I was going to say a similar thing. I'm still not sure I have seen an example of a browser at the scale of Firefox (hundreds of millions of users, 30 million lines of code) being successfully monetized, basically ever, unless it was entirely subsidized by a trillion dollar company that was turning its users into the product. Or alternatively, succeeding by selling off its users for telemetry or coasting off of Chromium and tying their destiny to Google.

All the "just monetize differently" comments are coming from a place of magical thinking that nobody has actually thought through. Donations are a feel good side hustle, but completely unprecedented for any but Wikipedia to raise money that's even the right order of magnitude. Any attempts at offering monetized services run into delusional and contradictory complaints from people who treat them to "focus on the browser" but also to branch out and monetize. Hank Green has used the term hedonic skepticism for the psychology of seeking to criticize for its entertainment value, which I think is a large part of what this is.

For a more serious answer on funding, I think the most interesting thing in this space is their VC fund. Mozilla has been brilliant in building up and carefully investing their nest egg from nearly two decades of search licensing, and while it's not Ycombinator, they have the beginnings of a VC fund that may be a very interesting kind of Third Way, so to speak, depending on how that goes.

▲

rdm_blackhole 6 days ago | parent | next [-]

Thank you for your comment.

I am glad I am not the only one who is asking the tough questions regarding this problem.

In reality it boils down to replacing 1 income stream provided by Google with one or more new income streams.

That means that Mozilla needs something to sell and quickly.

Or use their VC funds as you said, but we know VC funds need to deploy a lot of capital and then hope that one of their companies makes it big to recoup their investments and eventually make a profit.

I am not sure if betting the entire future of Mozilla on this VC venture would be a wise move to be honest. It's just too unpredictable.

	▲	glenstein 6 days ago \| parent [-]
		For sure. Like any side bet it should be staged and complementary rather than all or nothing.

▲

Seattle3503 6 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> Hank Green has used the term hedonic skepticism for the psychology of seeking to criticize for its entertainment value, which I think is a large part of what this is.

I'm fascinated by this concept. Us it expanded anywhere?

	▲	glenstein 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		I agree, it's fascinating and I believe a necessary term. I just recall him using it on his tik tokk. And come to think of it it might have actually been John Green (oops). But basically his idea was that hedonic skepticism. Was this kind of like reflexive unthinking doubt of the sincerity of any institutional effort to do any form of social good whatsoever. It seems to over correct towards skepticism and is motivated, not by factual veracity but by the kind of entertainment value of being skeptical and jaded about everything. And so the idea that the center for disease control might really sincerely want to stop the spread of measles, if you're a hedonic skeptic, you laugh at how ridiculous and naive. It is to believe that they might have your best interests at heart. Which I think overlooks the simple possibility that sometimes we stand up institutions in response to real societal needs, and that you can have an appropriate and healthy skepticism of politicians and policy makers acting in their own self-interest while also appreciating that there do exist purpose-driven organizations that roll out programs and policies based on a genuine interest in solving problems.