Putting random words in bold doesn’t mean you have a point.
Yeah they receive money for having a default search engine. In the past it was Yahoo and now it’s Google. I don’t see what your point is? What does it have to do with this article?
From the article:
Our survey data shows…
That probably sounded very clever in your head. You probably thought you “owned” me or something.
But I never said surveys were bad.
I said surveys of a tiny percentage of Firefox users, which in themselves are a tiny percentage of browser users, is useless. There’s nothing wrong with them commissioning wider surveys.
Do you think following what, say, a 20,000th of overall web browser users say they want is a winning strategy? I.e. to just continue what they’re doing now, commit wholeheartedly to the death spiral?
Mozilla needs to diversify. Because they’re dying. They’d already be dead if they followed what you seem to be suggesting (focus on the browser but also don’t accept money from Google!)
More bold text. I assure you that this text is very bold. Bold text.
CEO makes big pay cheque, quelle surprise. I’m shocked. Shocked I tell ya!
It’s standard. Do I think CEOs should be paid millions? Nah. But I’m not going to single out one tech CEO making $7m when there’s others out there making $250m
Again, Mozilla is a dying company. I’m not “presenting” it as anything. I’m staying a fact. I’m not making it up. If you think they’re a healthy company then I have a bridge to sell you.
We get it, you want Firefox to have no funding and die. I don’t. I don’t want a full Google monopoly.
A lower pay means the CEO will just move where he’ll get that salary. It’s very unfortunately a result of supply and demand, which pretty much everyone is forced to partake in, which includes mozilla
I didn’t gloss over it as acceptable, I said it’s standard and if anything low for the industry. It’s weird to single them out and shit on them. Not to mention completely irrelevant to this discussion.
No, you don’t want Mozilla to thrive, because you’re getting angry at them for wanting to diversify, which they need to do if they don’t want to die.
You want them to abandon their income. Guess what? Without that they’re dead. So what’s your solution?
This isn’t some fantasy land where the magic fairies can work on Firefox out of the goodness of their hearts while we all frolic in flowery fields. Firefox needs to pay their staff and you’re saying they need to cut off all funding and stop trying to find alternative revenue streams.
I like how you assume Mozilla must do the absolute worst things possible in order to continue existing.
I like how you assume I assume that. I’ve never said anything of the sort. You’re just making up rubbish.
All I said was that Mozilla needs to diversify and that throwing away their needed income will kill them. It’s insane you think otherwise. An organisation like Mozilla has sizable costs, you can’t just handwave that away.
Staff expect to be paid. They can’t just say to their workers “good job, champ, here’s your £0 paycheque, spend it wisely!”
In other words, you don’t really care what happens to Firefox or its users.
More making stuff up. I do care about them. That’s why I don’t want Mozilla to die, which they will if they follow your insane plan of just continuing what they’re doing now, only without any funding coming in.
All you care about is the CEO, who you have to call “staff.”
Ffs, stop making stuff up. When I say staff, I mean staff. I don’t mean the CEO. That’s why I said staff. When I say staff I mean staff and when I say CEO I mean CEO.
Mozilla staff will not work for free. If Mozilla killed off their income, staff will not work for them.
You may not realise this, but Firefox and other offerings require people working on them. It doesn’t get worked on overnight by magical pixies. It gets worked on by people who expect to be paid for their work. I don’t get why this is such a hard concept for you?
No shit. Everybody knows why Google funds Mozilla. This isn’t some revelation. It’s not relevant to the discussion of whether Mozilla should diversify or not.
Mozilla is dying. I’m not saying it for no reason. Their market share is generally stated to be between 1.5 and 2.5%, and more and more websites are breaking for them because they don’t follow web standards.
What Mozilla is doing now isn’t working. They need ways to generate income.
Your “just don’t take money from Google and don’t diversify” suggestion isn’t a good one. They would collapse almost immediately if they followed that advice.
Seriously, I don’t get how “just continue with just the browser but don’t take any money from others lol. I’m sure everyone will work on Firefox for free” is a valid stance. Web engines are too complex for small community development.
deleted
Putting random words in bold doesn’t mean you have a point.
Yeah they receive money for having a default search engine. In the past it was Yahoo and now it’s Google. I don’t see what your point is? What does it have to do with this article?
That probably sounded very clever in your head. You probably thought you “owned” me or something.
But I never said surveys were bad.
I said surveys of a tiny percentage of Firefox users, which in themselves are a tiny percentage of browser users, is useless. There’s nothing wrong with them commissioning wider surveys.
Do you think following what, say, a 20,000th of overall web browser users say they want is a winning strategy? I.e. to just continue what they’re doing now, commit wholeheartedly to the death spiral?
Mozilla needs to diversify. Because they’re dying. They’d already be dead if they followed what you seem to be suggesting (focus on the browser but also don’t accept money from Google!)
deleted
More bold text. I assure you that this text is very bold. Bold text.
CEO makes big pay cheque, quelle surprise. I’m shocked. Shocked I tell ya!
It’s standard. Do I think CEOs should be paid millions? Nah. But I’m not going to single out one tech CEO making $7m when there’s others out there making $250m
Again, Mozilla is a dying company. I’m not “presenting” it as anything. I’m staying a fact. I’m not making it up. If you think they’re a healthy company then I have a bridge to sell you.
We get it, you want Firefox to have no funding and die. I don’t. I don’t want a full Google monopoly.
Bold text.
deleted
A lower pay means the CEO will just move where he’ll get that salary. It’s very unfortunately a result of supply and demand, which pretty much everyone is forced to partake in, which includes mozilla
deleted
I didn’t gloss over it as acceptable, I said it’s standard and if anything low for the industry. It’s weird to single them out and shit on them. Not to mention completely irrelevant to this discussion.
No, you don’t want Mozilla to thrive, because you’re getting angry at them for wanting to diversify, which they need to do if they don’t want to die.
You want them to abandon their income. Guess what? Without that they’re dead. So what’s your solution?
This isn’t some fantasy land where the magic fairies can work on Firefox out of the goodness of their hearts while we all frolic in flowery fields. Firefox needs to pay their staff and you’re saying they need to cut off all funding and stop trying to find alternative revenue streams.
deleted
I like how you assume I assume that. I’ve never said anything of the sort. You’re just making up rubbish.
All I said was that Mozilla needs to diversify and that throwing away their needed income will kill them. It’s insane you think otherwise. An organisation like Mozilla has sizable costs, you can’t just handwave that away.
Staff expect to be paid. They can’t just say to their workers “good job, champ, here’s your £0 paycheque, spend it wisely!”
More making stuff up. I do care about them. That’s why I don’t want Mozilla to die, which they will if they follow your insane plan of just continuing what they’re doing now, only without any funding coming in.
Ffs, stop making stuff up. When I say staff, I mean staff. I don’t mean the CEO. That’s why I said staff. When I say staff I mean staff and when I say CEO I mean CEO.
Mozilla staff will not work for free. If Mozilla killed off their income, staff will not work for them.
You may not realise this, but Firefox and other offerings require people working on them. It doesn’t get worked on overnight by magical pixies. It gets worked on by people who expect to be paid for their work. I don’t get why this is such a hard concept for you?
deleted
deleted
deleted
Bold text.
No shit. Everybody knows why Google funds Mozilla. This isn’t some revelation. It’s not relevant to the discussion of whether Mozilla should diversify or not.
Mozilla is dying. I’m not saying it for no reason. Their market share is generally stated to be between 1.5 and 2.5%, and more and more websites are breaking for them because they don’t follow web standards.
What Mozilla is doing now isn’t working. They need ways to generate income.
Your “just don’t take money from Google and don’t diversify” suggestion isn’t a good one. They would collapse almost immediately if they followed that advice.
Seriously, I don’t get how “just continue with just the browser but don’t take any money from others lol. I’m sure everyone will work on Firefox for free” is a valid stance. Web engines are too complex for small community development.