[stephen]

Perhaps I'm overly skeptical, but I have a hard time envisioning them as a "corporation of tomorrow" when, AFAIK/naively assume, they exist (as a corporation that can pay salaries) merely because Google dumps $x00 millions into their lap every year.

To me, this is less "how companies of tomorrow can run", and more like a bunch of techies who hit the jackpot and so can have fun building whatever technology they want.

(Which is awesome, I'm just saying I think Mozilla has a pretty unique situation.)

[lifeisstillgood]

Unique now, commonplace one day.

I really think we are seeing a shift in organisations - one comparable to that experienced after the in enticing of printing press in 1451. Europe went from a literacy rate of 2% to one of 20+ in a hundred years, and suddenly the trading companies and churches and governments were staffed with people who could read and write - and that changed everything. Literate companies out competed the hell of their illiterate counterparts. And the renanissance saw new forms of company, new trading horizons, enabled in part thanks to, well, letters.

Mozilla is an example of this new company - it is staffed by the code-literate and it is out-competing Nokia, Samsung, Microsoft and holding its own against google/chrome/android who are themselves arguably built of the same DNA

Code literacy throughout the company is important but it then demands other things - remote working is probably the biggest thing - it does enable hiring the best in the world, yes, but it makes transparency of decision making so much more natural that it will most likely become a default.

I think we shall see companies be I ing more open in their working practises, in their internal processes and probably in their balance sheets.

For the best part of a generation at least code literate people are going to be in massive demand as companies like Mozilla show that coding is a massive force multiplier for any company in any industry. And that is not merely going to be higher wages - when the force multiplier is big enough it will simply reshape the corporation around itself.

Mozilla does amusingly also show that the politics of human relations will never go away, but there is a elephant in the room now, and it's not going away till long after we retire - and coping with the impact of that elephant will be the defining characteristic of the next twenty years of organisational and intentstional change.

Software is not eating the world like tigers do - it is eating the world like oceans erode cliffs - re shaping the shoreline and the tides.

[starmole]

I really like your Utopia but it is missing many things in my opinion. Mozilla is a luxury afforded by Google finance wise. There are much darker futures ahead as well. The entire rise of the Company over the State is rather scary.

Arguably the most successful software company (Apple) is a poster child of using open software to its closed advantage.

Software literacy is also highly divisive. It highly rewards the literates but punishes the rest. Because of that it is very important that people use it for ideas that are not just profit.

We really need more models like Mozilla, GNU, or Craigslist.

[lifeisstillgood]

I think the "Google finances Mozilla out of kindness of their hearts" meme is dealt with here - they have millions and soon to be billions of eyeballs on that google default page. Whatever Google pays is a market rate.

As for the rest, yes illiteracy does count against the illiterate - I think that is a public policy issue. The company vs the state? Historically speaking the one with the army tends to win. Yes regulation is important to ensure companies deliver social value - we have seen that in finance, but that is not a programming issue - back to public policy

As for being open and doing good - yes laudable aims, and I suspect that like now, companies that are more open, more socially beneficial will have the edge of goodwill - but right now the force multiplier of code literacy trumps all.

Edit: I guess I am saying, the force multiplier is so big, that relying on normal market operations to deliver an optimal social good (ie utopia) is a little foolish - we need enlightened governments with perfect regulatory touch to be in tune globally with all the challenges facing the human race.

We're boned.

[asadotzler]

Google doesn't dump money into Mozilla's lap every year. Google pays Mozilla (and various other companies) for search traffic acquisition.

[sharkweek]

Yeah nobody should think for a minute that this relationship is in danger of Google dropping that contract either; Microsoft/Bing would KILL to have that default product visibility at the top of another mainstream browser.

[SkyMarshal]

It sounds like you're saying MS could outbid Google to be Mozilla's default search engine, which validates Mozilla's business model even further.

[sharkweek]

Exactly -- you'll occasionally hear people say things like "Google is basically keeping Firefox afloat" -- sure, it's a massive contract that does fund Mozilla almost entirely, but any of the other major search engines would love a chance to be the default install option. Think about what that would do for Bing.

[mehrzad]

I agree but I feel like the backfire issue is never brought up. If Bing becomes default, would less techy users just switch back to Chrome? I hope not.

[hkmurakami]

Surely this kind of back and forth must have happened during the last Google/Mozilla negotiation over their search engine contract, but it's a situation where while both sides will try to posture within the understood wiggle room [1], they both know that they have a lot to lose by coming to a fall out.

ex: within the range of say, $250MM ~ $350MM

[tmzt]

Canonical made such a deal with Yahoo a few years ago and the pushback was significant enough that they backtracked before the final release.

It seems that technical people will prefer the better solution.