[RyanHamilton]

If this was a for profit company I could agree with your focus on profit. Their mission statement is: "Mozilla is a global nonprofit dedicated to keeping the Internet a global public resource that is open and accessible to all.". You could argue the importance of market share at some percentages but below ~5% has to be considered a priority one emergency, if your goal is to keep the internet accessible for all. If their market share fell below 1% they would have effectively almost zero ability to steer standards.

[TedDoesntTalk]

> If this was a for profit company I could agree with your focus on profit.

There are two parts to Mozilla: a for-profit company and a non-profit company. They are separate. You are reading the mission statement of mozilla.org, not mozilla.com. Mitchell Baker is the CEO of the for-profit company, not the non-profit.

[wodenokoto]

Isn’t she chief lizard wrangler at both?

[TedDoesntTalk]

No. Mark Surman is the executive director of the non-profit (executive director is the term used for CEO at non-profits). She is the chair of the non-profit board, which is probably not a paid position (or paid very small token amount).

[nine_k]

A non-profit company is not a zero-revenue company. It's a company that reinvests all profits into its designated cause. A non-profit org with a billion-dollar revenue is a great non-profit org as it can finance the work on its cause really well.

[wodenokoto]

It kinda is a for profit organization.

Basically all revenue is made through the Mozilla Corporation.

[Certhas]

The question is, can you change the market share? Specifically as long as you depend on Google for your income.

If not, then the goal should be to build up assets and alternative revenue streams.