The problem is that Mozilla hasn’t been able to find any product that generates any meaningful revenue.
It makes perfect sense for them to try to be an entity that can exist without their biggest competitor tossing them scraps.
How they should achieve that is certainly up for debate but it’s also clear that their attempts to add monetizable aspects to Firefox isn’t moving the needle much either.
If Google didn't pay for being the default search engine, or tried lowballing, someone else would make a deal instead.
The idea that it's some kind of a proactive antitrust defense is one of the more bizarre ideas that gets repeated on HN.
If you look at the situation in the reverse, what sense does it make? Why would you pay a direct competitor to exist when the amount of money you put in to them is an incredibly large majority of their revenue? Firefox continues to become more irrelevant, and the amount of their revenue they get from Google doesn't really reflect that trend.
I'm not saying the only reason Firefox exists is for Google to point at it. That doesn't mean it isn't a major one. It also is pretty clear to Mozilla because they sure keep trying (and failing) to find other revenue sources
One plausible reason is that Google is not a monolith: the entity paying the money is the Search division, which does not compete with Firefox. Chrome does, but Chrome is not a party to the deal. Search is interested in maximizing their own profit, not in maximizing Chrome's usage share.
> Firefox continues to become more irrelevant, and the amount of their revenue they get from Google doesn't really reflect that trend.
It is a revenue share deal. Firefox gets some specific (agreed) percentage of the search revenue from searches done via the Firefox search bar. If the revenue Firefox gets is stable despite reduced relevance, it is because the revenue is stable.
Relevance doesn't translate to revenue. What matters is the number of users and revenue per user.
This already happened with Yahoo. Mozilla got a ton more money, too.
It was utterly disastrous for them. It turned out that Firefox needs Google as the default more than Google needs them - well, for the stated purposes of the deal, of course.
They should ask (not require) payment for that service. Yes, what they should do is basically to run a Patreon subscription, clearly marked "For the continued development of Firefox".
At a very accessible level of $3 / mo on average, and merely 5M subscribers over the world, they'd have $15M monthly, or $180M a year.
See how Wikimedia Foundation is basically flush with cash, without getting handouts from its competition (haha), zero ads, and asking users to spare $2.75 here and there.
Sure - let them squeeze out the last drop of their one and only cash cow before it becomes utterly irrelevant - instead of investing in it and making it a core pillar of their strategy.
>See how Wikimedia Foundation is basically flush with cash,
Mozilla was (is?) flush with cash. Browser market share and corresponding user eyeballs are immensely valuable. That money isn't going back into Firefox development. This is why it is borderline criminal that they choose to focus on everything except Firefox.
Alternatively, what are they without Firefox?
Now Firefox can't be used to make webapps effectively, the only alternative is to use Electron and fortify Chromium's monopoly.
What are they investing in now?
> Mozilla was (is?) flush with cash.
It's not neutral cash, it's Google's cash. The point is to get off the needle of Google's handouts and become independent. Maybe then there'd be less incentive to slowly drive Firefox towards irrelevance.
> what are they without Firefox?
With a small bit of conspiracy theory, that would be "mission accomplished" :-|
I deeply resent being pushed into subscriptions and you should too.
But it's a recurring revenue what allows you e.g. to hire developers. Sad but true.
