>No, the argument is that if Mozilla didn't spend so much money on side projects, they wouldn't now be in such a precarious financial situation that they're making a drastic, controversial change with the stated purpose of ensuring their financial future
A couple of problems here. First, despite your protestations to the contrary, the argument for many is about market share. Secondly they're sitting on $1.2 billion in assets, so it's not that they're underwater, but that they're trying to diversify their income away from just Google.
I also have to note that you said no, but then proceeded to make an argument that bears the very form that I was criticizing.
You are saying that side bets (like the VPN) are what compromise their financial position. That's at least a coherent statement, but now comes the substantiating it and tracing out the cause and effect, articulating the actual scale of those investments, where it has the effect that you're claiming it does.
It takes more than just going ahead and saying it and it's weird that I have to keep pointing this out.
A couple of problems here. First, despite your protestations to the contrary, the argument for many is about market share. Secondly they're sitting on $1.2 billion in assets, so it's not that they're underwater, but that they're trying to diversify their income away from just Google.
I also have to note that you said no, but then proceeded to make an argument that bears the very form that I was criticizing.
You are saying that side bets (like the VPN) are what compromise their financial position. That's at least a coherent statement, but now comes the substantiating it and tracing out the cause and effect, articulating the actual scale of those investments, where it has the effect that you're claiming it does.
It takes more than just going ahead and saying it and it's weird that I have to keep pointing this out.