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: killing various projects as cost cutting measures seems odd in the context of their published management salary figures.
I don't think just reading page 5* in the auditors report and picking out "Management and general" as the total comp to management is going to give an accurate view of what the chair is getting.
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.
How did you get almost 50% for management when the category including management was 39%? They spent $283,739,000 on salaries and benefits. $110,767,000 was in the management and general category.
It links to one important thing, the 2022 financial statement, https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2022/mozilla-fdn-202.... According to a summary I read elsewhere it's actually good news: Almost the same total income while lowering the percentage that comes from google (a bit) and raising the percentage and total amount that comes from their own projects. Lots of money in the bank.
Still paying way too much to management, but I didn't expect any improvement there anyway - is there even one success story out there about moving a project like this back to a real not-for-profit/reasonable governance, without bloated CEO etc salaries?
That might be the point. Disguise that they are mainly lining their own pockets and wasting money on pointless projects while completely neglecting their actual core product that has been losing market share for years.
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++.
Ironic that this website feels pretty janky on Firefox for Android. The Read link under "Internet by the people for the people" leads to a page that has lots of rendering artifacts as your scroll through it, like colors blinking in, and also it fills your browsing history with every swipe.
Below the financial statement and form 990 links there's just tons of blank space separated into different color segments. I have no clue if those are supposed to have content?
Update: Desktop browser mode shows that I am missing content. Also I was surprised at the amount that Privacy Badger and Ublock Origin were blocking. Disabling them didn't help the mobile rendering though.
Three of the four new board members mention AI when asked why they joined Mozilla. I can't think of anything AI related that Mozilla has done, and nothing indicates that they will be relevant in the field in the future either. It's a stated goal by Mozilla to "include more expertise about AI", but I don't see the point.
It'd be good to get an informed view on the financial statement. In particular, the oft-spoken view that Mozilla is so critically dependent on Google funding that it is, in practice, prevented from doing anything that would displease big G.
You don't need an accountant for that - you can read the financial statement (this one is pretty simple).
From about $593mil revenue in their income statement (page 4), $510mil is derived from _Royalties_.
Later, on page 13, they explain what _Royalties_ consists of, and I quote:
> Royalties - Mozilla provides the Firefox web browser, which is a free and open-source web browser initially developed by Mozilla Foundation and the Corporation. Mozilla incorporates search engines of its customers as a default status or an optional status available in the Firefox web browser. Mozilla generally receives royalties at a certain percentage of revenues earned by its customers through their search engines incorporated in the Firefox web browser.
Now, I leave it to your judgement if you think that a company that derives 86% of its revenue from the above is dependent on Google ;-)
I'm not sure if putting this content into a list would have helped, the main impression is that leadership wrote a brochure to entice investors but then published it under the title "State of Mozilla".
This looks like its only fluffy aspirational stuff rather than the clear presentation of its current status the title implies.
This is pretty sad. I get that for _reasons_ they can't just come right out and say "it doesn't look good," but what they have put together is worse. It's just corpo-speak designed to avoid addressing the harsh reality: that mozilla and firefox are in real trouble. In doing so, it's obvious that things are bad and people that used to care have moved on (or have been forced out).
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.
Would love to see a proper Firefox fork without the drama of Pale Moon. Something supported by a small focused org. There should be donations enough out there, if it could keep out of opinionated technical and social decisions.
And no SJW bullshit or "code of conduct" in the whole SerenityOS project either. So it's free of this bullshit politics. And such politics tends to attract parasites which take over the organization to promote their personal agendas - which is precisely what has happened to Mozilla.
As usual, you see a lot of hate against Mozilla's management team on HN. It makes me wonder, the people who hold these views, do they begrudingly use firefox? Do they use a different browser?
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.
There are two complaints I see in this thread: they are being distracted by social justice stuff, and they are overpaid and wasting money they desperately need for technical matters.
IMO the former is not really all that consequential to most people. If you are just a user, you don’t have to abide by any of their contributor guidelines.
The money thing seems troubling, though.
It would be preferable if the web wasn’t so over complicated that it required a multi-billion dollar company to make a browser.
At this point there’s really no other browser. There’s Chromium, and there’s Firefox. With manifest V3 being removed from Chromium, the non-Firefox alternatives might as well all be identical.
Yes, I gave up on Firefox many years ago and use Chromium now. This is because of the identity politics and feminist "code of conduct" speech code being pushed by the organization. I know Google is no better, but I still did it to make a statement to Mozilla. Enough people doing that might get them to stop this nonsense.
Mozilla considered harmful. A bizarre money redistribution (and storage?) operation. The only thing people at large really want from it, Firefox, is an underfunded afterthought.
I really wish Mozilla would stay out of politics, especially identity politics. And I've seen some pro-censorship advocacy from them in the name of Internet "safety."
Does it say they are shutting up shop with immediate effect? I'm not sure because somebody stuck a "display: none" attribute on the <body>. Now if that doesn't accurately reflect mozilla these I don't know what does. "nothing to see here"
It would help if their mobile browser were actually good. But ever since their rebuild a few years back, one still can only use a very limited number of addons, and there are still some bizarre GUI behaviours that should be easy to fix. Perhaps giving people a reason to install FF Mobile by offering the superior product should be their focus instead of their myriad of doomed side projects.
Not much has changed since their realization 3 years ago that they need to diversify their revenue. It was then presented as an urgent life/death matter and justification for multiple rounds of layoffs, but very little progress was made as far as I can tell.
In the "mission" statement they're doubling down on a total lack of self-reflection. They actually think they're in the position to "shape" markets and the internet in general.
How so? Just look at AI. How is a 10M Mozilla proof of concept going to move the needle against Google and OpenAI/Microsoft throwing everything and the kitchen sink at it? Where exactly is Mozilla's relevance in influencing anything at all?
And yes, the political brand is annoying and distracting. The "do-good" internet traditionally aligns to liberal, moderate progressive politics. Mozilla's current "woke" brand is not the same thing. It reeks of DEI, identity politics, intersectional feminism, anti-whiteness.
I don't care if you subscribe to these politics, I'm saying it's not moderate nor neutral. It's sub brand of highly polarized US politics that is widely unpopular outside of it. If you claim to stand for the worldwide internet, this is not "inclusive".
Luckily though, it turns out to be a case of woke capitalism. The budget for software development is 221M, the budget for "leadership" 109M.
They do a lot of leading at Mozilla. Nobody knows what exactly is led as zero promises or roadmaps are tangible or deliver anything. When you check board members, fellows and grants...it just leaves you puzzled at what these people do, how it helps, and how it moves the needle.
They can't help themselves. They are used to getting free money by literally doing nothing: keeping the search box aimed at Google. Next they piss it all away on useless initiatives where failure has no consequences.
If they really were trying they'd make material improvements to the browser to entice new inexperienced Firefox users, for instance by shipping an adblocker, turned on by default, like Brave has. Of course experienced users can install an adblocker themselves, but there is no growth potential in maintaining the status quo. Buying ads is pointless if they can't clearly communicate unambiguous objective practical upsides to switching.
For bonus points, this would also silence their critics who say Mozilla is Google's lapdog. But of course they cannot do this because the critics are correct.
In the hopes of someone at Mozilla reading this, I don't like you or anything of what you do, you're simply just more tolerable than google but you are not fun, not great, not good, your browser is ok but as a company you are just annoying and i wish you'd shut up more.
lucideer|2 years ago
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: killing various projects as cost cutting measures seems odd in the context of their published management salary figures.
SiempreViernes|2 years ago
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.
pseudalopex|2 years ago
loganmarchione|2 years ago
Unfrozen0688|2 years ago
But they have way better communication around this with more simple tweets and posts of what they ACTUALLY do.
What is even going on, on this page? So much coroprate speak I feel like I am reading my for-profit company intranet page.
onli|2 years ago
It links to one important thing, the 2022 financial statement, https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2022/mozilla-fdn-202.... According to a summary I read elsewhere it's actually good news: Almost the same total income while lowering the percentage that comes from google (a bit) and raising the percentage and total amount that comes from their own projects. Lots of money in the bank.
Still paying way too much to management, but I didn't expect any improvement there anyway - is there even one success story out there about moving a project like this back to a real not-for-profit/reasonable governance, without bloated CEO etc salaries?
this_user|2 years ago
closewith|2 years ago
zzzcsgo|2 years ago
[deleted]
KingOfCoders|2 years ago
$7bn. 2.66% market share.
"Expanding our Board to create the internet we want"
Sure, as long as the music is playing.
[Edit] Looks like the music will stop earlier than suspected, https://www.brycewray.com/posts/2023/11/firefox-brink/
NlightNFotis|2 years ago
I have trouble reconciling this with the information present on the financial statement.
They have net assets of $1.2bn, and revenue for the year was $593mn minus $425mn for expenses.
WesolyKubeczek|2 years ago
margorczynski|2 years ago
Also big kudos for Rust, been playing around with it and it really is a great improvement over archaic languages like C or C++.
madeofpalk|2 years ago
> aggressive political stance
These two statements are at odds with each other. Mozilla whole purpose is inherently political.
eimrine|2 years ago
goda90|2 years ago
Below the financial statement and form 990 links there's just tons of blank space separated into different color segments. I have no clue if those are supposed to have content?
Update: Desktop browser mode shows that I am missing content. Also I was surprised at the amount that Privacy Badger and Ublock Origin were blocking. Disabling them didn't help the mobile rendering though.
LegitShady|2 years ago
phatfish|2 years ago
sorenjan|2 years ago
https://stateof.mozilla.org/#diversity
pseudalopex|2 years ago
spinningslate|2 years ago
It'd be good to get an informed view on the financial statement. In particular, the oft-spoken view that Mozilla is so critically dependent on Google funding that it is, in practice, prevented from doing anything that would displease big G.
NlightNFotis|2 years ago
From about $593mil revenue in their income statement (page 4), $510mil is derived from _Royalties_.
Later, on page 13, they explain what _Royalties_ consists of, and I quote:
> Royalties - Mozilla provides the Firefox web browser, which is a free and open-source web browser initially developed by Mozilla Foundation and the Corporation. Mozilla incorporates search engines of its customers as a default status or an optional status available in the Firefox web browser. Mozilla generally receives royalties at a certain percentage of revenues earned by its customers through their search engines incorporated in the Firefox web browser.
Now, I leave it to your judgement if you think that a company that derives 86% of its revenue from the above is dependent on Google ;-)
Kye|2 years ago
SiempreViernes|2 years ago
This looks like its only fluffy aspirational stuff rather than the clear presentation of its current status the title implies.
dcchambers|2 years ago
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.
tokai|2 years ago
KingOfCoders|2 years ago
127361|2 years ago
richrichie|2 years ago
shinryuu|2 years ago
probably_wrong|2 years ago
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.
bee_rider|2 years ago
There are two complaints I see in this thread: they are being distracted by social justice stuff, and they are overpaid and wasting money they desperately need for technical matters.
IMO the former is not really all that consequential to most people. If you are just a user, you don’t have to abide by any of their contributor guidelines.
The money thing seems troubling, though.
It would be preferable if the web wasn’t so over complicated that it required a multi-billion dollar company to make a browser.
lupusreal|2 years ago
I do, despite the useless manager parasites who are intent to bleed Firefox dry to fatten themselves up.
If I didn't use Firefox then I'd have no motivation to care that Firefox is grossly mismanaged. It would be not my problem.
everdrive|2 years ago
Traubenfuchs|2 years ago
127361|2 years ago
busterarm|2 years ago
Traubenfuchs|2 years ago
https://lunduke.locals.com/post/4387539/firefox-money-invest...
127361|2 years ago
lupusreal|2 years ago
[deleted]
okasaki|2 years ago
epilys|2 years ago
sannysanoff|2 years ago
blibble|2 years ago
eimrine|2 years ago
meiraleal|2 years ago
Am4TIfIsER0ppos|2 years ago
tempest_|2 years ago
Firefox is never going to be a thing as long as humanity moves from desktops to mobiles where changing the built in browser is very uncommon.
nicoburns|2 years ago
That might change soon. Seems the EU is planning to mandate allowing the browser to be changed on iOS.
this_user|2 years ago
jjordan|2 years ago
KingOfCoders|2 years ago
shinryuu|2 years ago
https://data.firefox.com/dashboard/user-activity
iteratethis|2 years ago
In the "mission" statement they're doubling down on a total lack of self-reflection. They actually think they're in the position to "shape" markets and the internet in general.
How so? Just look at AI. How is a 10M Mozilla proof of concept going to move the needle against Google and OpenAI/Microsoft throwing everything and the kitchen sink at it? Where exactly is Mozilla's relevance in influencing anything at all?
And yes, the political brand is annoying and distracting. The "do-good" internet traditionally aligns to liberal, moderate progressive politics. Mozilla's current "woke" brand is not the same thing. It reeks of DEI, identity politics, intersectional feminism, anti-whiteness.
I don't care if you subscribe to these politics, I'm saying it's not moderate nor neutral. It's sub brand of highly polarized US politics that is widely unpopular outside of it. If you claim to stand for the worldwide internet, this is not "inclusive".
Luckily though, it turns out to be a case of woke capitalism. The budget for software development is 221M, the budget for "leadership" 109M.
They do a lot of leading at Mozilla. Nobody knows what exactly is led as zero promises or roadmaps are tangible or deliver anything. When you check board members, fellows and grants...it just leaves you puzzled at what these people do, how it helps, and how it moves the needle.
They can't help themselves. They are used to getting free money by literally doing nothing: keeping the search box aimed at Google. Next they piss it all away on useless initiatives where failure has no consequences.
workfromspace|2 years ago
schmorptron|2 years ago
lupusreal|2 years ago
For bonus points, this would also silence their critics who say Mozilla is Google's lapdog. But of course they cannot do this because the critics are correct.
joduplessis|2 years ago
"....leading the charge towards realizing a more safe, kind internet..." - really?
M2Ys4U|2 years ago
That's because Mozilla are an explicitly political organisation...
amadeuspagel|2 years ago
meiraleal|2 years ago
eimrine|2 years ago
vGPU|2 years ago
Looks like Eich might have been Mozilla’s hidden force keeping the project on the rails.
rc202402|2 years ago
Wasting capital on mozilla vpn, ui overhauling the browser to make it corporate appealing never were the problems.
mavhc|2 years ago
sheepz|2 years ago
godzillabrennus|2 years ago
Sad to see where they are now… they still haven’t even made containers part of core…
Traubenfuchs|2 years ago
https://calpaterson.com/mozilla.html
pixxel|2 years ago
AKA Google employees, heh
xhubin|2 years ago