81–90 of 138 posts
Nothing much changed in terms of % here YoY: still almost 50% of salaries going to management, ~25% of total company expenditure. I wonder if Mitchell has given herself another enormous raise on top of last year's 5 million. A few folk commenting on Mozilla's dependence on Google for revenue; it would certainly be easier to reason about reducing that dependence if their expenditure was a little more transparent: kill…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I will seriously consider Firefox again when the deplorable Chrome maintainers will kill ad blocking.
This makes no sense to me? How is chrome maintainers connected to Firefox?
Nothing much changed in terms of % here YoY: still almost 50% of salaries going to management, ~25% of total company expenditure. I wonder if Mitchell has given herself another enormous raise on top of last year's 5 million. A few folk commenting on Mozilla's dependence on Google for revenue; it would certainly be easier to reason about reducing that dependence if their expenditure was a little more transparent: kill…
$6.9m/yr in 2022
I don't mean that in the 'before costs/taxes' sense.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They're anti insurrection? What a novel political idea
They should stay out of politics completely. This incident is a matter for law enforcement to deal with, not Mozilla. Mozilla is a tech firm, it's purpose is to develop a Web browser, period. It should not be involved in social policies. I personally abhor Donald Trump, by the way. But I still think deplatforming and censorship are wrong.
Should you publish the manifesto of a terrorist? Should you allow people to create millions of accounts? Who should you amplify with your algorithm?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am on record saying that I think Mozilla's management does not care about Firefox and are milking it to position Mozilla as some kind of big "Internet freedom" player. I also use Firefox, and I plan to keep using it while waiting for the current managers to get replaced by someone who actually understands that you need a strong browser to even have a place at the table.
I'm curious, what would caring about Firefox look like to you? They've released around 12 new versions of Firefox during 2023. The side projects that some complains about I to some respect think is a good thing as it can help to diversify revenue sources. The only way Firefox is ever going to be a cashcow is how it is a cashcow today which at the end of the day puts Mozilla in a somewhat precarious situation.
First and foremost, allow me to donate to Firefox. Not to the foundation, to Firefox. Second, and related, increase Firefox' budget. Remember how extensions were essentially dead on Android since 2020 until recently? Or how they fired a chunk of the Rust team due to budget cuts? That should not have happened.
Third, put Firefox front and center. The article linked here has exactly one mention of Firefox, and that's in the standard footer at the very bottom. The fact that "State of Mozilla" doesn't talk about Firefox as point one (or at all) worries me.
Fourth, go to the offensive. Stop chasing whatever Chrome is doing and, more important, stop implementing their every dumb idea. I am glad they said no to Manifest V3 but, at the same time, I can't remember when was the last time they stood their ground before that (and even then, they are following Chrome's lead too).
I'm fine with exploring other sources of revenue, but I worry that those sources are benefiting Mozilla more than they are benefiting Firefox. The fact that Firefox' usage has plummeted and yet the CEO has not lost their job over it is, to me, a worrisome indicator of where Mozilla's priorities are.
A "state of the platform" without any kinds of metrics/numbers presented front and center means that they are trying to hide things.
Until they are willing to candidly admit that, it's never going to improve. People that donate to Mozilla need to demand better.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's good that Mozilla is still there to provide an alternative to the proprietary browsers and is fighting for open Internet standards > aggressive political stance These two statements are at odds with each other. Mozilla whole purpose is inherently political.
I think the commenter is referring to the generic "rainbow coalition" language about helping disabled marginalized pregnant women in Africa. I don't think anyone would consider those things as bad, but I can see someone considering them a needless deviation from what (they perceive) Mozilla should be: a FOSS company. It strikes me personally as exceptionally cooperate, which is fine as long as it's not distracting fr…
There is no expertise at managing humanitarian efforts at Mozilla. There is no overlap with their primary purpose and external charitable contributions outside of those supporting open web standards. It’s a waste of everyone’s resources.
It's good that Mozilla is still there to provide an alternative to the proprietary browsers and is fighting for open Internet standards. But the management direction and the aggressive political stance it took in the last years is not really good for the project. Also big kudos for Rust, been playing around with it and it really is a great improvement over archaic languages like C or C++.
> It's good that Mozilla is still there to provide an alternative to the proprietary browsers and is fighting for open Internet standards > aggressive political stance These two statements are at odds with each other. Mozilla whole purpose is inherently political.
except in the sense that technology/products are political.
Mozilla advocates a free and open internet. Providing a free and open browser is quite essential to that, and in fact any other effort is pretty much wasted if they can't deliver that.
Nothing much changed in terms of % here YoY: still almost 50% of salaries going to management, ~25% of total company expenditure. I wonder if Mitchell has given herself another enormous raise on top of last year's 5 million. A few folk commenting on Mozilla's dependence on Google for revenue; it would certainly be easier to reason about reducing that dependence if their expenditure was a little more transparent: kill…
Something more complicated is going on, for instance if you look at the tax filings, page 10, you find that total functional expenses is 30 million, with leadership making up 6.5 of those. On page 7 you can Mitchell that is getting about 7 million total (but not from Mozilla itself apparently) while the rest of the board is only getting around 350 k each.
Also note that on page 2 they put their fellowship and awards programs under the headline "Leadership development", an expense to the tune of 19 million.
*All page numbers refer to the number written on the pages in the pdf.