Comment by MrGilbert
6 months ago
According to Wikipedia, that's 0.012% of their net income. [0] While I'm being told in the comments that this is not the way to look at it, it means that this is, percentage wise, 50x the amount that Google is paying.
Sounds fine to me.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Corporation
//Edit: Had a typo in my percentage. 20.000 of 157.000.000 is, indeed, 0.012% - that makes it 50x the amount of Google's percentage.
If only they'd use a similar rubric to rein in their CEO comp[1].
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24132168
Is their CEO comp not in line with the market?
No. More than 80% of Mozilla Corp's income is a yearly payment from Google. [0]
The payment will stop immediately if Google thinks it's no longer needed, or if federal prosecutors (who have determined this payment is illegal) decide the remedy is to stop the payment. [1]
The CEO's job is simple. Say "I think we should take Google's money again this year", and then pocket several million of it. Ca-ching! What are your plans for post-Google-money? Uh uh... AI? Sell out our users to advertisers? [2] It's not looking good.
The Firefox market share continues to dwindle. The board continues to hob-nob with San Francisco socialites and "activists" and use Mozilla as a piggybank to fund their chums. [edit: removed line about Mitchell Baker as she does seem to have finally left]
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43185909
2 replies →
Are Mozilla's earning in line with the market?
1 reply →
That's a bad rubric to judge by, in this case. CEO pay is at a historic high, in fact I'm pretty sure the last time the gap in wage between median workers and CEOs was this high was the roaring 20's, which famously went quite well for the economy.
But Chrome is paying more as a percentage of their browser units' income, no?
Virtually all of Mozilla's income comes from the browser (via the Google search agreement). The vast majority of Google's revenue comes from ad revenue on search, YouTube, and Adsense. Not from Chrome directly. So they had less incentive to reward its security, but did so anyway. And they also do some of the best work in the industry, free, for competitors via Project Zero.
The browser totally has zero to do with google ads. Totally no connection at all.
the browser did limit the capabilities of adblockers quite drastically lately, but this is surly a coincidence.
6 replies →
Well, maybe.
Personally I believe that the browser is intended to defend against e.g. Facebook's apps. Google wants to make sure that if you buy a new device and it comes with a Facebook app preinstalled, it also comes with a browser. And that the browser isn't controlled by anyone who'd like to disrupt any of Google's many nice income streams.
Do you pay a software engineer for their time based on your revenue or his skill?
Be somewhat competitive to what such developers could get on the black market. Discounting the ethics.
Surely a bug on Chrome is worth more than a bug on Firefox.
Should I be competitive with meth manufacturers when I buy prescription cold medicine from a pharmacist?
3 replies →
Mostly based on revenue - or at least that is the way we are going.
That is why you see equivalent skill levels being paid differently in big tech compared to other places.
And why you see millions in salaries at some big techs Ai hiring.
Not at all. Corporation always pays as little as possible. Unless we are talking about CEO levels...
If you don't have the revenue, you don't pay them at all, because you don't actually employ them.
It's really no secret that higher revenue means higher potential pay/more devs...
Both - these are the two sides of the market, aka supply and demand.
>According to Wikipedia, that's 0.0012% of their net income.
How much of the Mozilla foundation's income goes into product development nowadays?
260 Mio. USD, as answered by the linked article, though the numbers only go up to 2023. So "nowadays" is a bit of a stretch.
Do you imply that it's not 5x, but 500x of what Google pays? /s