Live data from Hacker News

Firefox usage is down despite Mozilla's top exec pay going up

calpaterson.com

181–190 of 1001 posts

Re: Firefox usage is down despite Mozilla's top exec pay going up

#181

> And they can't reduce their salary now because it'd be unfair on their families. That must be a real comfort to all the people they laid off. This CEO needs to go, needs to be replaced by someone who is well versed in technology instead of in law.

> someone who is well versed in technology instead of in law.

Well, this person already existed. It was Brendan Eich.

Re: Firefox usage is down despite Mozilla's top exec pay going up

#182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article compares it to UK based NGO's that don't pay over $1.3m USD. What about US based NGO's? I don't know where to find this data. Lastly, a FAANG may or may not pay more, but they're certainly in a much better financial position than Mozilla to pay a high salary.

Here is some data from 2019. Some of these salaries are eye watering: https://www.causeiq.com/insights/highest-paid-nonprofit-ceos...

That's insane:

> James Skogsbergh, Advocate Aurora Health Title:Chief Executive Officer , Director Amount:$8,511,609 % Revenue:14.9% Revenue:$56,950,972

~1/7 of the revenue of charity goes to CEO's pay? Is that even legal?

Re: Firefox usage is down despite Mozilla's top exec pay going up

#183
post #48
post #13

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…

The problem is not that they get most of their revenue from Google. The problem is that they have 5% share of the web now.

5% of a few billion users is not nothing. Mostly the decline of Mozilla has little to do with the browser functionality or marketing but with the fact that there are several competing browsers out there that have caught up. E.g. MS ditched IE in favor of Edge. Apple has continued investing in Safari which they also force the usage of exclusively on IOS. And of course Google has similar control point in the form of Chrome. I am a happy Firefox user BTW. But I can see lack of incentive for other people to switch. Any of those browsers gets the job done for any user.

IMHO, 5% is actually fine. That's a robust user base of a few tens to hundreds of million users. Nothing to sneeze at and a good basis for long term existence of the project.

Where Mozilla went the wrong direction is with their commercial activities. Their core problem is that their product is a commodity. It's just not going to bring in a lot of revenue. Apple and Google use their respective browser as a control point for the app store and ads. It's an expense worth making because they both exploit the large number of users using their browsers via other channels. Most of what Google does is motivated by this. Likewise, Apple is selling hardware, apps, and subscriptions.

Mozilla does not have a similarly viable way of generating revenue from their user base. It's an OSS product that users install and use for free. Their core value is actually protecting users against that kind of thing which is a noble thing to do but not a business plan.

That's why Mozilla was initially styled as a foundation. The commercial branch came later and its the commercial branch that is failing; not the foundation. They have no money maker of note other than their search traffic deals. Everything else, including (I'll just call this right now), their recent VPN offering is never going to come close to bankrolling their operation. This follows a long line of failed investments in a mobile strategy that never panned out, various "experiments' that never got off the ground, misc services that they launched and that people promptly forgot about, etc. None of it engaged more than a fraction of their user base. None of it wowed anyone. None of it was more than a me too effort of replicating things that already existed and already were commodities. Mozilla as an investment vehicle for new products only loosely connected to Firefox has failed.

The way out is back to basics. Pull the plug on the Mozilla corporation as soon as convenient for investors and setup the foundation for success and untangle it from the VCs. It will need donations, the search engine revenue looks good as well and ought to be allocated 100% to keeping the browser going. There should be enough to keep an engineering team going. It doesn't need a marketing department, offices in London, Paris, San Francisco, Mountain View, etc. Hell, the rent for that alone could keep a development team going for a very long time. Much bigger things have been built with far less. That shit only ever made sense when Mozilla was styling itself as an incubation vehicle for turning VC money into products. Now that that has definitely failed, time to walk away from that.

And then there's the Rust part of the company. IMHO that's a valid asset where Mozilla has a lot of influence in a rapidly growing community. There's an opportunity there to grow some healthy business around that supporting the many companies looking to leverage that. So far, they run it like a charity. That's a mistake. Aside from Firefox, that's actually the single most valuable IP they ever created. And like Firefox, it lacks a plan for revenue. Rust almost happened by accident. But MS and Apple are now looking to use it and it seems people are doing Rust things in the Linux kernel as well.

Re: Firefox usage is down despite Mozilla's top exec pay going up

#184

This: "Mitchell Baker, Mozilla's top executive, was paid $2.4m in 2018, [..]. Payments to Baker have more than doubled in the last five years." and this at the same time: "Mozilla recently announced that they would be dismissing 250 people." It's shameful. Specially for a "non profit".

Mozilla Inc is not a non-profit. The parent organization is.

Re: Firefox usage is down despite Mozilla's top exec pay going up

#185

It is interesting to note that Brendan Eich's severance pay when he was forced out of Mozilla was just $113,000. https://www.forbes.com/sites/georgeanders/2015/11/30/mozilla... Also interesting to note that Brendan Eich too plotted a chart showing Baker's pay vs Mozilla stock's performance: https://twitter.com/BrendanEich/status/1217512049716035584 How anyone can claim that sort of pay hike when showing very poor res…

>>"It is interesting to note that Brendan Eich's severance pay when he was forced out of Mozilla was just $113,000"

He was 11 days on the job, so, not so bad.

Re: Firefox usage is down despite Mozilla's top exec pay going up

#186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This cant be true because cancel culture does not exist, I am being told.

Not every bad thing that happens to someone, or every time someone is criticized counts as cancel culture. Cancelling has a heavy element of being ostracised from a community and having your reputation destroyed.

If I read the “Appointment to CEO, controversy and resignation” section[1] of Brendan Eich's Wikipedia page then it appears he was cancelled:

- employees publicly speak out, telling him to resign - widespread media reporting - an online campaign to have him removed starts - “online dating site OkCupid automatically displaying a message to Firefox users with information about Eich's donation, and suggesting that users switch to a different browser” - “CREDO Mobile collected more than 50,000 signatures demanding that Eich resign” - Eich resigns

I'm not sure how that could be anything other than part of cancel culture, other than it being ahead of the current trend by a few years.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brendan_Eich#Appointment_to_CE...

Re: Firefox usage is down despite Mozilla's top exec pay going up

#188
post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you need to qualify that statement

Their news operations are subsidised to the tune of ~£30m/yr by the charitable trust that owns them. Not in and of itself problematic, but accumulating a sizeable enough endowment to sufficiently fund operations isn't an option for most orgs. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/aug/07/guardian-broke...

Mozilla corporation is owned by a non profit. Having a sizeable endowment is hard, but that sweet sweet google money has totaled over a billion dollars so its not like they didn't have the opportunity.

Re: Firefox usage is down despite Mozilla's top exec pay going up

#189

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…

The whole "need to fight native with the web tech" thing is flawed. I am not sure where that idea came from, but it does no good for anyone.

Re: Firefox usage is down despite Mozilla's top exec pay going up

#190
post #157
post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I understand the frustration, it's unclear to me what the expected solution is for Mozilla. Pay the CEO less until the company does better? Ok but the CEO will presumably just find a higher paying job elsewhere. Then what? Find a cheaper CEO? How does that help fix the slipping market share for Firefox?

What’s so great about this CEO? Would a cheaper CEO do worse?

I agree, I dont think this CEO is special. His argument is flawed on that premise alone. I think they should pull an MS and promote the CIO or a lead engineer.
Post reply on HN