“Last month, Mozilla made a quiet change in Firefox that caused some diehard users to revolt…”

  • sushibowl@feddit.nl
    39·
    4 months ago

    Laura Chambers, who stepped into an interim CEO role at Mozilla in February, says the company is reinvesting in Firefox after letting it languish in recent years,

    It’s sort of amusing to me that Mozilla would let the Firefox browser languish. Is that not the raison d’etre of your entire organization? What are you doing with your time and effort if you are allowing your core product to languish? What would people say if Microsoft said “yeah, we’ve allowed windows to languish in recent years.” What an insane notion.

    • ReversalHatchery@beehaw.orgEnglish
      11·
      3 months ago

      What would people say if Microsoft said “yeah, we’ve allowed windows to languish in recent years.”

      Well, I think they did let it languish, if looking at it being enshittified in recent last ~10 years. Also, it’s not their core product anymore. Almost nobody buys a windows license anymore, because piracy was already high, and they let you keep your license from the previous version so whether you had one or not, most probably now you have.
      I think Microsoft’s core product has not been windows for a long time, but their cloud services, and maybe office and the other common business tools.

      • MonkderVierte@lemmy.ml
        4·
        4 months ago

        There was a graphic here a while ago. What was it, about 4/5 are Azure and Office 365, Windows less than 1/5.

      • BearOfaTime@lemm.ee
        3·
        3 months ago

        Let me tell my management they no longer have to pay windows license for the ~10,000 user machines, and then the servers.

        While a single consumer can get away with it (and MS doesn’t care because it means they’re using Windows and likely using MS services, all while getting telemetry from the desktops), it’s far from “nobody buys a windows license any more”.

        Even SMB’s will pay, because if they don’t MS will hammer them financially. No SMB could stand up to what MS can do to them - $200 windows license is cheap insurance.

        • ReversalHatchery@beehaw.orgEnglish
          2·
          3 months ago

          Let me tell my management they no longer have to pay windows license for the ~10,000 user machines, and then the servers.

          Current sales are nothing compared to earlier windows versions.

    • Akisamb
      11·
      3 months ago

      They’ve got thunderbird which is as far as I know the only serious alternative to outlook.

      • BearOfaTime@lemm.ee
        61·
        3 months ago

        And I wouldn’t call it serious, the performance is atrocious.

        It’s so bad I went and installed outlook from 2016

        • Empricorn@feddit.nlEnglish
          31·
          3 months ago

          You’re not arguing from a position of strength if your personal anecdote is performance issues, 8 years ago.

          • Roopappy@lemmy.ml
            English
            41·
            3 months ago

            I think you misread that. This poster’s experience isn’t from 2016. They installed a program called “Outlook 2016” recently.

            • Empricorn@feddit.nlEnglish
              1·
              3 months ago

              You may be right, but they literally wrote “from 2016”. So yeah, I read that as “Since 2016 onwards…”