A few days ago TechMeme picked up a story at Search Engine Land about how Firefox doesn’t make you choose a search engine. Firefox 3 was recently released, and as always Google is still the default search engine. Sure there are some other search engines you can select but why doesn’t Mozilla give you choice? The answer…after the jump.
Money and Self-Preservation
Of course the reason Mozilla doesn’t make you choose a search engine (like Internet Explorer does) is because if they did, they’d lose almost all of their revenues. Mozilla’s number one (and nearly only) source of revenue is an advertising revenue sharing program it has with Google. Of course Internet Explorer used to default to MSN Search, but they were forced to ask users after companies like Google started suing them over it.
Corporations are just like people; they are extremely interested in their own self-preservation (read: money, for corporations). It is easy for Google and Mozilla to talk about building an “open web platform” when that is in their best interests. You can see that they aren’t always for openness and choice, though.
Case in point, Google sued Microsoft because Windows Vista’s search can only use Microsoft’s own built-in search (Service Pack 1 changed that because of the lawsuit), but does Gmail let you use a different search? Nope. Does Google Talk natively support any other IM networks? Nope. Does Google Earth allow third-party search results? Nope. But I thought they were all about choice and openness?
Mozilla doesn’t even list Live Search (which I recently switched to and actually prefer now) as an option. If they were truly for openness then surely the number three web search would be included above “Creative Commons” (who knows why that is there) right? Firefox also makes itself the default web browser when you install it; again Internet Explorer makes you choose.
I’m not saying Google and Mozilla are the devil, just that their motives are the same as Microsoft. In truth, it could be argued that Microsoft’s products are now more open to choice than either of these other companies. Google is at the stage where they are following all of the big bad anti-competitive things (exclusive OEM deals, suing companies to damage their products, etc) that Microsoft used to do.
When companies are still new and small(ish) it is easy to say you are truly for openness and the consumer. But as soon as they are established at all, the game changes. Firefox came out nearly four years ago, and no matter how plucky Mozilla tries to act, there are a lot of people who only truly care about protecting their jobs and the core product of the company they work for. If that means ensuring a Google (their #1 customer) search engine monopoly, then so be it.
Honestly, I wish everyone would stop suing and just compete on the quality of their software. One of the main weaknesses of Vista versus Mac OS X is that it would be illegal for Vista to have that level of integration. Everywhere you turn in Vista it has to ask you which search engine you’d like to use, what music store, or if you want Windows Media Player to be your default music program. Do you ever see that in OS X? Nope.
Note: This article is cross-posted at PseudoSavant.
Friday, 20. June 2008
It does seem that both Mozilla and Google gain from some sort of pseudo-underdog following even if Microsoft is more the underdog when it comes to search.
But Microsoft has a lot of baggage and Mozilla and Google simply haven’t been around long enough to have that much of their own baggage. And Google infatuation probably won’t last forever…
Friday, 20. June 2008
>>Of course the reason Mozilla doesn’t make you choose a search engine (like Internet Explorer does) is because if they did, *they’d lose almost all of their revenues*. 1. Asking that kind of thing would be annoying. 2. Changing it yourself is dead simple. 3. The majority of people would probably stick with the default of google.
Friday, 20. June 2008
website design-
But then how would you feel about Microsoft not asking you for things like search engine / media player / music store? Is it only annoying to have the choice if it’s not Microsoft making the arbitrary decision for you?
Friday, 20. June 2008
I’m not sure you understand the difference between the Microsoft issue and the Google/Mozilla issue.
Microsoft FORCED Live Search – you couldn’t change it as its default search. Firefox does not force you to use any search. In fact, you can easily add any new kind of search you want to the Firefox search bar.
Why Creative Commons? Simple. Creative Commons is a license that lets you use [pictures/music/etc.] without nearly as many restrictions as copyright. Firefox is about “freedom.” So, this makes sense. (You notice, they also provide search to Amazon, Yahoo, Answers, Wikipedia, etc. For some reason you focused on Google.)
Also, this line just blows my mind: “but does Gmail let you use a different search? Nope. Does Google Talk natively support any other IM networks? Nope.”
1. Do you understand how search works? Gmail can’t just switch over to LiveSearch. That’s…well…impossible! And, yes, Google Talk natively supports AIM (arguably Jabber) and is in talks with others as well.
Last of all – of COURSE Firefox is going to do what’s in their best interest. So is any other company. The difference is, Microsoft never gave users a way to change that. Firefox lets you change it.
Your article is a troll and you did absolutely no research.
Friday, 20. June 2008
I think forcing Microsoft to *ask* is the wrong approach. The real freedom comes from enabling a choice, as both browsers do.
Let’s remember two things: 1) Microsoft got themselves in this mess by actively hindering choice in the arenas you mentioned. 2) IE was actually forced to integrate the idea of a default search box when Firefox made it a standard. It didn’t come along until IE 7, and it was part of an overall effort to catch up with Firefox’s innovations.
Finally, this stupid debate ignores the fact that nearly everyone on earth has a search-related toolbar installed, and it’s usually one they chose themselves. As part of that installation process, users usually choose a default search engine that takes over the browser’s built-in search box as well.
Friday, 20. June 2008
“…users usually choose a default search engine that takes over the browser’s built-in search box as well.”
But the fact remains that most of Mozilla’s revenues come from their Google deal. So obviously the amount of people who use Google via Mozilla is not as insignificant as you make it sound. It sustains a whole company.
Friday, 20. June 2008
@Website Design
Microsoft hasn’t been able to set a default for anything for a long long time now. And I’m pretty sure that when IE finally added a search box that it allowed multiple search providers. It is just as easy to change your search provider in IE as it is in FF.
Why did I focus on Google? Simple, it is the default. This is about defaults not about being able to choose. Both IE and FF allow you to choose. I think (but I’m not 100% positive) that Safari is the only one that doesn’t let you choose.
Is it any more ridiculous to expect to be able to use Microsoft’s search technologies in Gmail than it is to expect to be able to use Google’s search technologies in Outlook or Vista’s built-in search? Nope.
It is all about double standards. Google wants into Microsoft’s world, but expects to have their own software locked down to only their products.
BTW, Google Talk only supports XMPP (aka Jabber). Their client software can only even log into Google’s XMPP servers. It will send IMs to non-Google XMPP servers however. Any AIM/MSN/Yahoo/etc support is done by a third-party. Live Messenger can send messages to Yahoo built-in.
I agree with mrshl. IE (and other MS products) should allow you to choose (where it is relatively trivial to implement) new settings for things like search, but they should not be forced to not have defaults.
They shouldn’t be forced to compete on a completely different landscape than every other company. Especially when their chief competitor (Google) has an effective search AND online advertising monopoly.
Friday, 20. June 2008
As you say, Firefox’s deal with Mozilla supports the whole company. That’s basically true, but keep in mind that this support is leveraging a relatively small portion of the browser market.
80% still use IE. And most of those folks have a toolbar installed, primarily because a search box didn’t come standard in IE until version 7.0. Many people, who aren’t tech-savvy at all, have MORE than one toolbar installed.
In the techie world we tend to forget that most people don’t use Firefox. We also forget that most people resort to obvious means when they want to solve a problem. For many people, that meant getting around Microsoft’s failure to innovate by choosing a third-party toolbar and search provider.
Friday, 20. June 2008
Bob, you don’t really have enough information to be making the assertions you are here in this post. I don’t have a log of time so excuse the terse nature of this reply.
Comparing Microsoft activities to those of companies who did not break anti-trust laws by illegally leveraging a monopoly product to gain market share in another product is silly. Please stop. Microsoft is still, under binding agreement, required to play extra special nice with consumers _because_ they were found guilty of breaking federal anti-trust laws. Google and Mozilla were not.
Mozilla is not “a corporation” in the same way that Microsoft (or even Google) are. Mozilla is a 501C3 public-benefit charitable not for profit organization with an IRS enforced mandate to serve the public, not it’s financial bottom line. That cannot be said for Google or Microsoft which are traditional public corporations that have a fiduciary responsibility to their stockholders to maximize revenue. Comparing across this divide is either extremely uninformed or mendacious. Please stop.
Finally, Mozilla has revenue agreements with Google, Yahoo, and other search partners. If users move from Google to Yahoo, for example, Mozilla will still make money. Any search service in their right mind would pay Mozilla quite well for the traffic it sends them (and they currently do.) Live search is not in Firefox because Firefox users don’t want or need it, not because Mozilla makes money from Google and Yahoo. Mozilla could make just as much money from Live search (presumably more since Microsoft can afford and would probably be willing to pay more than the other guys given their poor position in this market and their massive cash reserves.) Given your complete failure to understand the actual financial relationships at play here, I’d ask you to be more careful in the future making assertions and putting your guesses and opinions about Mozilla finances forward as facts.
Again, sorry I don’t have more time to explain things in more detail, but you are so far off the mark on pretty much everything you’ve written here that what I have provided should help you get a lot closer to reality. If after you’ve written another article that comes closer to resembling the real world, I can dig a little deeper with you.
Take care,
- A
Friday, 20. June 2008
Asa Dotzler,
First of all, I didn’t write this post (though I don’t necessarily disagree with its general message). And I can’t help but point out the irony of such an arrogant “I’m right and you’re wrong” comment directed toward the wrong person. Otherwise, what you must say must be more accurate than the original post because you say so. That’s my favorite logic.
Your bringing up the fact that these organizations are structured differently is an interesting twist, though “self-preservation” as Paul calls it (the name of the author of this post) is just as applicable to all the entities in question. So I’m not sure why he should stop any comparisons unless you can tell me why self-preservation isn’t on the agenda for Mozilla.
As for Microsoft’s past… I’m not sure why that should give the current competition the upper hand inherently (i.e., Microsoft having to play by more strict rules), especially since one of the competitors in this case is being investigated for its own monopolistic practice (Google).
Friday, 20. June 2008
@mrshl
Actually the whole reason for why the default is so important is exactly because overwhelmingly most people don’t ever change it as you pointed out.
@Asa
First off, for the benefit of the readers who may not follow Mozilla that much, Asa is a prominent Mozilla employee.
Second, it was my post so if you are going to direct anything at anyone then I’m the guilty party.
Next, I could have and maybe should have abstracted my point out a little further on the whole “corporation” side of things. It really applies to almost any organization. It is an inherit human trait for survival.
As for Microsoft, the playing “extra nice with consumers” part doesn’t bother me, the arbitrarily getting screwed by Google does. And I am speaking more to peoples’ (especially fanboys) double standards for certain monopolistic companies (Microsoft and Google). Also, many of Google’s deals (Doubleclick or Yahoo?) probably would not have been approved in Clinton’s era as they’d been viewed as monopolistic (btw, I’m registered independent, but have voted republican many times).
I find it a bit disturbing that you mention an “IRS mandate to serve the public” which I’m pretty sure applies to only the foundation (which I know owns the corp.) but then you state that “Firefox users don’t want or need” Live Search. FYI, I’m a Firefox 2 and Live Search user.
I have met many people at both Microsoft and Mozilla, and I can tell you that each side generally speaking really does think that what their company does is the best for the consumer. So it is really naive to think that MoFo/MoCo have the corner on that market. And it is an impossible idealistic argument to prove whether Microsoft or Mozilla is actually serving the customer best.
Friday, 20. June 2008
FWIW- Asa, overall I think Mozilla has done a pretty good job with Firefox. It’s been my browser of choice for a few years now. So despite our differing opinions, we probably agree on which is the better browser of those mentioned here.
Friday, 20. June 2008
Paul, think about this one more time:
1) Most people were using legacy (i.e. pre-7.0) versions of IE when they installed a third-party toolbar.
2) When IE 7 was pushed out to these folks, in most cases it didn’t disrupt their existing tool bar.
Go to your mom’s / aunt’s / sister’s house or office. They probably all have a yahoo or MSN toolbar installed. Maybe even an iWon toolbar.
The irony of worrying about the Firefox/Google deal is that the Firefox user base is the least likely to accept their browser’s default behavior. Most of them, remember, had to download the software.
I get your main point: Google and Firefox are economically motivated. In my experience, that’s almost always a good thing if we want continued innovation.
But I’m not worried that Firefox users aren’t getting the search provider they want.
Friday, 20. June 2008
Sorry about the confusion on who wrote this.
Two more quick follow-ups and then I really do have to get to other things.
Microsoft is a convicted monopolist that agreed to a certain set of actions and behaviors when they settled with the DOJ and as part of that, they were being closely scrutinized all the way up until the end of 2007. That’s why they are offering the clumsy install/start option for search engines — not because it’s the best for the user.
Second, Mozilla has a public benefit mission and Microsoft has a profit mission. That’s the law for the organizational choices the two companies made.
Microsoft sees the benefits of being able to make a shitload of money (50+ billion USD in revenue last year) by being a publicly traded and successful corporation, but that comes with the fiduciary responsibility, to people who own Microsoft stock, to keep that money flowing to the best of their abilities — to maximize profits.
Mozilla has the benefit of some tax exemption but it must invest any revenues back into its public benefit mission or it will be subject to losing its charity status and tax exemption.
Those are two very different kinds of organizations with two very different structural motivations.
I’m not making any judgments about the people at either organization or the products or the teams and leadership. I’m talking about the structural requirements inherent in the choice of organization type and the benefits and costs of that structure. Microsoft makes a lot of money and makes a lot of executives and wealthy stockholders filthy rich. Mozilla makes very little money but turns that into a global public good. Both make decent software and both fill a very acute set of needs. When push comes to shove, as it inevitably does, Mozilla has the freedom and the legal responsibility to put the public first while Microsoft has the freedom and the legal responsibility to put their shareholders first.
If you had to guess which of the two organizations would be more likely to put their user above their revenue, you’d be smart to put your money on Mozilla.
Friday, 20. June 2008
Do you really think that Mozilla making a lot of money to then invest in the Mozilla cause is a bad thing? You guys could certainly choose revenues over users, you’d just think it was the right choice because it would be “invested in the public good”. Tell me if I’m wrong on this.
Microsoft: wants money for their cause (shareholders, which btw aren’t all filthy rich pigs; it is only $28/share and lots of “regular” people have it in their retirement/investment portfolios, it’s like buying Coca-Cola or any other blue chip)
Mozilla: wants money for their cause (Mozilla’s view of public benefit)
You also can’t tell me that continued employment or job stability isn’t a primary motivator for most employees at either (or any) company. Hence they are incentivized to protect their organization. I’m sure there are a quite a few people in on Landings Drive in Mountain View that would be quite disappointed if Google dropped their agreement with Mozilla.
I guess I just don’t buy into the underlying assumption that increased revenues are always in compatible with user satisfaction. I switched to Office 2007 because it is leaps and bounds better than OOo, and I had to pay for it. It is foolish for for-profit proprietary or “community driven” pen-source software to think that either way inherently makes them more customer responsive. Both parties could learn a thing or two from the other.
I should note that in my Microsoft vs Google & Mozilla view, my issue is mostly with Google. They push aggressively for choice (search engine choice, mobile phone platform, etc) only when it suits their aspirations. When it doesn’t (Doubleclick?) they are just as bad, if not worse, than the Microsoft of yesteryear. They aren’t really for customer choice, they are for Google.
Friday, 20. June 2008
Paul,
I guess I don’t see/understand your problem with Google. They’re a public company with a duty to maximize shareholder value. Everything they do is designed to achieve that goal. I don’t think anyone has any weird illusions about that, because that’s the definition of a publicly-held company.
To the extent that you’re just revealing the obvious, I guess I agree. But your “choice” analysis is flawed. For example, Google built their chat platform on an open standard. Any of their competitors could integrate with Google Chat at any time. But the reverse isn’t true. MSN / Yahoo / AIM all have larger user bases than Google and they all have proprietary systems. Google is interoperable with AIM through G-Mail, and will soon add support for Yahoo! I don’t see your point here.
As for search, that’s Google’s main product everything they do is built around their search engine. Why would they allow anyone else’s search product to be embedded in their email or maps applications?
There’s a difference between a commitment to open standards and simply abandoning competitive behavior. That’s one of the reasons analysts have been so upset about the Yahoo! decision to outsource ad-placement to Google. Ads and search are at the core of Yahoo’s vision.
Your kind of open-ness would cause shareholder revolt at Google.
Friday, 20. June 2008
I agree that Google has a duty to “maximize shareholder value” but I feel people are far to trusting of Google. It seems so often that people really believe in Google’s pseudo-altruistic motives.
Just look at the XMPP example. Google had no presence in IM, so they created/hijacked a new IM protocol. Sure they publish how it works (and I’m actually a huge fan of how the XMPP protocol works and what it can do BTW) but they use the guise of “open” because they aren’t a front runner.
If you look at any product they lead in however, it is as locked down as possible. “Why would they allow anyone else’s search product to be embedded in their email or maps applications?” Because they say they are for choice. Conversely why should Microsoft allow Google’s search product to be embedded in Windows Vista? Google will sue Microsoft over getting into Vista (using the guise of choice), but then close up their own products.
This whole train of thought started when I was reading another post about how hard Google fought for “choice” in search engine providers for IE, but then bought up the rights to be the default search in FF. They didn’t care about choice in IE, they cared about Microsoft not being the default. It is Machiavellian self interest.
There is such a double standard where Google gets a free ride as being open when arguably their products are far more closed than Microsoft’s. I guess people’s blind allegiance to Google and blind hatred to Microsoft just bothers me.
BTW Google’s AIM only works with Gmail not Google Talk.
Friday, 20. June 2008
>but then bought up the rights to be the default search in FF.
Just another correction. Google didn’t buy up the rights to be the default search in Firefox. Mozilla put Google in as the default search before there even was a Firefox (in the old Mozilla Application Suite days) and Google is paying for the traffic that Firefox generates just like Yahoo is. In countries where Yahoo was Firefox’s default, it accounted for the bulk of searches. In countries where Google was the default, it accounted for the bulk of searches.
Mozilla didn’t sell off the default search to the highest bidder. Had Mozilla done that, I’d bet that Live Search would be in that spot because Microsoft has more money than anyone and more to gain than anyone by getting in there.
Mozilla didn’t sell of search positions, though. That’s not how it went down at all. We picked the top general search for most of our uses, Google, and then picked the second most popular search as an alternative, Yahoo, and then Mozilla worked out a revenue agreement with both of them for the search traffic Firefox generated.
When we learned that Yahoo was actually more used in some countries than Google (CJKT) we switched the order because that’s what we thought was right for our users as a default (of course while providing them the easy mechanism to change.) After doing that, we heard quite clearly from those users that even though Yahoo had a larger presence than Google in those markets, that our users in particular preferred Google so we changed it back.
In other countries where neither Google nor Yahoo are the favored search (Baidu in China, Daum and Naver in Korea, Yandex in Russia, etc. etc.) we are working to change the default spot to those providers — because we want to do right by our users and that’s what our users are asking for.
It’s not about the money. It’d about doing the right thing.
We think the right thing is providing the best possible default right out of the box with no configuration required and then offering the second-most demanded option as the number two. For “general” search, that’s Google and Yahoo for most locales (note the exceptions I mentioned above.)
We also think the right thing is to include some niche or category searches in Firefox so we decided that we would include, in addition to the two general searches, an ecommerce solution, an auction site, and an encyclopedia. The obvious choices there were Amazon, Ebay, and Wikipedia. — Except that if you happen to travel to South America, for example, you’ll find that Mercado Libre is the right choice rather than Ebay so we’ll work to get Mercado Libre in as the default for our users in that case.
Again, the point is to try to learn what our users want and make it as easy as possible for them to get it.
Our users are not demanding Microsoft in any substantial numbers and certainly not at the level of a Yahoo or Google search — in any market in the world. If they were, we’d figure out where it made sense and we’d add it and work out a revenue deal with Microsoft for whatever traffic it generated.
So, I’ll say it one more time. It’s not about the money. It’s not about Google. It’s about Mozilla doing the right thing for its users with Firefox.
And as far as Microsoft is concerned, if they did exactly the same thing as Firefox with their search integration, I’d be thrilled. No need for interrupting the user’s flow when getting set up. Had they not been under the close scrutiny of the US Department of Justice for breaking the law, and had they been the kind of organization that could be trusted to make a good faith effort to figure out what their users actually wanted for search options, I’d have much preferred to see them ship a reasonable set of defaults with an easy switching mechanism.
But Microsoft is essentially an ex-con and the rules are different when you’re the biggest baddest company in the business and you’ve got a criminal record. That made it basically impossible for Microsoft to get away with anything but making it a forced user choice.
As for open, I’d much sooner pat Google on the back for using free and open and agreed upon web standards to build their Internet apps on (like Apple does — and they deserve a pat on the back too,) rather than the proprietary and closed platforms of Flash and Silverlight like Adobe and Microsoft do. It’s really hard for me to believe that either of those companies have the free and open Web at heart when they’re actively subverting it with closed technologies like Flash and Silverlight.
But that’s a whole other discussion
Friday, 20. June 2008
Asa-
Thanks for your time spent explaining specifically how Mozilla operates in this particular case. One minor quibble with your latest comment… Apple characterized as free and open? Is there something I don’t know about my iPods or iTunes?
Friday, 20. June 2008
Bob, I was speaking in the context of the Web, the part of the Internet that interests me the most and a key piece of Mozilla’s mission.
Both Apple and Google are betting on standards built through a collaborative and participatory processes, — the Free and Open Web. That’s good.
What Apple’s doing outside of the Web is a whole other story. But, when you look at which of the big players are putting their resources on my side, Apple and Google fit that bill pretty well.
In that same context, there are two big players betting against a Free and Open Web, Microsoft and Adobe. They’re putting their resources into subverting the Web with closed, web-like software stacks, Flex+Flash, and Silverlight.
Saturday, 21. June 2008
Asa, I stand corrected on the selection of a default search provider. Most news outlets do not report it that way. One question though. If a large majority (>75%) of Firefox users were demanding a search provider who would not enter into any kind of compensation agreement with Mozilla would you still include them in the search and set them as the default as you have for Yahoo and Google?
About the free and open web (which is a whole other convoluted can of worms). My opinion is really mixed on this. I’d rather see the web use standards, but all of the standards boards have let consumers down.
Do you really think that Flash or Silverlight would be able to take off if the same kind of rich experience could be created using standards? Adobe and Microsoft are satisfying a demand that has gone unmet by groups like the W3C. Yes, some of the richness can be done using AJAX, but AJAX is really a kludge. Keep in mind who made AJAX possible too (Microsoft with XmlHttpRequest).
We’ll see what HTML5 actually does when it actually materializes. But until then Flash and particularly Silverlight will allow an experience you could never create with “free and open” standards. And even if you could create it, it would be insane to debug, change, or maintain in the future.
Sunday, 22. June 2008
>If a large majority (>75%) of Firefox users were
>demanding a search provider who would not enter
>into any kind of compensation agreement with
>Mozilla would you still include them in the search
>and set them as the default as you have for Yahoo
>and Google?
Absolutely. Though I cannot imagine a situation where that search provider wouldn’t be willing to pay for the kinds of massive traffic that Mozilla can send its way.
Any search provider that can pass Google and Yahoo in terms of user demand will necessarily be monetizing that traffic as well or better than those players and it just doesn’t make sense that they wouldn’t have programs for paying to further increase their traffic.
Mozilla is swiftly approaching 200 million users and that’s a lot of search traffic, (estimate the number of searches you do in a month, multiply by 200 million
and so I’m confident that whatever our users demand at that kind of scale (75%) would be something that could help to fund more Mozilla work.
We’re not optimizing for revenue. We’re optimizing for the user experience that will get us the user base we need to move the Web in the direction our Mission calls for. I’m completely confident that whatever we do, if we always put the users first, we’ll have enough reach that we’ll be able to strike that wonderful balance between providing the best possible product for hundreds of millions of users and making enough revenue to keep moving Firefox and the Web forward.
Search is one pretty obvious (now, but not when we pioneered this kind of relationship) way to serve both those needs without compromising our commitment to our users and our mission, but it’s not necessarily the only way and we’ll be looking over the coming years to find other relationships and revenue sources.
But in the mean time, there isn’t a search engine out there that our users would want that wouldn’t be willing to pay us what we’re making now or better to have a spot on that list so we’re in good shape for being able to provide for both our users and our revenue without compromise.
Sunday, 22. June 2008
Asa-
I wouldn’t say it’s without compromise… The compromise is that the user experience ala Google is apparently worth more than the increase in revenues ala the search engine chosen by bids.
Whatever Google is paying you, it’s not enough. If they know you’re going to go with them anyway (for user experience, since most FF users prefer Google), then there’s no incentive for them to give you the *best* deal.
I’m not saying that’s necessarily a bad thing, just pointing out the compromise. I guess we’ve come full circle, as now I’m pointing out the difference between your not-for-profit status and that of a typical corporation.
Sunday, 22. June 2008
Bob, it’s only a compromise if you start out assuming that maximizing revenue is a goal. For Mozilla, it’s not, so framing it as a compromise is wrong. We’re providing the best possible service and generating enough revenue to do the things we need to be doing to advance our mission. There’s no compromise there.
Though I do like where this discussion ended up. Yes, if Mozilla were a traditional corporation, then we would have maximizing revenue as not just a goal, but our primary mission as an organization. Because we’re not a traditional corporation, but rather a public-benefit organization, we get to have loftier and more user-friendly goals like making the Web a better place — without compromise!