- Mozilla ends partnership with Onerep due to CEO’s ties to data broker
- Onerep’s data removal service bundled into Mozilla’s Monitor Plus subscription
- Onerep CEO admits to owning people-search websites, leading to end of partnership with Mozilla. Transition plan in progress.
This is what companies that actually care about privacy do. People over profits
Edit: actually, I’m not quite that naive, there’s certainly a business motive here. Cut the dead weight before it drags you down. Still, a good move nonetheless
People over profit generally seems to be the best business practice anyways
I had a car with a bad alternator and took it to a shop, manager quoted me $150 then called an hour later to say he’d picked the wrong version of my car on the computer, mine would be $100 more but he said “a deals a deal so we’ll do it for the 150.”
Every other car problem I had after, straight to that shop cause I knew they’d do solid work and charge me fairly. Putting people before profits means retaining workers and getting loyal customers
It definitely makes sense to anyone with the ability to see past their nose. I wish companies like Comcast and Verizon could see it.
Monopolies for modern necessities (the internet and phone) don’t have to worry about customer retention.
I mean, in some situations those two I mentioned are but I’ve been in the position to easily switch service to another company and that doesn’t change their behavior at all.
“So the problem is it’s too easy to switch. Let’s change that!” - some CEO, probably
They 100% have been having that conversation since the 50s if not earlier
Some CEO to another, at a ski chalet where they totally don’t collude at the spa.
deleted by creator
Plot twist: The right version was actually cheaper, but they figured they’d tell you that story to make you a more loyal customer.
Where I live changing the price after agreeing on it would even be illegal :0
Probably, but they might “just find out they don’t have the part in stock and can’t do it”" and refund
How did you get to this conclusion? Tesla, amazon, McDs etc are top tier companies who are notoriously shit both to work for and in how they operate in terms of skirting regulation etc.
investing in people(customers) brings slow but longterm sustainable profits (Linux for example)
profits don’t bring customers, they bring investors
Profits are the goal though, look at the car industry, they have reduced production numbers to increase profits with higher margins.
They dont care about customers, only profits and investors.
The point is that if they get complacent, they get replaced (example: what tesla and new Chinese companies like BYD are doing with the car market)
That doesn’t change the fact that you’re both not taking the real issue into account; the biggest, wealthiest shareholders are demanding a sustained 25% RoI. That is inherently unsustainable and by design. They want companies to die because monopolies are profitable and the market was booming (until they decided to milk everything dry) so there is money to be made IF you don’t value human civilization.
I fucking hate the rich.
…you’re holding up Linux as a successful business entity? Compared to Tesla, Amazon, and McDonald’s?
You need some new hobbies bro
its a good long term business move. And mozilla is a nonprofit, not beholden to the whims of shareholders, so they can do long term moves in peace.
Nonprofits can’t lose money. They still got bills and are motivated by revenue. I say this as someone who has worked in non-profits for most of my adult life
Am I wrong in saying the lack of shareholders makes it easier for non profits to make long term profitable business decisions, compared to companies with shareholders, who seem to often care about short term revenue above anything else?
For-profits don’t all have shareholders. Non-profits still have boards (and with non-profits it’s at times more difficult to rid your company of toxic board members). I’ve seen non-profits that move like snails and for-profits that move like cheetahs.
And I wouldn’t really say it’s easier, no. For two companies of the same size, I don’t think it would be any different just because you’re a public company. Plenty of them don’t mind posting a loss if they defend it with investments. Investors, especially institutional ones, don’t just look at revenue. Assets, liabilities, equity, it all frames investing decisions.
Today I learned!
How can’t non-profits lose money ? I don’t understand
They need to make money. They need to pay bills and pay employees. If you’re losing money, you have to fire people or downsize, just like any other business. Or borrow money
So they’re always immune to losing money ? are they protected by law in this regard ?
Sorry, I think I wasn’t clear. They can’t lose money if they want to remain in business is what I should have said.
Ok it all makes sense in retrospect… thanks (synonymous with “They cannot afford to lose money”)
You were clear. The other guy was being a pedant or an idiot.
Kindly get fucked, if you don’t mind (I hope my English comes across well)
It’s sorta the other way. Mozilla constantly does stuff like that and backs off when they get called out on it.
This one is cool but I’m still going with Librewolf, thanks.