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

Post by funcDropShadow » Wed, Sep 23, 2020, 5:55 PM UTC

runarberg wrote: post #776

djsumdog wrote: post #748

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Brendan Eich's homophobia All we know is that Eich supported one political movement with money. Show me where he has come put publicly as fearing homosexuals. We are in a dangerous world of viewpoint discrimination. A belief on a particular moral or political issue does not represent the totality of an individual. We all disagree on things; some of us on things we consider core unalienable rights and values. But at…

How is supporting anti-gay movements not an act of homophobia? I guess you are arguing semantics here, that you have to be literally afraid of homosexuals to be considered a homophobe. Well—though technically correct—this is not how most people use this word, and you know it. In current speech homophobe is anybody that acts maliciously against an LGBTQ+ person or the LGBTQ+ community as a whole.

Post by spullara » Wed, Sep 23, 2020, 5:56 PM UTC

modo_mario wrote: post #298

spullara wrote: post #269

At the end of the day, they failed at their original mission: "It was intended to harness the creative power of thousands of programmers on the Internet and fuel unprecedented levels of innovation in the browser market. " All of the innovation on web standards, web frameworks, etc. has been coming from FAANG and Mozilla is funded by them. They defocused and have been messing around with all kinds of other stuff.

Not all of the change on web standards has been good or appropriate innovation perhaps exactly because of Firefox smaller clout nowadays. Look at the story of Mozilla's H264 implementation and you'll see it's clearly Google that has managed to throw it's weight around and decide what would become the standard whether it was good or not.

Post by hayd » Wed, Sep 23, 2020, 5:56 PM UTC

golergka wrote: post #559

Jonnax wrote: 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…

Isn't the CEO pay here a classic example of principal-agent problem? In a commercial company, there would be activist investors pushing to cut manager's pay and change management. But I'm not familiar with this type of NGOs so well; who is supposed play the role of principal here? And are they not playing it properly?

Post by pseudalopex » Wed, Sep 23, 2020, 5:57 PM UTC

mensetmanusman wrote: post #523

Was Eich a turning point in Mozilla’s failure? I remember almost all my distant family in other parts of the country cancelling Mozilla because of the situation. (Remember this is the organization being well run previously, until someone dug through private political data and found the previous CEO had made donations that were deemed double plus ungood by a minority of stakeholders.)

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Sep 23, 2020, 6:02 PM UTC

sam_goody wrote: post #564

They had a GREAT CEO. Brendan Eich. He not only was heavily involved with destroying IE's monopoly, he was able to start Brave in a punishing market (competing against Google, Apple, and his own FF) and made it a contender. But, he wasn't woke enough. And for that, everyone will now pay dearly. I daresay, learning that someone else is entitled to a competing view is difficult. Allowing others to have a view other tha…