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
  • ipkpjersi@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    14 days ago

    He is obviously way too highly paid by an insane amount, but where are these people going? There’s no way they’re all going to Chrome, right?

  • bruhSoulz@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    14 days ago

    If this inclusive to all the forks? Alot of folks run forks cus they don’t like both ff and chrome. Just sayin.

    • morrowind@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      14 days ago

      Doesn’t matter, all the forks combined make up a fraction of FF.

      Plus people moving to forks still hurts Mozilla

      • bruhSoulz@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        14 days ago

        Well they can suck the doodoo out my butthole cus that’s what they get if they keep going the wannabe big tech company route.

  • expatriado@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    14 days 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

  • celeste@kbin.earth
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    14 days 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.

    • fuzzyspudkiss@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      14 days ago

      If I had to guess, this chart lines up pretty well with the adoption of smartphones, so I’d say the drop is due to people using the default Android and iOS browsers on their phones. I’ve installed Firefox and use it on my phone but I don’t know many people who bother changing from the defaults.

      • celeste@kbin.earth
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        14 days ago

        That makes a lot of sense! I have trouble remembering exactly when this or that tech was introduced.

    • TheBrideWoreCrimson@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      14 days ago

      Just the other day, I’ve been forced to watch at least 10 ads for Chrome on Youtube. Falls upon deaf ears with me, but others, I can imagine, will just mindlessly click and download that shit.

  • psud@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    11 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

    • A1kmm@lemmy.amxl.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      13 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).

    • Artyom@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      14 days 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.

  • galoisghost@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    14 days 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
  • Jyek@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    14 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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      13 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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        12 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.

    • Kilgore Trout@feddit.it
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      14 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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        13 days ago

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

    • Kanda@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      13 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

      • Zement@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        13 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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        13 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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          13 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
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            13 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
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              13 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.

    • WoodScientist@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      13 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.

  • pineapple@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    14 days ago

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

    • madcaesar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      13 days ago

      Ugh I use Firefox because fuck chrome, but they do have some really annoying ass bugs that should have been dealt with long ago before they kept adding features.

    • tbird83ii@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      13 days 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.

    • unfinished | 🇵🇸@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      14 days ago

      That’s not a browser I would recommend to most people as it’s still in early development and breaks websites all the time. Librewolf/Firefox are better.

  • wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    14 days 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.

    • Jyek@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      13 days ago

      1.) Market share is a different number from daily active users. You can have increasing daily active users while losing market share if the market balloons like it did in 2012.

      2.) Mozilla is a nonprofit to begin with. The goal is not to make money on Firefox or any other projects for that matter. The goal is to make the internet better for everyone. Firefox’s profitability will never have any real impact on Chairman pay.

      • LWD@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        13 days ago
        1. Firefox has recorded a drop in active users too.
        2. Ex-CPO Steve Teixeira stood up to Mozilla laying off people in his department, even though it was turning a profit. Ex-CPO.

        I agree that Mozilla should act like a non-profit, which is in contrast to people in this thread who say Mozilla should be ranked alongside for profit corporations. But I don’t see Mozilla practicing what they preach