[0] https://fortune.com/2024/08/05/mozilla-firefox-biggest-poten...
We are talking about the literal window to the digital world, with potentially billions of users. Its a dysfunctional world that cant sort out funding for such a super-critical software piece and has let adtech have this charade and fig leaf of "browser competition" going on for so long.
A chromium based solution would double down on the monoculture. If anything now is the time to envision what a users-first browser should be like, not what adtech wants it to be. From wasm to fediverse and (dare I say) AI, its a good time to snap out of the stagnation.
Likely not. If the fork would need to fight against any privacy-threatning actions, it will start to be quite different. It can be cheaper to maintain your own browser than massive, very diversed fork. And Google would get all power over web standards. You would need to fight them too if there is something controversial, and the code is getting different, again.
That's an extraordinary claim.
Firefox is more or less a Chrome fork. /s
Or does the for-profit arm fund the non-profit?
[0] https://stateof.mozilla.org/
Based on the audit numbers I a bit puzzled about the reported amount of staff. Maybe I am reading it completely wrong
Wow. Are they serious? that’s illegal?
> ruled that the tech giant has illegally maintained a monopoly through the billions of dollars in annual payments it makes to partners to secure the default search engine position on popular web browsers and mobile phones
It's still a stretch by the judge, and this article is a good hint that the ruling may be weak: https://itif.org/publications/2024/08/23/six-weak-spots-judg...
However, there is the whole issue about the money that they were spending on CEO salary, the related bonus, and all the activities about who knows what, instead of Firefox and Thunderbird.
The empowered userbase would then direct Mozilla to make other solutions for their most pressing needs (maybe search or email or anti tracking) instead of the lame ideas they have wasted resources on
(You might wonder why they spent so much money on it. A lot of people wondered that, and apparently Mozilla itself has now wondered about it too.)
Focus on the things people are using and not on becoming a VPN provider.
That said I like, and use, Firefox for all of my work related tasks. And I have nothing against them having "too many employees". A non-profit providing jobs is not a bad thing and feels like the best of both worlds.
The Foundation is a tiny org that until yesterday I'd have described as "working on living the Mozilla manifesto through advocacy and programs". How it's going to stay relevant without its advocacy staff is a complete mystery to me.
That said, agreed, I'm not sure what's left for the foundation to do without advocacy staff.
I worked there for a decade, so I'm pretty confident when I say "no, it has literally nothing to do with Firefox". They are two completely different orgs with different execs, different boards, working on completely different things. The Foundation has no say over what happens on the corp side.
Why are all these projects having problems at the same time, as the economy booms?
> “Navigating this topsy-turvy, distracting time requires laser focus — and sometimes saying goodbye to the excellent work that has gotten us this far because it won’t get us to the next peak,” wrote Syed
What is topsy-turvy for Mozilla?
