"Moving Forward"
"achieved positive growth again and dramatically reset our global search strategy"
Did anyone else find those phrases to be a bit too much corporatese for Mozilla?
"achieved positive growth again and dramatically reset our global search strategy"
Did anyone else find those phrases to be a bit too much corporatese for Mozilla?
If you don't want to read corporatese, well, don't read a corporate blog. Mozilla is a great company and a great presence for the web, but Mozilla Corp is still a corp, even if the Mozilla Foundation is a non-profit.
The Mozilla Corporation employs most people working on Firefox, and is controlled by the nonprofit. It pays taxes and salaries and so forth, but all of its goals are driven by the nonprofit.
It's similar to nonprofit hospitals and similar things, again where there is a nonprofit that controls a for-profit entity (as hospitals need to employ people, pay taxes, etc., like a normal business).
The corporation is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the non-profit, so the .org domain isn't necessarily a misrepresentation, either.
What matters is how public perceives this, too. Posting corp stuff on the org domain/site means that then they are fully corporate-like. Which maybe is simply the case.
You can't justify that its not the case because Mofo owns Moco.. then say both Moco and Mofo share everything without implying its all just a corp. (or the opposite, but not both).
If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that the tone of this post is too corporate for a .org and is a bad choice if we want to imply that Mozilla isn't just some for-profit company (which we don't, we like talking about how we're non-profit and open source and mission-driven).
Honestly I don't think anyone cares. We'd get the same trouble for posting corporate speak on a .com vs a .org because by the time you care about that, you already know enough about Mozilla to be bothered regardless of the domain.
Phrases like those belong in press releases, not a blog post from an organization intelligent people respect.
I mean it's sort've a redundant term, but in context (positive growth of Firefox users, something that has been falling for a while now) it makes perfect sense to me. What did you think he was saying?
Sort of a meaningless term?
How about we replace it with "negative decrease"?
Sure, but it's Corporatese for "grew".
My understanding from reading Mozilla people, and from my own intuition, is that without significant market power for Firefox, Mozilla loses influence for all its priorities, including the open web, end-user control, etc.
Firefox's market share is very important to Mozilla, to everyone who shares Mozilla's priorities, and to everyone affected by them (which might be, simply, "everyone").
With that being said, Mozilla has been (in my mind) the pro consumer, pro internet org to challenge the establishment. So far, its worked wonders -- we have a diverse ecosystem, new burning edge interfaces and plugin market places to boot. The partnership with the Tor project gave me hope. However..reading that PR blurb/intro made me want to pluck out my eyeballs. Where is the heart? The direction? The challenge?
Mozilla -- Its time you returned to your roots. Find the spark that set you free and fan the flames.
You named 5 things that happened in the span of 3 years over 12 years ago, and one that has been around for a decade. I'm pretty sure you can in fact keep up.
> Where is the heart? The direction? The challenge?
Please.
What else you got? Something about the cloud? Add in a few more buzzwords and throw it under the /corporate blog then apologize for it.
I'd love to see some clarity, direction, and a genuine plan for impact in the future. Not a knee jerk deal with a failed search engine paired with some bumbling about consolidation, mergers and yes, the cloud. There is plenty of that type of 'news' on Forbes.