Mozilla appoints new CEO Anthony Enzor-Demeo

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Overall Tone and Context

  • Thread is heavily skeptical, often hostile, about Mozilla’s direction, especially AI and leadership.
  • A minority defend Mozilla as still valuable for the open web, documentation, Thunderbird, and privacy work, and note it has survived years of “they’re about to die” predictions.

New CEO & Leadership Debate

  • Many criticize appointing a “PM/MBA type” with limited technical background; some want a hands‑on engineer or “founder-type” instead.
  • Others counter that technical founders aren’t automatically better, and that competent product/finance leadership is necessary for a large project.
  • The Brendan Eich episode resurfaces: intense argument over whether his donation to a gay‑marriage ban justified removal, with deep culture‑war splits on rights, tolerance at work, and power/responsibility of executives.
  • Some meta-discussion about sexism in how previous leadership was treated and misremembered.

AI Strategy & “AI Browser”

  • The line “AI should always be a choice—something people can easily turn off” is widely contrasted with “Firefox will evolve into a modern AI browser.”
  • Many see this as self‑contradictory, marketing-speak, and the opposite of what current Firefox users want; several predict it’s “the beginning of the end.”
  • A smaller group argues useful AI features (translation, summaries, rewriting) are genuinely valuable, but should ideally be OS‑level services, not browser‑centric branding.
  • Some suggest Mozilla’s strength is simplifying complex tech (like web standards); others think it can’t realistically compete with existing AI giants.

Firefox’s Value Proposition

  • Core strengths cited:
    • Non‑Chromium engine (Gecko), Rust-based components, WASM/WebGPU performance.
    • Real adblocking via extensions (uBlock Origin, Manifest V2 support) on desktop and Android.
    • Better tab handling, vertical tabs, profiles, search bar, and advanced configuration than Chromium variants.
  • Counterpoints:
    • For many sites and orgs, Firefox traffic is <1%; some have removed it from test matrices.
    • Complaints about instability on low‑RAM machines and lingering UX issues.

Trust, Funding & Governance

  • “Trust” is seen by many as Mozilla’s only remaining differentiator, but also as heavily eroded by:
    • Dependence on Google search money and telemetry/ads in Firefox.
    • High executive pay and side projects perceived as irrelevant to the browser.
  • Debate over funding:
    • Some propose cutting management, focusing purely on a lean, privacy‑first browser funded by donations and maybe paid partnerships (e.g., Kagi).
    • Others argue donations alone are unrealistic at Firefox’s scale; an endowment, diversified revenue, or “Red Hat–style” enterprise model are suggested.

Who Is Firefox For?

  • Serious uncertainty over target user:
    • Chrome: mass consumers; Edge: enterprise; Safari: Apple ecosystem; Brave/LibreWolf: privacy diehards.
    • Firefox now perceived as serving “people who don’t want Google/Chromium, want strong adblock, and care about competition,” but this market is small and fragmented.

Alternatives & Engine Diversity

  • Alternatives mentioned: Brave, LibreWolf, Zen, Vivaldi, Kagi’s Orion, Ladybird, Servo, Flow, Palemoon.
  • Several commenters say they’ll move to Firefox forks (Zen, LibreWolf) if Mozilla ships AI prominently.
  • Some consider independent engines like Ladybird or Servo the only long‑term way out of Google dominance, but acknowledge they’re early and underfunded.