mentioning this structure when accepting donations from you.
- finnthehuman 2y agoAren't the Cooperation and Foundation exactly those separate buckets?
- fgonzag 2y agoFirefox private donations amount to 8 million usd from the last published data. Their CEO makes 9 million a year. 0 of Mozilla donations directly make it to Firefox developers or activities.
- Jensson 2y agoWe know the development get 0% because it pays profit back to the nonprofit to fund more of the non firefox activities, not the other way around.
- iteratethis 2y agoYou state that the non-Firefox activities of Mozilla are good, as if an established fact. I'd reason that there's no consensus on this at all. Some things might be perceived as good, some neutral or bad, and many might be perceived as well intended but ineffective.
- sofixa 2y ago> You state that the non-Firefox activities of Mozilla are good, as if an established fact. No, I'm stating that it's good that Mozilla has non-Firefox activities and is trying to diversify. I've only used Pocket from them and it's good, but don't have an opinion on any of their other activities.
- ryandrake 2y agoI think there are lots of people in this thread saying (directly or indirectly): "There is nothing that Mozilla does that I would want to fund, besides Firefox!"
- octopoc 2y agoWhy do they need to diversify? In case they need to pull the plug on Firefox? There is simply no way they could offer anything else as useful as Firefox. They have enough money that they could throw it all in the S&P 500 and maintain Firefox indefinitely off the growth. That’s what they should do.