Meanwhile Mozilla's CEO salary went from $2.9m to $5.6m from 2020 to 2021.
I’m using Firefox and not switching anytime soon, but the Mozilla situation is making me angry and sad at the same time.
Interacting with the UI on Firefox for iOS incurs several seconds of waiting:
Clicking the tab icon, opening a new tab, clicking back. ANYTHING, really.
Often it just dies.
If I close all tabs, it gets better. So I basically have to choose between tabs or any acceptable UI speed.
They literally went from "browser is slow with many tabs" to "now tabs are super lightweight" to "this is a shitshow".
I'm not sure how they can be so deliberate and so accidental at the same time.
I wish the board would fire those incompetent leaders and regain market value, but I'm afraid it's a collusion where everyone in power is just ripping Mozilla for what it's got before the ship sinks.
Sure feels that way.
This is because an inside apple policy dictates that all apps on iOS must use the Safari web engine and can't ship their own. As a result all browsers on iOS are just glorified Safari skins & Web application support continues to lag as a result among other things & Apple has complete control over what that one true web engine of iOS supports and what not.
And I haven't run a lot of mobile browsers recently for comparison.
But I find it hard to believe that most browsers that are more popular than Firefox on mobile are doing worse at basic memory management when the number of tabs grow.
For places like Mozilla, there _is_ a solution to this though:
Altruistic organisations like Mozilla (which they at the very least are on the surface) would do their best work with altruistic individuals. Those kinds of people would sacrifice an unreasonably high salary, just so they can work for an organisation they believe does good.
So it's a win-win. You get the types of people you need, and you pay less.
Why this isn't happening, I don't know. My guess is that one dumb fuck infiltrated the organisation, and he's hiring more dumb fucks.
Mozilla's so-called mission statement in a privacy focused browser is a complete failure. This cult around Mozilla needs to stop.
[0] https://web.archive.org/web/20120105090543/https://www.compu...
They shouldn't bring one a regular market CEO, and what their CEO has to do to win users and promote the FOSS engine has nothing or little to do with what Apple and Google's CEO has to do to pad stocks.
In fact, it's precisely of the BS focus they have, doing what any corporate spiky-haired boss CEO would do, that they lose users...
People seem to always confuse Mozilla Foundation (non-profit) and Mozilla (for-profit) entities.
What metric are you measuring this individual against?
Because Revenues went from $441M (2020), to $527M (2021), that's a 20% YoY increase in topline revenue growth. That's huge for a company of this size.
https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2021/mozilla-fdn-202...
That annual report can be tl;dr-ed as "we're like years away from closing shop but we sampled data at juuust the right moment to make you wonder why". That's a huge for a company of this size, but it's also largely accidental.
The mechanisms behind the revenue growth are fragile and tied to the browser (if not directly, like Pocket, at least in the initial stages of the funnel and through branding, like Mozilla VPN). And the browser is bleeding users. There are plenty of alternatives for all these services which will be there if users decide to switch browsers. The only way it'll still look like growth next year is if adoption of paid services will be slow enough that it'll take more than an year to reach the declining user cap.
Mozilla can secure secure its position through attractive software and services, not bean counting bullshit -- paying customers pay for software and services, not numerology. Failing to deliver attractive software and services is a core failure, and the capital underperformance: unless it's rectified, annual reports won't look as pretty.
So yeah, my metric here is increasing paid service adoption base. $441M -> $527M is an attractive looking feature, but that's because it only contains the initial adoption uptick in a shrinking potential customer base.
It's baffling to me that this is legal.
The board and managers of Mozilla Foundation being unethical does not have anything to do with the existence of Mozilla Corporation or not, that is just minor administrative details and they could be just as unethical either way.