this post was submitted on 18 Sep 2024
393 points (80.1% liked)
Microblog Memes
5392 readers
3927 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
As much as I'm happy to criticise Mozilla and its leadership, this graph is misleading.
Firefox is not the only thing Mozilla does, not should the market share of the browser be the sole metric the leadership is measured by.
Overlay the revenue and profit (or whatever revenue minus expenses is called for a nonprofit), then decide if the CEO is overpaid.
Also market share != number of users. The number of internet users worldwide in 2009 was about 1.7 billion, this year it is passing 5.5 billion, many of them with multiple devices.
The more important point where the graph is misleading.
While their market share went down, that says nothing. The market exploded over that period.
Total installs is the thing you want to graph.
Or Monthly Active Users, which has been mostly flat or slightly declining since 2019, the oldest date that Firefox currently lists on their website. Because all sorts of graphs are publicly available on that site.
I'm also certain that I can find data going back further.
The CEO was overpaid regardless of their performance imo. Most CEOs are.
Every single anti-Mozilla post OP has posted recently (I've seen 4 of them just today in my feed) is extremely misleading. Strange pattern...
Is Mozilla making significant revenue from sources other than the search engine setting in Firefox?