Mozilla Goes For The Money

[pop pop]

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1843267,00.asp

I'm a capitalist so this makes sense to me and I wondered where it would happen in FireFox's climb in market share. Having said that, and acknowledging that it was probably inevitable, why is it that I still feel uneasy about the commercialization of FireFox and possibly ThunderBird too? Maybe one thing that bothers me is that the profit "method" is as clear as mud here.

Mozilla described the economic value as "an unintended but real by-product" of its goal to provide a browser with enough market share to drive open standards on the Web. "Carefully managed, this value and the resulting ability to generate revenue can be used to make the Mozilla project self-sustaining and help keep the Internet open and diverse," the group added.

That statement and subsequent ones would make sense in the context of a "not for profit" enterprise that seeks to generate revenue that offsets its operating expenses and funds development and growth. However, it's fairly clear that they've not done exactly that. They have created a "separate" for profit, taxable enterprise that will use portions of its revenues [my words not theirs] for the furtherance of FireFox and other "products" and endeavors.

This may just be a logical next step in the evolution of FireFox and its Mozilla cousins such as Thunderbird but I still wonder how the revenue will be generated. The Mozilla spokeman quoted in the article says that the foundation "does not plan to distribute its own versions of Firefox and Thunderbird and it will continue to allow others to distribute versions of Firefox and Thunderbird in accordance with the Mozilla trademark policy". So again I ask, how will the money be generated. I'm sure they'll be more creative than I could hope to be, but about the only thing I can think of is ad revenue--FireFox branded with flashing logos from the likes of Google, AOL, and others. That'll bug me.

Even if that's done, maybe underneath it'll still be the same alternative browser we've all come to know and love, or not. :(

[Paul Komski]

I suppose that any revenue generation doesn't actually mean that the source code will no longer be open - which is a separate issue. There appear to be parallel movements in the Linux world and I confess that I don't really understand the subtelties involved in how such maketing can evolve from what was a shared input of expertise.

[pop pop]

I think that was a sub-plot, if you will, of the article. Or maybe it was the the main one because the author does specifically address that issue. He talks about he fact that so many people woked directly one the development--for free, and so many people worked on the marketing (via the "Promote FireFox" campaign)--again for free.

Mozilla officials are wary of possible backlash from hard-core volunteers who helped push Firefox's market share

I would be wary too.

[poppy]

pop pop, I agree with what you say and others have said elsewhere and if I may let me expound on my take of the situation. As a not-for-profit organization, Mozilla Foundation probably found themselves in the same situation that most of these groups find themselves in – not being able overcome the burden of hiding profits in salaries, operating expenses, phone bills and all of the other overhead expenses, not to mention all of the other regulatory requirements and still remain in a not-for-profit status. So they did the next best thing. They formed a subsidiary corporation in order to combat some of these problems. But alas, their woes are probably just beginning, not to mention the lawyers laughing and grinning ear to ear of the profits they are about to make.

Some people have argued that it is no big deal, they just filed and paid a fee to the state to form a company and they will continue to operate as they did. Not quite! They are now a taxable entity not only to the State of California but to the Federal Government (and possibly local governments, I don’t know if there are local taxing authorities in California as is in some states). You now have the majority of the 36 employees being transferred over to the corporation so you have a new set of rules you have to play by. Again, the accountants and attorneys are loving every minute of it.

So what does the future hold for Firefox and Thunderbird? There are probably a hundred scenarios, if not more. What is my take? Human nature being what it is, I think it will be extremely hard for the founders to not succumb to the cries of “show me the money”! How often did this happen at the height of the Dot Com era and people sold their souls to the “devil” in order to gain huge profits? Don't get me wrong, I believe in free enterprise but I do have a problem with people in it just for the monetary gain and get so wrapped up in the idea of profit that they don't worry about the product suffering or hurting individuals who might get in the way.

Another interesting angle would be that by their own admission they spent several months analyzing the current move and making public the announcement. What’s to prevent them from spending the next several months now to entertain the idea of entering the realm of IPO’s? Currently, as a privately held company, no one is going to be able to approach them and try to buy them. But as I said before, human nature being what it is, the cry of “show me the money” can be very hard to resist. So if they do go public, then it would be easy for someone like M$ to approach them to buy them out. After all, wouldn’t this be attractive to both parties since M$ is supposedly incorporating some features of Firefox in IE7?

What about other ramifications? Well, if the products become a commercial venture then there is the potential fallout of the many in the “open community” that have contributed to the project and will have spent countless hours in helping the products to be accepted. Not to mention now that they are a U.S. company and have to follow the laws of the land in regard to trade embargoes. What about the people in these countries that won’t have access to the product then or developers in those countries that have contributed to the project? The risk of them being betrayed is great. The heads of Mozilla have stated they are wary of the backlash that could occur. No doubt they should be and probably need to start taking Lunestra so they can get a good night’s sleep.

So as you see we pretty much agree and I think there are countless others out there that do as well. Is the future that dismal? Well, maybe not. Let’s hope not. Regardless of the outcome, in some shape or fashion, I think the consumer is going to stand the greatest risk of losing. Mozilla prove me wrong!

[Paul Komski]

I'm not backing any particular philosophy but from GNU is:-

Why ``Free Software'' is better than ``Open Source'' (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html)

[DigitalJ]

I'm not a capitolist....capitolism is what's going to cause the downfall of this country sooner or later, but I do think people ought to get something for their time and effort.

Would anyone really be pissed off if they had to shell out $10 for a complete, continuously updated version of Firefox? I wouldn't. It's not like they have to pay for packaging, shipping, and what have you. At this point every $10 copy they sold would be profit. Problem is getting money from people who already have the software.

I guess what's irritating me to no end about the software business (and why I haven't spent money on ANY of the software on my computer) is that it's all digital format. They CAN offer it as a download and save themselves the money of getting me a copy. And as that gets easier and easier to do due to increasing technology, the price of this stuff should be coming down.

But it isn't. You notice what they're charging for some linux distros these days? It's retarded. Who can afford to buy that crap when they can download a pirated version and get the manual in pdf? If they'd stop thinking in a capitolistic "let's make as much money as possible from every single copy", they might quickly find that three times the people would be willing to pay half the price for the same product. I'm no math wiz, but that sounds like a solid trade off to me.

So in the end, if they want to start charging for Firefox, I'm not going to cry so long as they keep the price very reasonable. Anything above $20 and I'm back to IE *shudders* or off to some other upstart.

[PrntRhd]

I do believe Mozilla did this to account for profits from customized products for firms that will pay them for the product.
If "XYZ" company wishes to have Mozilla make a browser customized for them instead of paying for Microsoft's product, Mozilla gets paid for the distribution and accounts for that in its "for profit" corporation and they are able to go out and sell this service.
If they continued to stay in their previous Non Profit status and sold the product, Microsoft might very well challenge their non profit status in court if M$ lost that account and Mozilla profited from the transaction.
Just my take on it...

How this is going to be rationalized with the development non profit Foundation is still to be determined.

[Sempron]

Guess we'll just have to see what happens and make a decision based on Mozilla's decision when the time comes. Hopefully it wont hurt the end-user too much

[bassman]

I'm not a capitolist....capitolism is what's going to cause the downfall of this country sooner or later
Definition of Capitalism: An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.(from here http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=capitalism )

Capitalism is what has developed and strengthend this country. The idea that it will some day be the downfall makes no sense at all. The downfall will be the miss-management of capitalism and other resources.
Mozilla would actualy have to make a profit from their product to be considered a part of a capitalistic society. I would have to say that if they were to start charging for updates or, you would have to pay for the next version and there would be no more updates for the free version, I would be all for that. Profits=funding for R&D. R&D=better products. Better products=more profits. It is a vicious circle we have lived in since the begining of time. The difference now is, instead of furs, produce, and sugar, it's dollars, euros, and yen.

[pop pop]

I was going to jump on that line back when it was originally posted. Being a capitalist, you would expect me to. I just forgot--getting to be an old capitalist you see :p

I don't think I'm going out on a limb when I say the entire planet is now driven to one degree or another by capitalism. So if capitalism is going to cause the downfall of this country, then by extension it would cause the downfall of the planet. Sorry, that ain't gonna happen. In fact it is and will be the opposite.

Now, specific to Mozilla and their products--especially FireFox--if they began to charge for it--directly, that is-- I would be disappointed but not totally surprised. Honestly, I'm amazed that there are so many good free software products available. You see, I'm of the philosophy that if it's good enough to use, then it's good enough to pay to use. The question just becomes how much would I be willing to pay to use it.