Firefox should definitely be used, but donating to Mozilla is a mistake. They waste a lot of it, their executive compensation rates are way too high (especially given that MoCo just laid off employees), and Mozilla still hasn't kept up with promises they gave years ago (that Pocket is still proprietary being a notable and depressing example).
Donate to smaller developers of software you use, it'll go a lot further, and they'll probably put it to better use!
Donations go to Mozilla "the non-profit organization" rather than Mozilla "the corporation".
Mozilla (the corporation) has the typical/bad corporate structures and ridiculous executive compensations. Mozilla (the corporation) had the layoffs. Mozilla (the corporation) bought Pocket with money that comes from deals with search engines.
That being said, though...
> Donate to smaller developers of software you use, it'll go a lot further, and they'll probably put it to better use!
... is still a great point.
(Updated this because "Mozilla, Org" and "Mozilla, Inc" were inaccurate)
I think the Mozilla Foundation is starting to look a lot like a sinecure employer for friends of friends in the non-profit biz.
Here are a few seemingly similar titles listed on their leadership page[0]:
VP, Advocacy
Director, Digital Engagement
Director, Communications
VP, Global Programs
Director, Partnerships
Director, Events and Training
Interim Director, Leadership Programs
The Mozilla Foundation controls and owns the Mozilla Corporation, and the executive structure looks more or less the same. Baker's compensation has been inversely tied with performance, and she runs both.
That still doesn't answer why should I donate to Mozilla the non-profit? What do they do with my donations? According to another post they don't use them to fund Firefox or presumably any project run by the corporation side.
As I see it if I wanted my donations to go to political or other activism there's more direct and better organizations to donate to with less middle management involved.
I agree, I never understood that argument. We have a fairly large and wonderful kids hospital that looks for donations and some of my friends said they wouldn't donate because their CEO makes 500k and he should donate his money instead.
I had to explain you want to recruit great talent, and that 500k is less than he could make some place else.
Do you care how Apple pays its executives when you shell out 3-4k on their laptops or 1-2k on their phones? The OP just said that Firefox is a great piece of software available for free, and they deserve to be compensated (in form of donation). Now, I'm totally on board with you that they waste money, that's not even debatable.
Which ones? Eich donated like $1000 to a political group that (I would hope) most of us disagree with, but Eich != Mozilla, and he was removed because of the backlash
Better yet, donate to Brave who doesn't share the same conflict of interest as Mozilla does with Google, as Google is Mozilla's #1 source of income. Best of all you get a browser just as fast, if not faster than Chrome because it's Chrome without all the junk.
While Brave not taking the "Search deal with Google" route is commendable, you shouldn't donate to it, either.
Venture-funded for-profit startups don't need donations, and again, donations will be more heavily felt by the people maintaining the software you use every day that isn't created by behemoths.
They're already getting more than enough to fund development with the Google deal, which they've shown no willingness to let up on, despite it seriously compromising user privacy. Donating to Mozilla at this point is just encouraging organizational bloat.
So I pay for Pocket Premium as it is wholly owned by Mozilla as a way of diversifying their income away from search and donations. I like and use pocket and get something in exchange for my money (which makes me more likely to keep a rolling payment going on). II know it’s not open source, but tbh that doesn’t hugely bother me given that Firefox itself is.
Does anyone object to this indirect way of funding Firefox? Does it cause indirect harm by making them prioritise pocket over Firefox?
I've spent a lot of time considering Pocket Premium but the price point is just too high. Maybe if they roll in features from feedly and have a really nice RSS reader.
I also hate spending money on news that isn't going to journalists.
Well that’s why I factor it in as a donation to Firefox instead of paying for the features (which I agree with you the price point is way too high for what you get).
Mozilla Corporation is a for-profit company. Depending on the legislation it is sometimes forbidden to take donation, or at least very difficult/limited for company.
Mozilla Foundation is the non-profit organization (and they do take donation).
Sorry, I can't bring myself to trust them after pocket, mr. robot, and of course the time they fired that guy for having a fetish. I might use their browser product if it ever seems like it'll be better for my needs but I'm certainly not giving them money.
Firefox should definitely be used, but donating to Mozilla is a mistake. They waste a lot of it, their executive compensation rates are way too high (especially given that MoCo just laid off employees), and Mozilla still hasn't kept up with promises they gave years ago (that Pocket is still proprietary being a notable and depressing example).
Donate to smaller developers of software you use, it'll go a lot further, and they'll probably put it to better use!
Donations go to Mozilla "the non-profit organization" rather than Mozilla "the corporation".
Mozilla (the corporation) has the typical/bad corporate structures and ridiculous executive compensations. Mozilla (the corporation) had the layoffs. Mozilla (the corporation) bought Pocket with money that comes from deals with search engines.
That being said, though...
> Donate to smaller developers of software you use, it'll go a lot further, and they'll probably put it to better use!
... is still a great point.
(Updated this because "Mozilla, Org" and "Mozilla, Inc" were inaccurate)
I think the Mozilla Foundation is starting to look a lot like a sinecure employer for friends of friends in the non-profit biz.
Here are a few seemingly similar titles listed on their leadership page[0]:
[0]https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/about/leadership/
The Mozilla Foundation controls and owns the Mozilla Corporation, and the executive structure looks more or less the same. Baker's compensation has been inversely tied with performance, and she runs both.
12 replies →
That still doesn't answer why should I donate to Mozilla the non-profit? What do they do with my donations? According to another post they don't use them to fund Firefox or presumably any project run by the corporation side.
As I see it if I wanted my donations to go to political or other activism there's more direct and better organizations to donate to with less middle management involved.
2 replies →
> their executive compensation rates are way too high
Just because they're a non-profit doesn't mean execs should be paid far below market rates.
Mozilla engineers typically accept a salary that is below market rates.
Recently they have been increasing salaries to be more competitive.
I agree, I never understood that argument. We have a fairly large and wonderful kids hospital that looks for donations and some of my friends said they wouldn't donate because their CEO makes 500k and he should donate his money instead.
I had to explain you want to recruit great talent, and that 500k is less than he could make some place else.
8 replies →
Do you care how Apple pays its executives when you shell out 3-4k on their laptops or 1-2k on their phones? The OP just said that Firefox is a great piece of software available for free, and they deserve to be compensated (in form of donation). Now, I'm totally on board with you that they waste money, that's not even debatable.
Also, Mozilla made donations to political entities in the past
Which ones? Eich donated like $1000 to a political group that (I would hope) most of us disagree with, but Eich != Mozilla, and he was removed because of the backlash
9 replies →
As long as they keep Firefox available they can waste my money as much as they want. Why should they owe me anything? I am taking their browser.
Better yet, donate to Brave who doesn't share the same conflict of interest as Mozilla does with Google, as Google is Mozilla's #1 source of income. Best of all you get a browser just as fast, if not faster than Chrome because it's Chrome without all the junk.
But I don't want to participate in dodgy cryptocurrency scams.
While Brave not taking the "Search deal with Google" route is commendable, you shouldn't donate to it, either.
Venture-funded for-profit startups don't need donations, and again, donations will be more heavily felt by the people maintaining the software you use every day that isn't created by behemoths.
> Firefox should definitely be used, but donating to Mozilla is a mistake.
These seem at odds with each other. If you want Firefox to be used, how do you suggest its development be paid for?
They're already getting more than enough to fund development with the Google deal, which they've shown no willingness to let up on, despite it seriously compromising user privacy. Donating to Mozilla at this point is just encouraging organizational bloat.
3 replies →
Donations are not used for Firefox development -- they go to the Foundation, not the Corporation.
So I pay for Pocket Premium as it is wholly owned by Mozilla as a way of diversifying their income away from search and donations. I like and use pocket and get something in exchange for my money (which makes me more likely to keep a rolling payment going on). II know it’s not open source, but tbh that doesn’t hugely bother me given that Firefox itself is.
Does anyone object to this indirect way of funding Firefox? Does it cause indirect harm by making them prioritise pocket over Firefox?
I've spent a lot of time considering Pocket Premium but the price point is just too high. Maybe if they roll in features from feedly and have a really nice RSS reader.
I also hate spending money on news that isn't going to journalists.
Well that’s why I factor it in as a donation to Firefox instead of paying for the features (which I agree with you the price point is way too high for what you get).
I don't object. Personally I'd be happy to pay for Firefox Send, or better still for tech support in self-hosting Firefox Sync and Send.
I agree with the endorsement as a FF/TB user. However, I would stop at charity shaming, as there is always a different side to the story.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22057737
Mozilla Corporation which makes the browser doesn't accept donations.
I assume they do get quite a bit of money from Mozilla Foundation, which does.
I asked the Mozilla Foundation if anything from the donations goes to the browser, they said no, not a single penny.
The Foundation does not provide money to the Corporation. Look at the annual financial statements.
Do you know why that is?
Mozilla Corporation is a for-profit company. Depending on the legislation it is sometimes forbidden to take donation, or at least very difficult/limited for company.
Mozilla Foundation is the non-profit organization (and they do take donation).
2 replies →
because otherwise users would have a saying in the direction web browsers evolve and Google would be sad
Half kidding there
1 reply →
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22236328.
Sorry, I can't bring myself to trust them after pocket, mr. robot, and of course the time they fired that guy for having a fetish. I might use their browser product if it ever seems like it'll be better for my needs but I'm certainly not giving them money.