> Revenue (per year)
>2014 $420 million
>2015 $420 million
>2016 $520 million
>2017 $562 million
>2018 $436 million
I'm sorry, it's just laughable that you need $500 million a year to create an 'open source' web browser.
Pathetic
>2014 $420 million
>2015 $420 million
>2016 $520 million
>2017 $562 million
>2018 $436 million
I'm sorry, it's just laughable that you need $500 million a year to create an 'open source' web browser.
Pathetic
The picture of Mozilla as frail organization just barely squeaking by has been very lucrative.
The fact is, Mozilla has been in the current position for the last 10 years, which is one that is far less precarious than it's made out to be, hasn't done anything that substantially ameliorates what precarity does exist, and instead continues making awful decisions that push away both people in its user base and its potential set of contributors, with the kicker being that the purported looming threat of poverty is used as the justification for all decisions made. And they never budge on anything, except to move further down on all measures that they point to. So how smart and well-reasoned are those decisions again?
Signed, a lifetime Firefox user (for lack of a better option).
They also spend tens of millions of dollars a year on their marketing department -- a bigger budget than Firefox's entire development budget 15 years ago (i.e., when Firefox was actually on an upward trajectory). There's certainly money going into actual marketing, but the returns on that investment are terrible to the point that they'd probably be just as well off cutting the budget in two, keeping one half of it to be allocated for some other purpose, flushing the other half directly down the toilet, and doing no marketing at all (or maybe walking out into the street, handing it to random passersby, and saying, "this is from Mozilla; you should really use Firefox").
The level of complexity to create a modern web browser, specially one that has in-house engines like Firefox, is comparable to a modern OS.
How many full time developers are paid by the Linux Foundation?
It's funny, their budget is much smaller than firefox
https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/460...
Maybe all this complexity and constant changes to the web comes from the fact that there are hundreds and hundreds of employees paid to tinker around.
Mozilla is effectively a $500 Million dollar corporation, not a non-profit.
Money corrupts absolutely.
These are distributions. Their main role is to package upstream software. That is different from actually writing an entire OS.
You should compare to however much Microsoft pays all of the developers that work on the different components of Windows.
> How many full time developers are paid by the Linux Foundation? > > It's funny, their budget is much smaller than firefox
That's because the vast majority of Linux development is not done by employees of the Linux Foundation. Only a few top-level maintainers, including Linus Torvalds and Greg K-H, are employed by the Linux Foundation.
Most Linux code these days is written by people employed by companies like Intel, Huawei, Google, Red Hat, NXP, Facebook, etc. See https://lwn.net/Articles/839772/ for example.
You would do good by reading a bit before saying things online.
Edit: Getting downvotes for this honest question. I didn't realize that browser rendering engines held that much control. Apologies for the silly thought.
Firefox gutted all of their internals with project Servo. If they had instead integrated Blink would it have been any different?
I always think it's interesting what things people want to have diverse ecosystems with competing implementations (browsers) and what things people consider that an unnecessary duplication of effort (Wayland compositors).
If you go into threads about Wayland the overwhelming public opinion is that having lots of compositors is silly. And then you go into threads about browsers the overwhelming public opinion is that having multiple browser implementations is sacred.
Just because they're failing at it doesn't mean they're not trying (AMP, needless degradation of Google services in non-Chrome browsers, etc). They only have to succeed once.
If Firefox became a Chrome skin then sure, v bad for the web. But if Firefox internally used Bink and V8 it's not really all that doom and gloom.
Happens all the time. Without Webkit and Gecko, the web would simply be "whatever Google wants to do". Having multiple browser implementations helps balance out whatever Google's agenda is at any given time.
The reason you have multiple implementations of JS and rendering/layout engines is because they provide a specific technical benefit, not a political one. The browser built on top doesn’t have to be anything like Chrome.
Safari is the only browser that has any significant uptake (~20%) and Chromium was forked from WebKit, so all Chromium browsers already share a good chunk of their foundation with WebKit. You could say that we really almost have a WebKit monoculture since Firefox, the only non-Chromium/WebKit browser only has 3.65% of the market. [0]
Heck, the vast majority of Internet servers and most of the clients are running on the Linux kernel but nobody is complaining about that.
I'm sure there are many backend libraries, parsers, etc. that are used by both Chrome and Firefox, but they're unlikely to replace significant components like that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazda#Partnership_with_Ford_Mo...
This is like asking why Pepsi doesn't just copy Coke's recipe.
It's cool to have multiple implementations but this analogy doesn't work since browser rendering engines are trying to produce identical results. You wouldn't say that PyPy exists as an alternative to Python, would you?
I think you would if Python (proper) was controlled by an anti-competitive information stealing superpower which is becoming increasingly disliked.
Alternative backends to Python would be very important. Ensuring that the language is still usable in the event that the primary contributor goes full-tilt evil.
With that said, i don't think it matters (personally) if Mozilla has their own engine _or_ browser, in the most strict sense. What matters is that both of those things have invested parties capable of forking and/or maintaining free and open source versions of those things in the event that Chrome (ala Google) goes full evil.
It does seem that maintaining your own browser and rendering engine seem effective ways to ensuring you're capable of carrying the torch should Chrome disappear tomorrow. Hypothetically they could just maintain/develop directly into Blink and Chromium.
The purpose of Firefox doesn't exist without Gecko, they both are to serve as an "independent" alternative force in the browser space.
When was Mozilla trying to create an OS from scratch?
The closest they came was FirefoxOS which was using Gecko browser engine (existing) on top of Linux kernel (existing) and a host of other existing open source projects, and FirefoxOS was (unfortunately) a dismal failure.
The level of complexity of a modern web browser is comparable to that of a OS. It is not an OS though.
If Mozilla was smart and didn't spend coin for useless stuff (Pocket?), they'd be able to set up a trust fund with all this money, that would sustain them indefinitely.
But given what we're reading here it's no surprise that the corpse of Mozilla uses dark patters at every possible level to obfuscate what they are trying to do.
If they drop those millions of revenue I believe their market share will sharply drop. Opera is operating on around $100 million of revenue and they are in 1% range of market share.
I bet Microsoft can spend $100 million or less just to be around 7% with Edge since they have Windows. I also don't think Google is spending much more to keep Chrome at around 70% when they own search and YouTube and Android.
They need $500 million just to keep head above the water and remember they are swimming with sharks.