Last week the Department of Justice and some state attorneys general filed revised proposed remedies in the U.S. v. Google LLC search case. If the proposed
Overall, I don’t think Mozilla is wrong. Without the Google Search deal, Firefox will have less resources to build a competent browser.
But Mozilla has also done a poor job at becoming financially stable without this search deal. It also doesn’t help that Mozilla’s CEO’s salary keeps going up in spite of the declining market share.
It would have been nice is Mozilla was able to fill a niche like Proton: building a suite of secure and private services. But instead they’re moving towards advertising.
Overall, I don’t think Mozilla is wrong. Without the Google Search deal, Firefox will have less resources to build a competent browser.
The vast majority of the corporations income does not go to Firefox anyways. Their financial reports are publicly available, everyone can read them.
I have zero sympathy for the corporation and I hope they go bankrupt and that the devs forking the browser and develop it as a standalone product independent of the Mozilla-owned Firefox.
And nothing of that was done in a great way. The only Mozilla product that does not is Thunderbird - and Thunderbird is independently developed by the community.
(I am aware of the community theme, but I still stand my point here: Firefox is the only non-Chromium browser that does not completely suck, absolutely. But seen as a standalone product, Firefox is not a good browser.)
FWIW, the Mozilla CEO salary actually went down in the last year we have records. From about $6.9 million to $6.2. (The base salary is still around $600,000, and the rest is a bonus.)
I agree, but I’ve seen so many arguments that “you need to pay the CEO millions, otherwise you’ll lose a CEO that’s definitely worth millions.” Not a great argument, but I think it’s somewhat laid bare by breaking down their actual salary versus their bonus, which is… Over nine times their salary.
I think the more realistic argument is that CEOs have an inherent incentive to take big risks. If they get lucky and succeed, they get credited for the win, can put it in their portfolio and then demand better pay or move on to another company which will pay them more. If they fail, they can quietly resign, take the golden parachute and move on to the next company after a year or two as though nothing has happened. A big salary incentivizes them to keep their job, thus disincentivizing them from taking risks.
It’s almost unfair that JWZ has to be grouped in with the same historical figures around Firefox as Netscape ghoul Marc Andreessen and JavaScript ghoul Brendan Eich. Firefox (and predecessors) aren’t managed by the best people.
Mozilla really needs the corporate ear. That’s what really did them in, google integrated into Active Directory group policy effectively making it a pretty good choice for corporate deployments. This would give leverage to have bigger donors. Outside of that is just to diversify but the vpn/privacy market is pretty saturated right now.
There’s still a lot of room IMO for Mozilla to innovate in a privacy-respecting way.
For example, partner with/acquire Axate (or DIY), and do a big marketing push to get websites on board with “casual payments” in lieu of ads. I think Firefox users would love this, and they can work with uBlock Origin to expose an API so users can disable ad blockers on conforming websites.
users can disable ad blockers on conforming websites.
We all know that this won’t happen. In reality there are only two major groups of people: Those who do not use ad blockers and have accepted ads everywhere, and those who use ad blockers and accept ads nowhere.
In a struggling company that’s trying to seem like a good nonprofit? Not usually, no. Or at least it’s ill advised. When the Google money stops or goes down, and they’re looking for donations… It’ll be hard to get people on board with financing that salary.
Yeah it also doesn’t help that they’ve gone though a unusually high number of CEOs. Somehow I’m thinking there is more to the story. If the CEO was well liked people probably could overlook crazy pay. That’s not the case here.
Overall, I don’t think Mozilla is wrong. Without the Google Search deal, Firefox will have less resources to build a competent browser.
But Mozilla has also done a poor job at becoming financially stable without this search deal. It also doesn’t help that Mozilla’s CEO’s salary keeps going up in spite of the declining market share.
It would have been nice is Mozilla was able to fill a niche like Proton: building a suite of secure and private services. But instead they’re moving towards advertising.
The vast majority of the corporations income does not go to Firefox anyways. Their financial reports are publicly available, everyone can read them.
I have zero sympathy for the corporation and I hope they go bankrupt and that the devs forking the browser and develop it as a standalone product independent of the Mozilla-owned Firefox.
They keep jumping on some random buzz word and then abandoning it all together. They’ve dome everything from password managers to VR.
And nothing of that was done in a great way. The only Mozilla product that does not is Thunderbird - and Thunderbird is independently developed by the community.
(I am aware of the community theme, but I still stand my point here: Firefox is the only non-Chromium browser that does not completely suck, absolutely. But seen as a standalone product, Firefox is not a good browser.)
FWIW, the Mozilla CEO salary actually went down in the last year we have records. From about $6.9 million to $6.2. (The base salary is still around $600,000, and the rest is a bonus.)
As long as is it millions it’s too much.
I agree, but I’ve seen so many arguments that “you need to pay the CEO millions, otherwise you’ll lose a CEO that’s definitely worth millions.” Not a great argument, but I think it’s somewhat laid bare by breaking down their actual salary versus their bonus, which is… Over nine times their salary.
I would make more sense if the CEO was doing a good job
I think the more realistic argument is that CEOs have an inherent incentive to take big risks. If they get lucky and succeed, they get credited for the win, can put it in their portfolio and then demand better pay or move on to another company which will pay them more. If they fail, they can quietly resign, take the golden parachute and move on to the next company after a year or two as though nothing has happened. A big salary incentivizes them to keep their job, thus disincentivizing them from taking risks.
Firefox has neglected their browser for years, pursuing vanity features like pocket instead of implementing web standards.
From Mozilla’s founder, jwz:
It’s almost unfair that JWZ has to be grouped in with the same historical figures around Firefox as Netscape ghoul Marc Andreessen and JavaScript ghoul Brendan Eich. Firefox (and predecessors) aren’t managed by the best people.
Etc.: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=site%3Ajwz.org+andreessen
Mozilla really needs the corporate ear. That’s what really did them in, google integrated into Active Directory group policy effectively making it a pretty good choice for corporate deployments. This would give leverage to have bigger donors. Outside of that is just to diversify but the vpn/privacy market is pretty saturated right now.
There’s still a lot of room IMO for Mozilla to innovate in a privacy-respecting way.
For example, partner with/acquire Axate (or DIY), and do a big marketing push to get websites on board with “casual payments” in lieu of ads. I think Firefox users would love this, and they can work with uBlock Origin to expose an API so users can disable ad blockers on conforming websites.
But they’re not going to do that, which sucks.
We all know that this won’t happen. In reality there are only two major groups of people: Those who do not use ad blockers and have accepted ads everywhere, and those who use ad blockers and accept ads nowhere.
I think that’s looking at it the wrong way. I think there are three kinds of people:
Some in each group use ad blockers, and I think group 3 is quite large.
The CEO salary being around 7 millions, plus the newly added executives… Yeah.
Grabbing the money while it’s still there …
It that uncommon? I think it is normal for the top brass to make big bucks.
In a struggling company that’s trying to seem like a good nonprofit? Not usually, no. Or at least it’s ill advised. When the Google money stops or goes down, and they’re looking for donations… It’ll be hard to get people on board with financing that salary.
Yeah it also doesn’t help that they’ve gone though a unusually high number of CEOs. Somehow I’m thinking there is more to the story. If the CEO was well liked people probably could overlook crazy pay. That’s not the case here.
Absolutely. I highly doubt people are willing to donate for paying millions of Dollars to a CEO.