These people surely don't count as required for "funding an implementation of the web" right?
And yet, they have market share and an implementation. If you're committed to saying that Mozilla is spending its money well and there's not much waste in that budget, feel free, but I don't have much else to add here.
-
-
They have a years old fork that's hurting the web. I don't consider them the way I consider all the other bigs that are at least trying for web standards and moving the platform forward. Reminds me of when MS thought the web was done and abandoned it at IE6 holding everyone back.
-
$500 million.
-
Why don't you take a look for yourself https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2016/2016_Mozilla_Audited_Financial_Statement.pdf … and tell me. Looks like we spent around half of that on "software development".
-
An audit is not the right document for identifying cost savings. I'd be happy to look at Mozilla's private books and identify prospective savings, though.
-
How about at the really high level? Should we have fewer developers (work different? work harder?) a smaller marketing budget (count on word of mouth?) or fewer office things (cheaper chairs?).
-
I don't really understand the obsession with Mixed Reality, which is another area where the major players have a massive heads up. I respect the people working on it a lot but am perplexed by the prioritization.
-
There's also quite a bit spent on IT (afaict) because of aging internal infrastructure that doesn't even work that well.
-
From an employee standpoint, I see IT as better than anything I've experienced in my 18 years of Mozilla employment across three organizations. I'm especially proud of how we're able to support a globally distributed employee and volunteer base with great tools and other support.
- 10 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.