On 11/12/13, 14:07 , Andi Ye wrote:
Mozilla is currently appealing for donations on its Google homepage, even though we see
that it had a net income (what commercial companies would call "Net Profit") of
US$21.6 million in 2011 (source: Wikipedia).
How is whether all of the income of a non-profit in one particular year
was also spent in that particular year in any way relevant? It's not
like (any of) the difference was given out as money to shareholders.
Calling it 'profit' is extremely misleading.
600+ employees (source: Wikipedia) to develop its small handful of applications
Huge applications, though. A web browser is complex. The number of
applications is hardly relevant; clearly different numbers of people are
required to maintain e.g. a cooking timer mobile app, a browser, or an
operating system. As we're now also making a mobile OS, I think you're
not being particularly fair.
and a huge, expensive headquarters in the heart of silicon valley, just down
the road from Google's HQ (source: Google Maps).
Google Maps does not list the expenses of the headquarters. I don't know
what they are, but I've seen the MV office and it is not huge by any
standards, definitely not when compared to Google. Please stop trolling.
Mozilla is often very slow to respond to the changing marketplace, in spite of
the support and input from a large and supportive user base.
Having a lot of people tell you to do something is not related to the
speed with which you can execute their plan.
Mozilla's response to loss of market share seems to have been to throw all
development resources at Firefox
You seem to be confused. For one thing, Mozilla is not solely focused on
Firefox, nevermind Firefox for desktop as you imply. For another, you
complain that we are "slow to respond [to criticism/requests for
Firefox]" but you also complain we "[use] all development resources
[for] Firefox". I do hope you see that the speed with which we can
respond to feature requests etc. is strongly correlated with how many
people work on a product.
> Furthermore it seems to have taken for granted the immense dedication
from add-on developers who have been in no small part responsible for
Mozilla's early user-base and financial success.
Are you equating no longer having a developer being paid to work on
Lightning as "taking for granted the immense dedication [of] add-on
developers"? Because that is a rather big stretch, and I'm sure members
of our excellent add-on SDK (Jetpack), addons.mozilla.org, and
marketplace.m.o (both reviewers and developers for the last two) teams
would take significant issue with it.
It's a poor state of affairs when an organisation fails to support the major
pillars of its own success, throws all its magnificent resources at one product
which continues to haemorrhage support for reasons migrating users are happy to
provide; and then requests public donations to support a bloated and
unresponsive organisation with no plan to meet their needs.
[citation needed] for all of this phrase, from 'major pillars of its own
success' to 'magnificent resources' (have you checked how much money
Google throws at Chrome, MS at IE, etc.?) to 'at one product' (which is
just plain wrong) and all the way down the rest of the sentence.
Is there any willingness to address this issue?
Emails like this are unlikely to help create any. Please be more
constructive.
~ Gijs
(who, in case disclaimers are necessary, as of earlier this year is a
moco employee (NB: opinions above are my own) after a long time in the
community, and still happily uses both Thunderbird and Lightning, even
though paid to work on Firefox desktop frontend, and still maintains and
helps to maintain some add-ons)
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
