As with Wikipedia, what I assumed how the organization operated and how it does is vastly different.
Basically everything here seems biazarre and makes trusting Mozilla very hard. Does anybody believe that they can stand up against Google, when Google, at any point they want to, could crash their whole operation?
I think it is quite likely that Google is keeping Mozilla afloat to avoid anti-trust allegations. Mozilla existing is worth a few hundred millions to Google. But Mozilla apparently has no real use for that money, they spend around 200M on software developmemt that means one thousand high paying software developer positions. And they could hire hundreds of more developers at any point.
2) spending resources on literally anything except Firefox
3) doing anything that smells like monetizing Firefox, no matter how innocuous
Spoiler alert: They have essentially no hope of avoiding 1 without doing at least a little bit of 2 or 3. Unlike Google, Apple, and Microsoft, they don't have billions of dollars coming through the backdoor from other business units.
As for "whether they can stand up to them", they can and do, all the time. Including _literally this week_ with Google's Web integrity bullshit. Whether it accomplishes much is a different matter, but it's not for lack of an attempt on their part.
What a dumb hit piece. The author Cherry picked things to politicize.
How about the many millions of dollars the Mozilla Foundation spends on grands and research supporting so many individuals and organizations that help make the world a better place.
2) They still have no job focusing on these things when their browser, their main product, is loosing market share like crazy. Why not spend all that money on Servo and Oxidation instead?
3) It's not politicizing to say that a software developer is using money for political purposes instead of making software. You are the one politicizing this because you deflect from this valid criticism into a discussion about the author's politics.
Disgusting. I hope that Mozilla can re-focus on their original mission, and align their finances with building the best browser possible rather than wasting it on political activism.
Obviously relying on Google for money is fraught, but it isn't exactly clear where they'd get an equivalent source of income. Otherwise the subtext seems to be "I don't like their politics" which suggests maybe the author shouldn't donate any money to them. Personally I would be sad if Firefox was neglected, but that doesn't seem to be happening, as far as I can see.
I suppose Microsoft might be willing to broker a deal to have Bing as the default search, although that would probably attract similar levels of criticism from the same people.
DuckDuckGo would be the "obvious" choice, but I doubt they can come up with the same kind of numbers.
Brave Search might be an option, but unlike Google and Microsoft the browser is Brave's main product so they might not want to deal with a competitor, they probably have a lot less cash lying around, and they have some history with Mozilla.
Yahoo! Search is still around, maybe some others? I don't think anyone other than Microsoft and Google have a spare ~$500 million lying around for this though.
From the report: During 2021, Mozilla paid $387 Thousand dollars to a Mckensie Mack Group whose LinkedIn page describes itself as “Black-led and nonbinary-led, MMG is a global social justice organization”.
And another $100K to an "Action research collaborative" that sounds like another social justice org?
WTF? This sounds like money laundering. I just want a good browser. I'm now regretful that I was donating regularly to Mozilla.
100% looks like money laundering. They paid six figure amounts to businesses that don't even have a website and are impossible to find any information on:
- "What, exactly, is “Action Research Collaborative”? That is a surprisingly difficult question to find an answer to, as they have no website whatsoever. One of the few references to it is in a Cornell newsletter from earlier this year..."
- "$30,000 to “MC Technical Inc.” in 2021. Who are they? Well, they don’t have a website, that’s for sure. The business registry listing is about the only thing of the company that seems to exist. The listed address is someone’s house."
- "Why do some of the recipients of Mozilla money appear to be nothing more than empty shells of companies — not even having a simple website?"
- "Why does Mozilla continue to take donations if it doesn’t need them?"
- "Where does Mozilla spend those donated dollars?"
- "Why is Mozilla decreasing software development funding when development of Firefox is the cash cow?"
And the author adds this update at the end of the article: "August 5th, 2023 Update: To date, no request for clarification or additional details has been answered."
This is extremely suspicious on Mozilla's part. I hope there is further investigation into all this wild spending they are doing using public donations without any accountability.
I sort of understand that Mozilla wants to care for the concept of an open internet which requires a lot more than just software development. I don't particularly understand or like the exact things they finance, but politics is a complex game in which you loose if you don't play.
What I absolutely fail to understand though is why they don't have long-term focus on diversifying income? All their alternative revenue sources are neglibile, and their strange attempts to provide paid products seem to be either hobby-projects of someone at mozilla (ex: pocket) or a cheap rebrand of a product (ex: vpn).
Am I wrong to expect more from such a technologically capable organisation?
They do have a focus on that, it just hasn't really panned out. To be fair, you're talking about the billion dollar question. It's not exactly an easy problem.
>Mozilla should convert to a worker owned enterprise and stop giving all of that money to execs.
The compensation to execs seems irrelevant. That is almost literally just a Google bribe.
Mozilla pays 200M for software development, from that I can only assume that they pay quite generously and they seem to have absolutely no issue with money, as they are funded by Google.
To me it seems hey have more money than they know what to do with. Hardly something which could be fixed by workers rising up and taking care of distributing Googles Millions.
How has she not been ejected after so many years of falling market share? I have a really hard time understanding the business sense of a board that hasn't taken a very hard look at Mozilla's leadership.
constantcrying|2 years ago
Basically everything here seems biazarre and makes trusting Mozilla very hard. Does anybody believe that they can stand up against Google, when Google, at any point they want to, could crash their whole operation?
I think it is quite likely that Google is keeping Mozilla afloat to avoid anti-trust allegations. Mozilla existing is worth a few hundred millions to Google. But Mozilla apparently has no real use for that money, they spend around 200M on software developmemt that means one thousand high paying software developer positions. And they could hire hundreds of more developers at any point.
dralley|2 years ago
1) being financially dependent on Google
2) spending resources on literally anything except Firefox
3) doing anything that smells like monetizing Firefox, no matter how innocuous
Spoiler alert: They have essentially no hope of avoiding 1 without doing at least a little bit of 2 or 3. Unlike Google, Apple, and Microsoft, they don't have billions of dollars coming through the backdoor from other business units.
As for "whether they can stand up to them", they can and do, all the time. Including _literally this week_ with Google's Web integrity bullshit. Whether it accomplishes much is a different matter, but it's not for lack of an attempt on their part.
unknown|2 years ago
[deleted]
linuxwhat|2 years ago
https://old.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/muc18q/whats_the_dea...
fallfrom|2 years ago
st3fan|2 years ago
How about the many millions of dollars the Mozilla Foundation spends on grands and research supporting so many individuals and organizations that help make the world a better place.
The full list can be found at https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2021/mozilla-fdn-990...
Rocoli|2 years ago
2) They still have no job focusing on these things when their browser, their main product, is loosing market share like crazy. Why not spend all that money on Servo and Oxidation instead?
3) It's not politicizing to say that a software developer is using money for political purposes instead of making software. You are the one politicizing this because you deflect from this valid criticism into a discussion about the author's politics.
Reubend|2 years ago
st3fan|2 years ago
blacksmith_tb|2 years ago
arp242|2 years ago
DuckDuckGo would be the "obvious" choice, but I doubt they can come up with the same kind of numbers.
Brave Search might be an option, but unlike Google and Microsoft the browser is Brave's main product so they might not want to deal with a competitor, they probably have a lot less cash lying around, and they have some history with Mozilla.
Yahoo! Search is still around, maybe some others? I don't think anyone other than Microsoft and Google have a spare ~$500 million lying around for this though.
korginator|2 years ago
And another $100K to an "Action research collaborative" that sounds like another social justice org?
WTF? This sounds like money laundering. I just want a good browser. I'm now regretful that I was donating regularly to Mozilla.
samspenc|2 years ago
This is extremely suspicious on Mozilla's part. I hope there is further investigation into all this wild spending they are doing using public donations without any accountability.
herczegzsolt|2 years ago
What I absolutely fail to understand though is why they don't have long-term focus on diversifying income? All their alternative revenue sources are neglibile, and their strange attempts to provide paid products seem to be either hobby-projects of someone at mozilla (ex: pocket) or a cheap rebrand of a product (ex: vpn).
Am I wrong to expect more from such a technologically capable organisation?
aleph4|2 years ago
migf|2 years ago
They're doing a merely ok job. It's not clear if that's intentional or because they're badly run.
There's a story there, this article seems to mostly be political winging.
wodenokoto|2 years ago
yesbut|2 years ago
constantcrying|2 years ago
The compensation to execs seems irrelevant. That is almost literally just a Google bribe.
Mozilla pays 200M for software development, from that I can only assume that they pay quite generously and they seem to have absolutely no issue with money, as they are funded by Google.
To me it seems hey have more money than they know what to do with. Hardly something which could be fixed by workers rising up and taking care of distributing Googles Millions.
evasb|2 years ago
emptysongglass|2 years ago
gmerc|2 years ago