This is the second layoff at Mozilla this year, the first affecting dozens of staff on the side of the organization that builds the popular Firefox browser.

cross-posted from: https://lemm.ee/post/46655413

The Mozilla Foundation, the non-profit arm of the Firefox browser maker Mozilla, has laid off 30% of its employees as the organization says it faces a “relentless onslaught of change.”

  • snowcrushed573@lemmy.worldEnglish
    101·
    2 hours ago

    Everytime I see comments regarding Mozilla’'s financials,I have the same effing question: How does a company like brave or opera maintain their browser ?? AFAIK both don’t have the level of community backing that Mozilla does nor do they have any (again AFAIK) agreement with a company like google for default search engine placement

  • PetteriPano@lemmy.worldEnglish
    1411·
    7 hours ago

    Gee, I can’t imagine why they chose to drop this bomb today.

    It’s like they wanted it to be drowned in other news.

    • T156@lemmy.worldEnglish
      221·
      5 hours ago

      If Mozilla does become defunct, it does raise the question of whether Chrome would be considered a Google monopoly, and therefore subject to antitrust legislation.

      I can’t imagine any governments would look kindly upon internet access being guarded behind a single company’s product.

      • corsicanguppy@lemmy.caEnglish
        12·
        3 hours ago

        I can’t imagine any governments would look kindly upon internet access being guarded behind a single company’s product.

        laughs in 2001

      • ravhall@discuss.onlineEnglish
        71·
        4 hours ago

        There is a new browser based on WebKit (safari), called Orion that looks promising. However, it’s only on macOS and iOS at this point. Hopefully Linux and Android will be a consideration at some point.

        • grue@lemmy.worldEnglish
          41·
          4 hours ago

          Chrome’s engine was originally forked from WebKit. That makes them too similar (even years later) for WebKit to count as a real alternative.

          • ravhall@discuss.onlineEnglish
            52·
            3 hours ago

            The point is to leave a google controlled ecosystem… which means it counts as a valid alternative. What would you suggest besides chromium and gecko?

      • WldFyre@lemm.eeEnglish
        2·
        4 hours ago

        Splitting Chrome from Google wouldn’t make Chrome not a monopoly, though, right?

        • T156@lemmy.worldEnglish
          2·
          2 hours ago

          The split might leave a monopoly still, if it’s the only major browser.

          • ChapulinColorado@lemmy.worldEnglish
            1·
            2 hours ago

            It would be a lot easier to compete with though, since Google couldn’t treat it as a loss leader that still bring them in search revenue by default.

      • Gemini24601@lemmy.worldEnglish
        6·
        3 hours ago

        Also, Ladybird is looking very promising, so in a few years we should have a true fourth browser engine.

      • dubyakay@lemmy.caEnglish
        15·
        5 hours ago

        Let’s just separate GOOG from Chrome / Chromium and Google Search completely. So that the direction of the most used browser, most used search engine and the biggest advertiser don’t circle jerk each other.

  • linearchaos@lemmy.worldEnglish
    70·
    7 hours ago

    I suspect their financial position has changed. Perhaps Google’s being found as a monopoly has made them decide not to help fund Mozilla’s efforts as substantially.

    Ashley Boyd lead the advocacy team, here’s the kind of stuff they were doing:

    https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/mozilla-welcomes-ashley-boyd-vp-of-advocacy/

    In fall of 2016, Mozilla fought for common-sense copyright reform in the EU, creating public education media that engaged over one million citizens and sending hundreds of rebellious selfies to EU Parliament. Earlier in 2016, Mozilla launched a public education campaign around encryption and emerged as a staunch ally of Apple in the company’s clash with the FBI. Mozilla has also fought for mass surveillance reform, net neutrality and data retention reform.

    https://techcrunch.com/2024/11/05/mozilla-foundation-lays-off-30-staff-drops-advocacy-division/

    “The Mozilla Foundation is reorganizing teams to increase agility and impact as we accelerate our work to ensure a more open and equitable technical future for us all. That unfortunately means ending some of the work we have historically pursued and eliminating associated roles to bring more focus going forward,” read the statement shared with TechCrunch.

    Reading between the lines, I’d keep an eye on them collecting your data and consider one of the privacy-focused forks.

  • Marthirial@lemmy.worldEnglish
    143·
    5 hours ago

    Their question is: how much would you pay for not using a Chromium based browser?

    People switching to the browser and zapping all ads, demanding open source and vitriol for any kind of monetization. How can they survive? They would have to become a subsidized utility, which not even the Internet as a whole has achieved.

  • Nytixus@kbin.melroy.org
    371·
    7 hours ago

    Getting rid of the advocacy part. That’s…not good.

    So what does that mean in layman’s terms? They’re not going to have as much of a voice to sway heads about things like open internet, the flaws of copyright, the problems with privacy and surveillance.

    • PlasticExistence@lemmy.worldEnglish
      45·
      7 hours ago

      It’s looking increasingly likely that the US Department of Justice is going to succeed in their antitrust efforts against Google. Currently, Mozilla gets something like 85% of their funding from Google for being the default search engine in Firefox. That may be deemed anticompetitive behavior by a judge, at which point Mozilla will be left with very little funding compared to their current situation.

      I’d bet these actions are in anticipation of that happening.

      • blind3rdeye@lemm.eeEnglish
        201·
        6 hours ago

        Yeah, and although it will be painful for Mozilla in the short term - it would be a good outcome. It was always bad that Mozilla’s main source of funding was from their most powerful competitor. It’s an obvious conflict of interest. And obvious way to skew decision making. … But that money is just so addictive.

        There will be some pretty severe withdrawal symptoms if the money gets taken away, but everyone will be healthier in the long run… unless the overpaid CEO continues to suck in all the remaining money and leaves nothing for the people actually doing the work. That would be bad. In that case, if the corporate structure chokes the company to death, I suppose we’d be hoping for Ladybird, or something like it to take Firefox’s place.

    • GreenKnight23@lemmy.worldEnglish
      5·
      2 hours ago

      well you see. all the cool kids are laying off staff and Mozilla wants to hang out at their pool next summer.

    • FaceDeer@fedia.io
      81·
      5 hours ago

      Not necessarily. If they’re low on cash then cutting unnecessary costs is not unreasonable. What is Mozilla’s core goal? Perhaps the “advocacy” and “global programs” divisions weren’t all that relevant to it, and so their funding is better put elsewhere.

  • btaf45@lemmy.worldEnglish
    845·
    7 hours ago

    Why the heck did Mozilla need 120 employees for anyway? I hate that Firefox is updated so often because I always get Firefox Update Fatigue. I hope that fewer employees means fewer Firefox updates.