OK, but then they rely on donations or info selling for ads. Is that really better? I sure won't foot the bill for the ceo's multi million salary.
this post was submitted on 13 Mar 2025
41 points (80.6% liked)
Technology
82361 readers
5455 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- 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, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- 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
Yeah... it's frustrating to see these kinds of things. Like.. yes.. stop doing the bad thing... but if you're going to start a whole petition... maybe offer some feasible alternatives and solutions.
Looking over their financials, they'd have to cut l over half their workforce and relocate to a cheaper area (to cut salaries by more than half) to get close to being financially stable without search income.
Bing is still a thing. Bing offered Apple a boatload of money to be the default search engine in Safari. I’m sure Mozilla could make a deal with Microsoft.
I also wonder if they could just prompt the user to select a search engine from a randomized list, and then get paid from whichever service the user picks?
Some browsers sell placement spaces on the default start page to make money as well. It would be another revenue stream for Mozilla and it’s easily updatable by the user directory don’t want any of these default sites.
how is ditching Google for Microsoft better?
What's the financial plan there? Or do you just want them to drop 80% of their budget or whatever it is and work for free?
Back when they were "Netscape" you could buy a box off a shelf with the current version for a flat fee. I'd be okay with a paid version with zero ad inserts, and zero leaky telemetry. I'd even be okay if it was $X for the base product and $Y for $Z years of security updates.
As long as they've got the Point of Sale going for the purchase, if they also want to include addons that I could select to donate to in the same transaction where they pass through those funds to the addon developer, I'd be good with that too.
Netscape went bankrupt so might not be the most solid idea for funding. Wasn't opera paid before too, but abandoned that model?
Netscape went bankrupt when Microsoft started giving out Internet Explorer for free. So, today, would you prefer to use a free Microsoft Edge or would you prefer to pay for Firefox that is telemetry and ad free?
If Netscape had a large paid install base and still failed because a free browser became ubiquitous, what makes you think doing that now when the free browsers are already ubiquitous would work? Especially when it also has to compete with what is essentially already what you're describing, Librewolf (or just Firefox + Arkenfox).
Mozilla should partner with all the Firefox forks to make them all as good as possible. Pool the ideas and developer talent to make Firefox a innovative browser platform. They can ship flavors of Firefox. Librefox for the fossheads, Zen for a speak tiling first experience etc
How are they going to make money? idk fire everyone who isn't in marketing, product management or engineering. Sell ads, sell subscriptions, take donations. Do normal stuff to make money.
Mozilla is also ded.