Mozilla is so sad. They have a lot of money and they could fund the development of both Firefox and Thunderbird.
Yet, they decide to waste almost $7 million per year to pay a CEO and God knows what else.
Mozilla is so sad. They have a lot of money and they could fund the development of both Firefox and Thunderbird.
Yet, they decide to waste almost $7 million per year to pay a CEO and God knows what else.
Here we go again. I don't love the CEO pay but it's like 1% of their annual revenue and typical for positions like that, and Mozilla constantly suffers from these kinds of double sided, quantum accusations. Depending on which random HN thread you're in, the accusation is that (a) they're running out of money and urgently need to innovate to grow their revenue streams but also (b) they've got so much money and their spending of it is simply more evidence of how wasteful they are. Which is it this time?
>and God knows what else.
They publish their financial reports. It's mostly.... the browser. They actually spend more in total and in inflation adjusted terms directly on the browser than ever in their history as a company. Unless they're just faking all those reports? Need more than vibes here.
> ... it's like 1% of their annual revenue ...
There's something about this specific part that doesn't sit well with me.
It's like justifying a huge salary for the president of a charity because they receive millions a year in donations and revenue from charity shops... it's just wrong.
7 million (assuming that's the correct value) is a lot of money. Perhaps not as much as they'd make at Google, but a lot of money nonetheless. And Mozilla is supposed to be a non-profit, with a good mission, with a manifesto, in a David vs Goliath struggle... but the CEO still makes millions, even when cuts are being made those working on the main mission?
The bar for Mozilla is different because they present themselves as being different. Multi-million salaries is what you expect from regular companies, not from good non-profits, and I think that's why the CEO's salary always comes up in these discussions.
With all this said, I also agree with the point about some of the criticism. Nothing Mozilla does pleases everyone, there's always something. It's a hard position to be in.
> urgently need to innovate to grow their revenue streams
No, people are saying that Firefox needs to diversify their revenue streams because almost all of their revenue comes from their main competitor who (likely) only keeps Firefox alive to keep regulators from forcing them to divest their browser. The situation has gotten more dire since the regulators got fired last year.
You're basically restating the very argument I'm citing, but phrasing it like you're expressing a disagreement. Diversifying revenue and growing revenue are distinct but overlapping, and both charges are made against Mozilla. This represents one side of the quantum accusation, the other being that even their search revenue is excessive and unnecessary, they don't need to spend that much anyway. According to this perspective, the 1.2 billion they have on hand should be enough to finance, development in perpetuity.
Which side of the quantum accusation will be invoked in any given comment thread? Flip a coin and find out.
>and typical for positions like that
That's the problem. CEOs get paid so much more than everyone else while typically not providing value commensurate with their pay.
like all Big Tech
Except this "big tech" larper is supposedly fully owned by a nonprofit.