How much are you willing to pay for a browser?
It's the latter company that I would not be willing to pay for, the former would have my cash, and more than they would likely expect from one single user. That's because I think that ceding the territory to Chrome/Edge is exactly what we do not need. (oh, and there is of course Safari, but Apple has other problems)
I would work with the LineageOS, Replicant, Ubuntu Touch, postmarketOS, microG, Fairphone, Pinephone, etc. folks to integrate the Gecko engine as much as possible into their offerings. Or at least offer flavors that do so, or prompts to select a browser engine on first boot. If necessary and economical I would pay LOS to ship Firefox by default.
You still have a tiny fraction of the mobile browser market, because all those platforms together are a drop in the Android & iOS ocean.
Regarding the tiny drop comment: you have to start somewhere. Why not with the users who have the most tolerance and technical skills?
Ad blocking and tracker blocking would be a central item built into the browser from the get-go. I'd get rid of any and all telemetry unless explicitly opted-in to by the user.
I'd make sure that updates are going to be limited to security issues only and that any other feature changes or additions would always be optional rather than forced.
I'd ax each and every product that is not in line with that mission. Rust would be welcome to stay since it is now part of the future of the browser, but I'd spin it out as a separate entity with its own income stream based on a trademark of the name and set up a foundation around that.
The Rustaceans would be encouraged to create their own governance structure and Mozilla would be just another user of that product.
Oh, and I'd rename the company to FireFox Brower Inc.
As for mobile, I'm sure that there is room for firefox on mobile but first you'd have to convince Apple and Google that they are on the wrong path, a distraction that likely would not lead to a win in appreciable time.
> feature changes or additions would always be optional
> Ignore mobile
So... You are increasing costs ("everything optional"), reducing visibility ("no default telemetry") and ignoring the largest and fastest growing market (mobile). How is your FireFox Browser Inc. making money?
You also didn't respond to my question at all - how is any of this supposed to increase market share?
Corporate and government data security is a related area that a strong privacy-preserving product and team with world class privacy/crypto/security expertise could expand into, especially in places like the EU and India that need a neutral and trustworthy alternative to Chrome-based and Safari-based products. Maybe even the US given the new “Clean Path” initiative.
There are opportunities but you have to stop the bleeding first. I think Jacquesm’s Apple-like strategy of focusing on the most important, already-market-proven product and saying No to most everything else is the best shot at that.
This is all wishful thinking on your part.
If you don't see how getting the second largest block of internet users strongly behind the one free browser might help to increase market share then that's puzzling but for me the GDPR + FireFox make good sense from an EU perspective. Consolidation + buildout is stop-the-bleeding 101.
That's a lot of users and a government that has made serious moves to show that they too care about user privacy.
Anyway, I did in fact answer your question, and quite exhaustively. But you did not answer mine: how much would it cost to run a lean-and-mean FireFox Inc?
Disabling telemetry is one of the first things that nearly all advanced users do when using Firefox, or when using other products known to include telemetry that can be disabled.
So now any telemetry data that are collected are distorted, given that some of the wisest and most valuable users just aren't included at all because they've disabled telemetry.
Analysis done on the distorted data comes to distorted conclusions.
Product decisions made based on such distorted conclusions end up distorting the usability of the software.
Firefox has collected telemetry for quite a while now, yet I've yet to see that translate into any identifiable improvement.
Worse, a lot of very common Firefox user requests like "make it faster" and "make it use less memory" seem to get minimal attention.
I think Firefox would be a better product, and thus a more widely used product, if the telemetry were to be completely ditched, and the common user complaints that are voiced again and again in all sorts of discussion venues were listened to instead.
Assuming your mobile browser works though.
Google, irritated by your ad-blocking-by-default, sues you. Maybe directly about the damage to their business model, maybe over the state aid you're getting from the EU. Whether or not they ultimately prevail, they can definitely tie you up for years spending lots of money on lawyers.
Meanwhile, Google's websites aren't working so well in your browser. Your support for CSS 9 and Javascript 11 was in an optional upgrade, and a load of users haven't upgraded. Even those who have are noticing problems. You suspect Google is deliberately degrading the experience, but the only chance of proving that or stopping it is another big court case. Meanwhile, users who use GMail or Youtube (i.e. most users) are slipping away.
Neither Apple nor Google are convinced they are on the wrong path on mobile.
Google is welcome to sue, they can do that anyway. But since the user is free to install any browser Google would be in very hot water with the EU anti-trust commission if they decided to mess with that right by targeting FireFox with default ad-block. I highly doubt they would do that, and if FF were 'my' company (which is the theory here) then I'd be happy to take that gamble. It would also provide some very much needed free advertising that FireFox are 'the good guys' and Google is 'the bad guys'.
FWIW I've been sued by large companies in the past and successfully gained the upper hand every time. The trick is to know how to enter that battle. One possible way would be to move the FF headquarters and legal seat to Brussels, Belgium.
Good luck with that lawsuit.
Google's websites are still supposed to be standards compliant. Users have the option to stay on their older browsers but will - of course - at some point notice that. But Google - wary of that anti-trust law - will do what they can to ensure that their stuff still works. Which they do today as well.
Apple and Google own mobile. To believe that they can be unseated there on the kind of budget that FireFox Inc, can dispose of is not going to get you a good outcome.
OT, but this sounds very interesting! Have you by chance blogged about these experiences, or posted them on HN? I'd love to read more!
https://jacquesmattheij.com/when-crisis-hits/
https://jacquesmattheij.com/my-brush-with-a-patent-troll/
The most interesting one isn't mentioned in either of those, in a nutshell, one arm of Logitech sued us for Trademark infringement because our 'mascot' Chico looked too much like their camera. At the same time another arm of Logitech was making all kinds of ouvertures.
I played the one against the other and ended up with a super good relationship with Logitech upper management (board, two of the directors and founders). I guess they liked the fact that we didn't roll over just like that because they were a 500 pound gorilla. In the end the relationship worked out in our favor, Logitech did invest in a company called Spotlife and when that went belly up they sent us the traffic for nearly a decade.
Finally, I had a run-in with KPN, at the time the largest telco in nl (probably still are) and forced them to pay 300K, a lot of money at the time.
There were some other lawsuits but with smaller parties. We won all of them, mostly because if there was a chance of losing a suit we would simply find another way to solve them, preferably by standing next to much larger people who would take care of the problem long before we had to get worried.
First as a user of Firefox and Firefox Focus on Android who frequently sends urls/tabs between his devices and synchronizes a lot of things, second because you can't ignore what is now 50% of the Web usage and needs privacy as much as on desktop, if not more.
I could see myself donating some money for such an organization but not in the current state where I would feel I'm paying for the constant brand redesigns or weird activism.
This is a great reply, but I strongly disagree with this bit above - with the pace the web is (finally) moving at, I think it's really important that browsers are "ever-green". Without automatic updates, it won't be long before websites don't look right, or just don't work, in Firefox. And that could lead to the kind of chaos that IE caused, and that would lead to a lot of hate for Firefox.
I think I agree with everything else you said though, and in particular the focus on privacy seems like a great point, especially within the EU.
What if they could co-operate with Librem 1,2,3,4,5... from Purism, and PinePhone, and FairPhone, etc
— there're they might find people who would be happy for Firefox on mobile? And Rust and high performance could be nice with a phone like PinePhone
Maybe people would be ok to pay some $ per year for FF on mobile, if they believe/know it won't track everything they read.
I'm sure they wouldn't get enough revenue to replace Google's support, but maybe it would make a dent? Why not try it?
> The not-for-profit Mozilla Foundation supports open-source apps, web literacy curriculum, gender equality in tech and more.
If you want your funds to go toward MoCo (and thus Firefox development), your best bet is to subscribe to Mozilla VPN or Pocket Premium.
Has that been mentioned in a meeting somewhere?
Not explicitly, but I do recall meetings where the announcement was along the lines of "we are choosing to make a dividend payment to fund the Foundation work..." which implies some amount of adjustment based on needs.
We need Mozilla.
The VPN is their best way to monetize.