4 ms·

They are in a tough place. They dont have the advantage of owning the OS (android/chrome and iOS / Safari) nor the advantage of advertising on the google home

They are in a tough place. They dont have the advantage of owning the OS (android/chrome and iOS / Safari) nor the advantage of advertising on the google home page like chrome. The "customers" they are courting are security/privacy zealots who constantly want them "just work on the browser" but never seem to have an answer on how to pay for that. I am hoping the advent of LLMs allows more entrants into the space at a faster speed. Time will tell. Maybe as FF dies ladybird will take over.

gray_-_wolf 25d ago
> how to pay for that I would not mind to pay for the browser, but they will not let me.
- Night_Thastus 25d ago
  You say that, but out of the remaining users of FF, I severely doubt even 1% would pay. Any attempt to paywall would kill whatever they have left.
  - deleted 19d ago
    [deleted]
- redwall_hp 25d ago
  This is a consequence of browser monopolies, established by Microsoft in the 90s: everyone should have to pay for a browser and make a deliberate choice in vendor. The fact that they're free and subsidized by large businesses in other markets, rather than being a product you choose to buy, is a concrete example of monopolistic market distortion.
philipallstar 25d ago
> They dont have the advantage of owning the OS (android/chrome and iOS / Safari) They don't need to. Chrome does extremely well on Windows without "owning the OS". > nor the advantage of advertising on the google home page like chrome Very few people go to that page anyway. > The "customers" they are courting are security/privacy zealots who constantly want them "just work on the browser" but never seem to have an answer on how to pay for that. They already get half a billion dollars a year from Google for very little in exchange. They just need to spend that money on the website browser and not nonsense.
- hungryhobbit 25d ago
  > They already get half a billion dollars a year from Google for very little in exchange. They just need to spend that money on the website browser and not nonsense. QFT. The biggest impediment to Firefox's success is the Mozilla Org, which sees it as a cash cow to fund a zillion projects no one wants (sacrificing the future of the browser everyone wants).
  - brigandish 25d ago
    Quantum field theory? Quiet Firefox tremors? What is this QFT you speak of?
    - badprose 25d ago
      Quarterly Financial Targets? Questionable Functionality and Technology?
    - hed 25d ago
      Quoted for truth
    - NL807 25d ago
      Quoted for the truth.
- tempest_ 25d ago
  Windows is not really a growing user base in a lot of places it is in decline. Most "internet users" are mobile. The ones using windows are doing it from work laptops that are locked down and use edge (chrome). If windows was a growing market MS would not be so far down the extraction path they have gone with the OS.
  - OkayPhysicist 25d ago
    Edge still doesn't have a market share as big as Chrome, even among desktop browsers. Chrome is still a behemoth at 70% of all desktop browser usage.
SahAssar 25d ago
I've donated to thunderbird since they made a promise that won't go into other weird/stupid mozilla ventures. I'd gladly do the same for firefox, but they have not given the opportunity. If I had the cash back then I'd do the same for B2G/firefoxOS.
redox99 25d ago
Firefox has 1.4 billion in reserves and no debt. If they stop paying tens of millions to their management, they could easily afford paying devs in perpetuity just from investing that money.
- wbl 25d ago
  I don't think you get the compensation for devs capable of working on this stuff.
  - redox99 25d ago
    Only people who live in SF are capable of programming a browser?
    - chmod775 25d ago
      There's something in the water that makes you just better.
  - hedora 25d ago
    1.4b; assume 5% returns. That’s $70M per year for devs. At $1M per year (equivalent to a good startup exit, but zero risk), that’s 70 engineers; probably senior to principal phd’s with 10 yr+ experience. If that’s not enough to maintain a web browser, then pay them to simplify the damn thing.
    - wbl 24d ago
      The feature set of a browser is set by competitors and what sites use. If you don't strive to play that game you're irrelevant.
axus 25d ago
Doesn't Mozilla foundation have millions of dollars, including paid for by Google? "Linux" is better capitalized, "Wikipedia" is sort of open source, what else ranks above Mozilla? Firefox works everywhere I point it to, for now. "Let the user modify their own software" does not cost extra.
- tempest_ 25d ago
  Being beholden to Google who might decide that the risk of antitrust is lower than the price they are paying for that search box is a pretty precarious place to be in.
jacquesm 25d ago
The series of own goals is a bigger problem. They should spend their $ on FF and allow direct donations that only go to FF and not to their hobby projects.
smsm42 25d ago
> The "customers" they are courting are security/privacy zealots who constantly want them "just work on the browser" but never seem to have an answer on how to pay for that. We all know how that was paid for. Google. But instead of taking that money stream and investing it 100% into making it the best browser ever, they pursued a myriad of fancy distractions. Yes, making a sustainable browser project is hard. Making a sustainable browser project while being constantly distracted by side project and political activism [1] is even harder. I am not saying if Mozilla stayed focused the win would be guaranteed. But I am pretty sure doing it like they are doing it guarantees failure. [1] https://blog.mozilla.org/blogarchive/blog/2021/01/08/we-need-more-than-deplatforming/ https://blog.mozilla.org/blogarchive/blog/2021/01/08/we-need...

gray_-_wolf 25d ago

> how to pay for that I would not mind to pay for the browser, but they will not let me.

Night_Thastus 25d ago
You say that, but out of the remaining users of FF, I severely doubt even 1% would pay. Any attempt to paywall would kill whatever they have left.
- deleted 19d ago
  [deleted]
redwall_hp 25d ago
This is a consequence of browser monopolies, established by Microsoft in the 90s: everyone should have to pay for a browser and make a deliberate choice in vendor. The fact that they're free and subsidized by large businesses in other markets, rather than being a product you choose to buy, is a concrete example of monopolistic market distortion.

philipallstar 25d ago

> They dont have the advantage of owning the OS (android/chrome and iOS / Safari) They don't need to. Chrome does extremely well on Windows without "owning the OS". > nor the advantage of advertising on the google home page like chrome Very few people go to that page anyway. > The "customers" they are courting are security/privacy zealots who constantly want them "just work on the browser" but never seem to have an answer on how to pay for that. They already get half a billion dollars a year from Google for very little in exchange. They just need to spend that money on the website browser and not nonsense.

hungryhobbit 25d ago
> They already get half a billion dollars a year from Google for very little in exchange. They just need to spend that money on the website browser and not nonsense. QFT. The biggest impediment to Firefox's success is the Mozilla Org, which sees it as a cash cow to fund a zillion projects no one wants (sacrificing the future of the browser everyone wants).
- brigandish 25d ago
  Quantum field theory? Quiet Firefox tremors? What is this QFT you speak of?
  - badprose 25d ago
    Quarterly Financial Targets? Questionable Functionality and Technology?
  - hed 25d ago
    Quoted for truth
  - NL807 25d ago
    Quoted for the truth.
tempest_ 25d ago
Windows is not really a growing user base in a lot of places it is in decline. Most "internet users" are mobile. The ones using windows are doing it from work laptops that are locked down and use edge (chrome). If windows was a growing market MS would not be so far down the extraction path they have gone with the OS.
- OkayPhysicist 25d ago
  Edge still doesn't have a market share as big as Chrome, even among desktop browsers. Chrome is still a behemoth at 70% of all desktop browser usage.

SahAssar 25d ago

I've donated to thunderbird since they made a promise that won't go into other weird/stupid mozilla ventures. I'd gladly do the same for firefox, but they have not given the opportunity. If I had the cash back then I'd do the same for B2G/firefoxOS.

redox99 25d ago

Firefox has 1.4 billion in reserves and no debt. If they stop paying tens of millions to their management, they could easily afford paying devs in perpetuity just from investing that money.

wbl 25d ago
I don't think you get the compensation for devs capable of working on this stuff.
- redox99 25d ago
  Only people who live in SF are capable of programming a browser?
  - chmod775 25d ago
    There's something in the water that makes you just better.
- hedora 25d ago
  1.4b; assume 5% returns. That’s $70M per year for devs. At $1M per year (equivalent to a good startup exit, but zero risk), that’s 70 engineers; probably senior to principal phd’s with 10 yr+ experience. If that’s not enough to maintain a web browser, then pay them to simplify the damn thing.
  - wbl 24d ago
    The feature set of a browser is set by competitors and what sites use. If you don't strive to play that game you're irrelevant.

axus 25d ago

Doesn't Mozilla foundation have millions of dollars, including paid for by Google? "Linux" is better capitalized, "Wikipedia" is sort of open source, what else ranks above Mozilla? Firefox works everywhere I point it to, for now. "Let the user modify their own software" does not cost extra.

tempest_ 25d ago
Being beholden to Google who might decide that the risk of antitrust is lower than the price they are paying for that search box is a pretty precarious place to be in.

jacquesm 25d ago

The series of own goals is a bigger problem. They should spend their $ on FF and allow direct donations that only go to FF and not to their hobby projects.

smsm42 25d ago

> The "customers" they are courting are security/privacy zealots who constantly want them "just work on the browser" but never seem to have an answer on how to pay for that. We all know how that was paid for. Google. But instead of taking that money stream and investing it 100% into making it the best browser ever, they pursued a myriad of fancy distractions. Yes, making a sustainable browser project is hard. Making a sustainable browser project while being constantly distracted by side project and political activism [1] is even harder. I am not saying if Mozilla stayed focused the win would be guaranteed. But I am pretty sure doing it like they are doing it guarantees failure. [1] https://blog.mozilla.org/blogarchive/blog/2021/01/08/we-need-more-than-deplatforming/ https://blog.mozilla.org/blogarchive/blog/2021/01/08/we-need...