<story><title>Firefox’s Fight for the Future of the Web</title><url>https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/nov/17/firefox-mozilla-fights-back-against-google-chrome-dominance-privacy-fears</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>neiman</author><text>I see a problem, though I have no alternative to offer, with the current model of organizations.&lt;p&gt;It seems you are either for-profit, and then you have no ethics and do everything you can to centralize the world around you with no concern for users or their benefits. Or you&amp;#x27;re a not-for-profit foundation or the Internet Archive, where you do good things but are destined to be &amp;quot;poor&amp;quot;.&lt;p&gt;Are there are any &amp;quot;shades&amp;quot; between those two organization models?</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>nine_k</author><text>If you don&amp;#x27;t plan to be poor, then you need many paying customers.&lt;p&gt;For a browser, the customers could be either end users, corporations with many end users, or marketers who want to sell to the end users.&lt;p&gt;The latter case is Chrome, which works through a long chain of Google services.&lt;p&gt;The corporate case used to be IE, geared towards deep windows integration.&lt;p&gt;The case of the paying end users used to be the original Netscape. It did not work well for a number of reasons. Paying for a product when free-as-beer alternatives are available takes &lt;i&gt;understanding&lt;/i&gt;, which is sorely lacking outside some segments of tech circles.&lt;p&gt;I personally buy Mozilla a figurative  pizza by a yearly donation. I do it because I understand their importance and feel grateful for their products. If more people did that it would help, but most people who are to benefit from Mozilla&amp;#x27;s efforts are not technical.</text></comment>
<story><title>Firefox’s Fight for the Future of the Web</title><url>https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/nov/17/firefox-mozilla-fights-back-against-google-chrome-dominance-privacy-fears</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>neiman</author><text>I see a problem, though I have no alternative to offer, with the current model of organizations.&lt;p&gt;It seems you are either for-profit, and then you have no ethics and do everything you can to centralize the world around you with no concern for users or their benefits. Or you&amp;#x27;re a not-for-profit foundation or the Internet Archive, where you do good things but are destined to be &amp;quot;poor&amp;quot;.&lt;p&gt;Are there are any &amp;quot;shades&amp;quot; between those two organization models?</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>Despegar</author><text>Profit or non-profit doesn&amp;#x27;t really have anything to do with it. The issue is market power. Chrome has 70-80% market share according to this article. That&amp;#x27;s monopoly levels of market power and it&amp;#x27;s maintained through Android, which also has 80% market share.&lt;p&gt;It&amp;#x27;s up to regulators to restore some semblance of balance to the market. If the browser market were less concentrated and there was more equal distribution, it wouldn&amp;#x27;t really matter whether you were a non-profit or not. In fact the web would be better off with competing interests jockeying over each other.</text></comment>