[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.