908

Mozilla chairman's salary vs Firefox market share (as of 2023) (lemmy.world)

submitted 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) by TheTwelveYearOld@lemmy.world to c/firefox@lemmy.ml

137 comments fedilink hide all child comments

From https://reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/1hokr0c/mozilla_chair_pay_vs_firefox_market_share_2023/m4aca4j/:

Total 2022 pay: $6,903,089
Total 2023 pay: $6,260,072 - a $643,017 decrease
Base chair pay: $600,000
2023 chair bonuses and other incentives: $5,622,600

Sources:

For comparison, here are other executive salaries ($0 bonuses for each)

Executive name	Title	Total Pay (2023)
MARK SURMAN	PRESIDENT & EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR	715,143
J. BOB ALOTTA	SVP, GLOBAL PROGRAMS	508,138
ANGELA PLOHMAN	COO, SECRETARY & TREASURER	452,234
ASHLEY BOYD	SVP, GLOBAL ADVOCACY	427,701
ZHILUN PANG	DIRECTOR OF FINANCE	273,069
DAVID WALKER	SENIOR COUNSEL	268,565
LAINIE DECOURSY	DIRECTOR, ORG EFFECTIVENESS	267,028
JUAN BARANI	SENIOR DIRECTOR, GIFT PLANNING	262,879
STEPHANIE WRIGHT	SR PROGRAM MANAGER, MOZFEST	236,785

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] psud@aussie.zone 2 points 3 days ago

I don't like that your graph key indicates the pay line is in $US millions then the axis is in millions not units. Indicating that the values are in millions of millions which seems unlikely

[-] Jyek@sh.itjust.works 56 points 6 days ago

This graph shows a disingenuous relationship between revenue and the market share of a free and open source project within the walls of a not-for-profit organization. Firefox is not a revenue stream in the traditional sense. In fact, most of Mozilla 's money comes from grants and donations for projects and research they do.

I get that CEO=EVIL is a viral topic these days but if all you know about Mozilla is that they make the Not Chrome browser, then you should really educate yourself on what it is that Mozilla actually does for the internet. Then you might feel a little better with this pay scale graph.

That all aside, this graph shows the market share of Mozilla when there were 5 browsers available to the vast majority of users, Internet Explorer, Firefox, chrome, Opera, and safari. It's also before chrome took over the market share from IE at the same time that it pushed out Firefox as the leading browser because chrome was available on the iPhone and was the default browser on Android devices. Hardly a surprise to see that when the internet exploded in users and literally every human being started to carry around a chrome device in their pockets that Mozilla Firefox's market share went down.

[-] Shadywack@lemmy.today 17 points 6 days ago

The Mozilla foundation's largest source of revenue is Google, who is also their largest source of competition. To simply keep increasing the pay of their chief executive officer, to keep them kissing the ass of Google, seems like a strategy that doesn't align with what many would consider metrics of a successful project, like active users........

Looks like you missed the point of the graph.

[-] Jyek@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 days ago

Graph doesn't even show active users. It shows market share which is totally different. Market share is percentage of total users regardless of how many users are out there. Active users can go up while market share goes down. That's why this graph is disingenuous.

[-] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 12 points 6 days ago

How much money do they actually spend on the development of Firefox? That's a figure I haven't been able to find. However, in 2023, they had $1.5 billion in assets.

The only justification for a high-paying CEO is if they need to coordinate some large scale fundraising effort - schmoozing with other rich fucks to gain further donations, and plotting elaborate strategies to get more donations.

They have $1.5 billion in assets. How much more do they really need? Need someone to manage Mozilla's assets? Make me the CEO. I'll do it for you. In fact, I'll do it for free. That will be my contribution to the Firefox project. I'll stick that $1.5 billion in simple bond and index funds and withdraw at a very conservative 2% rate. And that will provide $30 million a year to spend on developers to improve Firefox and other projects. And we can just keep doing that forever. I'll purposefully withdraw funds at a rate lower than the market averages, so the real value of the endowment grows over time. And that will allow us to slowly expand the scope of operations and start new projects. And while I won't spend any time or effort to schmooze and jet set across the country to kiss the ass of some billionaire, if one wants to throw some money in the pot, we'll have a donation button on the website.

[-] Woht24@lemmy.world -4 points 6 days ago

What a self serving wank fest

[-] kilgore_trout@feddit.it 15 points 6 days ago

You are misinformed too.

This is only about the Mozilla Corporation. Hence, "the ones that make Firefox".

The ones fighting for an open Internet are the Mozilla Foundation.

[-] Jyek@sh.itjust.works 7 points 6 days ago

The Mozilla corporation are whole owned by the Mozilla Foundation... They are the same company. And both are not-for-profit.

[-] kilgore_trout@feddit.it 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

What @Atemu@lemmy.ml wrote. It's hard to grasp for me too, but ~~apparently~~ it's allowed in the US, and even a very spread practice.

[-] Atemu@lemmy.ml 2 points 4 days ago

No that's the trick: Mozilla corp is for-profit.

[-] Kanda@reddthat.com 10 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

Even if he made the air suck everyone's dick and chocolate pudding rain from the sky, he shouldn't have seven million US dollars every year

[-] Zementid@feddit.nl 7 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

700k is high for us but low for CEO pay... I don't see why CEOs should get as much money when they never have any liability but that's another question. (Or... what are they really good for, and couldn't they simply be replaced by the decision matrix their team builds for them anyways)

[+] Wes4Humanity@lemm.ee -7 points 6 days ago

CEO of a major company? Sounds like reasonable pay to me... The problem is that most workers are not getting paid what they deserve (assume this is correct pay for a top level CEO and adjust your thinking on what fair pay actually is accordingly) It's not the CEOs (or doctors, lawyers, actors, etc) who are the root problem... It's the kids born with a billion shares of fortune 500 stock who either grow up to be Trump/Elon or just do fuck all their whole life, but still get to rake in 90% of all "profits". The people who inherited owning the whole world, they are the problem. The CEOs are just assholes willing to work for the people born into wealth... They still suck, and they uphold the shit system for their own benefit, but I don't think they are hoarding the wealth, and I think the wealth being hoarded is the ultimate problem.

[-] Kanda@reddthat.com 5 points 6 days ago

The average salary in the US is about 66k, meaning that for this to be justified it makes sense that one man gets the same compensation as about 105 average salaries. Does it still sound like reasonable pay?

[-] Wes4Humanity@lemm.ee -1 points 6 days ago

Sounds like those 105 employees aren't being paid what they should be. Pay them more. Leave this guy's pay alone.

Personally I'd say, if top level CEO pay is $6.5m, and we set that as reasonable pay for that level job, and maybe we say the top should earn 20x the bottom, then the average pay in the US should be $325k. Which sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Stop thinking in terms of dragging the top down... Think in terms of lifting everyone else up. If the owners need to own less for this to happen, then so be it

[-] blind3rdeye@lemm.ee 8 points 6 days ago

"Just pay everyone more" is nice idea - but obviously that would require a lot of additional money. Whereas "lower CEO pay and raise employee pay" does not require additional money.

[-] Wes4Humanity@lemm.ee 1 points 5 days ago

Lower profits, pay workers more

[-] kux@lemm.ee 4 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

iphone/android etc

reasonable point but firefox is hardly better off if you look at only desktop share

https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share/desktop/worldwide/#monthly-200901-202411

[-] PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee 19 points 6 days ago

Firefox user here, fuck chrome!

[-] WordBox@lemmy.world 3 points 6 days ago

You can see where chrome and Firefox 3.x coexisted.

[-] archy@lemmy.world 5 points 6 days ago

What happened in 2010?

[-] A1kmm@lemmy.amxl.com 4 points 6 days ago

Google released the stable version of Chrome, and funneled significant resources into marketing it. This was the first stage of their strategy - they focused on firstly making a good product, and the squeeze on users only came later (and is probably only just starting in the scheme of things).

[-] mukt@lemmy.ml 4 points 6 days ago

Can we get these graphs for duckduckgo superimposed on this one?

[-] expatriado@lemmy.world 197 points 1 week ago

til my favorite browser has been losing a lot of ground over the years, i guess i've been living in my foxy bubble

[-] psud@aussie.zone 1 points 3 days ago

I suspect the graph is missing a recent rise in usage of Firefox. I feel like Firefox became popular again in late 2024 which isn't on that graph

[-] pumpkinseedoil@mander.xyz 12 points 6 days ago

You can gain users while losing market share. This graph includes the rise of smartphones (+chrome preinstalled)

[-] ThunderWhiskers@lemmy.world 3 points 6 days ago

It almost perfectly correlates with chrome coming to android circa 2012.

[-] kilgore_trout@feddit.it 2 points 6 days ago

One can keep using good software even if others don't.

[-] IndiBrony@lemmy.world 100 points 1 week ago

The fact you're on lemmy puts you in good company I believe. I, too, am fighting the chromium curse.

load more comments (2 replies)

[-] galoisghost@aussie.zone 141 points 1 week ago

It’s just a play on the charity CEO scam.

Start a charity
Get a CEO (usually the person who starts the charity)
Pay the CEO what other CEOs make because if we don’t pay at that rate we won’t get the best CEO
Fuck who ever the charity is for they’re just PR to afford the CEO salary

load more comments (6 replies)

[-] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 91 points 1 week ago

Usually I find these kinds of "non profit CEOs shouldn't make money" things kind of annoying but honestly I don't see any argument for a CEO to make more than a couple million regardless of context.

load more comments (7 replies)

[-] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 85 points 1 week ago

A better graph would compare salary to revenue and inflation

You can gain users while losing market share

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments

this post was submitted on 29 Dec 2024

908 points (96.9% liked)

Firefox

18120 readers

7 users here now

A place to discuss the news and latest developments on the open-source browser Firefox

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

k_o_t@lemmy.ml