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

521–530 of 970 posts

Re: Mozilla appoints new CEO Anthony Enzor-Demeo

#521

Post by szatkus »

benoau wrote: post #469
glenstein wrote: post #466

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And just to add, I kind of mourn FirefoxOS. We couldn't have guessed it at the time, but as of 2025, Google is pushing developer verification and stepping closer and closer to ecosystem lockdown. It would have been a great time for an alternative mobile OS 10+ years in the making, to welcome all the energy that has gone into beautiful projects like F-Droid. If I could time travel into the past, in addition to prevent…

I installed FirefoxOS on a phone years ago, it wasn't even bad really.

The main problem with Firefox OS was that it was really slow. At the same time it was targeting budget phones.

But on the other hand progress was quite good. Back in the days I was maintaining unofficial images for Alcatel Fire. Each version was a little bit faster, but you really can't do much when the whole OS is a browser running on a device with with 256MB of RAM and a single core CPU.

Re: Mozilla appoints new CEO Anthony Enzor-Demeo

#522

Post by charcircuit »

__alexs wrote: post #334
charcircuit wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>curtailing the freedoms you disagree with So pretty much any law that is opposed by someone. Shop lifting shouldn't be legal because there are people who like free stuff. Curltailing the freedom of people who want free stuff improves society by protecting people's property.

Who's rights are gay people impeding on in this analogy?

There doesn't have to be any for my analogy to make sense.

Saying that a law is bad because it prohibits someone from doing something is a position of anarchy.

Re: Mozilla appoints new CEO Anthony Enzor-Demeo

#523

Post by glenstein »

roenxi wrote: post #496
glenstein wrote: post #477

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Firefox - the one thing they do not want to work on I'm sorry but this is complete nonsense. Just this year they pushed 12 major releases, with thousands of patches, including WebGPU efficiency improvements, updated PDF engine, numerous security fixes, amounting to millions of lines of new code. They maintain a codebase that rivals that of Chrome and of the Linux Kernel and push the equivalent of Rust's entire codeb…

> They maintain a codebase that rivals that of Chrome and of the Linux Kernel and push the equivalent of Rust's entire codebase on a monthly basis. Is that comparison supposed to make their management of the code base seem better or worse? Chrome, Linux and Rust are arguably colossi in their niches (Rust having the weakest claim). Firefox's niche is Chrome's and it doesn't do that well. It used to be that at least Fi…

Well I replied to a comment suggesting they weren't working on Firefox, by noting how much work is being done on Firefox. But you seem like you want to change the subject to a different one, which is the extent to which you can gauge "success" relative to competitors, or infer management efficiency, which is fine but orthogonal to my point.

Re: Mozilla appoints new CEO Anthony Enzor-Demeo

#524

Post by pseudalopex »

hosteur wrote: post #437
pseudalopex wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mozilla spent $260 million on software development in 2023.[1] How do you believe they spent it? Vivaldi employ 28 developers to produce an unstable Chromium fork and email program for comparison.[2] [1] https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2024/mozilla-fdn-202... [2] https://vivaldi.com/team/

Well, I do not believe $260 million went to Firefox development. I would be surprised if the majority of that went to other non-Firefox projects like: Various AI initiatives (Mozilla.ai, Orbit, etc.) Mozilla VPN Mozilla Monitor Pocket Firefox Relay Fakespot Mozilla Social Mozilla Hubs ... just to name a few.

Most of these projects are open source. Anyone can see how much more active Firefox development is.

Mozilla.ai's featured projects sounded like things Firefox's AI features would use.

Orbit was a Firefox extension. Firefox integrated its features. You considered this not Firefox development?

Mozilla VPN and Mozilla Monitor are interfaces to other companies' services. And they are non Google revenue sources.

Mozilla Social was a Mastodon instance. How much software development did you believe running a Mastodon instance required?

Re: Mozilla appoints new CEO Anthony Enzor-Demeo

#525

Post by zero0529 »

the_biot wrote: post #360
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…

You're assuming Mozilla would be successful at a privacy play because they are a trusted organization. I can't stress this enough: they are not.

Trust is relative and it is subjective meaning that I trust Mozilla more than I trust google but I also trust them in general, enough at least that they support most of my internet browsing. Unless you mean something else ?

Re: Mozilla appoints new CEO Anthony Enzor-Demeo

#526

Post by glenstein »

flaburgan wrote: post #516
benoau wrote: post #469

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I installed FirefoxOS on a phone years ago, it wasn't even bad really.

I use it as my primary phone for 2 years, first with the Flame, then with a Z3C. For me Firefox OS was the finale move of Mozilla, either it successes and Mozilla becomes a major actor again or it fails and they slowly die. And thebmy decided to kill it right when it was becoming stable enough.

It's another damned if you do, damned if you don't. FirefoxOS is regularly listed by commenters as an example of a wasteful side bet, whereas my feeling is more along the lines of yours, that it was striding greatly, as the saying goes, and attempting to be a major actor.

A big part of the market share loss was due to monopoly and distribution lockdown of a controlled platform tightly tied to hardware, so I can certainly see the strategic wisdom of the attempt. I suspect they didn't have the resources to press forward, they had a lot less money then than they do now. Which makes it all the more maddening that Yahoo's role as a partner was so muted; it could have made the difference for both of them.

Re: Mozilla appoints new CEO Anthony Enzor-Demeo

#527

Post by viraptor »

cjpearson wrote: post #489
viraptor wrote: post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can't charge for it They could try. I just keep hearing people who would pay for no extra features as long as it paid for actual Firefox development and not the random unrelated Mozilla projects. I would pay a subscription. But they don't let me.

You can't effectively paywall it because not only is it open source, but there are many nearly equivalent competitors all of which are free. Any subscribers would essentially be donors. There are people like yourself who would be happy to donate, but not nearly enough. Replacing MoCo's current revenue with donors would require donations at the level of Doctors without Borders, American Cancer Society, or the Make-a-W…

Oh no, it would be a donation and it's not going to completely replace all the funding of the parent entity of the project mentioned, therefore it's not realistic or worth trying. Right... That's a lot of arguments unrelated to what I wrote.

Re: Mozilla appoints new CEO Anthony Enzor-Demeo

#528

Post by Wowfunhappy »

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.

> But the issue is browsers don't make money.

What?! Browsers might as well be money printers! Have you heard how much money Google pays Apple to be the default search engine in Safari?

The higher Firefox’s user numbers, the more money Mozilla can make from search engine deals. Conversely, if Mozilla keeps trying to push a bunch of other initiatives while Firefox languishes and bleeds users, Mozilla will make less money.

If you don’t like this form of revenue… well, I don’t know what to tell you, because this is how web browsers make money. And trying other stuff doesn’t seem to be working.

Re: Mozilla appoints new CEO Anthony Enzor-Demeo

#529

Post by bpye »

trinsic2 wrote: post #518
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…

Why cant Mozilla go the same route with Firefox as Thunderbird where its community supported, I wonder?

Web standards move very quickly, the only other two parties that keep up today are Google with Blink and Apple with WebKit.

Re: Mozilla appoints new CEO Anthony Enzor-Demeo

#530

Post by __alexs »

charcircuit wrote: post #522
__alexs wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who's rights are gay people impeding on in this analogy?

There doesn't have to be any for my analogy to make sense. Saying that a law is bad because it prohibits someone from doing something is a position of anarchy.

I didn't say a law was bad.
Post reply on HN