|
|
|
|
|
|
by eitland
2075 days ago
|
|
|
> Well Mozilla spends over $50 million year-over-year on non-development costs that have generally proven to be completely ineffective Warning: opinions and unresearced statements ahead Considering the contract they landed earlier this year many of us would be really happy to fail so successfully financially. That said: Of course on the technical side they've given away much of their previously huge edge on extensibility, gained some performance (or so I hear, I never had issues with the old Firefox) and some security (again: from what I hear). Oh, and spent some major goodwill from the security community on stupid gimmicks. Here's to hoping they can pull something off (for example by sponsoring this project or something, I don't know) to make themselves relevant again and stay relevant by again capturing the power user / enthusiast niche. Because right now we are starving for better alternatives, there isn't exactly much to be enthusiastic about at the moment IMO: browsers just get more and more complex and enable more and more crazy applications. |
|
|
This is worded as if it's a retort to the previous comment, but... how is it supposed to be?
The claim is that Mozilla's marketing program is overbudgeted and useless, not that Mozilla is "financially [un]successful". Even if you subscribe to the philosophy that multi-million royalties -> success, there's no contradiction. The only way that would be a contradiction is if the marketing team is the one that "landed" that deal. (And that deal isn't even new. Mozilla and Google have had similar deals forever.)