Mozilla appoints new CEO Anthony Enzor-Demeo

Post by glenstein » Tue, Dec 16, 2025, 8:36 PM UTC

rdm_blackhole wrote: post #380

glenstein wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 m…

Post by pseudalopex » Tue, Dec 16, 2025, 8:38 PM UTC

ethbr1 wrote: post #413

maxrmk wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google (currently) pays Mozilla $400-500 million a year to be the default search engine in firefox. edit: in 2023 they took in $653M in total, $555M of which was from Google. They spent $260M on software development, and $236M on other things.

The "other things" is what most people seem to have problem with. Mozilla burns a batshit amount of money on feel good fancies. If it were focused on its core mission -- building great software in key areas -- it would see it can't afford this, because that's the same money that if saved would make them financially independent of Google.

Post by iberator » Tue, Dec 16, 2025, 8:40 PM UTC

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…

Post by viraptor » Tue, Dec 16, 2025, 8:40 PM UTC

gkoberger wrote: post #422

macspoofing wrote: post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What Mozilla is good at ... Firefox - the one thing they do not want to work on is the only thing that makes them special.

They do work on it. A lot. But the issue is browsers don't make money. You can't charge for it, you can't add ads to it, etc. You're competing with the biggest companies in the world (Google, Apple), all of whom are happy to subsidize a browser for other reasons.

Post by amrocha » Tue, Dec 16, 2025, 8:43 PM UTC

glenstein wrote: post #288

skywal_l wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you realize what 1.300.000.000$ is? Say you invest most of it in a safe way to get you inflation + 2%. That gives you 26.000.000$ every year. You can pay 100 engineers with this. Firefox is a browser. Sure a browser is complicated but 100 motivated and talented engineers is more than enough to make a good product if you focus on what matters. There is no excuse to what is going on.

How do you think they got that money in the first place? They've been growing this fund from $100MM in the 2010s to where it is now, by carefully managing and investing it. Hilariously, you're here presenting something Mozilla has already been doing for nearly two decades like it's a new idea that only you have thought of. Yes, I realize how much that is: enough to cover their operating costs for like 2.5 years. And…