I read that mission as definitely including a browser.

What could possibly be more important at "ensur[ing] the internet is a global public resource, open and accessible to all" than keeping competition and choice in browsers, which forces web technology openness and standards?

We've already seen Google's web integrity moves coming, and we can no doubt expect more of that as they continue to dominate. A world with only Chromium-based browsers is one where Google can implement anything they fancy. To me the importance of that overshadows anything else Mozilla can do (that I can think of at least).

>Not affiliated with Mozilla in any way, but their mission isn't to create a browser. It's to "ensure the Internet is a global public resource, open and accessible to all." (1)

Yes .. and that is the core problem. Their relevance (and income) only comes from Firefox and its market share. But for some reason, they cannot bring themselves to acknowledge this. The income they generated from Firefox, should have been re-invested in Firefox. They should have been organized as an engineering company at the forefront of web technologies.

>Given that Firefox has kinda lost the browser war it seems obvious that they should be focusing efforts on other things that further that mission besides dumping money into a browser a tiny slice of people want to use.

That is their strategy. Right now, Firefox is still the only thing that gives them any sort of relevance.

> their mission isn't to create a browser

Aaaand that's why I don't use Firefox.

In what capacity have they delivered on that mission outside Firefox?

> Given that Firefox has kinda lost the browser war it seems obvious that they should be focusing efforts on other things that further that mission besides dumping money into a browser a tiny slice of people want to use.

Like what? Selling you "premium" subscription to glorified bookmarks service? Or reselling Mullvad with Mozilla logo slapped on top of it?