909
submitted 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) by TheTwelveYearOld@lemmy.world to c/firefox@lemmy.ml

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
[-] 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

[-] 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.

[-] pumpkinseedoil@mander.xyz 12 points 1 week ago

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

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] galoisghost@aussie.zone 139 points 1 week ago

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

  1. Start a charity
  2. Get a CEO (usually the person who starts the charity)
  3. Pay the CEO what other CEOs make because if we don’t pay at that rate we won’t get the best CEO
  4. 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.

[-] Valmond@lemmy.world 47 points 1 week ago

Remember people, 12M a year is over 32.000 a day. Every day.

People live on 32k a year.

[-] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 16 points 1 week ago

Yeah that's fucking insane. 2 million is over the top even

[-] Vincent@feddit.nl 18 points 1 week ago

Yeah I'm not against the CEO earning similar amounts to those of organisations doing similar things and bringing in similar amounts of money... But those CEOs, too, are compensated disproportionately.

[-] grue@lemmy.world 23 points 1 week ago

Yeah I'm not against the CEO earning similar amounts to those of organisations doing similar things and bringing in similar amounts of money

This is the exact argument boards of directors (which are made of other CEOs) use to excuse continually ratcheting up CEO pay, which their own boards in turn use to excuse ratcheting up their pay. It's the huge grift of the CEO good ol' boys club.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] lud@lemm.ee 12 points 1 week ago

Yeah, you need a good and competent CEO and that's especially important for a non profit. But most of those salaries are just extreme. Is it really impossible to find good people without paying them multi million salaries?

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 84 points 1 week ago

A better graph would compare salary to revenue and inflation

You can gain users while losing market share

[-] chaogomu@lemmy.world 15 points 1 week ago

2009, that's about the time that smartphones were really taking off.

Chrome on Android and Safari on Apple now make up almost 90% of all internet browsing.

[-] Lettuceeatlettuce@lemmy.ml 71 points 1 week ago

What a poor soul, started out only making half a million dollars a year?? 😑

[-] wellheh@lemmy.sdf.org 70 points 1 week ago

You know what else coincides with 2009? Google Chrome's release- a browser by a company with far more resources. I'm absolutely not a supporter of CEO pay going up in general- this post is just incredibly lazy

[-] NikkiDimes@lemmy.world 86 points 1 week ago

I dont feel the post is saying the two are correlated, more so simply that despite Firefox doing worse year over year, the CEOs compensation continues to rise.

[-] Spezi@feddit.org 24 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

As much as I’m opposed to Mozilla CEOs paying out absurd amounts, we still have to acknowledge that Mozilla has way more revenue streams nowadays than they had a few years ago.

So a sinking market share of one of their (free and open source) products doesn’t mean that the company is making less money overall.

Especially because a sinking market share doesn’t mean there are less users. This graph doesn’t reflect the exponential adoption of smartphones and tablets on which most users just use the preinstalled browser (eg Chrome and Safari).

So the user base is probably still similiar in size or even bigger, but the number of devices just exploded due to smartphones beeing adopted by a broad audience in markets like Asia and Africa.

[-] morrowind@lemmy.ml 13 points 1 week ago

Users on just desktop has been shrinking too, despite more people using computers in general https://data.firefox.com/dashboard/user-activity

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Hackworth@lemmy.world 16 points 1 week ago

This is precisely how I read it.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] underisk@lemmy.ml 14 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Does it make sense for a CEO to be paid more while the business they manage dwindles?

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Jyek@sh.itjust.works 56 points 1 week 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 1 week 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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] kilgore_trout@feddit.it 15 points 1 week 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.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 12 points 1 week 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.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[-] TheImpressiveX@lemm.ee 47 points 1 week ago

Seems very suspicious that the CEO is getting paid millions while Firefox's market share is dropping like an anvill.

I think that money would be better spent on improving the browser and making sure there are more privacy protections, maybe even set an example for other browsers to follow. Make average people actually want to use Firefox instead of Chrome.

[-] fnrir@lemmy.world 28 points 1 week ago
[-] wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.com 26 points 1 week ago

Firefox isn't their only product, but it's clearly their most popular one so this is very questionable.

Would be even better with info about their other product market share as well, and adjustment for inflation. Wouldn't change the overall message, but would give less stuff for jerks like me to nitpick.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Mike85k@lemmy.world 24 points 1 week ago

What is a senior director of gift planning and how does that justify a salary of $260k?

[-] Artyom@lemm.ee 13 points 1 week ago

They're probably responsible for spending the nonprofit's funds in meaningful ways by donating it to smaller projects. There needs to be someone who oversees it and ensures it's not being wasted.

[-] limer@lemmy.dbzer0.com 18 points 1 week ago
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee 19 points 1 week ago

Firefox user here, fuck chrome!

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] xor@lemm.ee 17 points 1 week ago

too much money but, mozilla does a lot more that firefox… (see also: rust

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] lnxtx@feddit.nl 17 points 1 week ago

Is it adjusted for an inflation?

I smell some spurious correlation.

[-] Jack@lemmy.ca 76 points 1 week ago

22% inflation vs 700% increase for the CEO between 2016 and 2022?

[-] danc4498@lemmy.world 22 points 1 week ago

But inflation for the wealthy was a lot more than inflation for everybody else. If you earn over a million a year, your income MUST increase by at least 2x PER YEAR in order to stay competitive against the rest of the ruling class! Won’t somebody think of the billionaires!!!

[-] BossDj@lemm.ee 11 points 1 week ago

We need our CEO to be the greediest, most unethical, unemphatic selfish prick we can get to try to gobble up as much cash for the company as possible. If we pay any less, the greedy assholes won't apply and we might get someone who gives some of the value back to the customer

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de 34 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Nobody said this was causal... But also 14x increase is not inflation.

Its just that its a window into whats wrong with mozilla. Ofcourse many other things led to their downfall aswell.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] LandedGentry@lemmy.zip 18 points 1 week ago* (last edited 4 days ago)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] _donnadie_@feddit.cl 16 points 1 week ago

The thing I resent the most with mozilla is them dropping servo development. It was bringing great changes to firefox.

[-] pineapple@lemmy.ml 15 points 1 week ago

It's sad to see Firefox continue to lose popularity I thought there might be some kind of comeback but no.

[-] tbird83ii@lemmy.world 12 points 1 week ago

Part of the problem is both Chrome and Edge come installed by default on the company's own products, and they have massive campaigns to keep you from switching, since user data is so profitable for them to sell.

It is up to us, the "person who does IT for the whole family" to beat back the other browsers.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[-] geography082@lemm.ee 11 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Is the same thing all management does in companies, fill pockets, if possible keep this the same or just let them die, run away.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] celeste@kbin.earth 11 points 1 week ago

i switched to firefox because it had tabs and ie didn't. ie7 had tabbed browsing in 2006? i later switched to chrome because firefox stopped working well and i got sick of troubleshooting. i switched to brave a few years ago and started using firefox again this year, but i'm regularly switching browsers still trying to find one i like.

the loss of market share was because of chrome, right? Google had a good reputation back then, and their browser worked easily and you could customize it. I wish there were more options that weren't modified firefox or chrome, but i get why it's tough.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 29 Dec 2024
909 points (96.9% liked)

Firefox

18142 readers
9 users here now

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

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS