• FarraigePlaisteach@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    Despite those choices, I’m not sure there were many other directions that could ever bring in the profits that Google does.

    • Grapho@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      What the fuck would a non profit need to pull google level profits for?

      Mozilla should have been a gatekeeper for open web standards and made a browser that catered exactly to that. The rest is window-dressing.

      What did they do with the Google money, tho? Eye-watering packages for their MBA/Lawyer executives and compromise after compromise with DRM peddlers in the name of “market cap”.

      Fuck em, and let it be a lesson for other non-profits. FSF doesn’t seem to be any worse off for not paying cOmPetiTiVe rAtEs to get some clueless execs to betray the mission to chase trends and funds.

      • Vincent@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 day ago

        I don’t see how being a non-profit suddenly makes it cheaper to build a secure, modern and compatible browser. (Although I know lots of people underestimate how much effort that takes. But just consider that already Mozilla’s doing it for far less money than Google invests in Chrome, for example.)

        • qweertz (they/she)@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          18 hours ago

          Running a community-centred nonprofit is inherently more efficient resources-wise than paying managers and execs piles upon piles of cash in a for-profit scheme