9 ms·

Not looking to grind an axe but facts matter in this case. Let's look at Mozilla's financial statement for 2007 and 2023 [0][1]: > Expenses 1. Program 'Softw

Not looking to grind an axe but facts matter in this case. Let's look at Mozilla's financial statement for 2007 and 2023 [0][1]: > Expenses 1. Program 'Software Development' 2007: 20.7M | 2023: 260M 2. Management 'General and Administrative' : 2007: 5.1M | 2023: 123M I am purposefully excluding marketing and fundraising costs. Because arguably you can't get away from those expenses. Let's ignore inflation and COL and ballooning costs, etc. If we look at just the ratio of expenditure. We have an NPO (on paper at least) that just went from spending a ratio of 4 to 1 between developers and managers to spending a ratio of almost 2 to 1. I am not familiar with what is typical in American NPO's but I can't help but feel that my money will not be spent on the right stuff. [0] https://static.mozilla.com/foundation/documents/mf-2007-audited-financial-statement.pdf https://static.mozilla.com/foundation/documents/mf-2007-audi... [1] https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2024/mozilla-fdn-2023-fs-final-short-1209.pdf https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2024/mozilla-fdn-202...

TimByte 2y ago
Makes you wonder where all that extra administrative cost is really going.
yummypaint 2y ago
Considering how much money is routinely set on fire by the US tech industry, this is a bargain for the best web browser currently in existence. What alternative do you suggest? Google and Microsoft are certainly worse. Firefox is vastly superior to the offerings of these multi billion dollar companies. Chrome and edge are exactly the prisons that these companies designed them to be. What specifically should laypeople do to regain something resembling a usable Internet? Firefox and ublock origin is the only answer I have.
- Hyperboreanal 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - KingMob 2y ago
    [flagged]
jillesvangurp 2y ago
The good news is that development could easily be funded by donations. It's only a few million. Enough to keep a few dozen people employed. The bad news is that donations are unlikely to happen with the current massive misspending on overpaid people with no technical background that don't code that spend 95% of their budget on themselves, support staff that also doesn't code, offices they don't need, commercial products that flop, monetization schemes that fail, etc. I wouldn't. And I'm a user! Mozilla needs to be restructured. And ideally they diversify their commercial ecosystem as well. Because they are way too dependent on Google. If you look at Rust, created by Mozilla, they are set up in a more sane way. There's a foundation. It's well funded with sponsorships from the big companies that use and depend on Rust. Those companies employ people that contribute to Rust. Many OSS organizations are set up like that. It works. The diversity of contributors and commercial sponsors ensures neutrality and longevity. No single company has veto power. As long as valuable tech comes out, companies stay involved. Some disappear, new ones come along. Linux development works like that as well. Ironically, Chromium at this point is better positioned to become like that. The main issue is that Google still employs most of the developers and controls the roadmap. But there are quite a few commercial chromium based products: Edge, Brave, Opera, etc. that each have development teams using and contributing to it. Add Electron (has its own foundation, based on chromium) to the mix and the countless commercial applications using that and you have a healthy ecosystem that could survive Google completely disengaging if they'd be forced to split off their browser activities. I use Firefox mainly because of the iron grip keeps over Chromium and it's clear intent to cripple ad blocking, grab user data, and exploit its user base. But I worry about the dysfunctional mess that is Mozilla.
- notpushkin 2y ago
  The better news are, Mozilla gets around $30 million as investment income ($37M in 2023 [1]). Some people argue that it’s not enough to maintain Firefox but that sounds weird to me. Chromium is not a good alternative: 95% of Chromium commits come from Google. [2] [1]: https://wiki.rossmanngroup.com/wiki/File:501c3_2023_990_Mozilla_Foundation_-_Full_Filing_-_Nonprofit_Explorer_-_ProPublica.pdf https://wiki.rossmanngroup.com/wiki/File:501c3_2023_990_Mozi... [2]: https://chromiumstats.github.io/cr-stats/authors/company_authors.html https://chromiumstats.github.io/cr-stats/authors/company_aut...
paulryanrogers 2y ago
In this landscape I'm curious if any amount of money can overcome the oligopoly advantages of owning the OS (with no anti-trust enforcement) or owning the most popular web properties. Even if every cent for the past ten years went to browser dev alone, would that have made a difference? Do regular users even know the difference between one browser and another? Or is it only the icon they recognize, if even that?
- onlyrealcuzzo 2y ago
  You're spending money in the wrong place - spend it on marketing instead of dev, and you've got a shot.
  - paulryanrogers 2y ago
    People aren't motivated to change the defaults, unless they're told they should change by "clicking here" in prominent (non-ad) banners. Mozilla cannot buy the OS defaults nor such brand positions.
- n_ary 2y ago
  > Do regular users even know the difference […] Honestly, from observing my close family and friends as well as passing by strangers, everyone uses whatever default comes(i.e. Chrome on Android) or again Chrome(on iOS because they saw some banner ad somewhere to install it to access their password stored previously in android life). The core portal to internet currently appears to be the blue-F(aka Facebook) icon which has an interesting search. People search in Facebook for specific topic and then will reluctantly move over to browser and again search on Google(always default). So, in summary no, everyone uses Chrome and does not know the difference. Some of my colleagues seem to use Brave and Linux die-hards use Firefox(comes default with ubuntu last I tried ubuntu).
- scarface_74 2y ago
  Android is only 30% of the market in the US. I don’t know how much browser usage comes from Chromebooks. Every single Windows and Mac user who uses Chrome made an affirmative choice to download Chrome. Why didn’t they decide to download Firefox?
alberth 2y ago
I know your intention is probably well placed but we do though need to factor in revenues: Year Revenue ---- ------- 2007 $75M 2023 $653M I bring this up because G&A of big companies (in general) always outpaces R&D once they hit scale ... and in an ideal situation - your revenues should outpace R&D expense because you're getting economies of scale (which further dilutes the R&D to Other Business Function comparison). And Mozilla has hit scale / become "big company" - with those kinds of revenues. The reason why G&A outpaces R&D, is because now you have all kinds of work to do that you don't have to do when your small/underdog, like: - regulatory compliance - legal - privacy - advocacy - public relations - etc... When you're the underdog, you don't have to deal with these activities and as a result, your expense base is more heavily skewed toward R&D.
- timewizard 2y ago
  Isn't Mozilla a non-profit though? Why does mozilla.ai exist? Didn't we like a trust the product more in 2007 than we do now? I mean, yay for scale, but haven't we lost something here?
  - sdk- 2y ago
    Mozilla Foundation is a non-profit but Mozilla Corporation which develop Firefox is a for-profit entity. There are other subsidiaries under the foundation umbrella like Mozilla.ai and MZLA/Thunderbird. This isn't something uncommon for large entity and there are many advantages. For example, it gives more freedom in term of decision making and spending to projects that aren't targeting the exact same consumer segment. Think about Thunderbird. Under Mozilla Corporation, it was always in the shadow of Firefox. Now, it's striving as an independent project.
    - notpushkin 2y ago
      Now if only we had MZLA for Firefox...
  - dralley 2y ago
    > Why does mozilla.ai exist? AI threatens both browsers and search engines, is why. Apple, Google and Microsoft all have their own efforts. Mozilla working on local-first AI isn't a bad idea.
abtinf 2y ago
How much of that $260m is invested in Firefox? The docs don’t say.
- dblohm7 2y ago
  Put it this way: there are a lot more than “a few dozen” engineers working on Firefox.
Jzush 2y ago
In general it has been my experience that administrators primary functions are to justify administrators jobs. Usually by any ill considered and ill researched manner as possible.
traceroute66 2y ago
> I am not familiar with what is typical in American NPO's but I can't help but feel that my money will not be spent on the right stuff. I would agree with you there. Sadly the art of troughing is a well known feature of larger NPOs. That's why (IMHO) people should never blindly donate to NPOs without first taking a quick look at their financial accounts to get a feel for how much troughing is going on. Honestly, if I had my way, I would make it law to have a simple-to-read one-page summary of that data for every NPO. I also do not buy the oft-cited argument "well, we have to attract talent by paying them 'competitively' ". Well no. If the "talent" wants a fat paycheck, they can go work in the private sector. If they are going to work at an NPO, then they should WANT to work for the NPO, not just see it as another spot for their CV. In many (most?) cases they will be in charge of an army of well-meaning unpaid volunteers, its not a good look for the C-suite to roam around in private cars, businssess-class flights, have fancy "away days" etc. etc.
z3t4 2y ago
The solution is to keep adding management layers until the company implode. The problem is that when it has gone too far all the people who are left are those that do not take responsibility.
wkat4242 2y ago
Why can't you get away from marketing a free product? But yeah that ratio is totally off. Paying the CEO 7 million also won't help.

TimByte 2y ago

Makes you wonder where all that extra administrative cost is really going.

yummypaint 2y ago

Considering how much money is routinely set on fire by the US tech industry, this is a bargain for the best web browser currently in existence. What alternative do you suggest? Google and Microsoft are certainly worse. Firefox is vastly superior to the offerings of these multi billion dollar companies. Chrome and edge are exactly the prisons that these companies designed them to be. What specifically should laypeople do to regain something resembling a usable Internet? Firefox and ublock origin is the only answer I have.

Hyperboreanal 2y ago
[flagged]
- KingMob 2y ago
  [flagged]

jillesvangurp 2y ago

The good news is that development could easily be funded by donations. It's only a few million. Enough to keep a few dozen people employed. The bad news is that donations are unlikely to happen with the current massive misspending on overpaid people with no technical background that don't code that spend 95% of their budget on themselves, support staff that also doesn't code, offices they don't need, commercial products that flop, monetization schemes that fail, etc. I wouldn't. And I'm a user! Mozilla needs to be restructured. And ideally they diversify their commercial ecosystem as well. Because they are way too dependent on Google. If you look at Rust, created by Mozilla, they are set up in a more sane way. There's a foundation. It's well funded with sponsorships from the big companies that use and depend on Rust. Those companies employ people that contribute to Rust. Many OSS organizations are set up like that. It works. The diversity of contributors and commercial sponsors ensures neutrality and longevity. No single company has veto power. As long as valuable tech comes out, companies stay involved. Some disappear, new ones come along. Linux development works like that as well. Ironically, Chromium at this point is better positioned to become like that. The main issue is that Google still employs most of the developers and controls the roadmap. But there are quite a few commercial chromium based products: Edge, Brave, Opera, etc. that each have development teams using and contributing to it. Add Electron (has its own foundation, based on chromium) to the mix and the countless commercial applications using that and you have a healthy ecosystem that could survive Google completely disengaging if they'd be forced to split off their browser activities. I use Firefox mainly because of the iron grip keeps over Chromium and it's clear intent to cripple ad blocking, grab user data, and exploit its user base. But I worry about the dysfunctional mess that is Mozilla.

notpushkin 2y ago
The better news are, Mozilla gets around $30 million as investment income ($37M in 2023 [1]). Some people argue that it’s not enough to maintain Firefox but that sounds weird to me. Chromium is not a good alternative: 95% of Chromium commits come from Google. [2] [1]: https://wiki.rossmanngroup.com/wiki/File:501c3_2023_990_Mozilla_Foundation_-_Full_Filing_-_Nonprofit_Explorer_-_ProPublica.pdf https://wiki.rossmanngroup.com/wiki/File:501c3_2023_990_Mozi... [2]: https://chromiumstats.github.io/cr-stats/authors/company_authors.html https://chromiumstats.github.io/cr-stats/authors/company_aut...

paulryanrogers 2y ago

In this landscape I'm curious if any amount of money can overcome the oligopoly advantages of owning the OS (with no anti-trust enforcement) or owning the most popular web properties. Even if every cent for the past ten years went to browser dev alone, would that have made a difference? Do regular users even know the difference between one browser and another? Or is it only the icon they recognize, if even that?

onlyrealcuzzo 2y ago
You're spending money in the wrong place - spend it on marketing instead of dev, and you've got a shot.
- paulryanrogers 2y ago
  People aren't motivated to change the defaults, unless they're told they should change by "clicking here" in prominent (non-ad) banners. Mozilla cannot buy the OS defaults nor such brand positions.
n_ary 2y ago
> Do regular users even know the difference […] Honestly, from observing my close family and friends as well as passing by strangers, everyone uses whatever default comes(i.e. Chrome on Android) or again Chrome(on iOS because they saw some banner ad somewhere to install it to access their password stored previously in android life). The core portal to internet currently appears to be the blue-F(aka Facebook) icon which has an interesting search. People search in Facebook for specific topic and then will reluctantly move over to browser and again search on Google(always default). So, in summary no, everyone uses Chrome and does not know the difference. Some of my colleagues seem to use Brave and Linux die-hards use Firefox(comes default with ubuntu last I tried ubuntu).
scarface_74 2y ago
Android is only 30% of the market in the US. I don’t know how much browser usage comes from Chromebooks. Every single Windows and Mac user who uses Chrome made an affirmative choice to download Chrome. Why didn’t they decide to download Firefox?

alberth 2y ago

I know your intention is probably well placed but we do though need to factor in revenues: Year Revenue ---- ------- 2007 $75M 2023 $653M I bring this up because G&A of big companies (in general) always outpaces R&D once they hit scale ... and in an ideal situation - your revenues should outpace R&D expense because you're getting economies of scale (which further dilutes the R&D to Other Business Function comparison). And Mozilla has hit scale / become "big company" - with those kinds of revenues. The reason why G&A outpaces R&D, is because now you have all kinds of work to do that you don't have to do when your small/underdog, like: - regulatory compliance - legal - privacy - advocacy - public relations - etc... When you're the underdog, you don't have to deal with these activities and as a result, your expense base is more heavily skewed toward R&D.

timewizard 2y ago
Isn't Mozilla a non-profit though? Why does mozilla.ai exist? Didn't we like a trust the product more in 2007 than we do now? I mean, yay for scale, but haven't we lost something here?
- sdk- 2y ago
  Mozilla Foundation is a non-profit but Mozilla Corporation which develop Firefox is a for-profit entity. There are other subsidiaries under the foundation umbrella like Mozilla.ai and MZLA/Thunderbird. This isn't something uncommon for large entity and there are many advantages. For example, it gives more freedom in term of decision making and spending to projects that aren't targeting the exact same consumer segment. Think about Thunderbird. Under Mozilla Corporation, it was always in the shadow of Firefox. Now, it's striving as an independent project.
  - notpushkin 2y ago
    Now if only we had MZLA for Firefox...
- dralley 2y ago
  > Why does mozilla.ai exist? AI threatens both browsers and search engines, is why. Apple, Google and Microsoft all have their own efforts. Mozilla working on local-first AI isn't a bad idea.

abtinf 2y ago

How much of that $260m is invested in Firefox? The docs don’t say.

dblohm7 2y ago
Put it this way: there are a lot more than “a few dozen” engineers working on Firefox.

Jzush 2y ago

In general it has been my experience that administrators primary functions are to justify administrators jobs. Usually by any ill considered and ill researched manner as possible.

traceroute66 2y ago

> I am not familiar with what is typical in American NPO's but I can't help but feel that my money will not be spent on the right stuff. I would agree with you there. Sadly the art of troughing is a well known feature of larger NPOs. That's why (IMHO) people should never blindly donate to NPOs without first taking a quick look at their financial accounts to get a feel for how much troughing is going on. Honestly, if I had my way, I would make it law to have a simple-to-read one-page summary of that data for every NPO. I also do not buy the oft-cited argument "well, we have to attract talent by paying them 'competitively' ". Well no. If the "talent" wants a fat paycheck, they can go work in the private sector. If they are going to work at an NPO, then they should WANT to work for the NPO, not just see it as another spot for their CV. In many (most?) cases they will be in charge of an army of well-meaning unpaid volunteers, its not a good look for the C-suite to roam around in private cars, businssess-class flights, have fancy "away days" etc. etc.

z3t4 2y ago

The solution is to keep adding management layers until the company implode. The problem is that when it has gone too far all the people who are left are those that do not take responsibility.

wkat4242 2y ago

Why can't you get away from marketing a free product? But yeah that ratio is totally off. Paying the CEO 7 million also won't help.