this post was submitted on 05 Aug 2024
1248 points (99.2% liked)

Technology

58092 readers
4246 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] priapus@sh.itjust.works 64 points 1 month ago (4 children)

Its seriously absurd. I hate ads, but there's realistically not a better option to profit when providing free software and services like Mozilla is doing. Investing into ads that don't violate your privacy is a great decision. I don't know what the hell people want from them.

[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 19 points 1 month ago

They want them to meet all of their impossibly high and contradictory standards at the same time. For free. What's so hard about that?? /s

[–] doodledup@lemmy.world 16 points 1 month ago (4 children)

They should do it like Signal: accept donations. Signal is doing just fine. But Mozilla cannot legally do that as they are a for-profit company. And Mozilla Foundation won't do that either because they are funded by Mozilla and under their command.

[–] Laborer3652@reddthat.com 13 points 1 month ago

Signal is a teeny tiny little pet project compared to an entire browser and rendering engine.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

You can accept donations if you're a for-profit company, there's no rule against that.

[–] doodledup@lemmy.world -1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Those are restrictions for charitable organizations, not for-profit organizations. AFAIK, for-profit companies can accept donations, they're just not tax-deductible and the corp would need to pay taxes on it since it's income.

[–] Cornelius_Wangenheim@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Google pays them 400 million. You really think they're going to get anywhere close to that from donations?

[–] bitfucker@programming.dev 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

You underestimate the complexity of a web browser if you compare it to instant messaging app

[–] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

They're comparing the business models, not the software itself.

[–] bitfucker@programming.dev 2 points 1 month ago

The problem is the business models revolve around the software. You cannot directly compare them without also comparing the complexity and manpower required to achieve it. Just take a look at W3C spec and you'll see just how many cases there are to handle when making a browser. Not to mention making it secure and performant. Also, if you want to support web push technology on your browser you also need to have infrastructure to maintain. A donation may work but you'll have to be content with slow development since the resources can be uncertain.

[–] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 16 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

People don't seem to realise that developing a browser (a real one, not Chrome with a different paint job), web rendering engine, having the top-notch security expertise that building a modern web engine requires, plus being on the board that decides web standards is expensive.

It's honestly at a similar scale and complexity to OS development.

We're talking hundreds of millions a year to do the work that Mozilla needs to do. People who say "oh I'd chip in a dollar or two, but only if they get rid of all other funding" as if it's feasible kind of get on my nerves because they clearly don't see the big picture.

Any time Mozilla tries to diversify their income while still being broadly privacy-respecting they're branded as evil or too corporate. Any time they ask for donations they're being greedy beggars. When they take Google's money they're shills for big tech. They can't win. People want Mozilla to work for free.

[–] priapus@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 month ago

Exactly. Browser's are insanely fucking complex, the codebases of Firefox and Chromium are MASSIVE. There is zero chance Mozilla could ever make enough money simply off of donations.

[–] gnuplusmatt@reddthat.com 3 points 1 month ago

I don’t know what the hell people want from them.

these people are probably already using forks anyway