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

Mozilla Acquires Pocket

blog.mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 456 posts

Re: Mozilla Acquires Pocket

#261

Post by zobzu »

cocktailpeanuts wrote: post #141
zobzu wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thunderbird doesn't make money. Pocket makes money. That Mozilla is a Corp owned by a not-for-profit isn't the real thing anymore (ie not what people may believe, not that they have any obligation beside following the rule of law) - it just frees the Corp from having to report to random share holders - instead, the Corp and the Org self-select a Board of directors that they report to. At the end of the day, it's othe…

Do you have a source? Revenue and profit are completely different things, and I am curious if Pocket was making any profit. Otherwise it's losing money.

I suspect it's about the longer term profits, like any other corporation purchase. Generally, you can't buy/afford it when it's already super successful, but you can when it's on the verge of being that (but needs your funding/image/resources).

Re: Mozilla Acquires Pocket

#262

Post by zobzu »

Feld0 wrote: post #217
yuhong wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really wish there was an easier way to do this, ideally something like a corporation with no shareholders.

That's exactly what a nonprofit is. Nonprofits are corporations like any other, with a few key differences: - Instead of shareholders, nonprofits have members. Members don't own the corporation (no one does) but control it insofar that they hire-and-fire its directors. - Memberships normally can't be sold, and nonprofits have no equivalent to dividends. - There are stronger conflict-of-interest protections, preventin…

IIRC non-profits can't make and keep profits. Corps can, hence Mozilla Corp. They can keep profits around in order to.. like, purchase Pocket, or simply pay employees later when Mozilla makes less profit, or whatever else.

These things are hard or maybe impossible in a non-profit (IANAL/correct me if I'm wrong)

Re: Mozilla Acquires Pocket

#263

Post by dragonwriter »

zobzu wrote: post #262
Feld0 wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's exactly what a nonprofit is. Nonprofits are corporations like any other, with a few key differences: - Instead of shareholders, nonprofits have members. Members don't own the corporation (no one does) but control it insofar that they hire-and-fire its directors. - Memberships normally can't be sold, and nonprofits have no equivalent to dividends. - There are stronger conflict-of-interest protections, preventin…

IIRC non-profits can't make and keep profits. Corps can, hence Mozilla Corp. They can keep profits around in order to.. like, purchase Pocket, or simply pay employees later when Mozilla makes less profit, or whatever else. These things are hard or maybe impossible in a non-profit (IANAL/correct me if I'm wrong)

> IIRC non-profits can't make and keep profits.

Non-profits can make surplus revenues over costs and retain them; they can't return profits to shareholders or other particular beneficiaries.

Certain classes of nonprofits are restricted from certain business activities, or limited to certain activities. E.g., charities (501c3 nonprofits) must be organized and operated exclusively for purposes on an list of charitable purposes.

Re: Mozilla Acquires Pocket

#264

Post by dripton »

jventura wrote: post #230
maxxxxx wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having more project managers is how things get done. I see it everyday at my company...

I had a coworker that used to say that when you have more managers than toilets, something is clearly wrong. It was a rule of thumb in his experience..

That is beautiful, but I need more data.

1. Do project managers, product managers, etc. count, or only real managers with teams reporting to them?

2. Do urinals count, or only real sit-down toilets?

Re: Mozilla Acquires Pocket

#265

Post by sametmax »

anexprogrammer wrote: post #48

Mozilla is growing, experimenting more, and can acquire startups. Mozilla doesn't have the resources to continue with Thunderbird. I am increasingly baffled by their decisions and how they relate to the strategic plans [0] they've been producing for a while. Despite the worthy words in their plan they seem to have no sense of direction. That saddens me. That said I'm happier having Pocket as an open source part of Mo…

They try to stay independent. They try to manage their resources. So they can still exist to be Mozilla in the future.

It's HARD.

Don't blame them from not being the perfect champion we used to idealize. They are doing everything they can.

Re: Mozilla Acquires Pocket

#266

Post by talklittle »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #232
talklittle wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That much is unclear. http://www.ghacks.net/2015/12/05/mozilla-has-a-revenue-share...

Wow, if that article is true then not only were Mozilla [indirectly] taking money for the integrations but they also lied to us all about it. Is there corroboration that Mozilla had/has revenue sharing with Pocket and Telefonica? I've always trusted Mozilla, this suggests that trust has been badly misplaced. I can't help but feel that I'm being suckered somewhere here - who from Mozilla is benefiting personally out o…

IMO the simple reality is they need to diversify their income sources to avoid putting all their eggs in one basket, and they decided Pocket makes sense. I'm still a huge Mozilla fan, the whole Pocket episode is not a big deal to me.

Re: Mozilla Acquires Pocket

#267

Post by grinich »

jimporter wrote: post #129
anexprogrammer wrote: post #48

Mozilla is growing, experimenting more, and can acquire startups. Mozilla doesn't have the resources to continue with Thunderbird. I am increasingly baffled by their decisions and how they relate to the strategic plans [0] they've been producing for a while. Despite the worthy words in their plan they seem to have no sense of direction. That saddens me. That said I'm happier having Pocket as an open source part of Mo…

(Context: I'm a submodule owner on Thunderbird, but haven't had much time to work on it lately. It should go without saying, but the comments below are my own view on the matter and shouldn't be considered authoritative.) tl;dr: I think Mozilla has actually treated Thunderbird fairly well (but not quite as well as I'd like). Thunderbird has been difficult for Mozilla to support for a while. In many ways, Thunderbird…

We're getting closer and closer with Nylas Mail, although still have a long way to go!

https://github.com/nylas/nylas-mail'

(I work at Nylas)

Re: Mozilla Acquires Pocket

#268

Post by ttam »

grappler wrote: post #45

Pocket's post about the acquisition, referring to the main value their product brings, says, “a platform where high-quality, thoughtful content and free speech can rise above the rest.” Pocket used to have a feature aimed at surfacing high-quality content from the collection of things a user had already pocketed. They removed that feature. I was paying for their premium service before that change. After they removed…

Not only they removed that feature, but they also removed a bunch of other automatic-categories that I used to love (quick reads!)

And, as I've described in a blog post I did about Pocket, the recommendation system they created fails in one huge aspect: it is recommending me things that I've seen elsewhere but just decided not to pocket...

Re: Mozilla Acquires Pocket

#269

Post by cocktailpeanuts »

zobzu wrote: post #261
cocktailpeanuts wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have a source? Revenue and profit are completely different things, and I am curious if Pocket was making any profit. Otherwise it's losing money.

I suspect it's about the longer term profits, like any other corporation purchase. Generally, you can't buy/afford it when it's already super successful, but you can when it's on the verge of being that (but needs your funding/image/resources).

Normally companies raise venture capital in the cases you describe.

Acquisitions happen when the stakeholders (founders, employees, and investors) don't think they will get the level of return on investment they will be satisfied with.

Even if they DO decide to sell, the case you describe (on the verge of being successful but requires money to get to that point) sell at a disclosed amount. Undisclosed amount mostly means the investors and founders are not proud of the result so they would rather just keep it private.

Post reply on HN