Feel free to share how much money they spend on random advocacy. I believe the Google deal nets a couple of hundred million - it sounds like you’re saying that if Mozilla scraps the AI and advocacy, that should recoup that money? Because otherwise losing the money is still going to require finding other sources of income to fund Firefox.
well for one, disclosed in their 2021 they spent 300’000 on an advocacy group called MCKENSIE MACK GROUP and 375’000 to new venture fund. Neither of which have anything to do with free internet technologies. And much more has been left rather hard to find.
Page 7 (PDF page 8) lists the funding that executives have gotten, quite a lot for a “non profit” Page 10 (PDF page 11) is also relevant.
Where it gets really interesting is after PDF page 35
300’000 for european AI fund, 100’000 on an interactive tool for exploring broadband inequalities, 50’000 for Carbon footprint, 50’000 for another pollution related project, 50’000 for studing the impact of nuclear reactors in africa and a bunch more of these, while in some cases meaningful, completely unrelated projects from mozilla which used to be about internet and other digital rights stuff (which has changed in recent years)
If firefox were to focus on just firefox and thunderbird, and sure other things that do directly make them money, then they would still have plenty of funding left over for developers to work on mentioned projects
Sorry, you’re saying that if 85 percent of funding disappears (hundreds of millions), and “weird spending” (including the venture fund, which usually make money) to the tune of 0.3 million (let’s make that 2 million, assuming they have several such projects) is cut, then that would be able to sustain Firefox? Because that math doesn’t add up for me.
Google pays mozilla iirc around 400m a year, loosing 85% of that yeah, that sucks, sure. but yeah, there is enough to sustain firefox and thunderbird and some other things. If not, something is dreadfully wrong.
The numbers you have quoted so far don’t make a dent in the 400M though - we haven’t even reached 1% yet. How much do you think Mozilla is spending on Firefox? How much of that is “extra” per your back of the envelope math?
I don’t believe things like AI fund are things that should be in mozilla’s scope, at least back when I was religiously donating to mozilla, their manifesto didn’t even exist when I was, but even their old one is something more in line with what I agree with. Mozilla has changed a LOT over the years, and the return to old mozilla is what I, and many others want.
Some of them are, copy and pasted from another comment,
300’000 for european AI fund, 100’000 on an interactive tool for exploring broadband inequalities, 50’000 for Carbon footprint, 50’000 for another pollution related project, 50’000 for studing the impact of nuclear reactors in africa
Can’t say I’m deep in this space, but I think there’s a lot of sentiment towards going more lean with operations and aiming for direct donation toward Firefox development (which I don’t believe is presently an option) which seemingly, if Mozilla narrowed to their core (Firefox, MDN), the community would likely show heavy support. I have my doubts it would fully cover the bill in a sustainable way, but I at least think that’s one of the main sentiments.
If Mozilla loses the Google revenue, it’ll have to do more other stuff if it’s to have any hope of being able to subsidise Firefox development though.
They spend so much superflous money on crap like AI and random advocacy groups. Mozilla makes a lot more money then people tend to think they do.
deleted by creator
Feel free to share how much money they spend on random advocacy. I believe the Google deal nets a couple of hundred million - it sounds like you’re saying that if Mozilla scraps the AI and advocacy, that should recoup that money? Because otherwise losing the money is still going to require finding other sources of income to fund Firefox.
well for one, disclosed in their 2021 they spent 300’000 on an advocacy group called MCKENSIE MACK GROUP and 375’000 to new venture fund. Neither of which have anything to do with free internet technologies. And much more has been left rather hard to find.
In their annual report for 2024 they also show weird spending https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2024/mozilla-fdn-2023-fs-final-short-1209.pdf https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2024/b200-mozilla-foundation-form-990-public-disclosure-ty23.pdf
Page 7 (PDF page 8) lists the funding that executives have gotten, quite a lot for a “non profit” Page 10 (PDF page 11) is also relevant.
Where it gets really interesting is after PDF page 35
300’000 for european AI fund, 100’000 on an interactive tool for exploring broadband inequalities, 50’000 for Carbon footprint, 50’000 for another pollution related project, 50’000 for studing the impact of nuclear reactors in africa and a bunch more of these, while in some cases meaningful, completely unrelated projects from mozilla which used to be about internet and other digital rights stuff (which has changed in recent years)
I don’t think it would recoup the money that is spent, I don’t even think it needs to. Yes, a majority of their income comes from google, but they still make a lot of money, mozilla’s search income is 85 percent according to https://www.theverge.com/news/660548/firefox-google-search-revenue-share-doj-antitrust-remedies
If firefox were to focus on just firefox and thunderbird, and sure other things that do directly make them money, then they would still have plenty of funding left over for developers to work on mentioned projects
Sorry, you’re saying that if 85 percent of funding disappears (hundreds of millions), and “weird spending” (including the venture fund, which usually make money) to the tune of 0.3 million (let’s make that 2 million, assuming they have several such projects) is cut, then that would be able to sustain Firefox? Because that math doesn’t add up for me.
Google pays mozilla iirc around 400m a year, loosing 85% of that yeah, that sucks, sure. but yeah, there is enough to sustain firefox and thunderbird and some other things. If not, something is dreadfully wrong.
The numbers you have quoted so far don’t make a dent in the 400M though - we haven’t even reached 1% yet. How much do you think Mozilla is spending on Firefox? How much of that is “extra” per your back of the envelope math?
From those projects, which ones are out of scope for the Mozilla Manifesto?
The African nuclear reactors might need more explaining, but the rest seem to be right on the goals:
I don’t believe things like AI fund are things that should be in mozilla’s scope, at least back when I was religiously donating to mozilla, their manifesto didn’t even exist when I was, but even their old one is something more in line with what I agree with. Mozilla has changed a LOT over the years, and the return to old mozilla is what I, and many others want.
What would be the proper advocacy groups? Would you’ve ever heard of Mozilla without some advocacy group?
One’s that are actually directly related to mozilla’s mission statement, polution and studies on nuclear reactors in africa, not related.
Is there more information about that nuclear reactor?
Pollution related to computing and coding, seem relevant to the mission statement.
Do you have numbers behind these assertions? How much money is spent on “crap”?
Some of them are, copy and pasted from another comment,
300’000 for european AI fund, 100’000 on an interactive tool for exploring broadband inequalities, 50’000 for Carbon footprint, 50’000 for another pollution related project, 50’000 for studing the impact of nuclear reactors in africa
and much more here https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2024/b200-mozilla-foundation-form-990-public-disclosure-ty23.pdf
Can’t say I’m deep in this space, but I think there’s a lot of sentiment towards going more lean with operations and aiming for direct donation toward Firefox development (which I don’t believe is presently an option) which seemingly, if Mozilla narrowed to their core (Firefox, MDN), the community would likely show heavy support. I have my doubts it would fully cover the bill in a sustainable way, but I at least think that’s one of the main sentiments.
I’m aware of that sentiment, and I agree that it’s misguided and that there’s no way that that would cover costs.