• Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    64
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    It really is strange. They really should be copying the success of the Wikimedia Foundation and Wikipedia.

    Especially right now as Google is truly finally breaking a lot of adblocking and pushing a fight with adblockers in the YouTube space.

    It’s a perfect storm of opportunity to stand out as a solid, differing offer, but they’re going to blow it as usual.

    • ShakeThatYam@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      36
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      2 months ago

      I’m willing to bet that the people who switch to Firefox for ad-blockers and ad-free YouTube aren’t the kinds of people who are donating much to Mozilla. People in online forums talk a big game about wanting to pay for products and not be the product. But it seems like people don’t really want to pay any meaningful amount of money for a browser.

    • Ephera@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Big difference to the Wikimedia Foundation is how much money they need. The Mozilla Corporation (which develops Firefox) has around 750 employees.

      Optimistically, only 500 of those are devs and work on Firefox. If you pay those a wage of 100,000 USD, that makes 50 million USD of costs just for wages.

      Firefox has less than 200 million monthly active users, so everyone using it would need to donate $0.25, or alternatively 1% of users would need to donate $25, yearly.

      That’s a lot of money to hope people donate, and this is a very optimistic ballpark estimate.

      • trainsaresexy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        2 months ago

        I don’t understand why cryptocurrency isn’t an accepted solution to this. Open firefox, attach wallet, drip $0.25/month/user. It’s good for tiny transactions.

        • fine_sandy_bottom@lemmy.federate.cc
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          2 months ago

          Because crypto just has such a stink on it.

          It may well be a reasonable solution for this specific problem, but still… no one is going to get behind this.

          • trainsaresexy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            Yes now it does, it’s beyond soured. But it’s a strange disconnect. Ignoring all the social commentary and looking for the most practical solution for making small pay-per-use payments - it was right there.

            • fine_sandy_bottom@lemmy.federate.cc
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              Maaaaaybe. I think the actual advantages over other methods are fairly intangible.

              If “surfing the web” required making many very small anonymous payments every hour then yeah, there’s advantages. I’ll admit that doesn’t actually sound terrible - I’d rather pay a few cents to read articles than the current advertising & subscription model.

              As a solution for mozilla in isolation though, it would be an over engineered solution with too much baggage. Current mozilla users might have the aptitude for something like this but Mozilla wants to seduce a larger market share which is not people like us.