... or, hear me out, that one is crazy ... or ... they could focus on the browser alone and make a good product, instead of running a giant for-profit corporation sinking money into AI bullshit and other non-browser crap projects no-one really wants or needs.
this post was submitted on 06 Nov 2024
107 points (93.5% liked)
Firefox
21146 readers
75 users here now
/c/firefox
A place to discuss the news and latest developments on the open-source browser Firefox.
Rules
1. Adhere to the instance rules
2. Be kind to one another
3. Communicate in a civil manner
Reporting
If you would like to bring an issue to the moderators attention, please use the "Create Report" feature on the offending comment or post and it will be reviewed as time allows.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
- ???
- ~~Profit~~ break-even, somehow?
That's why Firefox should be relinquished to a non-profit which is not associated with a for-profit company in any way.
Think about it logically. A non-trivial proportion of Firefox users are power users. We're talking about millions of well paid IT professionals, programmers, academics, etc who trend older and wealthier. I don't know about you, but if Firefox was truly non-profit and focused development on user-voted features, instead of for-profit SaaS services, I'd be willing to donate $100+ a year for the rest of my life out of principle. We're not talking about some hidden open source library here. We're talking about the only viable browser alternative to big tech. We're talking about a product equivalent to Wikipedia or the internet archive in importance (both of which I donate to annually, and will likely continue to forever).
I do not donate to Firefox because of the Mozilla corporation and their for-profit influence over Firefox, and I never will as long as they are involved.
What incentives does the for-profit (that's owned by the non-profit) have that a non-profit without a for-profit subsidiary wouldn't have? Both aren't able to maximise revenue for shareholders, and both will always have the option to pay their leaders extravagantly.
And as a well-paid programmer, I haven't more market sharebeen known to donate $100 a year to software projects. As a conservative estimate, let's say Mozilla could run Firefox at one-fifth the current budget, that would still mean we'd need a million people like you that would continue to do so even if, say, the most-often-voted-for feature request is misinterpreted, or changing a "view all tabs" icon suddenly pisses off a significant portion of them enough to stop their donations.
And even if that happened, it's not clear that that would necessarily lead to gaining market share on default browsers or ones that get heavily promoted through search engine homepages or shadily bundled with installers. Which would still mean more and more websites would start to ignore it, which would mean web compatibility would continue to get worse and worse.
Just make a self-sustaining good product.
Ah, that's the secret? Why didn't anyone tell me this before?! All this slaving away at my day job, when I could just have built a self-sustaining good product - it's that easy!
You’re not getting it, but that’s okay.
I think I'm getting it, I'm just trying to say that I think you're underestimating how hard it is to fund web browser development.
As someone who is severely allergic to ads, I really don’t like this transition, but I understand why they’re doing it.
Mozilla seems to be facing a tough problem. How do you make money when your core audience isn’t enough to support the company, but you can’t realistically pivot to a new audience without kicking out all of the old users. Would it be better if Mozilla just faded into irrelevancy and focussed on developing Thunderbird instead? The FOSS community would have to continue to support Firefox, which would slow down development to such an extent that it probably wouldn’t be able to keep up with the rest of the web.
I found it very odd how little they emphasize donations. Wikipedia, for example, has been quite successful with their pledge drive model, and like Wikipedia, Firefox has a natural platform to ask people to donate. I guess they are afraid of people switching to a browser that doesn't ask them to donate, where with Wikipedia, there is no real alternative
Oh, that’s a very good point. Makes me wonder why Mozilla doesn’t talk about donations very much. Must be a strategic decision or something.
I think it would be best for Firefox to be given greater autonomy, like Thunderbird has been. Thunderbird asks for donations and I'm happy to provide! I don't think it's a coincidence that Thunderbird started to thrive after being greater independence. Major new initiatives in user interface, mobile client after years of stagnation. Something at Mozilla central is deeply rotten.
This is very well-informed, nice job on the research.