Hacker News Reader

Comment by shooper | Hacker News Reader

I think a better argument is that Mozilla needs to diversify its revenue sources. Chrome is taking away marketshare from Firefox thanks to advertising and paying a lot to be bundled with Java, Flash, Acrobat etc. updates or just being shipped as default by the PC OEMs. It makes sense for Google because then they needn't pay out so much to Mozilla. For many non tech folks where I had replaced IE with Firefox, I now see them using Chrome, and when I asked if they installed it, they usually have no idea how it got on their computer. This is a real danger that Firefox and Mozilla face.

Not sure what's the state now but a few years ago the CEO was being paid ~400K/yr to run Mozilla Corp. For that kind of money, one would expect that Mozilla would have more diverse revenue than being a one-trick pony.

View on HN

On a purely market basis, 400k buys talent comparable to a senior manager / director of the Chrome or Safari team of ~100 people, not a VP or CEO of a company with $100m annual revenue.

$400k is what one-trick ponies like doctors and lawyers and traditional industry local small business owners earn.

> $400k is what one-trick ponies like doctors and lawyers and traditional industry local small business owners earn.

Or a little under twice that of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom ( pop. 60 million ), when summing his MP and Government jobs.

The combined ministerial and parliamentary salary of the Prime Minister is £142,500 at April 2013

I'm fairly confident in saying that David Cameron puts in considerably more effort than the CEO of Mozilla. I really don't see how anyone can justify $400k for such a job.

No one goes into a political office because they want the salary. Any one who can get there is usually already rich enough that the salary doesn't make much difference. If you consider the amount of money they spend campaigning, they effectively end up paying to have the job. They take the job because of the power that comes with the job, not because of the salary.

Salary isn't based on effort, it's based on value created and how difficult it is to find someone else who could create that value.

Getting to be PM is its own reward.

Politicians often pull this sort of "I'm not here for the money and I'm proving it" trick. Please don't compare them with corporations.

> $400k is what one-trick ponies like doctors and lawyers

...and the President of the United States [1]...

> and traditional industry local small business owners earn.

[1] http://www.ipl.org/div/farq/pensionFARQ.html

The President's benefits package is mind-bogglingly rich. Besides the incredible pension and almost all expenses paid while in office and on vacation and campaigning, the job is a golden ticket to $millions in "speaker fees" afterward.

Bwahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!! Perhaps you are accurate with the first half of the first sentence, but unless your definition of VP doesn't match what medium/large corporations actually consider to be VPs (in technical areas), you are completely wrong.

", I now see them using Chrome, and when I asked if they installed it, they usually have no idea how it got on their computer"

I tend to see that too. its pretty evil too. get flash update? chrome bundled at random. navigate google sites? site may not display correctly unless you download this "link to chrome"

and so and so forth. for many users its confusing and they don't know how it happened or how to go back.

> For many non tech folks where I had replaced IE with Firefox, I now see them using Chrome, and when I asked if they installed it, they usually have no idea how it got on their computer.

Chrome probably got there the same way Firefox got there - a well meaning individual (you, in the case of Firefox) installed it and told them to use it because it is "better".

Also b/c anytime you visit Google.com on any non-Chrome browser, it tells you to install Chrome for faster browsing. Google.com is so sparse that Chrome ad sticking out on the side is quite effective.

I wish I could find a "market share over time" chart but I can't. Anyways, IIRC I don't believe Chrome is still taking (much) aware from Firefox. They did for a long time but then flattened. Recently Chrome has dipped a little and Firefox is up: http://thenextweb.com/insider/2013/11/01/ie11-takes-1-49-mar...

Arstechnica has always nice plots based on netmarketshare.com Here is a recent article:

http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/11/intern...

Does this count? http://gs.statcounter.com/

w3schools is relatively small but their stats are good:

http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp

And there's also Google trends.

When I installed Flash Player on a Windows laptop recently, I was surprised to see a download bundle featuring Chrome. I thought it was the other way around: install Chrome and you get Flash whether you want it or not.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com