Comment by feelin_googley | Hacker News Reader

Comment by feelin_googley | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Even if there was a "right to track", then it would be the user who grants it.

Because it originates with the user, the user could refuse to grant it or revoke it.

The question for Mozilla is who are they accountable to?

These are not open source volunteers.

Mozilla can claim it is not a "for-profit" but its contributors are well-compensated, with salaries comparable to people working at the for-profit companies releasing web browsers. (Google Chrome was started by former Mozilla developers.)

"We are proudly non-profit, non-corporate and non-compromised."

https://donate.mozilla.org/

Question: What makes Mozilla any more trustworthy to users than the other companies releasing web browsers?

Question: Why should they care about users any more than those companies?

Annual salaries from 2015 (reportable compensation from IRS Form 990):

  Mitchell Baker, Chair $977,382 + $45,530
  Bob Lisborne, Director $92,000
  Mark Surman, Exec. Dir./President $170,699 + $40,602
  Jim Cook, Treasurer $934,526 + $45,530
  Angela Plohman, Secretary/VP Operations $121,322 + $30,342
  Christopher Lawrence, VP Learning $153,492 + $62,538
  An-Me Chung, Dir. Partnerships 154,946 + $72,672
  Daniel Sinker, Dir. Partnerships 123,630 + $64,215
  Hiram Paul Johnson, Marketing Lead 126,605 + 54, 903
  Andrea Wood, Online Organizing/Fundraising Lead $135,048 + $46,322
  Samuel Dyson, Director Hive Chicago $114,860 + $63,549

https://static.mozilla.com/moco/en-US/pdf/2015_Mozilla_Found...

Question: How much of this comes from donations and how much comes (indirectly) from sale of advertising (by "partners")?

They get about half of their total revenue ($12,429,238) from licensing royalties ($6,466,566) according to the 2015 filing.

Question: Are there really any incentives to serve users in ways that the companies releasing web browsers do not? Users want the tracking to stop. Would Mozilla have disincentives to help users in this regard?

There is no "corruption" being implied by the above. It is legal to pay high salaries and not pay taxes.

I don't know what you're trying to say? If you're accusing the Mozilla management of corruption, you should really offer more than the fact that, yes, people at non-profits also get salaries.

The only qualitative difference for a non-profit is the lack of owners demanding return on invested capital.

> How much of this comes from donations and how much comes (indirectly) from sale of advertising (by "partners")?

Well you have the numbers right there. Mozilla doesn't sell ads anywhere as far as I know. Apart from grants and donations, they only have the google search deal as a major source of income.

The deal is with Yahoo.

Two years after Mozilla Foundation was announced in 2003, the Mozilla Corporation was announced. It engages in commerce and it keeps profits. It is responsible for paying taxes.

"'The formation of the Mozilla Corporation gives the Mozilla Foundation new capabilities for becoming even more successful in delivering innovative open source end-user products," said Mitchell Baker, president of Mozilla Corporation. "The Mozilla Corporation is not a typical commercial entity. Rather, it is dedicated to the public benefit goal at the heart of the Mozilla project, which is to keep the Internet open and available to everyone.'

The broad adoption of Mozilla Firefox has created significant economic value both in Firefox itself and in a commercial ecosystem that is developing around Firefox."

http://www.mozilla.org/press/mozilla-2005-08-03.html

Is the delivery of "end-user products" not the source of revenues for the Corporation? What if all those products are delivered for free? Then where do the revenues come from?

Giving away free software while still producing significant revenues from commerce seems to resemble the other corporations that deliver web browsers and other free web software. Regarding those companies, it has been said that "Users are the product".

Note I am not implying anyone has done anything wrong. Each party is expected to pursue its own self-interest. Freedom of choice is a necessary component of an "Internet that is open and available to everyone".

These are just some facts that I believe could be relevant to users who are not interested in marketing user data or the advertising sales ecosystem.

Side remark: One twelfth of Mozilla’s annual revenue goes directly to its highest-paid employee? Talk about 10x programmer, that lady must be a genius.

Mozilla employs about 1000 people and has revenues of around 300M-400M, so there's been a miscalculation there. 1/400th with 1000 employees doesn't sound very high at all.

The numbers are probably from the Mozilla Foundation, which only employs a few people, so obviously they're going to be remunerated highly percentage-wise.

Ah, ok, thank you, that explains it a little bit at least! :)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com