Tell Mozilla: it's time to ditch Google

Mozilla’s Dependence on Google Funding

• Multiple comments note that historically ~85–95% of Mozilla Corp revenue came from Google search royalties; this dropped to ~76% in 2023 but is still dominant.
• Many argue that “ditching Google” now would be financially suicidal without a clear replacement for hundreds of millions per year.
• Others suggest a gradual 5‑year weaning plan (cut Google share ~20% per year) with cost-cutting and new products, but doubt leadership will voluntarily give up the “easy money.”

Costs, Scale, and Management Critiques

• Thread cites financials: software development spend rising from ~$21M (2007) to ~$260M (2023), and general/admin from ~$5M to ~$123M, with criticism that management bloat is outpacing engineering.
• Back-of-the-envelope claims that a lean browser team could run on “a few million” are strongly disputed; experienced browser devs and full feature parity (sync, cloud services, standards churn) are described as very expensive.
• Executive pay (especially the CEO) is repeatedly attacked and seen as a reason people won’t donate.

Adtech, Telemetry, and Privacy Brand Erosion

• Many see the core problem not as Google money per se but Mozilla’s own move into adtech and data collection (telemetry, “privacy-preserving” attribution, Anonym acquisition).
• Changes to privacy FAQ and Android data-sharing declarations are cited as evidence Mozilla is backing away from “we never sell your data.”
• Supporters argue Mozilla is trying to design less-invasive ad models; skeptics see this as indistinguishable from Chrome’s Topics/FLoC direction.

Alternatives: Forks, Donations, and Endowments

• Some propose forking Firefox away from Mozilla (“ditch Mozilla, not Firefox”), but funding and staffing a serious fork is acknowledged as very hard. Existing forks (Waterfox, LibreWolf, Zen, etc.) rely on Mozilla’s engine work.
• Suggestions include: donation-funded lean foundation, context-only ads, paid ad-blocking tiers, or an endowed model where investment income funds browser dev. Others note structural/tax barriers: donations go to the non-profit, while Firefox is built by the for‑profit subsidiary.
• A few argue that open-source plus forking is the real safety valve if Mozilla collapses; others counter that no fork today has the resources to maintain a full engine.

Government / EU Funding Debate

• Some want the EU (or other states) to fund an independent browser/engine (e.g., Servo) to reduce dependence on US tech.
• Opponents warn about political strings: censorship mandates, backdoors, “chat control,” or shifting funding priorities.
• Compromise ideas include publicly funded contributors or independent institutes, but there’s deep distrust of both governments and corporations.

Firefox’s Role, Market Share, and Competing Browsers

• Several comments stress that Firefox’s market share (~3%) makes it nearly irrelevant for most users and many sites, though others say even a small independent engine is crucial against Chromium monoculture.
• Some point out performance and compatibility issues on major web properties (especially Google’s) as having driven users to Chrome in the past. Others report Firefox now works fine almost everywhere.
• Brave and Chromium forks are discussed as privacy alternatives, but their dependence on Google-controlled Blink and Manifest V3 is seen as structurally unsafe.
• Firefox-specific strengths mentioned: devtools quality, uBlock Origin support, container tabs, vertical tabs, customization; but these appeal mostly to power users.

Assessment of the Petition Itself

• Many see the petition as emotionally satisfying but strategically naive: it demands ditching Google without a concrete replacement for the revenue gap.
• A minority support the core message (re‑center on privacy and independence), but think the real pressure should be for structural reform: slimming management, refocusing budgets on Firefox, enabling direct funding of the browser, and transparent governance.