Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

If I were the CEO, I would:

- focus 100% on Firefox Desktop & Mobile - just a fast solid minimalist browser (no AI, no BS) - other features should be addons - privacy centric - builtin, first-class, adblocker - run on donations - partner with Kagi - layoff 80% of the non-tech employees

I worked for them for many years, I guarantee you that Mozilla will be fine without all the non-sense people, just put engineers in charge.





Donations only get you so far. Take a mid-sized project, that needs $500k per year (a few devs, very modestly paid, zero expenses). It's a lot of money. It requires a huge user base. Say you have 500k users, and 5% donate $25 per year (I'm optimistic). And that's just $500k US, a few devs, zero expenses. A project that size probably has audit requirements, hosting costs, accounting, legal, trademarks, etc.

I see finances for a few free software projects, and many of them really struggle to get donations year after year, in a way that helps make the project predictable and sustainable.

For the US, people want you to be a 501c3, and then you need a EU equivalent. Canadians are unlikely to give to a US org (especially these days), but the market is too small to setup a local charity. So you need partners. All that has many compliance requirements and paperwork, so you need non-tech employees for the fundraising and accounting.

Eventually your big donors start blackmailing the project if you don't do what they want, and often their interests are not aligned with most users. You need various income sources.


With 1.3b in reserves, it's enough for funding development for many years to come if they fire most of management and close irrelevant to the browser things.

It would be organizational suicide to spend down their endowment just because they can. Right now it exists as a firewall to buy them some time in the event that search licensing goes away, which I think is exactly what they should have done with it.

And it's been talked to death before but the idea that the browser side bets are at some prohibitive cost is an unsubstantiated myth, conjured into existence by vibes in comment sections. It's the HN equivalent of American voters who think foreign aid is 50% of the federal budget.


Do you realize what 1.300.000.000$ is? Say you invest most of it in a safe way to get you inflation + 2%. That gives you 26.000.000$ every year. You can pay 100 engineers with this. Firefox is a browser. Sure a browser is complicated but 100 motivated and talented engineers is more than enough to make a good product if you focus on what matters.

There is no excuse to what is going on.


How do you think they got that money in the first place? They've been growing this fund from $100MM in the 2010s to where it is now, by carefully managing and investing it.

Hilariously, you're here presenting something Mozilla has already been doing for nearly two decades like it's a new idea that only you have thought of. Yes, I realize how much that is: enough to cover their operating costs for like 2.5 years.

And sure, it's amazing how much an endowment can do if you give up and wipe out most of their staff and embrace magical thinking.


The point is that the organization is bloated because of the search money.

The sustainable way forward for Mozilla is to fire most of their staff, keep a reasonable number of engineers, and focus on building a solid privacy focused browser instead of trend chasing like they’re doing now. Reduce operational costs and live off of the profits on their investments.

Exactly what about that is magical thinking?


I dont even think they employ close to 100 FTE devs actually working on Firefox at this point.

Mozilla spent $260 million on software development in 2023.[1] How do you believe they spent it?

Vivaldi employ 28 developers to produce an unstable Chromium fork and email program for comparison.[2]

[1] https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2024/mozilla-fdn-202...

[2] https://vivaldi.com/team/


Props for citing real numbers! I hope other people reading this thread are looking at your comment and understanding that this is how you make reality based comments. One tidbit I will add: that's more than they have ever spent on development historically, including after adjusting for inflation. IIRC it's about quadruple what they spent back when browsers were desktop only when they had their highest market share.

Well, I do not believe $260 million went to Firefox development. I would be surprised if the majority of that went to other non-Firefox projects like:

Various AI initiatives (Mozilla.ai, Orbit, etc.)

Mozilla VPN

Mozilla Monitor

Pocket

Firefox Relay

Fakespot

Mozilla Social

Mozilla Hubs

... just to name a few.


I think you're probably about as dead wrong as it's possible to be on this front. First they ship millions of new LoC to Firefox on a monthly basis so the engineering efforts are open for all the world to see.

Secondly, if more than half(!?!) was spent on, say, Pocket, or Fakespot, then you would see a rise and fall in spending coinciding with the onramp and closure of those programs over their lifetimes. But in reality we have seen a steady upward march in spending, and so the interpretation that passes the sanity check is that they fold these into their existing budget with the existing development capacity they have which is variously assigned to different projects, including(!!) Firefox, where again, their annual code output is monumental and rivals Google.

Again I have to note the blizzard of contradictory accusations throughout this thread. According to one commenter the problem is they are biting off more than they can chew and need to scale back all of the excessive Firefox development they are doing (and I recall previous commenters speculating that 30+ million LoC was not evidence of their hard work but "bloat" that was excessive and that they probably could cut a lot of it out without losing functionality). But for you, the obvious problem is they're wasting all that capacity on side projects and not putting enough effort in the browser.


> First they ship millions of new LoC to Firefox on a monthly basis so the engineering efforts are open for all the world to see.

Who is they? You mean the thousands of unpaid developers?[0]

[0]https://openhub.net/p/firefox/factoids


Most of these projects are open source. Anyone can see how much more active Firefox development is.

Mozilla.ai's featured projects sounded like things Firefox's AI features would use.

Orbit was a Firefox extension. Firefox integrated its features. You considered this not Firefox development?

Mozilla VPN and Mozilla Monitor are interfaces to other companies' services. And they are non Google revenue sources.

Mozilla Social was a Mastodon instance. How much software development did you believe running a Mastodon instance required?


You forgot CEO comp: 7.000.000 in 2022[0]

[0]: https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2022/mozilla-fdn-990...


Oh no a nonprofit has to do nonprofit things. Can't be done, I tell you. Impossible.

To expand on Firefox mobile: if you haven’t tried it, give it a shot. uBlock Origin works just like on desktop. I have seen maybe five ads on my phone browser (including Youtube!) since buying it in 2019.

Yes! I can confirm it works just like on desktop. I'm shocked when I have to use other people's phones. How do they put up with all these ads?

This! So many times!

Can I get details on ad blocking in Firefox on iOS? I have an ad blocker which works well in Safari but not Firefox. What am I missing?

It doesn't work on iOS. All browsers in iOS are Safari with a different frontend. Apple doesn't allow it to be any different.

But many browsers on iOS support ad blockers. Most like Brave and Vivaldi have it built in. Others like Orion and Edge have added support for extensions. Firefox is one of the only that does not have any support for an ad blocker.

I think you might need to use Nightly version for this.

My only complaint about Firefox on Android is it's slow even with ad blocking. Chrome is noticeably faster. Brave gives you the best of both worlds: speed and ad blocking.

The only issue is that Firefox on mobile is visibly breaking a couple of sites every now and then; if you can put up with that for no ads (I can), then its great.

Which? I've never seen this through many years of daily use.

...on android.

> Mozilla will be fine without all the non-sense people, just put engineers in charge.

That's always said by the engineers and never seems more than the obvious egocentric bias: What I do is important, everyone and everythying else is pointless.


Yep. I’ll die on the hill. Engineer and designers. That’s all we really need.

We started with a very very small team and did all the heavy lifting. Then they started adding PM, marketing, market people, HR, …

We were striving when we were not drowning in meetings, KPIs, management, emails, …


Who provides resources to the Es and Ds? Who hires new ones? Who raises money from investors and banks, and ensures you have cash flow and ROI? How do you manage 100 Es and Ds without a PM?

Small teams are more efficient but (obviously) can't produce at scale. When you scale up, there's enough HR or finance or marketing, or PM, etc. work for full-time specialists. And larger orgs need bureaucracy - if you have a way around that, the world is yours.


What you call scaling up sounds more like monetization. Others (especially customers) might call it enshittification instead. Youtube is a great example of how bad it can get.

Why Mozilla won't let people financially contribute directly to Firefox development and continues to pursue these stupid monetization paths is a mystery.


I mean scaling up - growing the organization.

That should not be a goal of a nonprofit. The goal should be to make a browser, not a vehicle to justify the CEO's obscene salary.

lol - you are really looking for a fight.

> I guarantee you that Mozilla will be fine without all the non-sense people

> just put engineers in charge

I would like that but is that even possible? Look at Wikipedia. Look at schools. Once an organization develops a bad case of fat "administrator" class, can it be cured or is it terminal?

I don't want to get my hopes up for nothing.


Kagi already has their own WebKit based browser, not sure they'd be interested in that partnership.

No. Kagi uses Google results behind the scenes. Partner with Duckduckgo, yes. Or others. But please stop fueling Google, even indirectly.

DDG uses Bing instead, that's not really any better. Ideally a Browser should not partner with any websites. It's always been a deal with the devil even when Google was not as evil.

I don't know that a partnership with Kagi is the move, as great as the two work for me. The last thing you want users to see when starting up a new browser is a paywall. It would be rad to see Firefox treat Kagi as a first-class citizen, but I think a true partnership would be detrimental to both.

Agree with you on everything else, though.


Frankly, looking at the shape of Firefox I don't think that Mozilla cares for it at all - they just hold the brand because it's really well-established.

What would be the best solution today is to convince all these Firefox spinoff projects into combining forces and fully forking Firefox away from Mozilla, and don't look back. But seeing what happens around, how various projects - even the smallest ones are being lead, the moods in communities, I highly doubt that's actually possible.


Good, agreed. Let's just hope Anthony will read this.

Also, speaking of trust, return the "never sell your data" to the FAQ.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: