"On the same period, Firefox marketshare was down 85%. When asked about her salary she stated "I learned that my pay was about an 80% discount to market. Meaning that competitive roles elsewhere were paying about 5 times as much. That's too big a discount to ask people and their families to commit to."
This lady then goes on and on talking about "social justice".
You can't make this shit up.
Yeah, put political pressure on technical teams to fuck up — it's a tradition.
If this CEO is providing value, I'm not seeing it.
As someone who works on the digital payments/processing side of the house for a charity, I can tell you that accepting designations is a can of worms that smaller charities would certainly want to avoid.
it's not a small charity
Inertia and network effects won't change quickly though
Take this thread, for example: https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=15168#p109681
In an ideal world the best browser would win but marketshare doesn't work that way.
Microsoft has full time development teams working on Edge and it is just barely chipping away at chrome's dominance. And, in no small part because they pester Windows users to make Edge the default at every opportunity.
import solution
and some additional fluff (tracking,telemetry and other anti features in Edge's case) did you really do your homework?
2. The story was no different even when they were still using Trident as their engine.
When 85% of people use the same browser stack we're back in the bad old days of IE6.
This goes to the Mozilla Foundation and not to the browser's development. As far as I know there is currently no way to donate to the browser's development.
Electron is also popular and Mozilla could produce a Firefox-based alternative (whose selling points could be performance/memory usage/battery life) and provide commercial support.
Is it going to sustain extravagant salaries & bonuses for the C-suite? Debatable. But it can absolutely be a suitable business paying reasonable salaries.
Isn't that a lot like saying "those sausages with toothpicks in them at the supermarket" are not saleable products?
A lot of Mozilla's money seems to be spent on executive pay, overhead, and questionable side projects. Not so much (or not enough) on browser development, it seems. I'd MUCH prefer Firefox to be a product organization with its own budget and perhaps a yearly contribution from Mozilla. I have more faith in Firefox than in Mozilla.
1) The nonprofit Mozilla foundation
2) The Mozilla corporation
The foundation owns the corporation.
The corporation develops Firefox and is primarily funded by the Google search deal. It also develops pocket and the VPN and gets some funding from their sales.
The foundation is funded by grants and donations, both from individuals and from other organizations (including from the corporation).