https://discourse.mozilla.org/t/future-of-deepspeech-stt-aft...
https://discourse.mozilla.org/t/future-of-deepspeech-stt-aft...
A lot of us pretty much assume that much, but I think it goes much deeper.
I think Google pays and maintains a working relationship with the CEO of Mozilla (current and former) to purposely keep the organization rudderless, uncompetitive, and shrinking.
Mozilla spends its money building a 3D VR metaverse here, a bunch of AI models it later scraps over there, a web3 / distributed social program, etc. It scraps Rust, doesn't invest into Firefox. Just silly toys and experiments.
That nice CEO salary is hush money.
Just a fun little pet theory, totally not based on evidence.
It could be as simple as ex-Google employees at lower levels than CEO who are paid by Google take positions at Mozilla, or more subtle things like guiding the direction of the organization through standards boards.
It would be really fascinating to look at the org charts of Mozilla past and present and try and build the network between people who worked at Google or Google related organizations before, during, and after their time at Mozilla.
Because you're absolutely right that the organization is so absolutely dysfunctional that it can't just be incompetence, it has to be absolute malice.
https://mozillamemory.org/detailview.php%3Fid=977.html
Presumably then Google developed a competing browser so they could collect more data and not come into constant conflict with Mozilla’s insistence on client-side-only data processing — but, as the interview above notes, the initial engagement appears to be because a coder suggested Google pay for Firefox development.
I think I'd rather they keep innovating
Yes, but innovating and then killing the innovations, e.g., most recently Pocket, is not really innovating in any useful sense. When something like Pocket starts getting traction then gets killed for no apparent reason, it does seem like more circumstantial evidence to support the above thesis that Google is paying Mozilla just as an increasingly weak anti-trust shield
Google have often killed innovative and popular products (reader, picasa, chromecast, stadia, panoramio) but I doubt anyone would believe that's it's evidence of some kind of infiltrator sabotaging the company.
Its not a marketing problem, its a market problem.
The only money in the current market is in ads/surveillance and that's basically a requirement to compete. They can't achieve the same level as MS or Google because of sabotage, and an adverse market.
In some circles its called tortuous interference of a contract, but the bar to prove it is impossibly high so companies can strategically make changes to dependencies that force costs on a competitor as a dominant market player.
Do you know how many times Firefox has had bug tickets opened for Google, and Cloudflare, and others where those companies basically broke the web for everyone on that browser because their silent internal changes to captcha's and other systems didn't play nice with competitors browsers which respect privacy more than others? Change management is a solved problem, so the only reason this happens is because of purposeful asymmetry here where FTC enforcement has failed.
These breakages happens a lot, every few months on the regular going back more than a decade.
How do you attract people's attention to use your browser and deal with the brokenness, when competitors constantly break it? These type of toy projects.