Reflections on One Year as the CEO of Mozilla | Hacker News Reader

Reflections on One Year as the CEO of Mozilla

blog.mozilla.org

75 pointsEtzos100 comments

Deary me. There is literally not one mention of any concrete product development or launch that I can see in that post.

This reinforces my view that Mozilla doesn't really see itself as an actual product company. It seems to see itself as some sort of quasi NGO focussed on the internet. Which is sort of fine, but I feel they would influence much more of the web with better more popular products rather than policy discussions.

Firefox is so unpopular these days it seems that I am genuinely surprised when I see someone using it. it's sort of like when Firefox first came out and you'd spot someone else using it, but in reverse.

What's weirder is Firefox should be rising in popularity. The world in general has been getting more interested in privacy and data breaches and it's the only modern unaffiliated browser that doesn't have an advertising and telemetry motivation.

The newer Firefox quantum has become my goto browser since it was released. Slower than Chrome but less memory hungry. Unfortunately anytime I hear about Firefox it's often "Firefox removes features" or worse "Firefox disables feature for your good". I literally couldn't log into some old wifi router at an airbnb because Firefox refused to let me visit a non-standard port, with no way to override it. It's not adtech surveillance big brother, it's patronizing we know better big brother.

That's interesting because I feel it's the opposite. Chrome ends up being the one that I have the most trouble with when it comes to usage nannying without providing overrides and removing features without thought. I don't think I've heard of a feature that was in core Firefox that was removed since quantum. Do you have a good example?

On Android at least: https://www.androidpolice.com/2020/09/03/firefox-update-face...

Does this no longer work? http://kb.mozillazine.org/Network.security.ports.banned.over...

It works, but it's a pain to have do it, and to remember how to do it (especially when you don't yet have internet, because you can't log into the wifi!)

Maybe they should all those features it under patronizing.*.Network.security.ports.banned.override? Looking forward for patronizing.disable.old.addons=false patronizing.copypaste.shenanigans=false

Not sure, though perhaps I should rephrase to "obvious method" to disable. I tried one config setting and gave up and just used Safari.

Pocket comes enabled by default and they do plenty of telemetry. It's 10,000x better than Chrome's use of the 2 but it's not nonexistent.

Can we just finally let it go with Pocket? Who cares? Just disable it if you care.

Personally I'm longing for a new browser with focus on safety, security and privacy. Hopefully it will be written in Rust language or any other language with similar capability.

Brave was good until they really started pushing their ad/cryptocurrency stuff. It's still okay in technical terms (they subvert a lot of telemetry, have good performance), but it just FEELS icky now.

Brave user here. You can turn all the crypto stuff off and ignore it. If that's the way Brave is funded then I really don't mind them pursing that route. It's better than depending on Google at least.

If there is a feature that you can opt of out, but which they rely on for funding, how can you be sure that the opt-out will stick around?

Fair enough. I still use brave, I think my personal bias just makes me want to run from anything that uses the word "crypto" in a context outside of cryptographic security.

I call BS on Mozilla's commitment to privacy until uBlock Origin (or equivalent) is built into Firefox.

Nowadays running a browser without an ad blocker is as irresponsible as running a Windows XP machine without antivirus nor firewall a decade ago.

Any browser that doesn't implement countermeasures that have been proven to be effective and are available free of charge under a permissive license should be considered defective or having ulterior motives.

https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/enhanced-tracking-prote... has been built-in for nearly two years, and new privacy-protecting features are frequently being added.

(Disclosure: I work for Mozilla but not on this)

This is nowhere near enough though, and it used to be even worse. Basic spyware such as Google Analytics could be blocked by uBlock for ages and yet it's only recently that the built-in Firefox solution started blocking it (by replacing it with a neutered shim).

Furthermore, considering uBlock Origin and the underlying filter lists are available under a permissive license, what's the point behind developing & maintaining your own (inferior) implementation?

You have to realize Mozilla does not have the marketshare to do this. Most of the web relies on ads, and since uBlock Origin blocks them, there would be no incentive for those sites to support Firefox.

Even if you just blocked trackers (as does ETP Strict Mode), many ads get blocked because those ads bundle tracking code within them. This, again, would cause there to be little to no incentive for most website owners to support Firefox.

What Mozilla is currently doing makes sense. They are being lax on the standard setting so that websites can still make ad revenue and have an incentive to support the browser.

If Firefox had a lot more marketshare, it might have been possible that this could slide.

I would assert that the exact opposite is true. Taking a strong stand in favor of users would increase their market share.

Over a decade ago, one of the best things that Firefox did to compete against IE6 was to include a built in popup blocker that was on by default. Exactly the same criticisms were made.

It was called irresponsible and disruptive, since so much revenue came from popups, and horrible flash-based full screen pop-under ads. But I am glad that Firefox didn't let the pleas of the established market prevent them from siding with users.

Over a decade ago, it was also possible to start a new browser engine from scratch. Now since the web is so complex, it's virtually impossible to make one nowadays.

I don't think you can compare the web of a decade ago to the web of now.

The problem is essentially the same. I did not say they should start a new browser engine. I think that if Mozilla was as willing to take risks as they were before, they would win over users. The difference is that before they were willing to risk annoying the big fish. Now they are afraid of upsetting Netflix or Google.

And I don't think they will be able to make progress if they refuse to challenge existing web technologies. They could do it, but they won't.

In fact, Mozilla seems terrified of losing favor with any of the major platforms. Which means that they are beholden to them.

Outside of media heavy applications such as video conferencing software, do websites explicitly do specific things to “support” Firefox beyond complying with the specs?

> many ads get blocked because those ads bundle tracking code within them

uBlock filter lists can provide fallback shims that would be loaded in place of ad scripts to deal with this exact problem. The shim implements a neutered version of the original script so that all the surrounding (non-malicious) code can continue to run without errors.

> Outside of media heavy applications such as video conferencing software, do websites explicitly do specific things to “support” Firefox beyond complying with the specs?

You'd be surprised. Apple Business Manager does not support Firefox, for example.

> uBlock filter lists can provide fallback shims that would be loaded in place of ad scripts to deal with this exact problem. The shim implements a neutered version of the original script so that all the surrounding (non-malicious) code can continue to run without errors.

My point was that ads were being accidentally blocked and that websites wouldn't get their ad revenue.

> My point was that ads were being accidentally blocked and that websites wouldn't get their ad revenue.

Blocking ads would be the point - ads are malware.

So which browser do you prefer?

I run Safari & Firefox.

FF is still the "least bad" choice but I'm still not happy that I have to fix it by installing an add-on where that add-on (or at least the core parts of it such as filter lists) are licensed in a way that would allow the browser to have this fix out of the box.

I think your view on Mozilla is what both the Mozilla Foundation and Mozilla Corporation have considered their view since day one. It's a bit odd to read it with expectation it was ever something else to be honest.

I see what you mean, but my point was more that it's fine to do that when you have majority browser marketshare, but it's time to focus on the products a bit more (that pay for everything!) a bit more when everything is faltering.

Mozilla is an activist group at this point, why else would they be writing blog posts egging on de-platforming and adding politically charged news suggestions to the new tab page?

Firefox is merely a cow to be milked to fund the social agenda of the CEO.

Product companies can't solve everything. I appreciate that they're trying different things. Netscape trying open source sowed the seeds that produced Firefox.

That said a browser is such a large undertaking, becoming the modern day operating system. It would be nice if they made clear their commitment to carrying it forward.

I was curious - just going by the same blog, there’s really not much to talk about (continued improvements to block tracking, an Android refresh, PiP support, VPN), but the tone suggests that delivering particular features is beside the point.

Sorry, you're complaining that a year's retrospective post by the CEO doesn't include announcement of product development plans or launches? I would think that... unwise. Unless you're trying to create a cult of personality around your CEO.

She'd either be undercutting her own marketing department, or tying her personal popularity to products/projects. Neither would be a very good idea.

It doesn't have to be an announcement of something new. It'd be great if the reflections included any improvements to Firefox that happened over the year.

Firefox market share down 85%, during the same period the executives get a 400% raise. Then 250 employees are fired.

It feels like it's just the top brass getting as much money they can before the ship sinks at this point.

Not only that, they do have their other priorities figured out also: https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2021/01/08/we-need-more-than-d...

I am actually glad that they came out and put that in black and white. Got me to move to another browser. (I do miss Firefox's multi-container tabs and account containers however but I will survive).

I really hate how people just read the title of this post, got offended, and just constantly link it to say "See guys? Mozilla wants to censor you!" when that's not what the actual post is saying. It is almost guaranteed that whenever someone posts anything Mozilla-related, people bring this up, possibly with an invitation to switch to Brave or something.

The article is specifically trying to criticize social media without sounding like Mozilla is siding with the Capitol rioters. If you want to argue that it's a bad headline, sure - people's continued misreading of it definitely is evidence of that. If you want to argue that it's Mozilla "showing their true colors" and calling for Facebook and Twitter to take over the government or whatever, then I will disagree with you all damned day.

74MM ppl voted for someone who used to be President and is now permanently banned from all social media platforms. This article agrees with that. If you were one of those people, you would not want to associate with this company.

Well, I'm not one of those people.

And Donald Trump isn't an ally of Internet freedom - if anything, he's been in favor of letting social media companies para-censor what they want. He called Net Neutrality "Obamacare for the Internet", so he clearly also doesn't care if Comcast censors things. Furthermore, the GOP has traditionally been in favor of "private companies can say what they want and you should have no legal recourse for that". As far as I'm concerned, him getting banned from Twitter was him getting hoist by his own petard.

There's also the related problem that any reasonable free speech protections that apply to private fora would almost certainly not have protected Trump here. Twitter had an explicit policy of letting Trump off the hook for things that would ordinarily get you banned, even things like copyright violations. (Yes, Donald Trump and Donald Trump alone had DMCA immunity.) If we had regulated Twitter like a common carrier, they wouldn't have been allowed to have this two-tiered world leaders policy. So Trump would have been banned in 2017 instead of 2021.

I really can't think of a way in which Trump stays on Twitter without some massive intrusion into the way the Internet runs. Either you...

1. Require private fora to not have any speech rules - in which case we turn the entire Internet into USENET/4chan and anyone not as spammy/toxic is para-censored by being talked over

2. Require private fora to not enforce speech rules against world leaders - in which case you've taken away the platform's right to free association without any of the benefits of common carrier regulation

I don't see how either of those improve freedom online. Given that Mozilla's non-profit arm has a stated goal of protecting user freedom, it's perfectly reasonable for them to not have any particular sympathies for Mr. "Obamacare for the Internet". The best Mozilla can do - and what they actually did - is argue for transparency and regulation on how social media companies use their power to shape public discourse.

Mm it’s a tricky situation. Ideally the free market would solve it by coming up with another service with an alternative moderation strategy. Which may yet still happen. In 50-100 years maybe Twitter and Facebook will no longer dominate and alternatives will emerge. I think there is a big resistance to big tech that will only grow and ideology of social media company employees and leaders will balance out.

Because big tech is controlled by liberals they can get away with this stuff without repercussion. But it’s quite obvious that if this happened in reverse...which there is plenty of precedent throughout history...you would see the left complaining.

The reasonable person would think: this is a bad precedent to set and it’s the reason we allow free speech because if the tables turn on the censors, they wouldn’t like it.

Liberals outside of the US find it troubling too.

Anyway, let’s hope the free market solves it in the end. I think tech ideological diversity is changing too for the better.

This has happened in the past and liberals and leftists have complained rightfully.

If anything, I'd say the last decade or so has been right-wingers sticking their fingers in their ears and pretending the oncoming train liberals were warning them about didn't exist, right before getting hit by said oncoming train.

You are correct that "big tech is controlled by liberals" (I'd also include libertarians here as well), but in order to be anywhere close to consistent and get what you want you need to also embrace at least some left-wing or libertarian ideas about money and power. Any one of the following viewpoints are reasonable:

Left-wing: Ideological diversity should be allowed up to intersectionality and social media companies should be regulated like common carriers

That Mozilla blog post: Somewhere between the "left-wing" and "left-libertarian" viewpoints.

Left-libertarian: People should switch to federated Mastodon instances run on the basis of mutual aid (e.g. recurring donations or P2P technology) and centralized social media platforms should be recognized as harmful and shut down

Center-libertarian: Something like NearlyFreeSpeech's "Morons Funding the Fight Against Morons" policy, in which we sell server hosting to neo-Nazis and then donate all the profits we made off them to organizations that fight neo-Nazis.

Right-libertarian: People should outcompete monopolistic social media platforms with less paracensored versions and the government should take no action (This appears to be what you're advocating for, although in practice I've seen this tried and fail multiple times)

What isn't reasonable is the right-authoritarian approach, which is to just complain about "being censored" when it happens to only you, and then threaten to repeal CDA 230 if the platforms don't change their mind. (Don't get me started on left-authoritarians, or I'll be here all damned day.) That's not free speech by any definition - either the strict "Congress shall make no law" approach or the more general considerations of paracensorship that I'm trying to build a theory of speech rules around.

Thanks for the insights. I like the more nuanced spectrum you present. I find myself too often in a simplistic left/right divide. I think there is great value in a more fine-grained spectrum coming into common usage.

The conundrum that stands out for me though is when one group defends another group’s right to censor, and then that group uses that right, to censor the other. I think that’s where we are today. The legislative restraint of the Republicans to regulate seems they are living up to their principles to their own disadvantage. But this just leaves them to be taken advantage of by the other group to the point of severely damaging the next election prospects of Trump runs again.

Will defenders of freedom always be subjugated to those who want to use freedom to restrict others? Sustaining this freedom is the challenge of humanity and a very careful balance. We’ve seen so many free countries fall to left/right authoritarianism over the ages. It’s almost like we cycle back and forth between authoritarianism and freedom. This century will surely be a big test.

I think we are quickly heading into left authoritarianism which is ironic because the most vocal complaints are of right authoritarianism which I really didn’t see any evidence of the past 4 years. It was just a trendy thing to say. I don’t even know where the accusation of Trump authoritarianism began.

IMO the title of this blog post was way to strong to even misleading.

They're not asking for deplatforming, they're asking for more transparency:

Reveal who is paying for advertisements, how much they are paying and who is being targeted.

Commit to meaningful transparency of platform algorithms so we know how and what content is being amplified, to whom, and the associated impact.

Turn on by default the tools to amplify factual voices over disinformation.

Work with independent researchers to facilitate in-depth studies of the platforms’ impact on people and our societies, and what we can do to improve things.

I disagree with your assessment. I will illustrate why by using 2 specific points from the linked post:

1. From the post: "Changing these dangerous dynamics requires more than just the temporary silencing or permanent removal of bad actors from social media platforms.

Additional precise and specific actions must also be taken: [...]"

My interpretation of the above is that they support deplatforming ("silencing or permanent removal") AND "additional actions".

2. They mention "white supremacy". I believe that is a false premise. I am not white/of European descent. I will leave it at that since this is going OT.

I had been dissatisfied with their management for a long time, but that was the point where I switched browsers.

with chromium/ungoogled chromium/maybe other derivatives, you can put multiple browser profiles to ~/.config/chromium and add --profile-directory="xxx" to exec path

Braver user here: I can add multiple profiles through the GUI - which I use to separate my Google usage from my general internet usage. Is this not supported by base Chromimum?

I might have missed it, but I don't think it was back when I was looking for equivalent of Firefox's `-p` command line arg a few years ago. I did however end up setting up a dedicated launcher for every Firefox profile as well instead of using `-p`

It was clear when they forced Brendan Eich out for having a mainstream political opinion.

> It was clear when they forced Brendan Eich out for having a mainstream political opinion.

That's when I stopped using Firefox. It wasn't that Eich's opinion was mainstream. He kept it to himself and never imposed it on anyone at Mozilla. Free Software stands on Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Conscience, Freedom of Inquiry, and Freedom of Expression. Mozilla developers and outsiders conducted a propaganda campaign to justify a witch hunt, showing their disdain for honest discussion and respect for community members of different backgrounds. No one was allowed to question the premise that supporters of Prop 8 on religious grounds were automatically dishonest bigots and unworthy of associating with Mozilla.

Instead of persuasion, Prop 8 detractors preferred vitriol, revenge, and punishment. The silencing of dissent, the witch hunt to out prop 8 supporters for vilification - the things done in the name of social justice were far worse in social consequences than Prop 8 could have ever been, and we are the worse for it.

Which did you move to? Is their compensation more democratic?

On my phone, I moved from Firefox to Brave. The overall experience is much better.

I don't know about democratic compensation, but I don't regularly hear about Brave making political statements or picking sides, which matters to me. I still get ads blocked, and I experience far fewer issues.

The only issue I have with Brave (and any other Chromium-based browsers) is the memory consumption, it's definitely worse than Firefox on that front. But at least they're looking for ways to improve their browser like they've done with their ad system, integrated Tor and IPFS.

Did we read different articles? She's explicitly not in favor of deplatforming in there and offers a different course of action.

> It feels like it's just the top brass getting as much money they can before the ship sinks at this point.

From the outside it really is hard to not come to that conclusion.

I'm still a Firefox user and I'll continue to be as long as possible, but like others I feel immense frustration when I look at the dynamic between Firefox and Mozilla.

>Above all, this year has reinforced for me that sometimes a deeply held mission requires massive wrenching change in order to be realized.

Yeah, like firing your researchers. What good was that Servo thing anyways? Don't need no PhDs when you can write endless self-aggrandizing blog posts while increasing your own pay.

Seriously. What a sad arc Mozilla has taken: from one of the most respected companies to one of the least, and all while boosting the executives pay fourfold. Won’t be sad to see them capsize in their current iteration.

Did you really expect Mozilla to care about Servo?

I'm sorry, but to them it was a experimental toy that didn't make them any money and they saw it as a cost center.

>Did you really expect Mozilla to care about Servo?

Yes. Servo represented a major technological differentiation from Chromium-based browsers while remaining competitive if not superior. A triumph in any real sense, not just for Mozilla but for everyone who cared about the future of the web.

>I'm sorry, but to them it was a experimental toy that didn't make them any money and they saw it as a cost center.

WebRender was part of that experimental toy, and it shipped to production years ago.

Cutting costs via way of sacking R&D is a type of short-term thinking that's so devoid of foresight it boggles the mind.

In nearly 2 decades a high 90s percentage of their profit has been search deals for Firefox which is where a lot of the stuff from Servo ended up so I'm not sure it could be construed as unsurprising or useless.

Oof, not even a perfunctory nod to a "very difficult decision to layoff some extremely talented individuals, in order to keep mozilla sustainable in the long term" or something to that effect?

Anyway, I get the sense that they're focusing on UX related to browser privacy. Any reason they shouldn't just switch to Chromium and provide a compelling application around it (a la Brave and all those browsers) at this point?

Rust and Servo were a kind of "swing for the fences" attempt at meaningful technological innovation in the browser, but these days post layoff I can't see their rendering engine doing anything but falling behind.

> Any reason they shouldn't just switch to Chromium

The most likely reason that Google continues to pay them for being the default engine, is that Google wants to be able to point at Firefox like "see, we're not a monopoly, there's this other browser as well". If Firefox were just a Chromium frontend, that argument would be weaker, so I could imagine Google tying their payments to Firefox being technologically separate from Chrome.

This is what you get when you sell your soul to Google and rely on your competitors funding for years on end.

And what does Mozilla of today have to show for it?

A self aggrandising, navel-gazing, tone deaf, hollow templated puff piece which will cause the unfortunate inevitable sad downfall of Mozilla.

There is almost nothing left of this once innovative company, resorting to present a facade as a cover while ignoring the real issue:

Not focusing on making a revenue generating product for over 10 years.

Also, repeat extremely tone deaf in Mozilla laying off their top engineers on Rust, Servo and Firefox and not a single mention of it in this post.

Looks like all those free years of Google money caught up with them.

Strong narcissism signals in her post. "It's all about me." The problem with her as CEO is about the incentives. She has literally no incentive to do anything other than continue to use the company as a vehicle for her social concerns. Building great products is a complete afterthought.

> And perhaps the most rewarding.

Not surprising, given she got a pay raise after sacking much of Mozilla's engineers amid continued declining relevance.

I was prepared to take a somewhat neutral stance on the post despite the negativity in other comments. It's a CEO reflection post, what should you expect?

But this is indeed completely empty PR fluff.

Vague rambling about data.

Lot's of justification for how awesome she is.

No mention of of an event that shook the company to it's core - laying off a quarter of employees.

Not even a hint of any vision, prospects for a future direction or how to save Mozilla from impending doom.

Why even write a post like this if you have nothing to say?

I do believe Mozilla will be fine for while. Google will keep paying well as a hedge against further anti trust concerns.

To be fair, Mozilla is in a tough position that can't be easily fixed. But this doesn't inspire confidence that they have the right leadership to get there.

This post is more notable for what it doesn't say than what it says. I see a lot of words that don't amount to much besides PR fluff. I don't see much about how to maintain the viability of the only independent browser engine left in today's web market, how to be more financially independent, or the fate of that engine after the substantial layoffs they made.

Not even an acknowledgement or mention of the over 250 people laid off at Mozilla over the last year? Yikes.

If I were an employee at Mozilla who had any ambition, I would leave and go somewhere else after reading this. This lady has no vision or specific market understanding that can lead to any progress.

Don’t understand the negative comments about Firefox. I use it everyday and even though I share some of the criticism, compared to other browsers for me it’s the best compromise so far.

Can’t use chrome or edge as Google and Microsoft showed again and again that they don’t value the end users.

Safari (especially mobile safari) is holding back the web technology adaption.

Firefox (since they incorporated some rust code) is fast and awesome and Mozilla is the least evil of the bunch. The accessibility and privacy features are the best out there …

Also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26755252

If you have other browser recommendations. Happy to hear them. Currently I use Firefox for most of my browsing, sometimes brave, opera in case I need to check social media websites (as a container). Huge fan of qutebrowser and nyxt (keyboardbased).

Thanks to Mozilla folks for keeping up the great work.

That's all the browser engines you get that can load most pages today so if one is out for being too far behind what's implemented and another is out for personal reasons that leaves you with Firefox. People not using Firefox anymore (95% on desktop and 99% on mobile) just have different personal reasons that outrank "I trust the organization behind it values me" when selecting their browser.

As far as fun tech things Flow looks like it could be interesting but they aren't interested in being your day to day browser (yet at least) and it's still early in it's life.

For "chromium browsers that aren't a megacorp" Brave and Vivaldi are oft talked about. I don't really see all the appeal of Brave myself but it does have some decent customization options while still being able to be typical Chromium. Vivaldi is the old Opera spirit of "your browser can be a pane window with a web page in it or modern emacs" but the way it is implemented causes it to become a bit slower than other Chromium browsers. Ungoogled chromium is also a popular thing, basically Chromium minus some stuff.

For another fun tech thing "wexond" is a browser built in... Electron :). It used to have some whacky ideas but these days it's turning into more of a "chrome built out of chrome's guts". It has (and still is) been a work in progress and I'm not sure it has a fully reliable security policy for use day to day but it's still interesting to check out for fun if that's your thing https://github.com/wexond/browser-base/releases/tag/v5.2.0 notably it's the only browser I've seen with a built in single line tabs/url/extensions/menu/window-buttons gui option.

Yeah, she fired the security threat team, the servo team, the rust team, the mdn team and more but more than doubled her own salary, all while Firefox usage is declining.

This is what happens when lawyers are in charge of tech.

I literally in my most honest sense of what is good and real in this world, don’t believe you could be the CEO of Mozilla in 2021 and have a decent and genuine, moral and ethical soul.

Unless you’re busy day to day removing people from the company in order to synchronize it’s supposed purpose with reality.

Some organization or group of people has to fork Firefox or start another browser from scratch that has ethical leaders.

There are forks. Ice Weasel. Pale Moon is fun because it kept the old GUI.

How can they even maintain a secure browser as they drift from Firefox, much less innovate? Pale Moon in particular doesn't have the best security track record.

He did not say anything about mass layoffs and the end of the research department. Who did he profit from the purchase of the pocket? Who made money out? And the tall salaries of it? This CEO is a shame. She is destroying Mozilla.

I would have trusted this more if she had discussed the layoffs that happened recently. From what I understand, it was an event that shook the engineers that worked there and there was some controversy over how it was handled. Surely it was something that she had to deal with last year. (If I’m wrong about the assessment of the importance of that situation, please comment/downvote away)

It's unfortunate that Mozilla's slow collapse under the weight of being hooked on Google ad money is being used as proof for people who are perpetually mad about diversity and accountability.

The fault is with management that's afraid to disrupt the cash firehose. Not a mishandled CEO hire 7 years ago or the move from the increasingly untenable XUL.

It seems very common to blame the money from Google (and Yahoo for a bit) for Mozilla's failures 18 years in but how exactly is it causing this collapse? Mozilla is raking in 3x as much off this deal today as it was during peak Firefox usage share and success around 2011 and any collapse is unrelated to where the search box directs you. Mozilla has been trying profit making products to diversify income so it doesn't have to worry about this money in the future but they've all failed to generate that income. In the meantime they still exist.

What could they do by disrupting this cash flow? Or is it just nice to imagine a world where Mozilla found a way to become the next trillion dollar tech company that could spend tens of billions on its browser per year and we need something to blame other than it being hard to do so as the reason it hasn't?

I truly hope Mozilla survives the next decade. They need leadership with opinionated direction, and I don't think this is it. Right now they're looking to be lead without a good funding avenue.

Can't we just get together and build an opensource browser? Considering how we are building very complex things without these executives, middle managers and all the corporate bs. It could be our gift to the next generation of engineers like we inherited Linux and give them a fighting chance.

Yeah, it is pretty incredible how there can be multiple free/open-source operating system kernels, not controlled by corporations, but hardly a single web browser engine like that. Are web browsers really that complex?

Many people always discuss how the CEO is over paid for multimillion dollars.

Do we have benchmark on the CEO benefit from the same scale of company?

I'm just thinking whether it's a norm to pay that much to get good talent to lead the corp. (I'm not saying she is good or not)

What scale? They lost most of their market share and they have a pretty low headcount. Wikipedia says they have around 750 people, but after the most recent layoff it's probably closer to 500. For comparison, Lime (scooter company) has about the same number of people. I think it's fair to compare Mozilla to a medium-sized non-profit, which would put CEO's salary in the 500k range.

If that was my reflection on anything I’d consider myself a vampire

It fired people with high technical capacity who worked for the well-being of the web. People who worked at Rust and Servo. And he still has the courage to celebrate.

Is a she

Well, he's only CEO because the previous one decided to donate some of his own money in private to a mainstream political campaign. I guess the most important thing is how woke this CEO is.

I thought there was going to be some hint on their plan for independence from Google's annual $400mm injection. Alas not today.

No, and given this article I wouldn't be surprised if they don't have an independence plan.

It's a shame, really - Firefox is still the best alternative to Chrome IMO, Mozilla just has no idea how to grow or maintain themselves. My biggest worry is that they'll either get acquired by some shady company or just fade into irrelevance.

as long as the salary of CEO depends on something, you bet they will do anything to not change it !! It has been downhill long since these bean counters had been shilling against this community

this is the real problem that caused this all of this catastrophe for Mozilla.

we are now in Mozilla's downfall.

Has Mozilla ever made any serious attempt at technical contributions to crypto?

What do you mean by crypto? I think we do lots of interesting work in that area. Heck, our CTO was the editor of the RFC for TLS 1.3.

https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2019/01/09/eric-rescorla-wins-...

(Disclosure: I work for Mozilla but only ever tangentially on this)

Oh yeah.. Ekr... on whose watch Moz couldn't even keep up a functioning cert chain for Addons.

Tangentially related: after they canned Brendan Eich he started Brave.

FF was also pretty involved with DoH and ESNI (now ECH).

Really wish the CEO was concentrating on making a technically excellent browser, instead of writing esoteric and vague virtue signalling posts.

But Firefox stopped caring about that once they threw out their addon ecosystem a few years back. Obviously they've been in decline even before then, but it surely didn't help.

It's a real shame that the browser that once spearheaded the fight against IE's monopoly position has now almost faded into irrelevance.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com