I don't even know what this is, but I must say, AI features don't seem to be improving the web experience, so anything AI related is usually not worth keeping (as far as I know, maybe there is something I haven't considered).
Mozilla seems to be going down a lot of rather futile side-paths, if you know what I mean. Nobody asked for this? Just make Firefox a better browser, work on the web standards I guess, do the things people actually need.
> Mozilla seems to be going down a lot of rather futile side-paths, if you know what I mean
This has a been a pattern for Mozilla for a long time. I think part of the reason reason is they are trying to find a way to make money that isn't dependent on a search deal with Google. But most of their attempts end up not being something people actually want and/or what they make isn't actually good enough to draw people. But even when they make something decent, like Lockwise and Send, they seem to lose interest and give it up.
The only AI thing Mozilla added that I thought was genuinely useful, was on device language translation. Being able to read foreign language pages without feeding your browsing history into Google Translate is pretty cool.
But that's the only thing I've liked, and they keep killing projects that were genuinely useful and worth paying for (Pocket, Firefox Send).
One other "AI" thing that I really liked came before the LLM boom. Mozilla made a speech-to-text engine called [DeepSpeech](https://github.com/mozilla/DeepSpeech) for running on-device when you use dictation in the browser. Apparently, it was discontinued last year, so I'm not sure what they use now.
Having tried using it, stuff like whisper.cpp even like 4 years ago is leaps and bounds better in terms of output quality so I imagine they didn't see any reason to continue it.
> Nobody asked for this? Just make Firefox a better browser, work on the web standards I guess, do the things people actually need.
That's what I wish they would do too. But, realistically, that stuff doesn't actually pay the bills. How many Firefox users actually pay for it? So I'm not surprised that they're thrashing around trying to find some way to make money beyond Google paying them for the search bar.
Mozilla is already Google's charity project. They squandered Firefox's marketshare and there's really no reason for Google to pay them as much as they do at the moment, other than to pretend there's competition in browser engines and it's not just Chrome + Safari.
That then begs the question: how much does Mozilla really need?
The AI push and all of their little side-projects that no one asked for are pushes to make money that they arguably wouldn't need to make if they stopped with their little side-projects.
I know that there's a bit of for-profit/non-profit mix going on with the corporate structure of Mozilla. Ultimately, if you make free software, just stick with the non-profit side of things. Make browser improvements, update documentation. That's it. That's all that Mozilla needs to do.
> AI features don't seem to be improving the web experience
Elaborate? it's done nothing but ruin the internet so far. Slop content, search engines are unusable, and now the lowest common denominator simply chatbots a half-baked website and thinks it's good when it isn't.
>Just make Firefox a better browser, work on the web standards I guess, do the things people actually need.
This accusation seriously has to stop. They're constantly pushing performance improvements (most recently they've made their PDF viewer more efficient and found some efficiencies with images), they push millions of lines of new code every year on a rapid release cycle with an extremely rapid release cadence throughout the year in the release notes for every updated version go deep on the weeds for everything from CSS fixes to performance improvements to bug fixes and so on.
I at least understand the accusation that a bunch of their side projects didn't end up contributing to their bottom line and may have hurt user experience, but the velocity and volume of code they're pushing is not debatable. and the vast majority of it is exactly these kinds of improvements in technical fixes that people in the HN comment sections keep claiming aren't happening.
I'm not going to say everyone should read the release notes, but you definitely should if you're comfortable accusing them of not actually working on the code.
Mozilla will be studied in the future. It's actually a masterful act from Google on how to stifle the competition and protect your bottomline.
Really, really wish that Mozilla just shuts down, so that the FOSS community can turn their attention to an actual, intentionally competitive alternative. Would love to see Canonical or similar lead the way here.
The opposite is true. Google has been the main funding source for Mozilla. Without Google no Firefox. But a US antitrust ruling from last year says their current deal can't continue, which implies strongly reduced funding. Mozilla needs to find alternative revenue sources or they f*ed.
> The opposite is true. Google has been the main funding source for Mozilla
I think the point is more that Google has propped up a hapless, ineffectual competitor so that it can point to “competition” when antitrust probes seek to have them spin off their Chrome division or whatever.
It's not just that. It's that they propped up a hapless, ineffectual competitor so that it can point free software enthusiasts to when they bring up browsers.
Every conversation about free browsers results in Firefox, which is trash. And community efforts are almost singularly focused on supporting this thing that is 90% of the way there, but never actually getting there, while Mozilla is able to sit back and do nothing but still get paid. It's the resource curse applied to tech, with the lazy teammate being the one people are hoping will one day wake up and do the work.
Exactly. US antitrust regulatoors (especially ones that don't really want to do their jobs) seem to tend to look at an industry with more than one company in it and go "Yeah, looks great to me!", regardless of the facts on the ground.
I wonder if -should we ever be so lucky as to get a complete account- we'll learn that something vaguely similar happened with the OpenAI/Anthropic situation... not that one is financially dependent on the other, but that the fact that there are two companies doing the same thing instead of one gives the appearance of competition, which tends to ward off antitrust regulators.
Since time has come for cutting the fat on initiatives like this website creator. I think other initiatives has gone under the ground, and companies have not answered to why they're cutting those initiatives. In job postings equality suddenly is not as prioritized, and if they are, what i hear it is not prioritized during interview rounds.
Another unasked for and fruitless side-project from Mozilla that did nothing but burn money and distract from their core product. Who could have seen it coming?
Uninformed comment. Due to a antitrust 2025 federal court ruling in United States v. Google LLC, Google is no longer allowed to continue its current search deal with Mozilla. Any replacement will be far less lucrative. So Mozilla needs to aggressively invest in alternative income sources. Otherwise there will be a strong funding shortfall and a headcount reduction. This could spell the end of Gecko and ultimately Firefox.
Yeah. Not long after the standard for web browser behavior became "living", it became impossible for anyone other than a well-funded software company to keep up with the rate of changes. This was not accidental. Even Microsoft has given up on the endless race to keep up.
It wouldn't even be "ending it", really. It'd just be making it the focus of a true FOSS project.
So long as someone still has the source code for the latest build somewhere on the internet, and that code builds into a working executable, Firefox still lives. It's all of the other crap that dies, the crap that no one asked for.
FF needs to be run like the group handling the Linux kernel or the Python Software Foundation. There's a BDFL or a trusted group handling the general direction of the project, and volunteers who give their time to develop the code. Occasionally there are sponsors who throw a few bucks the way of the volunteers so more concrete efforts can occur.
> So long as someone still has the source code for the latest build somewhere on the internet, and that code builds into a working executable, Firefox still lives.
No. Without funding, the rendering engine would quickly fall behind, and the browser would become nothing more than another Chromium reskin. I hope you like a Chrome/Safari duopoly, because that's what you are effectively advocating for.
I don’t understand why Mozilla keeps doing these odd projects. They maintain the only real alternative browser stack to Chrome and rather than keep it up to date and triage bugs, so many resources keep flowing into random AI hype crapware that no one asked for.
Well they need a new strategy for finding that. Continually creating half-baked side projects then dropping them after a few years clearly, and unsurprisingly, isn't working.
You may be right, but I'm not sure we actually have strong evidence for that. Mozilla has run like a bigtech firm for so long that it's not really clear whether the open-source portion thereof could survive without.
$500 million in annual revenue and $6 million CEO compensation packages are well in excess of what other similar-scope projects get by on. Mozilla accounts for somewhere between 30-50% of all funding in open-source - if you sum up the Linux foundation, the Wikimedia foundation, the Apache foundation, KDE e.V, the Gnome foundation... it's still less than Mozilla
Honestly, good luck with that. Mozilla spent past 15 years or so creating and killing new projects over and over. Right now I'd be hard-pressed to try anything they create because they would inevitably shut it down next year.
Mozilla seems to be going down a lot of rather futile side-paths, if you know what I mean. Nobody asked for this? Just make Firefox a better browser, work on the web standards I guess, do the things people actually need.
This has a been a pattern for Mozilla for a long time. I think part of the reason reason is they are trying to find a way to make money that isn't dependent on a search deal with Google. But most of their attempts end up not being something people actually want and/or what they make isn't actually good enough to draw people. But even when they make something decent, like Lockwise and Send, they seem to lose interest and give it up.
But that's the only thing I've liked, and they keep killing projects that were genuinely useful and worth paying for (Pocket, Firefox Send).
I'd use the page summaries too if they didn't rely on some foreign server processing all the text.
That's what I wish they would do too. But, realistically, that stuff doesn't actually pay the bills. How many Firefox users actually pay for it? So I'm not surprised that they're thrashing around trying to find some way to make money beyond Google paying them for the search bar.
An absolute failure of Mozilla's leadership.
None, since you can't.
The AI push and all of their little side-projects that no one asked for are pushes to make money that they arguably wouldn't need to make if they stopped with their little side-projects.
I know that there's a bit of for-profit/non-profit mix going on with the corporate structure of Mozilla. Ultimately, if you make free software, just stick with the non-profit side of things. Make browser improvements, update documentation. That's it. That's all that Mozilla needs to do.
Elaborate? it's done nothing but ruin the internet so far. Slop content, search engines are unusable, and now the lowest common denominator simply chatbots a half-baked website and thinks it's good when it isn't.
This accusation seriously has to stop. They're constantly pushing performance improvements (most recently they've made their PDF viewer more efficient and found some efficiencies with images), they push millions of lines of new code every year on a rapid release cycle with an extremely rapid release cadence throughout the year in the release notes for every updated version go deep on the weeds for everything from CSS fixes to performance improvements to bug fixes and so on.
I at least understand the accusation that a bunch of their side projects didn't end up contributing to their bottom line and may have hurt user experience, but the velocity and volume of code they're pushing is not debatable. and the vast majority of it is exactly these kinds of improvements in technical fixes that people in the HN comment sections keep claiming aren't happening.
I'm not going to say everyone should read the release notes, but you definitely should if you're comfortable accusing them of not actually working on the code.
Really, really wish that Mozilla just shuts down, so that the FOSS community can turn their attention to an actual, intentionally competitive alternative. Would love to see Canonical or similar lead the way here.
I think the point is more that Google has propped up a hapless, ineffectual competitor so that it can point to “competition” when antitrust probes seek to have them spin off their Chrome division or whatever.
Every conversation about free browsers results in Firefox, which is trash. And community efforts are almost singularly focused on supporting this thing that is 90% of the way there, but never actually getting there, while Mozilla is able to sit back and do nothing but still get paid. It's the resource curse applied to tech, with the lazy teammate being the one people are hoping will one day wake up and do the work.
It really is time for a reset.
I wonder if -should we ever be so lucky as to get a complete account- we'll learn that something vaguely similar happened with the OpenAI/Anthropic situation... not that one is financially dependent on the other, but that the fact that there are two companies doing the same thing instead of one gives the appearance of competition, which tends to ward off antitrust regulators.
Please note the Reviews are auto-generated
Who has to answer for these expenditures?
So long as someone still has the source code for the latest build somewhere on the internet, and that code builds into a working executable, Firefox still lives. It's all of the other crap that dies, the crap that no one asked for.
FF needs to be run like the group handling the Linux kernel or the Python Software Foundation. There's a BDFL or a trusted group handling the general direction of the project, and volunteers who give their time to develop the code. Occasionally there are sponsors who throw a few bucks the way of the volunteers so more concrete efforts can occur.
No. Without funding, the rendering engine would quickly fall behind, and the browser would become nothing more than another Chromium reskin. I hope you like a Chrome/Safari duopoly, because that's what you are effectively advocating for.
Mozilla has the dumbest priorities.
$500 million in annual revenue and $6 million CEO compensation packages are well in excess of what other similar-scope projects get by on. Mozilla accounts for somewhere between 30-50% of all funding in open-source - if you sum up the Linux foundation, the Wikimedia foundation, the Apache foundation, KDE e.V, the Gnome foundation... it's still less than Mozilla
That’s even before we factor in their LLM usage. LLMs are data harvesters by nature.
Like a kind of super-Turing test.