Is Mozilla trying hard to kill itself?

Post by tietjens » Wed, Dec 17, 2025, 11:26 AM UTC

shakna wrote: post #85

mrtksn wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whole web ecosystem was first run by VC money and everything was great until every corner was taken, the land grab was complete and the time to recoup the investment has come. Once the users were trapped for exploitation, it doesn’t make sense to have a browser that blocks ads. How are they supposed to pay software salaries and keep the lights on? People don’t like paying for software, demand constant updates and…

> The whole web ecosystem was first run by VC money Huh? Nexus was funded by CERN. Newsgrounds was never investor funded. Yahoo! Directory was just two guys, and you paid to be listed. There were no investors involved. WebCrawler was a university project. Altavista was a research project.

Post by tjpnz » Wed, Dec 17, 2025, 11:27 AM UTC

concinds wrote: post #43

dom96 wrote: post #6

Genuinely can someone with knowledge of the business explain why they aren't simply doubling down on making Firefox better? Is there an existential problem facing them that they are trying to solve by adding AI into the browser?

You can't monetize a browser. They have to keep trying to create new products, but they inevitably fail. Pocket, FirefoxOS, Persona, all dead. This new stuff will fail too, because Mozilla has no USP and no way to create a best-in-class product in any market. So they rely on imitating what everyone else is doing, but with more "crunchy" vibes ("values", "trust", "we're a nonprofit") because that's the only angle they…

Post by rblank » Wed, Dec 17, 2025, 11:27 AM UTC

torben-friis wrote: post #95

lxgr wrote: post #41

>> He says he could begin to block ad blockers in Firefox and estimates that’d bring in another $150 million, but he doesn’t want to do that. It feels off-mission. > It may be just me, but I read this as “I don't want to but I'll kill AdBlockers in Firefox for buckerinos ”. Yes, that does seem like a pretty uncharitable interpretation of that quote. I read it as "we won't do it, even though it would bring in $150M US…

“I wouldn’t sell sexual services. I’ve spent an evening checking the going market rate for someone my age in my area and it’s 2k! Can you believe that? That’s a ton of money! Totally not going to do it though”. It’s an eyebrow raising comment at the very least.

Post by on_the_train » Wed, Dec 17, 2025, 11:28 AM UTC

4gotunameagain wrote: post #20

K0nserv wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No knowledge of the business. But I think it's because of the underlying question that plagues Mozilla: How will that make money?

They don't really need money. Look at Mozilla's CEO compensation for example. It was 7 million USD in 2022. Seven. Million. For ruining a bastion of the open internet. The problem is the MBAs.

Post by mosquitobiten » Wed, Dec 17, 2025, 11:29 AM UTC

p-e-w wrote: post #128

nialv7 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The interpretation is not the problem. Whether he will do it, is actually secondary to the fact that he thinks cutting adblock can bringing in money. No, it will just kill the browser. The fact he thinks otherwise tells me how out of touch he is.

Firefox has a market share around 3%. Even most technologists stopped using it long ago. Many banks and government websites don’t even support it anymore and loudly tell people to use Chrome instead, especially in developing countries. Nothing can kill Firefox, because it’s already dead for all practical purposes.