Maintaining an Independent Browser Is Expensive
<p><pre><code>   Annual salaries from 2015 (reportable compensation from IRS Form 990):

   Mitchell Baker, Chair $977,382 + $45,530
   Bob Lisborne, Director $92,000
   Mark Surman, Exec. Dir.&#x2F;President $170,699 + $40,602
   Jim Cook, Treasurer $934,526 + $45,530
   Angela Plohman, Secretary&#x2F;VP Operations $121,322 + $30,342
   Christopher Lawrence, VP Learning $153,492 + $62,538
   An-Me Chung, Dir. Partnerships 154,946 + $72,672
   Daniel Sinker, Dir. Partnerships 123,630 + $64,215
   Hiram Paul Johnson, Marketing Lead 126,605 + 54, 903
   Andrea Wood, Online Organizing&#x2F;Fundraising Lead $135,048 + $46,322
   Samuel Dyson, Director Hive Chicago $114,860 + $63,549
</code></pre>
source: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;static.mozilla.com&#x2F;moco&#x2F;en-US&#x2F;pdf&#x2F;2015_Mozilla_Foundation_Forms_990_Public_Disclosure.pdf" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;static.mozilla.com&#x2F;moco&#x2F;en-US&#x2F;pdf&#x2F;2015_Mozilla_Found...</a><p>Perhaps the author is telling the truth.  Consider the salary costs of retaining skilled &quot;maintainers&quot; like the above personnel.<p>Note I am not condemning Mozilla.  They do good work.<p>However I am not quite sold on the idea that their purpose for existence is to &quot;keep the web open&quot; or whatever tagline they are going with.<p>For example, an &quot;open&quot; web would be one made for all browsers to access, not just a select few who have chosen to try to keep up with an arms race of recently-added, <i>non-optional</i> &quot;features&quot; that carry serious costs to users.  The key word I wish to emphasize is &quot;non-optional&quot;.  Users are not given choice and that is most likely intentional.<p>Many a web developer presents the user with a small selection of &quot;acceptable browsers&quot;, the ones that will run third party code and readily show heavy, third party advertising.  Anything else is &quot;prohibited&quot; and must be a &quot;bot&quot;.  Users are sometimes even shamed for not using the web browser or version that the web developer wants them to use, calling the user&#x27;s software &quot;outdated&quot; when they have almost no information about the user&#x27;s software except its behavior and some easily forgeable HTTP headers.  In many cases, e.g., where the user is just retrieving some information, that is just silly.<p>Not every website needs to show advertising.  Not all information is commercial.  Not all information is graphical. 
I am not using one of the select few targeted browsers to read HN or post this comment, but I am getting the same information as the readers who are.  And for some reason(s), web developers flock to this &quot;outdated&quot; website.  Why?<p>Clearly the web can be <i>both</i> accesible by simpler user agents, <i>and</i> fully-functional for the most bleeding-edge features of corporate-sponsored browsers at the same time.  The original web standards, e.g. basic HTML, still work, very effectively.  The web as a means to offer basic functionality such as HN can be &quot;backwards compatible&quot; with user agents that are far more simple than Firefox, Chromium, etc.<p>The select few browsers that many web developers target overwhelmingly controlled by corporations and other advertisers.  Netscape and the idea of corporations paying to use a browser may exist only as entries in the historical record, but I do not think we can say that browsers are truly separated from corporate funding (and influence).  Browsers are still commercial, in a sense, IMO.  While it might be viewed as &quot;free software&quot;, the authors of these few browsers are well-paid by their corporate (or &quot;non-profit&quot;) employers and the end goal is &quot;market share&quot;, ideally a monopoly.<p>This is fine if the web is 100% commercial.  But it did not start that way and it still isn&#x27;t 100% commercial.  Non-commercial uses are still alive and well.<p>It is not necessarily Mozilla&#x27;s fault for the direction the web moves in, e.g., making content less accessible by simpler user agents.  <i>However</i>, if their purpose is to make the web &quot;open&quot; or some such &quot;non-commercial&quot; aim, then what could they do to enable and promote use of simpler user agents (and thereby promote their acceptability among web developers)?  I can think of a few things.  I am sure others could as well.  There is no shortage of users who are dissatisfied with the (lack of) variety of user agents that are available.<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;bitcheese.net&#x2F;web_browsers_must_die" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;bitcheese.net&#x2F;web_browsers_must_die</a><p>The question is whether Mozilla really wants to listen to users who might criticize dismiss their browser as, e.g., too bloated.