I cannot help but wonder just how many commenters here will start to donate to Mozilla now. I've lost count of how many "I'd love to donate, but if only Mitchell Baker weren't making such a mess of it" comments I've seen - hopefully Mozilla can get a jump with some additional funding by way of donations, and accelerate from there.
From that statement, it's not clear to me what is going to change. I'm still in the "I'd love to donate camp". They mention corporate strategy and AI, and somewhere I read they are going to refocus on "privacy" so maybe this means their VPN product...
I'd actually donate if they'd completely focus on Firefox. Maybe even better if Mozilla would spin out Firefox as a separate nonprofit or foundation.
It would be nice to be able to donate just to support the development of the browser and get in return a kind of badge of honor or mention. Like it is done for Linux Mint for example.
I don't think I've ever read "I'd love to donate, but if only Mitchell Baker weren't making such a mess of it"; I've only read "I'd love to donate, but Mozilla won't let me donate to the browser" and similar, which AFAIK is still true.
Yes? There's a significant difference between hating a CEO and saying that you wouldn't donate to the org specifically because of their presence. I would suspect that the most likely case is that people objected to specific actions, not the person, and that they're not going to change their minds unless the new CEO changes how the org operates.
I mean, there are these two comments [0] [1] from some time ago.
Looking more closely at your original argument: "I'd love to donate, but if only Mitchell Baker weren't making such a mess of it"; I've only read "I'd love to donate, but Mozilla won't let me donate to the browser". First, I think a lot of the comments in the search fall under the category of "Mozilla isn't well run and I don't think they'd spend my donation well", because I think you have to file every comment about Baker's salary increasing while revenue and Firefox market share are decreasing in that folder.
But second, I think the two options you gave up there are actually the same option. I think a lot of people commenting here think Firefox is the only thing that Mozilla should work on, the overwhelming majority of resources should be spent on it, and you should be able to donate directly to it. Anything else is poor management and not worthy of their donation.
You can say you don't like them or they're subjectively not good, but you're wrong that there's only one. Also, Pocket is actually pretty good, and Mozilla VPN is Mullvad, which is also pretty good. I know I'm probably digging into a low-effort, dismissive comment here, but I'm hoping this isn't just flippancy.
Obviously they advertise several products, but this is a false equivalency. Only one is too large to be developed elsewhere. Only one provides a meaningful challenge to the hegemony of webkit.
The rest might as well be seen as make work programs for product managers.
> Only one is too large to be developed elsewhere.
Do a company's products need to be only products that only they can produce? I mean, almost nothing fits this bill, not even things like office suites. You're ruling out stuff like milk, glass, tires, text editors, etc.
> Only one provides a meaningful challenge to the hegemony of webkit.
Like, if your argument is that they have a super important product and should only focus on that, then OK. That's an interesting discussion that maybe I agree with (maybe not though).
> The rest might as well be seen as make work programs for product managers.
This is pretty dismissive, but also probably true for at least 30% of all tech products (which are also make work programs for software engineers, management, etc). I don't know why you're singling out Mozilla here, Google has a division of people making blimps so they don't go work for competitors.
Of those on the list, most are a wrapper around an existing service:
* Mozilla Monitor: wrapper around https://haveibeenpwned.com/
* Mozilla VPN: wrapper around https://mullvad.net/ (and had security issues: https://www.techradar.com/news/security-audit-finds-major-is...)
* Mozilla Relay: "Partnership" with Twilio (I'm not able to get access to it, so not sure how much Mozilla adds here) and I thought Fastmail (could be wrong).
* Pocket: controversial purchase (and still not open source as promised)
* Firefox Focus: another browser (is it needed, or is it just a reskin?)
(You need blank lines between your list lines -- I wish this weren't true on HN but it is)
I think there's value in Mozilla using its (admittedly dwindling) mindshare to push services that make browsing the web more private and more secure. Maybe you disagree, but it doesn't change the fact that they're products. And arguably, the "focus on Firefox" crowd should be pleased by this: it means Mozilla didn't "waste" resources on making their own VPN service, etc.
N.B. Firefox Focus is an Android/iOS mobile app that wraps the browsers on those platforms and essentially just blocks trackers. There's some other stuff but that's the gist.
Alternate idea: Mozilla (Org, not Corp, so avoids the issue of focus) certifies services as meeting some privacy and security criteria, and so can avoid the need to spend engineer/manager time wrapping existing services in their own branding (thinking of HIBP and Mullvad here), and also get a bit of free advertising (the "oh, privacy-focused services work in Firefox, what do services that don't do"). I'd argue if they split off Thunderbird (for which there is no good alternative) because of focus issues, they should not wrap projects that others maintain.
Yeah I wonder if there could be like an endorsement type thing. Mozilla certifies a product or service and promotes it, the owners of that product/service give them money, etc.
They'd have to walk a careful line though: people hate any kind of advertising in Firefox (Mozilla VPN had a big ad that everyone hated and got pulled; the Mr Robot debacle). That kind of limits your options.
Fair point about Thunderbird haha; I'm so annoyed that they did that.
Could someone ELI5 why there is a Mozilla Foundation (a non-profit) and a Mozilla Corporation (a public-benefit but for-profit)?
I hear "Refining the company’s vision and aligning the corporate and product strategy behind it" and I feel like I am back at Booz Allen (not a bad thing necessarily, for an org who's goal is to maximize profit).
I have been using Firefox and its lineage since Mosaic. Only time I don't is when Firefox can't handle a website, or when required to use Chrome by work.
That's even during the times when it was slower than Chrome, or had less features, as I considered using something other than Firefox a moral hazard[1]. That's because I felt I needed to support it's mission of a free open source browser with the goals of an open web, open source software, and user rights.
Cut to today. Firefox is funded mostly by Google fees for search defaults, according to what I read (81% in 2022) [2]. There is a Mozilla Foundation and a Mozilla Corporation. Presumably the Mozilla Corporation hires developers, is everything they write Open Source, or are there some proprietary bits?
I did find that the Mozilla Corporation is a public benefit company, which is something. I also found it is a subsidiary of the Mozilla Foundation (no idea how that could work). However, the announcement [3] of the Mozilla Corporation does not mention the rationale for why a corporation is needed in addition to the foundation. I wouldn't think revenue exceeding a certain amount would be it, because it's not profit if it goes right back out in awareness campaigns or developer sponsorship, right?
30 comments
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 107 ms ] threadI'd actually donate if they'd completely focus on Firefox. Maybe even better if Mozilla would spin out Firefox as a separate nonprofit or foundation.
[0]: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
Looking more closely at your original argument: "I'd love to donate, but if only Mitchell Baker weren't making such a mess of it"; I've only read "I'd love to donate, but Mozilla won't let me donate to the browser". First, I think a lot of the comments in the search fall under the category of "Mozilla isn't well run and I don't think they'd spend my donation well", because I think you have to file every comment about Baker's salary increasing while revenue and Firefox market share are decreasing in that folder.
But second, I think the two options you gave up there are actually the same option. I think a lot of people commenting here think Firefox is the only thing that Mozilla should work on, the overwhelming majority of resources should be spent on it, and you should be able to donate directly to it. Anything else is poor management and not worthy of their donation.
[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36381450
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36381450
https://connect.mozilla.org/t5/ideas/ability-to-donate-money...
Things I don't want to donate for: CEO inflation, marketing-tie ins, random acquisitions.
THERE IS NO OTHER PRODUCT
The rest might as well be seen as make work programs for product managers.
Do a company's products need to be only products that only they can produce? I mean, almost nothing fits this bill, not even things like office suites. You're ruling out stuff like milk, glass, tires, text editors, etc.
> Only one provides a meaningful challenge to the hegemony of webkit.
Like, if your argument is that they have a super important product and should only focus on that, then OK. That's an interesting discussion that maybe I agree with (maybe not though).
> The rest might as well be seen as make work programs for product managers.
This is pretty dismissive, but also probably true for at least 30% of all tech products (which are also make work programs for software engineers, management, etc). I don't know why you're singling out Mozilla here, Google has a division of people making blimps so they don't go work for competitors.
I think there's value in Mozilla using its (admittedly dwindling) mindshare to push services that make browsing the web more private and more secure. Maybe you disagree, but it doesn't change the fact that they're products. And arguably, the "focus on Firefox" crowd should be pleased by this: it means Mozilla didn't "waste" resources on making their own VPN service, etc.
N.B. Firefox Focus is an Android/iOS mobile app that wraps the browsers on those platforms and essentially just blocks trackers. There's some other stuff but that's the gist.
P.S. thanks for the formatting advice
They'd have to walk a careful line though: people hate any kind of advertising in Firefox (Mozilla VPN had a big ad that everyone hated and got pulled; the Mr Robot debacle). That kind of limits your options.
Fair point about Thunderbird haha; I'm so annoyed that they did that.
Mozilla names new CEO as it pivots to data privacy - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39302744 - Feb 2024 (331 comments)
I hear "Refining the company’s vision and aligning the corporate and product strategy behind it" and I feel like I am back at Booz Allen (not a bad thing necessarily, for an org who's goal is to maximize profit).
I have been using Firefox and its lineage since Mosaic. Only time I don't is when Firefox can't handle a website, or when required to use Chrome by work.
That's even during the times when it was slower than Chrome, or had less features, as I considered using something other than Firefox a moral hazard[1]. That's because I felt I needed to support it's mission of a free open source browser with the goals of an open web, open source software, and user rights.
Cut to today. Firefox is funded mostly by Google fees for search defaults, according to what I read (81% in 2022) [2]. There is a Mozilla Foundation and a Mozilla Corporation. Presumably the Mozilla Corporation hires developers, is everything they write Open Source, or are there some proprietary bits?
I did find that the Mozilla Corporation is a public benefit company, which is something. I also found it is a subsidiary of the Mozilla Foundation (no idea how that could work). However, the announcement [3] of the Mozilla Corporation does not mention the rationale for why a corporation is needed in addition to the foundation. I wouldn't think revenue exceeding a certain amount would be it, because it's not profit if it goes right back out in awareness campaigns or developer sponsorship, right?
[1] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/moralhazard.asp
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Corporation#:~:text=it....
[3] https://www-archive.mozilla.org/press/mozilla-2005-08-03.htm.....