[glenstein]

People repeat this ad nauseum, but assume away all the critical details that would actually make the argument work.

Do we have any assessment, other than people in comment sections randomly just saying so, that any of these actually came at the cost of developer resources on the core browser?

I feel like people have heard this repeated so many times that they keep saying it now. All of these issues were real, in 2016. And Firefox did the thing: they rebuilt the browser from the ground up under Quantum, achieving breakthrough performance and stability that everybody was asking for. And in the present day, the differences are real but subtle, and I don't think they have anything to do with the actual drivers of browser market share, which is about Google leveraging its unparalleled position in search and on Android.

Is the argument supposed to be that if the VPN wasn't there then like the tab snapping would work more smoothly and there would still be 35% market share? Once you start saying these things out loud, it becomes clear how nonsensical and vibes-based the whole argument is.

It's not to say that there's no concern with the pivot into erosions of privacy commitments. But it doesn't excuse the kind of tulip mania that seems to have spread across hn comment sections in reaction to every mention of Mozilla.

I keep pleading with people who perpetuate these narratives to try and make real arguments accountable to our usual standards of causation and substantiation, and they never do.

[wtallis]

> Is the argument supposed to be that if the VPN wasn't there then like the tab snapping would work more smoothly and there would still be 35% market share?

No, the argument is that if Mozilla didn't spend so much money on side projects, they wouldn't now be in such a precarious financial situation that they're making a drastic, controversial change with the stated purpose of ensuring their financial future. They might still have been poor stewards of the core browser project's technical development, but at least they'd have enough accumulated savings to continue without selling user data.

[glenstein]

>No, the argument is that if Mozilla didn't spend so much money on side projects, they wouldn't now be in such a precarious financial situation that they're making a drastic, controversial change with the stated purpose of ensuring their financial future

A couple of problems here. First, despite your protestations to the contrary, the argument for many is about market share. Secondly they're sitting on $1.2 billion in assets, so it's not that they're underwater, but that they're trying to diversify their income away from just Google.

I also have to note that you said no, but then proceeded to make an argument that bears the very form that I was criticizing.

You are saying that side bets (like the VPN) are what compromise their financial position. That's at least a coherent statement, but now comes the substantiating it and tracing out the cause and effect, articulating the actual scale of those investments, where it has the effect that you're claiming it does.

It takes more than just going ahead and saying it and it's weird that I have to keep pointing this out.

[mmooss]

Which side projects and how much money?

One person in this discussion claims they could live off the interest of $500 million invested in money markets. That's the level of seriousness and credibility so far.

Do you have something more substantive, with evidence, or are you just piling on an open source project and the people who work hard at it.

[aragilar]

Here's some back of the envelope maths:

* Anything that goes to the Mozilla Foundation is not spent on Firefox or Thunderbird (by definition). * Mozilla Corporation (which spends money to maintain Firefox, and used to spend money on Thunderbird and is now separate and hence not considered in these numbers) sends some proportion of its income to the Mozilla Foundation. * We have https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Corporation#Finances which lists total revenue, total expenses and software development expenses (I did find https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/who-we-are/public-records/ that wikipedia page, but some of the links are broken, so I'm going to stick with wikipedia's numbers).

I assume (which could totally be wrong) that "total expenses" minus "software development expenses" goes to the Mozilla Foundation or is otherwise not available (note that "software development expenses" would have likely included things like FirefoxOS, Pocket, MozillaVPN etc. but I suspect it's all going to come out in the wash anyway).

Since 2010, that pot that wasn't spent of software dev is $1.89 billion (which assuming $300 million a year on software dev which is above what Mozilla Corp spent every year bar 2019, is more than 6 years worth of funding). That doesn't include donations (as they all go to Mozilla Foundation).

The numbers are somewhat rubbery, but let me leave this note: why is it NOYB that is ensuring that the GDPR is being followed, rather than Mozilla?

[mmooss]

> Anything that goes to the Mozilla Foundation is not spent on Firefox or Thunderbird (by definition).

Not at all. Much or almost all the Foundation does benefits Firefox. (I think putting Thunderbird in the same sentence is an exaggeration of its importance.)

> I assume (which could totally be wrong) that "total expenses" minus "software development expenses" goes to the Mozilla Foundation

That's a big leap. Salary expense would be their biggest item, I would guess.

[aragilar]

> Not at all. Much or almost all the Foundation does benefits Firefox. (I think putting Thunderbird in the same sentence is an exaggeration of its importance.)

Can you be specific about how the Foundation benefits Firefox (because it can't use money)? As far as I know, the Foundation also never supported Thunderbird's development financially either (due to how they are organised).

As noted, I'm using the values I could quickly find, and wikipedia had a table I could read off. Given the numbers, I expect salaries to be under "software development expenses".

[glenstein]

Only a small portion of Mozilla's money goes to the Foundation, something like 2%.

>I assume (which could totally be wrong) that "total expenses" minus "software development expenses" goes to the Mozilla Foundation or is otherwise not available

You're attempting to put under the under "otherwise not available" label things like legal and compliance, server, bandwidth, and infrastructure costs, all of which fall under the title of general operations in their audited statement. The marketing budget has gone up to 100 million but they are a global brand and I'm not sure that that's anything I'd consider out of the ordinary given their footprint.

I'm not sure I'm seeing anything like an aha moment where they're spending it on something I'd consider wasteful, or the cause and effect between that and some missed opportunity to invest more in development that would have driven changes to market share. (This was all supposed to be an argument about market share right?)

And at this point we're six or seven comments deep in a sub thread where people are attempting to backfill all of that data into arguments they committed to before having looked at it.

On some level, I hope that anyone reading this can appreciate that this whole exercise is ridiculous because what it's revealing is that no one really knows anything about most of these finances and are guessing and squinting and assuming and attempting to backfill arguments that they were perfectly comfortable making in the absence of this knowledge. And that, in and of itself is enough to prove my point that no one claiming that Mozilla's side bets compromised their company has any clue what they're talking about.