4 ms·

Firefox costs money. If it doesn't get it from the users (like it never was) or from Google (like it could soon be), it needs to find some way to fund anyway. T

by zz1 12y ago

Firefox costs money. If it doesn't get it from the users (like it never was) or from Google (like it could soon be), it needs to find some way to fund anyway. This kind of advertising worries me a little but I find it acceptable. If you disagree, please do so by donating and saying it out loud and calling everyone to do like you.

Karunamon 12y ago
Firefox chased me away a long time ago with the way their bug reports are (not) handled. While I won't deny they're still a net force for good on the web, if I had been donating to them even with that in mind, this action would have caused me to stop. With any possible objective definition, Firefox is now adware.
- Karunamon 12y ago
  Apparently, people would rather downvote and run than deal with the truth. Ad-filled software = adware. Just because you dislike the definition doesn't mean it doesn't apply.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
whyenot 12y ago
> If it doesn't get it from the users (like it never was) But early Mozilla was supported by its users, through donations of both code and money. Volunteers also spearheaded the hugely successful "get Firefox" campaign. Thanks to Google money, Mozilla can now afford to pay top dollar for engineers and prime office space on the Embarcaderro. That is not necessarily a bad thing, but I sometimes wonder if it may have made Mozilla a less focused and user-centric organization than it used to be.
- makmanalp 12y ago
  I don't think the donations could support mozilla today. I mean look at Wikipedia: how many people it employs, how many pageviews it gets, how drastic its donation drives are and it's not doing amazingly well financially. And "get firefox" is part of the reasons the google thing worked - it increased the userbase drastically. But it never was a viable way to make money.
- zz1 12y ago
  I wonder about it too, but I don't think that's the case. I mean, even their offices (like the new one, in Paris) are not just a luxury show off, but they're meant and actually used to attract new volunteers, host events to foster the web, get media attention…
- wodenokoto 12y ago
  No, the Mozilla Organization was kept alive by Netscape, with some other major corporation sponsoring full-time engineers. When Netscape bailed completely and the Mozilla Foundation was founded on a grant from Netscape, they started having to find their own revenue sources. And they did with Google. The Mozilla Corporation was founded in 2005 because Mozilla was generating so much cash (mainly from Google search), that they got in trouble with the IRS. That was only 2 years after the Mozilla Foundation was created! The bulk of their revenue has always been advertisement. As for code, they still very much rely on the open source model for new code.
- wodenokoto 12y ago
  No, the Mozilla Organization was kept alive by Netscape, with some other major corporation sponsoring full-time engineers. When Netscape bailed completely and the Mozilla Foundation was founded on a grant from Netscape, they started having to find their own revenue sources. And they did with Google. The Mozilla Corporation was founded in 2005 because Mozilla was generating so much cash (mainly from Google search), that they got in trouble with the IRS. That was only 2 years after the Mozilla Foundation was created! The bulk of their revenue has always been advertisement. As for code, they still very much rely on the open source model for new code.
pera 12y ago
I think Mozilla could have tried the Wikimedia way.
- zz1 12y ago
  You mean like this? http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/12/20/cash_rich_wikipedia_chugging/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/12/20/cash_rich_wikipedia_... It doesn't mean I don't understand you and don't agree with you, but you have to bear in mind that Wikipedia doesn't have competitors while Firefox has, a lot of them. And they don't need money, they don't need to display you advertising: because they ARE advertising (well, kind of, but not too far away in the Google and Opera case).

by zz1 12y ago

Karunamon 12y ago

Firefox chased me away a long time ago with the way their bug reports are (not) handled. While I won't deny they're still a net force for good on the web, if I had been donating to them even with that in mind, this action would have caused me to stop. With any possible objective definition, Firefox is now adware.

Karunamon 12y ago
Apparently, people would rather downvote and run than deal with the truth. Ad-filled software = adware. Just because you dislike the definition doesn't mean it doesn't apply.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

whyenot 12y ago

> If it doesn't get it from the users (like it never was) But early Mozilla was supported by its users, through donations of both code and money. Volunteers also spearheaded the hugely successful "get Firefox" campaign. Thanks to Google money, Mozilla can now afford to pay top dollar for engineers and prime office space on the Embarcaderro. That is not necessarily a bad thing, but I sometimes wonder if it may have made Mozilla a less focused and user-centric organization than it used to be.

makmanalp 12y ago
I don't think the donations could support mozilla today. I mean look at Wikipedia: how many people it employs, how many pageviews it gets, how drastic its donation drives are and it's not doing amazingly well financially. And "get firefox" is part of the reasons the google thing worked - it increased the userbase drastically. But it never was a viable way to make money.
zz1 12y ago
I wonder about it too, but I don't think that's the case. I mean, even their offices (like the new one, in Paris) are not just a luxury show off, but they're meant and actually used to attract new volunteers, host events to foster the web, get media attention…
wodenokoto 12y ago
No, the Mozilla Organization was kept alive by Netscape, with some other major corporation sponsoring full-time engineers. When Netscape bailed completely and the Mozilla Foundation was founded on a grant from Netscape, they started having to find their own revenue sources. And they did with Google. The Mozilla Corporation was founded in 2005 because Mozilla was generating so much cash (mainly from Google search), that they got in trouble with the IRS. That was only 2 years after the Mozilla Foundation was created! The bulk of their revenue has always been advertisement. As for code, they still very much rely on the open source model for new code.
wodenokoto 12y ago
No, the Mozilla Organization was kept alive by Netscape, with some other major corporation sponsoring full-time engineers. When Netscape bailed completely and the Mozilla Foundation was founded on a grant from Netscape, they started having to find their own revenue sources. And they did with Google. The Mozilla Corporation was founded in 2005 because Mozilla was generating so much cash (mainly from Google search), that they got in trouble with the IRS. That was only 2 years after the Mozilla Foundation was created! The bulk of their revenue has always been advertisement. As for code, they still very much rely on the open source model for new code.

pera 12y ago

I think Mozilla could have tried the Wikimedia way.

zz1 12y ago
You mean like this? http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/12/20/cash_rich_wikipedia_chugging/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/12/20/cash_rich_wikipedia_... It doesn't mean I don't understand you and don't agree with you, but you have to bear in mind that Wikipedia doesn't have competitors while Firefox has, a lot of them. And they don't need money, they don't need to display you advertising: because they ARE advertising (well, kind of, but not too far away in the Google and Opera case).