541–550 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let's says it's the half after taxes: 1.25M. Spending 3424 a day for 365 days should get you there. You have to realize it's our fault to not understand these poor people.
> Let's says it's the half after taxes If you make that much money, you're not paying more than 25% taxes. Or you are not using the right lawyers.
> 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.
Previously they had appointed an excellent CEO from within that is universally well respected for his technology contributions and then they fired him after 11 days without cause. Now that guy is a CEO at a different company. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brendan_Eich
But instead, we can choose between Firefox, and Brave. 2 competitors for Chrome, from which users can choose. So, in the end, maybe it was for the best?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That chart shows a pretty beautiful 10 year trend. Yep, they are on a sinking ship. 'Failures' on the other hand - that is a loaded word. They are failures, they have failed at making Firefox popular. But what needed to happen to build an alternative world where they succeeded? The browsers that succeeded were Chrome and Safari - browsers sponsored by the owners of the two major platforms for accessing the internet,…
> Charities aren't innovation engines The unique selling point of Firefox (and especially: mobile Firefox) was ability to heavily customize it and use third party extensions. Those extensions were the ones bringing in the innovation -> most ideas came from third parties (on a side note: usually for free, since extensions are hard to monetize). The system just worked and gave many popular extensions like Tab Mix Plus,…
The big question is whether there’s a model for browser development which isn’t subsidized by huge companies which profit elsewhere. Short of government support (antitrust, direct funding, etc.) I’m not sure there is a viable path forward.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Previously they had appointed an excellent CEO from within that is universally well respected for his technology contributions and then they fired him after 11 days without cause. Now that guy is a CEO at a different company. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brendan_Eich
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brendan_Eich says he left, rather than was fired. It looks like Brendan held popular political views, but not popular in relevant places.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you see any realistic chance of this happening? Generally if a company is captured by a parasitic leadership sucking it dry, that's it, right? Is there anyone on the board whose interests are more aligned with keeping Mozilla alive (probably hard to do at this point) than feasting on it whilst there is still something left to feast on? Presumably you'd need a few such people.
It's not just the leadership at Firefox. FF has been hijacked by a bunch of people who have no interest in the browser and sucked it dry while it went down. Sad for the people at Mozilla who cared about the browser and wrote the code. As an FF user I hope Mozilla does a turn around, gets back its engineering culture and focuses on delivering the best - and most secure and private - browser in the market.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> should have realized that you can't be leading a flagship of diversity on the one hand and be a bigot on the other Is it ridiculous to suggest we should just ignore what people think and do in their private lives? I both fully support gay marriage and couldn't give a rat's ass about what the maker of my browser thinks about it (Eich donated 1000$ to Prop 8, 12 years ago). The real problem is that you can pay to hav…
Funny you think giving gays and lesbians the same rights as everyone else in this country is "social justice olympics" No other way to describe this contempt for basic human rights than "vice signalling"
I'm a straight, white male with a long-time significant other. We never got married because marriage is a religious ceremony, and we don't share those values (for example, the church's views on gay marriage). At least in my country, being married doesn't give a person any more "rights".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know, man. It's easy to get all abstract with phrases like "support a cause" but we live in a concrete world. Mozilla employs a lot of gay people. Prop 8 was viciously homophobic, both in concept and especially in execution of its campaign. How would you feel going to work knowing your boss's boss thinks you don't deserve rights?
Looking at from the other side of the globe, as a non-american. I get the impression that in silicon valley, technology is all about skin color, what you have between your legs and what you want to do with what you have between you legs - end of story. Those are the really important bit. Everything else is just the details. It looks like pure politics, keep conservatives out and keep liberals in. His fault wasn't the…
Some people like to wax poetic about getting along with people with whom you disagree. But there's a difference between disagreeing on, say, tabs vs. spaces or fiscal policy or something, and disagreeing about what sort of people do or do not deserve rights. This situation clearly falls in the latter category and attempts to conflate it with the former are very unconvincing.
This is a pretty unfair article. The author presents firefox market share (a relative term) on one axis and CEO pay (an absolute term) on the other. The sad reality is that the CEO pay should be a relative metric to tech companies of similar size in the bay area, where Mozilla is based. Or at least US tech companies of similar scale. As the internet has enveloped the globe in the last 10 years, a huge amount of money…
Still it makes no sense to pay people millions of dollars when a company is not doing well financially. In this regards what Iwata did while being CEO of Nintendo during hardship (cutting his salary in half and getting no bonus) is the way to go.
The fact is that 2.5 million probably isn’t enough to get the kind of turnaround leader Mozilla needs. They have no revenue model. You’re basically handing a CEO a bunch of talented devs and free products and saying “make a revenue stream” for products where their competitors make a better product for free use. Lots of tech companies spend billions and never find revenue streams outside of their core business until they make acquisitions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Firefox and co are open source projects. Couldn't you just create a new company, "Next-Mozilla" or so, and fork off the projects, install a new CEO, take over the developers? You would have to use a new branding, i.e. they cannot reuse the trademark, and they have to make sure that enough people (developers and users) will switch over. But with such bad press, this might not be too hard, if there is one focused attem…
How will you pay for this? Without critical mass you are not going anywhere. FireFox had critical mass, and lost. You won't be able to recover that position without some extremely deep pockets even if you start off from what is there today. I am not convinced that even if Mozilla/FF got a competent CEO tomorrow and started executing 'just so' that they would be able to recover from their slide, a newcomer would have…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And they can't reduce their salary now because it'd be unfair on their families. This kind of bullshit infuriates me to no end.
How can you even spend around 2.5 million A YEAR (okay, before taxes, whatever) if you're not BURNING the cash? I don't get it.
Then, you have trust funds for your children so that none of them ever have to work. And when you die, your children will inherit the fortune, so they can do the same for their children, ad infinitum. And if they want a "job" you can start a nonprofit that they can run, so they can be known as successful administrators while you are recognized as a selfless philanthropist who gave away so much money.
I guess it would be hard on their families because they would move off the fast track of multi-generational absolute financial security.