[Zamiel_Snawley]

I’m not informed enough to analyze the real cost of developing a web browser.

However, Microsoft’s mission is profits for shareholders so their calculus ought to be different than Mozilla’s.

It makes sense for a profit-seeking entity to surrender if they don’t see a path for a return on the investment, not so for Mozilla.

[boomboomsubban]

>I’m not informed enough to analyze the real cost of developing a web browser.

Then why post strong comments about how much funding Mozilla needs?

The calculus is very different. IE could be developed at a 100% loss for the company if it still otherwise helped Microsoft, which is what happened. Chrome operates similarly.

Firefox needs to generate enough money to sustain itself indefinitely. So when there are signs their main source of funding may vanish, they need to keep a war chest together and have investments to weather any oncoming storm. Otherwise they just collapse.

[Zamiel_Snawley]

Because they’ve had twenty years to figure out how to generate sustainable revenue while being propped up by Google. Mozilla got themselves into this situation, why should their users overlook the removal of the only real advantage of Firefox?

They _should_ collapse if the only way for them to continue is to abandon their mission.

That much revenue from a single source was always a significant vulnerability, a vulnerability that leadership failed to address. Poor leadership and wasteful spending is the problem, not revenue.