From https://reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/1hokr0c/mozilla_chair_pay_vs_firefox_market_share_2023/m4aca4j/:

Total 2022 pay: $6,903,089
Total 2023 pay: $6,260,072 - a $643,017 decrease
Base chair pay: $600,000
2023 chair bonuses and other incentives: $5,622,600

Sources:

For comparison, here are other executive salaries ($0 bonuses for each)

Executive name Title Total Pay (2023)
MARK SURMAN PRESIDENT & EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 715,143
J. BOB ALOTTA SVP, GLOBAL PROGRAMS 508,138
ANGELA PLOHMAN COO, SECRETARY & TREASURER 452,234
ASHLEY BOYD SVP, GLOBAL ADVOCACY 427,701
ZHILUN PANG DIRECTOR OF FINANCE 273,069
DAVID WALKER SENIOR COUNSEL 268,565
LAINIE DECOURSY DIRECTOR, ORG EFFECTIVENESS 267,028
JUAN BARANI SENIOR DIRECTOR, GIFT PLANNING 262,879
STEPHANIE WRIGHT SR PROGRAM MANAGER, MOZFEST 236,785
  • @TheImpressiveX@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    474 months ago

    Seems very suspicious that the CEO is getting paid millions while Firefox’s market share is dropping like an anvill.

    I think that money would be better spent on improving the browser and making sure there are more privacy protections, maybe even set an example for other browsers to follow. Make average people actually want to use Firefox instead of Chrome.

    • @chaogomu@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      154 months ago

      2009, that’s about the time that smartphones were really taking off.

      Chrome on Android and Safari on Apple now make up almost 90% of all internet browsing.

  • wuphysics87
    link
    fedilink
    -14 months ago

    The argument is if you don’t pay a CEO enough, they will go elsewhere where they are paid more. I don’t know whether that is a good argument or not, but (at least some) CEOs have a skill set critical to the success of an organization. It would be interesting to know how the pay of CEOs in general has changed over time. That would tell you if this is shitty or not. My expectation is that it is somewhere in the middle leaning toward acceptable

  • @galoisghost@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    1394 months ago

    It’s just a play on the charity CEO scam.

    1. Start a charity
    2. Get a CEO (usually the person who starts the charity)
    3. Pay the CEO what other CEOs make because if we don’t pay at that rate we won’t get the best CEO
    4. Fuck who ever the charity is for they’re just PR to afford the CEO salary
  • Possibly linux
    link
    fedilink
    English
    04 months ago

    Honestly I could care less about CEO salaries or company politics. I care about the service they provide. In this case the service is bad.

  • @wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    264 months ago

    Firefox isn’t their only product, but it’s clearly their most popular one so this is very questionable.

    Would be even better with info about their other product market share as well, and adjustment for inflation. Wouldn’t change the overall message, but would give less stuff for jerks like me to nitpick.

    • Jyek
      link
      fedilink
      14 months ago

      1.) Market share is a different number from daily active users. You can have increasing daily active users while losing market share if the market balloons like it did in 2012.

      2.) Mozilla is a nonprofit to begin with. The goal is not to make money on Firefox or any other projects for that matter. The goal is to make the internet better for everyone. Firefox’s profitability will never have any real impact on Chairman pay.

      • @LWD@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        24 months ago
        1. Firefox has recorded a drop in active users too.
        2. Ex-CPO Steve Teixeira stood up to Mozilla laying off people in his department, even though it was turning a profit. Ex-CPO.

        I agree that Mozilla should act like a non-profit, which is in contrast to people in this thread who say Mozilla should be ranked alongside for profit corporations. But I don’t see Mozilla practicing what they preach

  • @kibiz0r@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    64 months ago

    Probably not a coincidence that the share plummets around the same time as the smartphone explosion.

    I’d be curious to see just desktop browsers, to see how much there’s really an exodus of Firefox users vs. new devices being added that restrict third-party browsers.

    Also salary should be inflation-adjusted.

    Neither probably changes the graph too much though.

    • @AEsheron@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      34 months ago

      I mean the graph starts in 09, and Chrome launched in 08. I assume that did more to them, but both were probably notable.

  • @geography082@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    11
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    Is the same thing all management does in companies, fill pockets, if possible keep this the same or just let them die, run away.

  • @expatriado@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    1974 months ago

    til my favorite browser has been losing a lot of ground over the years, i guess i’ve been living in my foxy bubble

  • _donnadie_
    link
    fedilink
    164 months ago

    The thing I resent the most with mozilla is them dropping servo development. It was bringing great changes to firefox.

  • madthumbs
    link
    fedilink
    English
    -174 months ago

    Graphs like these have been going on for years.

    It is possible that the CEO came in and cleaned out the bloat of workers that just come in and hang out basically (common in the tech field and has been done to Twitter (X)). -That would make the salary increase correlate to savings. Showing a correlation between development and available funds would be pertinent. Just off the top of my head, I remember significant improvements since first seeing graphs like this.

    Also take into account the competition was dismal until Chrome came along. Much like the game console market when Sony entered it, the browser market was hurting with a hole to fill for a strong leader.

    Mozillas politics don’t help. Choosing a side can alienate about half your user base. Flip-flopping sides and you’re killing off your whole user base. Declaring dishonestly that ‘we can’t do this without your donations’ while making bank from Google (long time ago) doesn’t help either. Politics would need to come into play here and how much those are on the CEO.

    They mostly appeal to Linux users (people more likely to switch out things), and almost every Linux YouTuber promotes Brave (which is shady af). Brave also has or had an undeniable corporate presence in the browsers sub on Reddit with weekly Brave vs *** for a particular category Brave would win at by low karma accounts. Firefox lacked that marketing, not for being a bad browser. Prior to, they had the FOSS fanbase influencing for them.

    Statistics and graphs are tools of propagandists. There might be something there, but there’s often a bigger picture to be seen. Firefox isn’t a bad browser, and I’m hoping they can turn it around to gain marketshare again. (and drop all politics).

  • bruhSoulz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    34 months ago

    If this inclusive to all the forks? Alot of folks run forks cus they don’t like both ff and chrome. Just sayin.

    • @morrowind@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      14 months ago

      Doesn’t matter, all the forks combined make up a fraction of FF.

      Plus people moving to forks still hurts Mozilla

      • bruhSoulz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        24 months ago

        Well they can suck the doodoo out my butthole cus that’s what they get if they keep going the wannabe big tech company route.

  • @ipkpjersi@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    34 months ago

    He is obviously way too highly paid by an insane amount, but where are these people going? There’s no way they’re all going to Chrome, right?