...which is arguably the problem. Firefox. Thunderbird. That should be it. According to their own site, beyond that they have the browser app for mobile devices. A VPN service, an email-forwarding service, and MDN. Hardly 'many products'.
One could argue that the only product that really matters is the ability to have a default search engine. I checked out their Wikipedia[0] article and their financials table has a column dedicated to the percent of revenue derived from Google—81-95%, depending on the year.
It feels a little like when Microsoft invested in Apple back in the 90s. Microsoft needed Apple so they didn’t look like too much of a monopoly. Google has been funding Mozilla’s whole existence for at least 20 years. At first it may have purely been do dominate search, but at some point I think the incentives shifted to Google needing Firefox so they can claim they aren’t a monopoly in the browser space and competition exists.
You've clearly never built a product. One product alone requires a CEO. More than one, much more so.
And anyway you're factually wrong. They produce much more than what you listed, many of their undertakings are contributions to open-source, the development of web standards, underlying technologies that browsers (not just Firefox) use to render the web, etc.
You're being childish and somewhat absurdly so. Mozilla and Firefox are a large part of the reason the modern web is usable (in the technical sense - usability for the deaf and blind, screen readers, etc)
I was mostly just typing out what they had listed under 'products' on their pages. I'm aware of what Mozilla do, know folks there and that have been there.
They've been roundly criticised for adding 'products' of questionable value to their core userbase, rightly so in my opinion.
Yes, many of the projects have been failures -- just like at countless other companies -- but that doesn't change the fact that an organization needs a leader. Your original comment is still nonsensical.
