- cross-posted to:
- firefox@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- firefox@lemmy.world
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 |
You must log in or # to comment.
A better graph would compare salary to revenue and inflation
You can gain users while losing market share
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.
deleted by creator
Use resume to acquire new CEO job citing experience.
til my favorite browser has been losing a lot of ground over the years, i guess i’ve been living in my foxy bubble
Fox hole
owo
One can keep using good software even if others don’t.
The fact you’re on lemmy puts you in good company I believe. I, too, am fighting the chromium curse.
You can gain users while losing market share. This graph includes the rise of smartphones (+chrome preinstalled)
It almost perfectly correlates with chrome coming to android circa 2012.
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
Does it make sense for a CEO to be paid more while the business they manage dwindles?
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
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?
There is no Firefox alternative. There is Firefox and there is Chrome. Everything else is just a fancy reskin of either one of them.
firefox is not gecko, but yeah there is a depressing lack of viable alternatives
Without Firefox there is no Gecko
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Totally! How dare OP post some visual data without having detailed plans about how to solution a company’s various business issues. Super lazy.
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.
Users on just desktop has been shrinking too, despite more people using computers in general https://data.firefox.com/dashboard/user-activity
This is precisely how I read it.
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.
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.
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.
That makes a lot of sense! I have trouble remembering exactly when this or that tech was introduced.
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
Is it adjusted for an inflation?
I smell some spurious correlation.
22% inflation vs 700% increase for the CEO between 2016 and 2022?
Minimum wage went up to $35 an hour, so nothing to see here. /$
But inflation for the wealthy was a lot more than inflation for everybody else. If you earn over a million a year, your income MUST increase by at least 2x PER YEAR in order to stay competitive against the rest of the ruling class! Won’t somebody think of the billionaires!!!
We need our CEO to be the greediest, most unethical, unemphatic selfish prick we can get to try to gobble up as much cash for the company as possible. If we pay any less, the greedy assholes won’t apply and we might get someone who gives some of the value back to the customer
Yeah the obvious answer is chrome’s absolutely explosive dominance at a time when trust in Google was at an all time high. People forget that using Gmail and chrome and all of that stuff was basically a lifestyle flex back then, almost to the level of being an apple fanboy.
And say what you want about Google now, chrome was hands-down the greatest browser when it came out. Nothing was as lean and clean.
I also wonder how much the shift toward mobile devices in browser market share (>60% today from nearly non-existent 20 years ago) played into declining Firefox market share.
Not only was Chrome lean, clean and fast at the time, it was also the default option on mobile for Android. Same for Safari on iPhone. Since (most?) people use the default option, especially if it worked well during early adoption on mobile, it seems pretty understandable why we see chrome / safari where they are in browser market share.
Anyway, I’m glad we still have options like Firefox, and hope we don’t see decreasing support for the Gecko browser engine associated with the lower market share.
Crossing my fingers for Ladybird to get out there!
Nobody said this was causal… But also 14x increase is not inflation.
Its just that its a window into whats wrong with mozilla. Ofcourse many other things led to their downfall aswell.
The CEOs salary has almost zero affect on Firefox’s market share.
That decline can be explained relatively simply by two things.
One, people are increasing using mobile devices and very very rarely do they install another browser so they are using Chrome on Android and Safari on Apple devices.
Two, Google was/is using Google dot com to promote chrome. That is not something Mozilla could ever replicate.
Then there is the other bit where Mozilla tries to diversify their revenue sources and the faithful skewer them for it and tell them “just work on Firefox” when it is clear the market is unwilling to pay for a browser at all.
Still, increasing payment while market share is falling seems to be the wrong incentive, doesn’t it?
The point is that Firefox market share isn’t indicative of anything useful.
A better comparison would be something like revenue - if Mozilla makes more money, the CEO can earn more.
Mozilla does a lot more than just Firefox and I’m fact increasing revenue from other sources should have been a priority anyway
If you look at it from an incentive view point you have to pay people more to Capitan a sinking ship.
Also worth noting is that market share may or may not be relevant. Android has a higher market share world wide compared to Apple, however Apple users generate more revenue.
All this to say that the op graph is at best an incomplete picture of things designed to rile up people who lack critical thinking.
It’s just a play on the charity CEO scam.
- Start a charity
- Get a CEO (usually the person who starts the charity)
- Pay the CEO what other CEOs make because if we don’t pay at that rate we won’t get the best CEO
- Fuck who ever the charity is for they’re just PR to afford the CEO salary
Do you have examples for this claim?
Wtf That’s some serious BS
This is just hyperventilation. There’s no scam, there’s no conspiracy, it’s just the (sad) way the system works.
I think you mean hyperbole
maybe op suffers from asthma
The market share plot looks suspiciously clean, where are those numbers from?
Edit: looks like they’re from page view data. I know I spoof my browser to show chrome for better compatibility, I wonder how common that is among Firefox users.
Also, I was curious if users were going down or if chrome was growing faster. Looks like it is going down, but not as much as the market share would suggest.
I spoof my browser (Librewolf) as Firefox for privacy and I don’t encounter issues from not reporting my user agent as Chrome/Chromium. I think it’s pretty uncommon for a website to not work on Firefox, so I don’t see how this is necessary. The Chrome Mask extension is meant to be used on a per-site basis.
Do you use this extension? it allows you to do that on a site-by-site basis. Maybe only do it for sites with compatibility issues? You can report them right from the extension.
Lowest position pays 2M roubles a month?! Are they selling cocaine?!
ad-free cocaine, yeah.
If this inclusive to all the forks? Alot of folks run forks cus they don’t like both ff and chrome. Just sayin.
Doesn’t matter, all the forks combined make up a fraction of FF.
Plus people moving to forks still hurts Mozilla
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.
Firefox user here, fuck chrome!
You can see where chrome and Firefox 3.x coexisted.
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.
Right, Firefox has the same situation with Chrome on mobile, as it had with Internet Explorer in Desktop.
I mean the graph starts in 09, and Chrome launched in 08. I assume that did more to them, but both were probably notable.
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).
Usually I find these kinds of “non profit CEOs shouldn’t make money” things kind of annoying but honestly I don’t see any argument for a CEO to make more than a couple million regardless of context.
yeah, for profit ceos shouldn’t make money either. most ceos are useless at best.
deleted by creator
Remember people, 12M a year is over 32.000 a day. Every day.
People live on 32k a year.
Yeah that’s fucking insane. 2 million is over the top even
Yeah I’m not against the CEO earning similar amounts to those of organisations doing similar things and bringing in similar amounts of money… But those CEOs, too, are compensated disproportionately.
Yeah I’m not against the CEO earning similar amounts to those of organisations doing similar things and bringing in similar amounts of money
This is the exact argument boards of directors (which are made of other CEOs) use to excuse continually ratcheting up CEO pay, which their own boards in turn use to excuse ratcheting up their pay. It’s the huge grift of the CEO good ol’ boys club.
Yeah and the reason they get away with it is because a single person’s (exorbitant) pay in the end hardly affect what’s left for the shareholders, whereas giving all employees raises costs a lot more.
