Mozilla Corp. Making Millions

[oliciv]

Mozilla Corp. on Tuesday confirmed that it is taking in millions of dollars from the Firefox browser, but declined to give an exact figure.

In making the disclosure, Mozilla, the for-profit subsidiary of the nonprofit Mozilla Foundation, was responding to a report that the company has taken in $72 million, primarily through Google Inc.'s search box on the right-hand corner of the browser.

http://www.techweb.com/wire/software/181501750;jsessionid=YPXTO3FGHOO0IQSNDBECKICCJUMEKJVN

Maybe this news will stop some of the fanboy arguments about preferring Mozilla to Microsoft because Microsoft are a big evil million dollar company :lol:

Oops, this should have been in "Industry News"

 

[primacomputer]

Microsoft is a big evil multi *billion* dollar company.

 

[webox]

So basically Google is giving them $72 million, that is awesome

 

[Xyzer]

wow, thats awsesome, thanks for the story, rep added

 

[aznchong91]

wow, that's cool. Imagine that it was you ....

 

[BillyConnite]

Thanks for the story ...

Well, I don't think the fanboys'll give up . There's nothing wrong with placing a Google search box on your website at all, anyone can do it. Its great that Mozilla are getting such a great amount of traffic that they can be earning multi-million $$$ IMHO.

 

[Peter]

Microsoft is a big evil multi *billion* dollar company.

And microsoft pay all of their developers Mozilla does not, isn't this really a form of exploitation?

It would be fair enough not to pay the developers as long as the company did not make money itself but shouldn't people who help code the project and help eradicate bugs be rewarded for their work?

 

[aznchong91]

it's non-profit. Mozilla Corp is for profit, so they get the money. The developers probably do get money, it's just if they are within the employment of Mozilla Corp as well. If they are just helping with the Mozilla Foundation, then no.

 

[Rowan W]

"And microsoft pay all of their developers Mozilla does not, isn't this really a form of exploitation?"

No, it's called Open Source Software, it's wrong when people are restricted from developing it.

"shouldn't people who help code the project and help eradicate bugs be rewarded for their work?"

Money isn't the only reward, the reward is a great peice of software that works the way you want it to, rather than the way Mr Program Manager wanted it.

Microsoft developers aren't evil, they're just thick and do whatever their program managers tell them to do. That's what happens when some one pays you, you have to do what they say.

 

[stscac]

I have a figure that is more like 30 million that Google has paid Mozilla to be placed as the top search in the search bar.

I've done significant work with the search bar in Mozilla and usually keep tabs as to what is going on with it.

-Steve

 

[primacomputer]

And microsoft pay all of their developers Mozilla does not, isn't this really a form of exploitation?

It's not so much a form of exploitation as it is as talking a load of bollocks. Microsoft does not pay all their developers. Mozilla does not not-pay all their developers.

It would be fair enough not to pay the developers as long as the company did not make money itself but shouldn't people who help code the project and help eradicate bugs be rewarded for their work?

I disagree I've done work for many unprofitable companies, and always demanded cash up front. Many of them gave me a sob story along a similar line of thought as you. In the end they paid cash to get the job done.

Of course I'm still waiting (not holding my breath) to be rewarded for all the work I did helping Microsoft eradicate bugs.

 

[Peter]

It's not so much a form of exploitation as it is as talking a load of bollocks. Microsoft does not pay all their developers. Mozilla does not not-pay all their developers.

I disagree I've done work for many unprofitable companies, and always demanded cash up front. Many of them gave me a sob story along a similar line of thought as you. In the end they paid cash to get the job done.

Of course I'm still waiting (not holding my breath) to be rewarded for all the work I did helping Microsoft eradicate bugs.

Since when does microsoft allow people to change their source code (or give them access to it). Regardless the majority of coding by microsoft will be done in house. The majority of Mozilla coding is done by the general users.

They are milking alot of money for a relatively low expenditure for their product which in a sense is taking advantage of the open source model. Open source is not about getting free coding so that you as a company can increase profitability. It is there so that users can adapt the coding to fit their own needs.

 

[sm]

open source does not equate to free beer. It means the the source code is available and anyone qualified to tweak it and start another project based on it can do so... it doesnt mean that you cant earn anything through it ... a good example is red hat ... they earn quite a lot through tech support for their Red Hat Enterprise Edition Linux....

 

[Rowan W]

"Open source is not about getting free coding so that you as a company can increase profitability."

Just because it's Open Source doesn't mean you can't make money from it, I could legally sell copies of Firefox on the street and keep all the money I make. For such a big project they need to have money to keep it going. Even if it's more than they need, at least it gives them more options and capabilities.

 

[aznchong91]

money in open-source projects keep them going. I have seen many good open-source projects close down, because they were bored and didn't have any interest in it anymore. Money is a sure factor of continuation. I know that's not what's supposed to happen, but it's the sad truth, in my opinion.

 

[Peter]

open source does not equate to free beer.

Knowhere in my posts did I claim it did.

a good example is red hat ... they earn quite a lot through tech support for their Red Hat Enterprise Edition Linux....

Yes they charge and make alot of money for offering a service not the product itself.

 

[primacomputer]

Since when does microsoft allow people to change their source code (or give them access to it).

Well, to answer your irrelevant question, I'd say since a long time. Certainly well before they started Shared Source five years ago. But I thought we were talking about who got paid for what?

Regardless the majority of coding by microsoft will be done in house. The majority of Mozilla coding is done by the general users.

...in [their] house.

They are milking alot of money for a relatively low expenditure for their product which in a sense is taking advantage of the open source model. Open source is not about getting free coding so that you as a company can increase profitability. It is there so that users can adapt the coding to fit their own needs.

Open Source is *all* about getting free coding so that you can increase your profitability. By having free access to what others have done you don't have to reinvent the wheel and can devote your resources to adding features. Quicker development with lower overheads leads to increased profitability. This is what makes Open Source a viable and powerful movement. It's great that you can also benefit from it by tweaking a few utilities, but that's not going to provide the incentive to develop operating systems, office suites, etc.

Yes they charge and make alot of money for offering a service not the product itself.

This is no longer the case. Before Fedora, Redhat used to make their money almost exclusively off service and distribution. Now they offer a product. They sell a product. It's just like buying Windows. The only difference is that Redhat product comes with source code. (and doesn't crash twice a day)

 

[sm]

Knowhere in my posts did I claim it did.

hi,
i was actually not referring to your post when i wrote that was just responding to the title of the thread.

Open Source is *all* about getting free coding so that you can increase your profitability. By having free access to what others have done you don't have to reinvent the wheel and can devote your resources to adding features. Quicker development with lower overheads leads to increased profitability. This is what makes Open Source a viable and powerful movement.

profiting through open source is creativity a creative solution to the question
"how do you earn enough so as to be able to continue to devote sufficient time to the health of your open source project?"

Technically, open source is NOT about getting free coding. (That's a bonus, but not a requirement for a project to be termed as "open source").

 

[wonkim]

How can they make money from free browser?

 

[sm]

How can they make money from free browser?

:lol: you've come thus far in this thread without reading:

Google has paid Mozilla to be placed as the top search in the search bar.

and

There's nothing wrong with placing a Google search box on your website at all, anyone can do it. Its great that Mozilla are getting such a great amount of traffic that they can be earning multi-million $$$ IMHO.

:gl:

 

[B33R]

and from donations and their online store selling Firefox/Mozilla branded items

 

[stscac]

and from donations and their online store selling Firefox/Mozilla branded items

Good call. I'm not exactly sure how successful that is, though. I would imagine they sell quite a bit of gear.

-Steve

 

[B33R]

Apparently Mozilla made a profit in the region of $72 million last year. Primarily through their affiliation with Google but also from donations and their online store.

Mozilla Corporation makes all that money because of the Google Search box on the top right. If you search with that box (which I do all day long) and you click on the Google ads on the results page Firefox gets ~80% of that. They also have Amazon in the search box, and other services that I'm sure kick them back some affiliate fees. Brilliant.

http://www.calacanis.com/2006/03/06/firefox-mozilla-corporation-mozilla-foundation-made-72m-last/

Presumably Google is working with Mozilla to reduce Microsofts stranglehold in various areas of the computer/internet industry. Which in the long term is good for Google and good for the rest of us - with the increased competition feeding innovation and further advances in areas previously smothered by Microsoft.

 

[Genialnames]

interesting news.