Interacting with the UI on Firefox for iOS incurs several seconds of waiting:
Clicking the tab icon, opening a new tab, clicking back. ANYTHING, really.
Often it just dies.
If I close all tabs, it gets better. So I basically have to choose between tabs or any acceptable UI speed.
They literally went from "browser is slow with many tabs" to "now tabs are super lightweight" to "this is a shitshow".
I'm not sure how they can be so deliberate and so accidental at the same time.
I wish the board would fire those incompetent leaders and regain market value, but I'm afraid it's a collusion where everyone in power is just ripping Mozilla for what it's got before the ship sinks.
On iOS Mozilla might not be actually 100% at fault if their app does not work correctly.
This is because an inside apple policy dictates that all apps on iOS must use the Safari web engine and can't ship their own. As a result all browsers on iOS are just glorified Safari skins & Web application support continues to lag as a result among other things & Apple has complete control over what that one true web engine of iOS supports and what not.
It could be that making a good browser on iOS is difficult because of Apple's restrictions.
And I haven't run a lot of mobile browsers recently for comparison.
But I find it hard to believe that most browsers that are more popular than Firefox on mobile are doing worse at basic memory management when the number of tabs grow.
Same with Wikimedia. The association seems to become some kind of cult where it is seen as OK to spend enormous amounts of money on overheads and salaries without really making anything better because "big salaries = good performance", I wish we had put that fallacy to rest already.
It shouldn't even be 1 million. What value could one person even hypothetically add, that would justify a multi-million dollar salary? Not even mentioning the fact that Firefox is losing market share.
Nothing, but their value isn't directly linked to their salary. It's more due to how unrestrained capitalism works, where you need to offer that kind of money to stop them going to someone who can offer more.
For places like Mozilla, there _is_ a solution to this though:
Altruistic organisations like Mozilla (which they at the very least are on the surface) would do their best work with altruistic individuals. Those kinds of people would sacrifice an unreasonably high salary, just so they can work for an organisation they believe does good.
So it's a win-win. You get the types of people you need, and you pay less.
Why this isn't happening, I don't know. My guess is that one dumb fuck infiltrated the organisation, and he's hiring more dumb fucks.
It's more than justified if the Mozilla CEO's mission is to lose users and market share. They are doing an incredible job, and deserve every last cent.
All paid for by Google. Despite 14 years ago suggesting they wouldn't solely rely on Google's money [0] and laughing all the way to the bank after letting go 'Mozillians' in 2020.
Mozilla's so-called mission statement in a privacy focused browser is a complete failure. This cult around Mozilla needs to stop.
They shouldn't bring one a regular market CEO, and what their CEO has to do to win users and promote the FOSS engine has nothing or little to do with what Apple and Google's CEO has to do to pad stocks.
In fact, it's precisely of the BS focus they have, doing what any corporate spiky-haired boss CEO would do, that they lose users...
TANSTAAFL and a modern web rendering engine is one of the nuclear power plant projects of software engineering. There is going to have to be a large engineering effort behind building any of them. And expecting software to be completely free and for everyone to work for peanuts is just exploitative. There are also only three alternatives and you don't get to choose some naively idealistic FOSS implementation that doesn't exist. Tearing down Firefox only makes Google and Apple stronger.
> What metric are you measuring this individual against? Because Revenues went from $441M (2020), to $527M (2021), that's a 20% YoY increase in topline revenue growth. That's huge for a company of this size.
That annual report can be tl;dr-ed as "we're like years away from closing shop but we sampled data at juuust the right moment to make you wonder why". That's a huge for a company of this size, but it's also largely accidental.
The mechanisms behind the revenue growth are fragile and tied to the browser (if not directly, like Pocket, at least in the initial stages of the funnel and through branding, like Mozilla VPN). And the browser is bleeding users. There are plenty of alternatives for all these services which will be there if users decide to switch browsers. The only way it'll still look like growth next year is if adoption of paid services will be slow enough that it'll take more than an year to reach the declining user cap.
Mozilla can secure secure its position through attractive software and services, not bean counting bullshit -- paying customers pay for software and services, not numerology. Failing to deliver attractive software and services is a core failure, and the capital underperformance: unless it's rectified, annual reports won't look as pretty.
So yeah, my metric here is increasing paid service adoption base. $441M -> $527M is an attractive looking feature, but that's because it only contains the initial adoption uptick in a shrinking potential customer base.
I really do not see the issue. The difference between a non-profit and for-profit owned by a non-profit is basically nil in my country (Sweden). Nothing prevents non-profits from paying their managers ridiculous salaries. You do not need to create a for profit company to enrich yourself.
The board and managers of Mozilla Foundation being unethical does not have anything to do with the existence of Mozilla Corporation or not, that is just minor administrative details and they could be just as unethical either way.
