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

Mozilla’s revenue increased significantly in 2016

ghacks.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 154 posts

Re: Mozilla’s revenue increased significantly in 2016

#131

Post by Feniks »

Buge wrote: post #123
dao- wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, you're still missing most of the picture. Mozilla didn't get paid for Google being the default outside of the US, China and Russia when it made Yahoo the default in the US. Mozilla had a global deal with Google and that expired. Bottomline is, most of Mozilla's 2016 revenue came from Yahoo.

That seems weird. There was no search engine that was willing to pay money to be default outside of US, China, and Russia?

In Europe Google has a 90+% market share. At this point nobody even bothers to compete.

Re: Mozilla’s revenue increased significantly in 2016

#132

Post by staktrace »

Drdrdrq wrote: post #17
staktrace wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you don't change the default search engine, then updates to the default search engine will affect you. If you explicitly change the default, then the updates should leave your choice intact.

As commented elsewhere: not true. I had to change settings (back) on quite a few accounts, so I'm certain of it. And yes, I did have StartPage as default.

I was slightly off; see callahad's description of the algorithm elsewhere in the thread for a better description of what happens.

Re: Mozilla’s revenue increased significantly in 2016

#133

Post by a_imho »

bigbugbag wrote: post #29
staunch wrote: post #23

The Mozilla Treasurer and Chair are still taking $1M each, right? Why is this scandal going unreported? Are there really no experienced managers willing to run this potentially great organization for $300k/year? Why would we want people who are willing to take so much money from an open source project? Why are there 1200 people at Mozilla and so little product to show? Why do they constantly spend all of their revenu…

This is something I wondered about for quite some time now. How come so many employees and so much spent money with so little to show for it. Reading the reason for dropping alsa support or refusing to have better linux integration it seems mozilla is short on dev time and resources which they clearly are not. Do you remember when they got 10 000 people donating money to pay to place an ad for firefox 1.0 in NY Times…

Mozilla had a strong stance against a content blocker in firefox for what ? 15 years ? Whatever they said to justify this position it is obvious that the actual reason is conflict of interest with their main source or revenue.

I don't think anyone can really blame the decision, but they should be more straightforward where their loyalties ultimately lie. The fact that one of the best known alternatives to chrome and so called independent browser is in cahoots with Google is a sad state of things.

Re: Mozilla’s revenue increased significantly in 2016

#134

Post by boomboomsubban »

slededit wrote: post #12
mintplant wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Links to the audited financial statements are available at the bottom of https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/annualreport/2016/

I think the point is they should have shown a cash flow statement.

Why isn't a consolidated cash flow statement enough?

Re: Mozilla’s revenue increased significantly in 2016

#135

Post by staunch »

groby_b wrote: post #73
staunch wrote: post #23

The Mozilla Treasurer and Chair are still taking $1M each, right? Why is this scandal going unreported? Are there really no experienced managers willing to run this potentially great organization for $300k/year? Why would we want people who are willing to take so much money from an open source project? Why are there 1200 people at Mozilla and so little product to show? Why do they constantly spend all of their revenu…

If you have the skill required to manage a 1000+ people org, you could easily make a lot more than $1M. Blame the ridiculous salaries in the Bay Area. And no, there are no experienced managers who want to work in the Bay Area for $300K. You can fairly easily make more than double that if you're able to run a 50-person group. As for "spend all their revenue", I suggest actually reading the financial statement: https:/…

1. I blame a corrupt board of directors for not making Mozilla a great organization that can attract great altruistic leaders that don't need to take so much.

2. Mozilla has blown almost every dollar it has ever earned. Hundreds of millions wasted on failed projects and useless activities. No one disputes this.

3. Mozilla revenues should be growing every year and not never reliant on a competitor's goodwill. And just because Microsoft wastes billions on something (or claims to for tax reasons) does not mean that is the fundamental cost. See: SpaceX.

Re: Mozilla’s revenue increased significantly in 2016

#136

Post by staunch »

pcwalton wrote: post #97
staunch wrote: post #23

The Mozilla Treasurer and Chair are still taking $1M each, right? Why is this scandal going unreported? Are there really no experienced managers willing to run this potentially great organization for $300k/year? Why would we want people who are willing to take so much money from an open source project? Why are there 1200 people at Mozilla and so little product to show? Why do they constantly spend all of their revenu…

> It appears a lot like Mozilla is a corrupt organization taking bribes from its competitor (Google) to not actually compete. There may even be a need for government intervention. Yes, clearly I only pretend to work nights and weekends as cover for shadowy secret Google payments.

Yes, and I'm clearly blaming programmers at Mozilla for the problem ;-)

I hope you find Mozilla better run that it appears, and I hope you can do more great work there, despite its flaws, but it seems to me like you don't have the leadership or organization you deserve.

Re: Mozilla’s revenue increased significantly in 2016

#137

Post by Nomentatus »

kazagistar wrote: post #119
feelin_googley wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sounds like Mozilla just wants to keep users confined to a pre-approved list of search engines. Are these also business partners with Mozilla, like Google? Here are some other HTTPS-enabled search engines to test. If I am not mistaken all have been mentioned on HN in the past. https://wiby.me https://gigablast.com https://mojeek.com https://unbubble.eu https://ecosia.org https://searx.me https://symbolhound.com ht…

It looks like a mistake, not malice.

you mean that the omission of the above lesser known engines was a mistake and they will soon appear? I grant that you're responding to a "response" that should have been a new thread, instead, since it's really a new topic - but it's not alleging the switch was malice.

Re: Mozilla’s revenue increased significantly in 2016

#138

Post by Nomentatus »

Drdrdrq wrote: post #17
staktrace wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you don't change the default search engine, then updates to the default search engine will affect you. If you explicitly change the default, then the updates should leave your choice intact.

As commented elsewhere: not true. I had to change settings (back) on quite a few accounts, so I'm certain of it. And yes, I did have StartPage as default.

But you've said what s/he said - you liked the default, but the default changed. That's what you both agree on. Had you not remained on the default search engine, your move would have been retained. This leaves the question of whether a past change first away from the default and then back would have been counted as a choice to be retained or as merely the default.

Re: Mozilla’s revenue increased significantly in 2016

#139

Post by Nomentatus »

always_good wrote: post #111
bigbugbag wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I beg to differ, I wish they would not remove the previous interface when introducing a new one and offer the user the freedom to choose the one she prefers. This is one major gripe I have with mozilla and firefox: depriving the user of the freedom to choose and forcing change upon them. This constant interface change is affecting many of the older people for whom I provide technical support. They all relied on class…

You're the type of user I learned to avoid once I started shipping software. You think in a major internal overhaul that the old interface is just a matter of building a quick "[ ] Old, [X] New" radio button dialog. And then you make a major, disproportional stink like how you've written 20 comments in this submission. Zero awareness through and through, and it's just not worth engaging with you beyond saying "well,…

I love the movie line, and I too long ago learned that user feedback about software I'd written could be nonsense or pure ego, BUT - I think you missed the "other elderly" point at the heart of the complaint. I'm over sixty and I'm constantly stunned by how computer illiterate other sixty-year olds are (and yes sometimes thoroughly flummoxed by UI changes myself.) If you're twenty such changes are trivial to overcome - you just ask your buddies what they did. Above sixty - your friends have no idea. Google usually isn't a solution for such general questions, either, particularly if a "magic term" is needed that they won't know. The young turk UI programmers, seem to assume everyone has better than 20-20 eyesight, single-pixel hand-eye coordination and a lot of background knowledge and UI intuitions that elderly people don't have - because they may update their equipment and software only every decade or two!

I suspect the answer may be a secondary, vastly simpler interface that can be maintained as a fallback for the elderly, without breaking the bank.

Re: Mozilla’s revenue increased significantly in 2016

#140

Post by Nomentatus »

staunch wrote: post #135
groby_b wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you have the skill required to manage a 1000+ people org, you could easily make a lot more than $1M. Blame the ridiculous salaries in the Bay Area. And no, there are no experienced managers who want to work in the Bay Area for $300K. You can fairly easily make more than double that if you're able to run a 50-person group. As for "spend all their revenue", I suggest actually reading the financial statement: https:/…

1. I blame a corrupt board of directors for not making Mozilla a great organization that can attract great altruistic leaders that don't need to take so much. 2. Mozilla has blown almost every dollar it has ever earned. Hundreds of millions wasted on failed projects and useless activities. No one disputes this. 3. Mozilla revenues should be growing every year and not never reliant on a competitor's goodwill. And just…

I think Google and Yahoo, etc, have swung and missed a few times, too.

You don't want them to be dependent on a competitor... neither do I, but with "antimonopoly" (really market power, bundling and patent misuse) laws having not been properly enforced for decades, those few companies still alive to bid, are the only "market." Given the almost zero marginal cost of reproduction of software, it's been a perfect storm. Please give Mozilla credit for being one of the rare counterforces.

SpaceX has been able to snag lots of government contracts designed to increase competition, true. Similar government contracts to build public internet infrastructure under a BSD license haven't been offered, but they might be a great idea - however such proposals aren't part of the political scene right now. If you want that, by all means push for it politically. That makes more sense to me than punishing the messenger (that search monopoly is a problem), i.e. Mozilla.

Post reply on HN