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
  • geography082@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    20 days 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.

  • bruhSoulz@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    20 days 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
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      20 days ago

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

      Plus people moving to forks still hurts Mozilla

      • bruhSoulz@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        20 days 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
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    20 days 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?

  • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    87
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    20 days ago

    A better graph would compare salary to revenue and inflation

    You can gain users while losing market share

    • chaogomu@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      20 days 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.

  • xor@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    20 days ago

    too much money but, mozilla does a lot more that firefox… (see also: rust

    • A1kmm@lemmy.amxl.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      19 days ago

      Google released the stable version of Chrome, and funneled significant resources into marketing it. This was the first stage of their strategy - they focused on firstly making a good product, and the squeeze on users only came later (and is probably only just starting in the scheme of things).

  • psud@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    16 days ago

    I don’t like that your graph key indicates the pay line is in $US millions then the axis is in millions not units. Indicating that the values are in millions of millions which seems unlikely

  • Possibly linux@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    20 days 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.

  • celeste@kbin.earth
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    20 days ago

    i switched to firefox because it had tabs and ie didn’t. ie7 had tabbed browsing in 2006? i later switched to chrome because firefox stopped working well and i got sick of troubleshooting. i switched to brave a few years ago and started using firefox again this year, but i’m regularly switching browsers still trying to find one i like.

    the loss of market share was because of chrome, right? Google had a good reputation back then, and their browser worked easily and you could customize it. I wish there were more options that weren’t modified firefox or chrome, but i get why it’s tough.

    • fuzzyspudkiss@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      20 days ago

      If I had to guess, this chart lines up pretty well with the adoption of smartphones, so I’d say the drop is due to people using the default Android and iOS browsers on their phones. I’ve installed Firefox and use it on my phone but I don’t know many people who bother changing from the defaults.

      • celeste@kbin.earth
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        20 days ago

        That makes a lot of sense! I have trouble remembering exactly when this or that tech was introduced.

    • TheBrideWoreCrimson@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      20 days ago

      Just the other day, I’ve been forced to watch at least 10 ads for Chrome on Youtube. Falls upon deaf ears with me, but others, I can imagine, will just mindlessly click and download that shit.

  • wuphysics87@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    20 days 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

  • pineapple@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    20 days ago

    It’s sad to see Firefox continue to lose popularity I thought there might be some kind of comeback but no.

    • madcaesar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      19 days ago

      Ugh I use Firefox because fuck chrome, but they do have some really annoying ass bugs that should have been dealt with long ago before they kept adding features.

      • elaiden@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        19 days ago

        Haven’t come across any bugs that i know of, but im really annoyed that they still haven’t added HDR support. Has been requested for literal years.

        • madcaesar@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          19 days ago

          Pull to refresh for starters on mobile is wonky as hell accidentally triggering. It’s not nearly as nice and consistent as chrome

    • tbird83ii@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      19 days ago

      Part of the problem is both Chrome and Edge come installed by default on the company’s own products, and they have massive campaigns to keep you from switching, since user data is so profitable for them to sell.

      It is up to us, the “person who does IT for the whole family” to beat back the other browsers.

  • wellheh@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    86
    arrow-down
    15
    ·
    20 days ago

    You know what else coincides with 2009? Google Chrome’s release- a browser by a company with far more resources. I’m absolutely not a supporter of CEO pay going up in general- this post is just incredibly lazy

    • NιƙƙιDιɱҽʂ@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      87
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      20 days ago

      I dont feel the post is saying the two are correlated, more so simply that despite Firefox doing worse year over year, the CEOs compensation continues to rise.

      • Spezi@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        27
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        20 days ago

        As much as I’m opposed to Mozilla CEOs paying out absurd amounts, we still have to acknowledge that Mozilla has way more revenue streams nowadays than they had a few years ago.

        So a sinking market share of one of their (free and open source) products doesn’t mean that the company is making less money overall.

        Especially because a sinking market share doesn’t mean there are less users. This graph doesn’t reflect the exponential adoption of smartphones and tablets on which most users just use the preinstalled browser (eg Chrome and Safari).

        So the user base is probably still similiar in size or even bigger, but the number of devices just exploded due to smartphones beeing adopted by a broad audience in markets like Asia and Africa.

      • wellheh@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        20 days ago

        In other words, the marketshare isn’t tied to the ceo? I don’t see the point in putting that out there without any context, like is lowering the ceo’s compensation supposed to magically give Mozilla more market? Do they want a new ceo? How much is Mozilla making? What’s the end goal? Right now they’re competing with Microsoft and Google- it’s not exactly fair competition.

        • teejay@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          17
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          20 days ago

          Totally! How dare OP post some visual data without having detailed plans about how to solution a company’s various business issues. Super lazy.

        • NιƙƙιDιɱҽʂ@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          17
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          20 days ago

          It’s just indicative of where their priorities lie. Dude’s compensation is like 3.5% of their total development budget. Meanwhile they’re being absolutely dominated by their competitors. Maybe instead of working on their golden parachutes, they should focus more on not being obliterated in the next 24-48 months.

          • wellheh@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            19 days ago

            Yeah maybe if Firefox could be the default browser on Android, mac, and windows, they’d be able to outpace the others on marketshare. We know this’ll never happen though, and desktop usage (their majority market) is dwindling; this is while the vast majority of users never change from the default browser and their competitors are the default and thus the target for compatibility on the web. Maybe you’re right and the ceo could change all this by being paid less. Tbh I’m happy as long as they have the revenue to stay afloat and can continue making the browser without adding a bunch of tracking. All this talk about marketshare is nonsense- the CEO’s job is to find money and they’re finding money and diversifying. In 2023 alone, they were able to increase developer costs by 40m (so now about 260m, almost a 20% jump and 10% the year before that from 200m), so acting like they don’t invest in their products is so asinine.

    • underisk@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      edit-2
      20 days ago

      Does it make sense for a CEO to be paid more while the business they manage dwindles?

      • wellheh@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        20 days ago

        In a vacuum, no- but we all know life is more complicated than this chart. For example, how do they compare to the market rate of other CEOs? Are they increasing profitability (something marketshare alone doesn’t say)? I’m not just gonna say “lower ceo pay = problem solved”- we have to do better. CEO pay is a systemic problem and needs a systemic solution- imo it should be capped across the spectrum or based on lowest employee pay but I’m sure I’m in the minority

        • underisk@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          edit-2
          20 days ago

          The situation is always more complicated than a single graph can represent. Which is why I’m taking this in consideration with other context, and it’s solidifying my impression that Mozilla is failing and I need to find a firefox alternative before they shit it up further chasing money to pay their CEO a ridiculously inflated “market rate”. What good is some theoretical increased profitability (they’re a non-profit!) if all it does is serve to further inflate already inflated compensation packages?

          • wellheh@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            19 days ago

            Tbh there really isn’t any replacement, which tells you a lot about how profitable browsers that care even a little about privacy vs browsers that are just supported by bigger companies and have better marketing. And yes, there’s a bunch of smaller browsers around but they’re mostly reskins and die overnight without Google and Mozilla to carry the major load. It’s sad but privacy is not as popular as compatibility with every website and when you’re the default, you’re compatible everywhere. I’ve been around since Netscape and I don’t see a way to change this at all. Mozilla literally relies on Google ad money to stay afloat.

          • Syntha@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            20 days ago

            There is no Firefox alternative. There is Firefox and there is Chrome. Everything else is just a fancy reskin of either one of them.