I have no insider knowledge of how well it’s been managed so I’ll leave that to other commentators.
However I’d say that their vision for openness is part of their curse.
Google in developing Chrome are not held to the same community expectations.
It’s expensive to build and maintain a modern day browser and the competitors have deep pockets to the extent of it being worth completing even at a loss due to the benefits of controlling the platform (being the browser platform).
Mozilla have to extract value somewhere. But where should it be?
I think the challenge is to reframe that Mozilla are maintaining an open commons that all are welcome to visit for free without access fees while also metaphorically “selling cool drinks nearby for a price”.
If the community won’t let them charge for anything they do, and claim “extraction/extraction!” with every move they are destined to go under.
I think the most useful framing for Mozilla fans is:
What here should be part of our global commons and needs to be freely available and what would I/we be willing to pay Mozilla for that extends or compliments these core offerings?
I think I should add part ( if not majority ) of the reason Google started developing Chrome was because the initial Firefox 4 vision, e10s, and its expected performance improvement didn't deliver.
Google was forced to do it by themselves.
>If the community won’t let them charge for anything they do, and claim “extraction/extraction!” with every move they are destined to go under.
I dont ever see that from Mozilla community. No one is bashing them for starting side business or charging for something other than the Browser. The problem is none of their side project were successful in business terms.
Maybe Mozilla should also look into reducing leadership compensation or at least have it reflect the performance of the company.