A lot of people here will react to the advocacy cuts, and the idea that advocacy make up such a large portion of the workforce.
30 percent seemed like a lot, but I think it's just 30 percent of the foundation's direct staff. I suspect the corporation employs more people than the foundation? So stuff like development is not included in that count.
I do wonder if the cuts are because of anticipation of lower search revenue from Google with tech restricting legislation on the horizon and google's focus pivoting to AI.
> While Mozilla Foundation declined to quantify the number of people being let go... The Register understands the current headcount is closer to 120, so presumably around 36 people stand to lose their jobs.
Compared to their other investments, how much money are they actually saving by doing this?
I think it’s a fair question, but I don’t think it invalidates the validity of looking at this particular division and evaluating if it brings the company more value than it costs. It’s like when I cancel Netflix. Compared to my other spending it’s not a lot, and to be honest I won’t even notice the savings. But if the value isn’t there, why spend money on it?
Granted I’m not moralizing about the actual value or correctness of this decision, I know nothing about Mozilla’s inner workings or the work of this division in particular.
A job for advocacy division is to, uhm, advocate for the product and mission.
We all know how that has worked out in the last decade or so (down to <3% market share from 14% in 2014 and 31% in 2009, though I wonder about absolute numbers as number of Internet users has gone up).
It's fine for Mozilla to recognize this as a failed approach (or team), without dropping their mission altogether.
At Mozilla, they advocate for a free and open Internet, user privacy, and more. That's part of the organizations mission. See the OP for more information.
Is there an alternative to Firefox that is not controlled by big tech? One of the saddest outcomes of what seems to be the inevitable demise of Firefox would be that there would be no viable alternative to big tech browsers.
Pyre Browser is 44% faster than firefox and our running costs are $20 a month. It reduces global energy consumption by 60tWh and allows free speech across all domains. We dont need an advocacy division - we have already freed the internet!
Readit News
30 percent seemed like a lot, but I think it's just 30 percent of the foundation's direct staff. I suspect the corporation employs more people than the foundation? So stuff like development is not included in that count.
I do wonder if the cuts are because of anticipation of lower search revenue from Google with tech restricting legislation on the horizon and google's focus pivoting to AI.
Yes; the corporation is, last I knew, about a thousand, and the foundation about a hundred.
Compared to their other investments, how much money are they actually saving by doing this?
Granted I’m not moralizing about the actual value or correctness of this decision, I know nothing about Mozilla’s inner workings or the work of this division in particular.
Deleted Comment
We all know how that has worked out in the last decade or so (down to <3% market share from 14% in 2014 and 31% in 2009, though I wonder about absolute numbers as number of Internet users has gone up).
It's fine for Mozilla to recognize this as a failed approach (or team), without dropping their mission altogether.
If that is not the case, and they have achieved their mission with Firefox being a non-factor, they should instead stop funding FF development.
Deleted Comment
You're technically correct, it's an independent browser, but I find that moot if it's just a repackaging of a big tech render engine.
Dead Comment