My comment is targeted to the developers of Waterfox and Librewolf - they're already making a browser, so the hard part is done.
I'm wondering why don't they try to step it up further by selling a paid version alongside their open source product. What is the worst that can happen? Nobody pays for it and they continue making $0 just like they are happily doing now.
https://buymeacoffee.com/waterfox wasn't hard to find that. (they also make money from search). Put your money where your mouth is and donate.
Librewolf doesn't want to deal with the administrative overhead of donations - which if they'd only get a few donations makes sense. It likely costs several hundred a month just to hire the accountants and lawyers needed to get the paper work right (you can do it yourself at cost of time doing other things. Often you can find accountants and lawyers who will donate their services, but it is still several hundred dollars worth)
Sure, I'm not counting those who contribute with their work. But if you don't contribute with your work or with your money – that's a freeloader by definition.
A paid version needs to offer something on top of it, which is usually in one way or another proprietary (such as a proprietary service).
Something like this is regarded as the enshitification process, so what typically happens is they (e.g. VC) want to do such after they lured in their users. Which Firefox has (or arguably: had), but Waterfox and Librewolf have not.
Good thought experiment.
It ain't the first drama or controversy with regards to Mozilla, who have had a long tendency which didn't occur recently (and included the time Eich was there). Nostalgia just makes people forget the bad.
It does actually seem pretty difficult to sell a browser; I don’t really see how anybody in their right mind would trust a closed source browser. So, it will be hard to make any parts of it proprietary. It isn’t impossible to sell open source software of course, but it does seem to be pretty difficult.
Rather, I wish we would stop accepting web standards that don’t come with reference implementations. Then, we could have a reference browser, and just run that. I don’t expect it to be performant, but I also don’t think browser performance matters much at all. Web pages are not HPC applications.
Currently we’re accepting the anti-competitive behavior of Google, just DDoSing the community with new standards to implement. This is the root problem. The fact that Mozilla is being killed by funding problems is downstream of the fact that maintaining a web browser requires multiple full time engineers.
And making a browser that's actually financially viable enough to pay for your time and effort without pissing off your user base because of paid features is even worse.
Especially in a crowded market, where we're arguing extensively about a browser that has 2.54% of the market share. Chrome (67%), Safari (18%), Edge (5.2%) [1]
Most of those also have a browser mostly as add-ons, bundling, ecosystem value, or trademark / brand name trojans.
Admittedly, if you're looking to make a browser, there's a lot of various prior attempts that remain in existence, yet have never really received that much attention. [2]
Personal preference is that somebody would implement a scripting language alternative other than Javascript. Anybody heard of TCL lately? It's supposed to be a browser scripting language alternative according to the w3.org specification [3] Really, almost anything other than Javascript as an alternative. Just for some variety.
Because writing manifestos is easy and making a browser is proper hard work ?