31–40 of 51 posts
English Summary: Free MDN isn't going away. MDN Plus is a premium content service that will offer deep dives into technical topics. The service was tested over the summer. Additional announced features include bookmarking across all of MDN, commenting, offline browsing, and themes. Price: USD10/month or USD100/year. Time frame: March 2022
Very lackluster
I, for one, am encouraged to see Mozilla try and create new revenue streams. I hope I am not the lone positive voice in the thread - it does seem no company gets quite the same level of criticism as Mozilla on HN
I am puzzled why didn’t they lunch their own VPN to the world and instead got a rebranded one and it’s still restricted only to few countries. To me that’s another proof they’re just not great at operating.
They knew they weren't good at executing on something, so they partnered with a company with a proven track record, and leveraged their brand to make sure both Mozilla and their partner got value.
It's a very successful business model, and has been used everywhere (entertainment is a great example, most IP owners license the creation of content outside of their immediate domain to other developers - toy manufacturers, video game studios, comic book and board games companies, etc).
In a world where the relevance of Firefox is waning, investing in a brand where user centricity, privacy, and security are key, and maintaining high standards on licensees is a winning strategy, especially if Mozilla owns the customer relationships.
Got to pay for that 7-figure CEO salary and fancy San Fran office somehow.
Yup, such a waste. Can't they work for free in their parent's basement like we expect other FOSS contributors to? While we use their stuff for free, never contributing anything back.
Got to pay for that 7-figure CEO salary and fancy San Fran office somehow.
Yup, such a waste. Can't they work for free in their parent's basement like we expect other FOSS contributors to? While we use their stuff for free, never contributing anything back.
It was awful when they let go the Rust and Cranelift engineers.
Reminds me of Oracle - where the lawyers and MBAs have just seized control.
Got to pay for that 7-figure CEO salary and fancy San Fran office somehow.
Yup, such a waste. Can't they work for free in their parent's basement like we expect other FOSS contributors to? While we use their stuff for free, never contributing anything back.
Will this actually let us fund Firefox development, or is it another way to line the pockets of the wildly overpaid Mozilla Foundation executives? Sorry to be so negative, but as a long-time Firefox fan, I despair at the disparity between the funding for the Firefox team vs the executive team
https://www.comparably.com/companies/mozilla/executive-salar...
[0] https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2020/mozilla-2020-fo... Page 7 (9 in the PDF)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Free content drivers people to the paid version. Is not like this model doesn't work. It's on every SaaS out there. Having a big paying community will drive more free content, as both the paying and free customers benefit from it. If free content start sucking, less people sign up. Plus, some content just isn't worth privatizing, like documentation.
I downloaded an open-source software today, and all over the UI were the buttons to upgrade to their paid closed-source version. Freaking hell. Since it's open source obviously someone is going to chime in that I should spend my time removing these stupid UI elements...
Open source software requires that developers have the ability to spend time to contribute code. People need to get paid so they can support themselves, and as they get older, their families.
There are very few successful open source models, basically: * advertising * professional services related to the OSS offering * enterprise licensing * direct user support and contribution
Anything that is not one of these four models is either a student or hobby project, or is subsidized by the businesses that are paying the developers to contribute (either explicitly by hiring folks that work on the projects, or by employing and assigning people to work on features that eventually make their way back into the ecosystem).
If you don't support people getting paid to contribute to open source software, you are ceding the role of OSS developers to people in privileged positions, or demanding that they be paupers.
And in the interest of keeping the conversation non confrontational, folks suggesting patches shouldn't remove the UI elements from the code, they should provide a UI toggle to disable the nags; choosing to support the software or not, financially speaking, is an option for users, but be very explicit if the user chooses not to support it :)
I, for one, am encouraged to see Mozilla try and create new revenue streams. I hope I am not the lone positive voice in the thread - it does seem no company gets quite the same level of criticism as Mozilla on HN
Because Mozilla, from all the looks of it, has turned from a company that innovated in the web, into a cash cow providing its CEO with means to support her luxurious lifestyle. This, as well as the fact that if I’d like to donate to the browser specifically, I can’t, screams “money laundering” and “corruption” to me. What else it is, if abysmal company performance is rewarded with bonuses? Now there will come those s…
It's good that Mozilla is trying to diversify its income streams, it's a bit worrying when they are so dependent on Google.