Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Mozilla appoints new CEO Anthony Enzor-Demeo

blog.mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 970 posts

Re: Mozilla appoints new CEO Anthony Enzor-Demeo

#371

Post by whatever1 »

gkoberger wrote: post #275

Having worked at Mozilla a while ago, the CEO role is one I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy. Success is oddly defined: it's a non-profit (well, a for-profit owned by a non-profit) that needs to make a big profit in a short amount of time. And anything done to make that profit will annoy the community. I hope Anthony leans into what makes Mozilla special. The past few years, Mozilla's business model has been to just m…

This. I want a password/passkey/auth and bookmark manager that work across platforms and devices.

Re: Mozilla appoints new CEO Anthony Enzor-Demeo

#372

Post by robinhood »

Fiveplus wrote: post #7

Does anyone else feel like the "Trust" angle is the only card they have left to play? Technically, Chrome is faster on JS benchmarks. Edge has better OS integration on Windows and comes by default. Safari wins on battery life on Mac. Firefox's only unique selling point is "We aren't a massive data vampire." If they clutter the browser with AI which inherently requires data processing, often in the cloud, they dilute…

To me, Firefox has way better dev tools than Chrome. I don't even mention Safari here - who can stand their horrible dev tools? Firefox has a fantastic add on marketplace which competes with Chrome's. Firefox without too many addons actually do not drain battery life on MacOS. Firefox has "native" profile management with real separation of cookies. JS benchmarks provide no value to me, since I try to avoid heavy-JS web apps anyway.

I don't know. As a dev and user, Firefox wins on every single aspect for me. I understand that every user is different. But I'm glad it exists.

Re: Mozilla appoints new CEO Anthony Enzor-Demeo

#373

Post by [deleted] »

high_na_euv wrote: post #192
this_user wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What even is an "AI browser"? It's a browser, it's mainly supposed to render web pages / web apps. There is no obvious reason why it would need any AI features.

Translation? Image search? Live captions? Dubbing? Summary? Rewrite text better?

[deleted]

Re: Mozilla appoints new CEO Anthony Enzor-Demeo

#374

Post by vpShane »

nticompass wrote: post #180
netdevphoenix wrote: post #118

I love Mozilla but this feels like marketing imo. From the article: "AI should always be a choice — something people can easily turn off" and "Firefox will remain our anchor. It will evolve into a modern AI browser". I highly doubt you will be able to turn of the transformer tech features in an AI browser imo. And they won't make a separate browser for this. This really feels like the beginning of the end for Mozilla…

This is why I've been using Firefox forks like Zen or LibreWolf. These forks will disable/strip out the AI stuff, so I never have to see it.

LibreWolf ftw, I switched to it, installed my extensions and am not looking back. Would be nice to have a mobile Firefox(LibreWolf) with all extensions, I should go look around F Droid again.

in ff if you're reading this go to about:config and type privacy - why these aren't immediately obvious in the Settings is beyond me

Re: Mozilla appoints new CEO Anthony Enzor-Demeo

#375

Post by robinhood »

miki_oomiri wrote: post #39

If I were the CEO, I would: - focus 100% on Firefox Desktop & Mobile - just a fast solid minimalist browser (no AI, no BS) - other features should be addons - privacy centric - builtin, first-class, adblocker - run on donations - partner with Kagi - layoff 80% of the non-tech employees I worked for them for many years, I guarantee you that Mozilla will be fine without all the non-sense people, just put engineers in c…

No. Kagi uses Google results behind the scenes. Partner with Duckduckgo, yes. Or others. But please stop fueling Google, even indirectly.

Re: Mozilla appoints new CEO Anthony Enzor-Demeo

#376

Post by tristor »

mohamedattahri wrote: post #297
tristor wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I can question the qualifications of a person as it relates to a specific position Sure, but do people generally question the qualifications of founders that successfully grew something from inception? Or is it only for people who are women? Because I definitely see a trend in the comment threads in HN over the last many years.

This has nothing to do with the founder status. Founders don’t face any competition when they get the job at their own companies, and they often have ownership to force it as an outcome if there’s ever a debate. Baker, to her credit, probably faced brutal competition to get to the top job. It’s not out there to wonder why she was picked, and the answer cannot be because « she was there from the beginning ». HN tends…

> Baker, to her credit, probably faced brutal competition to get to the top job. It’s not out there to wonder why she was picked, and the answer cannot be because « she was there from the beginning ».

You are completely discounting her founder status. She wasn't "there from the beginning", she /created/ the Mozilla Foundation and led it from inception to 2025 and later orchestrated the Mozilla Foundation / Mozilla Corporation split structure (which was the first of its kind and has later been used by other institutions). She was the primary author of the Mozilla Public License. She was the Legal mind behind rescuing the codebase from Netscape by going open source.

In one breath you say this has nothing to do with founder status, because founders are founders, and then completely discount that Mitchell is a founder.

There are MANY valid reasons to criticize Mitchell's tenure at Mozilla, and I haven't seen anyone in this larger thread bring up anything of substance when there are several such things available and well known. Instead this is just a "just asking questions" style of shade-throwing that is unequally applied, and can only be presumed to be because Mitchell is a woman.

It turns out the person I originally replied to didn't even get their women in open source correct, because they were talking about GNOME Foundation and not Mozilla, but I can be forgiven for the mistake as I thought them calling Mitchell a "witch" was a joke about her legal first name Winifred, that she has avoided going by in part due to people taking her more seriously because Mitchell is a gender-ambiguous name. Clearly they have no rational and real basis for criticism if they can't even accurately identify which woman they want to make sexist comments about.

I would encourage you and the person I originally wrote my reply to to both pause and do better.

Re: Mozilla appoints new CEO Anthony Enzor-Demeo

#377

Post by teknopaul »

Fire fix usage went from I forget what but really significant down to the level people don't build site for it anymore.

Pretty sure it's because they made security changes that broke the Intranet.

What you want una browser is that it t works. Not some security pop-up telling it doesn't work. Especially if you wrote the website.

Still annoying evert time https://127.0.0.1 is flagged as insecure

Re: Mozilla appoints new CEO Anthony Enzor-Demeo

#378

Post by ksec »

aucisson_masque wrote: post #257
embedding-shape wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you compared with something else than Chrome? Otherwise it might be that Chrome is just very power hungry compared to Safari, but maybe Firefox is more efficient by now? Chrome has slowly turned into a monster on it's own, not unlike what they competed against initially when Chrome first arrived.

Safari use less CPU power than Firefox, chrome being the worst of them all. It's even more obvious when watching video where safari will be 5 to 10 points lower than Firefox. Harder to say when it's rendering page but the fact of the matter is that I tried both for years, Firefox always drain the battery faster.

>It's even more obvious when watching video where safari will be 5 to 10 points lower than Firefox.

Safari uses macOS for video so the points will be on macOS. Firefox uses it own internal video decoder. That is why image and video codec support on Safari is dependent on macOS upgrade not Safari.

Re: Mozilla appoints new CEO Anthony Enzor-Demeo

#379

Post by hamdingers »

marky1991 wrote: post #353
hamdingers wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you think adults marrying other adults and adults marrying children are in any way equivalent, as you imply, then yes your thinking is deeply disordered.

That's not what he said or implied, he's merely responding to your argument 'Donating any amount of money to prevent people you don't know from marrying each other'. I think you might have a justifiable argument here, but it's not clear at all to me what it is.

I cannot imagine the mental model you're working with if my observation is not crystal clear despite omitting the word "adults" in my initial post. Both your and Y_Y's responses read as bad faith to me, but it could be extraordinary ignorance.

In either case I have no idea how to make it clearer for you. Good luck.

Re: Mozilla appoints new CEO Anthony Enzor-Demeo

#380

Post by rdm_blackhole »

glenstein wrote: post #266
rdm_blackhole wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The moment Mozilla failed to stop being dependent on Google's money whilst being true to their own mission in being a 'privacy first browser' it already was the end and the damage in trust was done. I understand your position but what is the alternative funding source that could keep a company making a free browser running? Apple funds Safari's development but it's basically a side project for them, Google funds Ch…

I was going to say a similar thing. I'm still not sure I have seen an example of a browser at the scale of Firefox (hundreds of millions of users, 30 million lines of code) being successfully monetized, basically ever, unless it was entirely subsidized by a trillion dollar company that was turning its users into the product. Or alternatively, succeeding by selling off its users for telemetry or coasting off of Chromi…

Thank you for your comment.

I am glad I am not the only one who is asking the tough questions regarding this problem.

In reality it boils down to replacing 1 income stream provided by Google with one or more new income streams.

That means that Mozilla needs something to sell and quickly.

Or use their VC funds as you said, but we know VC funds need to deploy a lot of capital and then hope that one of their companies makes it big to recoup their investments and eventually make a profit.

I am not sure if betting the entire future of Mozilla on this VC venture would be a wise move to be honest. It's just too unpredictable.

Post reply on HN