41–50 of 1001 posts
Devils advocate: you have to pay a top exec more if the company looks like its main product is in decline. Plus 2.4m/year isn't crazy in the scheme of tech salaries - that exec could potentially take other roles that pay even more.
> that exec could potentially take other roles that pay even more If he would do that, maybe better leadership would improve Mozillas situation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Repeat after me: correlation is not causation.
In this case it probably is though. They have done everything else than focus on the core product since he left and they continue that trend today even if it's failing one.
I'm two fences on Firefox doing "too many unrelated things" as the article suggests. Firefox OS has been pretty much unsuccessful, but it sort of made sense? It started to be made when Firefox was still on top on desktop, but mobile started eating its lunch; and it was clear that Firefox need to do something about it, or the future will be all Chrome and Safari, on the two locked-down platforms. Which eventually happ…
But the small brainless degradations of the UI in Firefox make me worry about its future. For example it’s not possible to permanently add exclusions to the privacy shield. Because of it the sites are often broken. And this is a feature that is directly user facing on the main screen!
The article notes the increase in pay and states > Mitchell Baker, Mozilla's top executive, was paid $2.4m in 2018 but doesn't offer any consideration or speculation as to why this is exaggerated. It's entirely possible that without that particular exec, Firefox would have been even worse off, or would have taken another direction with regards to privacy, etc. My subjective feeling is that $2.4m does indeed seem too…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In this case it probably is though. They have done everything else than focus on the core product since he left and they continue that trend today even if it's failing one.
Mitchell Baker is actually the one who laid off everyone to focus on the core product.
It would be an achievement if she shifted focus as soon as she became CEO, but several years later is probably too late.
Also she killed MDN, and that’s a big loss for the internet.
They should convert to a Worker-owned Cooperative https://ourworld.unu.edu/en/how-to-convert-a-business-into-a...
There's a quote from the CEO saying that they looked at the market and felt like they were being underpaid. And they can't reduce their salary now because it'd be unfair on their families. Firefox has a problem. It gets most of its revenue from Google. They need a different revenue stream but their ideas haven't worked. Their executives are clearly failures. But with such high pay, they're cashing out. Buying themsel…
I finally gave up on Firefox when I noticed a few websites just wouldn’t work when using it compared to Chromium. I think the writing is on the wall.
The article notes the increase in pay and states > Mitchell Baker, Mozilla's top executive, was paid $2.4m in 2018 but doesn't offer any consideration or speculation as to why this is exaggerated. It's entirely possible that without that particular exec, Firefox would have been even worse off, or would have taken another direction with regards to privacy, etc. My subjective feeling is that $2.4m does indeed seem too…
Or maybe they shouldn't have let Brendan Eich go in the first place, who seems to be doing quite well with Brave right now. Maybe a good CEO isn't defined just by the salary he or she receives?