this post was submitted on 26 Feb 2025
421 points (97.1% liked)
Technology
63313 readers
6373 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
No it’s because Firefox isn’t profitable and to try to survive in its current form they have to do something.
It might be more productive to die and live on as an open source effort. I personally doubt there’s enough open source engagement to keep Firefox current and competitive but it’s of course an alternative Mozilla in its current form is unable to consider.
Mozilla is a nonprofit (or it at least it should be, technically it's a for profit corporation that's wholly owned by a nonprofit foundation, shady asf).
They shouldn't be trying to make a profit, they should make enough money to pay their programmers to maintain the browser.
They should not be dumping money into more executive hires and AI bullshit like they are doing.
Being a "non-profit" doesn't mean the company "shouldn't make profit" ... It means that the owners/investors don't earn anything extra based on profit. The organization itself still needs to be financially sustainable.
As shady as Mozilla is, they're competing against a functional monopoly, so the playing field is hardly fair.
yeah this is a part we need to recognize. right now there are essentially three browsers. Chrome, Safari, and Firefox. Every other browser is some derivative of one of these- mostly Chromium.
Google can change some small detail about how they render HTML or a small part of their JS engine and that has global effects all over the internet. Without a Firefox to compete, they will implement policies to hurt the consumer. People think just because Chromium is open source that this mitigates the risk.
Google's V8 javascript engine does not only power all Chrome and chrome-derivatives, it also powers nodeJS and therefore vast swathes of server-side javascript as well.
it's actually difficult to understate how much raw power Google has in determining what you see on the internet and how you see it
we desperately need Firefox. I really hope that an open source alternative could be viable but it's been decades and we haven't had a real browser pop into existence. will the death of Firefox mean something else comes out? Or will the death of Firefox be the last nail in the coffin for a free internet?
Most non-profits are not financially sustainable and rely on donations and grants to operate. If the service they provided could be financially sustainable, a for-profit would popup and operate in that space.
But I agree that non-profits can and should find fee-for-service opportunities and generate revenue to reduce their reliance on gifts.