>it does seem no company gets quite the same level of criticism as Mozilla on HN
Perhaps, but Mozilla is also the company most centered at the intersection "mission we like and wish the company succeeded at" and "management doing stupid shit one after another"....
I am puzzled why didn’t they lunch their own VPN to the world and instead got a rebranded one and it’s still restricted only to few countries. To me that’s another proof they’re just not great at operating.
They knew they weren't good at executing on something, so they partnered with a company with a proven track record, and leveraged their brand to make sure both Mozilla and their partner got value.
It's a very successful business model, and has been used everywhere (entertainment is a great example, most IP owners license the creation of content outside of their immediate domain to other developers - toy manufacturers, video game studios, comic book and board games companies, etc).
In a world where the relevance of Firefox is waning, investing in a brand where user centricity, privacy, and security are key, and maintaining high standards on licensees is a winning strategy, especially if Mozilla owns the customer relationships.
Also, they rebranded a quality one. Mullvad has an excellent track record. It was one of the first VPNs to support WireGuard, and its one of the very few which can be paid by with cash money.
That said, 3 million USD/year is a ridiculous wage for a non-profit (even if its a for-profit-in-non-profit construction). There's no function in the world which warrants such a wage.
You didn’t answer the main question of the GP, as to why Mozilla VPN hasn’t been launched in many more countries. After all, the service from Mullvad can be bought directly from most countries…tens of countries more than where Mozilla VPN is currently available.
I'm always amazed when seemingly everyone in a thread on Mozilla has only negative things to say. I for one welcomed the UI change with the new tabs and look forward to give them some money if this MDN Plus turns out to be interesting.
Because Mozilla, from all the looks of it, has turned from a company that innovated in the web, into a cash cow providing its CEO with means to support her luxurious lifestyle. This, as well as the fact that if I’d like to donate to the browser specifically, I can’t, screams “money laundering” and “corruption” to me. What else it is, if abysmal company performance is rewarded with bonuses?
Now there will come those saying that since it’s not a government, it can’t be corruption, they can go ans screw themselves in advance.
It is clear from your tone that you won't be convinced by any argument, but why is it that this particular CEO earning a high salary is "money laundering" and "corruption"?
Mozilla and Firefox developers are still actively engaged in web standards, and are still punching above their weight in terms of building a web browser with a small team, and narrow revenue streams.
I don't necessarily agree that Mozilla has the right leadership, but how do you expect that leadership to change constructively if the pay isn't competitive with other tech companies of similar size and scale (1/2 Billion in revenue, and hundreds of millions of users)?
Do you think that Mozilla lately producing flops instead of products (except for the browser, but that is slowly turning into a flop too) is all because its CEO is “underpaid”?
Turning the anti-monopoly racket protection money from Google into rent for Mozilla’s executives while the company is consistently underperforming when it comes to its stated goals does sound like corruption.
In an underperforming company, executives have no grounds for rewards or raises. In a still-healthy company, they would likely have been replaced.
Why don't you understand the fact that Mozilla isn't perfect in every way forces me to use the much more ethical browser made by Google. At least Google's CEOs aren't paid that much.. /s
>it does seem no company gets quite the same level of criticism as Mozilla on HN
People here literally accuse Facebook of being a global Orwellian totalitarian superstate that engages in genocide and MK-ULTRA style mind-control, but OK.
>I hope I am not the lone positive voice in the thread - it does seem no company gets quite the same level of criticism as Mozilla on HN
That's what happens when you go around with a holier-than-thou attitude: they set high standars for the industry when they themselves fail to meet those standards every time.
Frankly, it's better than the race to the bottom that most tech companies are satisfied with.
My issues with Mozilla's leadership team were never about the vision, mostly about the execution. I don't like Brendan Eich's politics, or the cryptocurrency and borderline shakedown approach that he used to build and launch Brave, but the goal of keeping competition alive on the web? I could get behind that.
I don't like the recurring fallback to Google search revenue by the Mozilla leadership team, but it's kept Mozilla around to keep fighting the fight, and give the opportunity to find other options to keep fighting for their principles (which are not wokeness and leftism, despite what folks would have you believe - https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/manifesto/ )
Choosing a hill to die on doesn't make you virtuous, it just makes you dead. Mozilla is alive and seems to be trying to move forward, and I hope they succeed.
Perhaps, but Mozilla is also the company most centered at the intersection "mission we like and wish the company succeeded at" and "management doing stupid shit one after another"....