> I believe you stated the problem in a way that its unsolvable.

I think you misunderstood me. I asked a question because the answer is far from obvious. If the solution to this problem was obvious, we wouldn't be having the same discussion on HN every 6 months when a new press release from Mozilla comes out.

I am very much interested by what people think the solution should be. Now, you mentioned Enterprise customers which is interesting because usually what I have read on this sort of threads was that Mozilla had made many mistakes (I agree), Mozilla should change their ways by removing this feature or adding this feature but almost everyone conveniently forgets that at the end of the day someone has to pay for all this stuff.

> Charge your customers money, so you can work for them.

Which is what I mentioned in my comment. Start charging people. The problem is how do you convince the general public to use Firefox instead of Chrome or Edge, especially is you need to pay for the software?

If privacy was a selling point, then Meta would have closed shop many years ago.

> I'm not nearly as certain as you are that Netscape failed because it was charging money. Netscape just stopped updating for multiple years at the height of the browser wars.

It doesnt matter because we will never know. The reality is that people expect to browse the internet for free. Asking them for cash has never been done at this scale.

If Mozilla was to start charging money tomorrow, you would find that many people would object to that and most people would simply move to Chrome because why not?

> Then, lean hard into the enterprise world. Figure out what enterprise customers want. The answer to that is always for things to never, ever change and the ability to tightly control their users. That isn't fun code to write, but its profitable and doesn't run counter to Mozilla's mission. That keeps Mozilla stable and financially independent.

I understand the comparison with Red hat but I am doubtful that this model will work. Red Hat helps companies ship stuff, it makes people more productive, it increases the bottom line. What would a paid version of Firefox do that makes people more productive or makes companies money that they couldn't get from Chrome? I am genuinely asking because again, it's mot very clear to me.

> Mozilla will maintain lots of influence to push forward their mission, because hopefully their enterprise customer base is big, but also they are the ones actually doing the work to make the downstream fork possible.

That is big assumption that has not been proven at this time. I think that making any sort of plans based on hypothetical paid version is highly speculative.