If it makes you feel any better, all brands had illegally high emissions. People only tie it to VW so much because they were the first to be tested, and they owned up to it, meaning media could call them out on it without fear of libel.
Wikipedia has a far wider reach, doesn't have competitors in quite the same way Mozilla does, and needs far less money than Mozilla.
It takes hundreds of millions every year to maintain a modern web engine, have top-tier security, etc. It's harder than maintaining an OS, even.
I just don't see enough people getting in on that.
You mention Patreon. Alright, let's go with that. The largest Patreon project by far earns less than $3m per year. Mozilla would need probably 150x that.
Not many people care about privacy from big tech, and those that do probably know what FOSS is and would know that they can trivially get Firefox for free.
I also doubt that Mozilla could get the hundreds of millions per year that they need to maintain a modern web browser engine, keep up to date on security, etc.
The point is Linux doesn't solve the problem of megacorps
You still aren't getting it.
That user already knows that Android is a heavily-forked version of Linux.
They already know that simply including some Linux code won't magically make everything pure and wonderful, because they know that we already have Linux code in Android, and as they point out, it isn't pure and wonderful.
it's not like Linux on phones isn't something that hasn't been tried before. Projects like Ubuntu Touch and Firefox OS went nowhere.
Canonical didn't even try with Ubuntu Touch, they never released anything to market. They did a Kickstarter that raked in more than anything else ever had, then they gave up.
I'm not certain Mozilla ever had real devices on the market either.
Besides, just because there have been two failures in the past doesn't mean it's impossible, or that the above user is wrong for desiring a proper Linux smartphone.
Yes, Android is a (extremely heavily forked) Linux distribution. I'd be willing to bet money the above poster knows that too. You aren't giving us new information here.
Furthermore, I think you knew what the above user's point was: they want a more open phone and OS landscape where users are the boss of their own software and hardware, not tech giants.
Android is, in practical terms, its own thing, under Google's control, bundles all kinds of Google crap, and can't be replaced on most phones.
Pocket is something that I think sounds super neat in theory, but I never actually personally found any use for it.
And while I don't think it was wrong for Mozilla to try to find an avenue for a more diversified income, I feel like they overpaid for Pocket, and it was the wrong thing to try to make money from.
I'm not looking at it through a modern lense. It was very insecure at the time, too. I worked in a PC repair shop and at the time that business was a money printer in terms of getting rid of endless malware.
Later versions of windows cleared up the horrendous security to such an extent that the shop was no longer economically viable, and we had to close.
XP was not the first consumer version based on NT, I don't know why you think that.
Although yes, the DOS versions were even worse. Well, in theory anyway. In practice not, since most people at that time didn't have PCs that old connected to the internet.
They did, it was called "Windows 8" and nobody liked it.
I would not consider Win8 a "refinement" of Win7 lol, they changed the entire UX, added an app store they tried to force people into, created a new executable format, etc.
Windows 8 is basically the polar opposite of a "refinement" release!
Everybody on Lemmy and Reddit were saying the same when they banned account sharing and price increases. In reality their subscriber numbers went through the roof and so did their profits.
Unfortunately, it's quite difficult for AMD and Intel to make any big difference in the short term.
On the Intel GPU side, bluntly, they are far behind in tech, so they have to mitigate that with more aggressive pricing.
Don't believe me? Look at the process node they use and the die size of their chips, now look at the performance and power efficiency they get compared to similar node/die size Radeon or Geforce cards. That means Intel has to spend a lot more on manufacturing but can't charge anywhere near as much. In other words, they have to use more raw materials to make the same performance.
Intel doesn't make money from their GPUs yet. They literally don't want to sell too many cards because they generally lose money on each one sold. That's why their launch was a paper launch. They're spending right now to build expertise and expertise before doing a bigger push later.
On the AMD side, there's some good news in that their latest generation is pretty great and has massively outsold their previous generations.
The bad news is that even if AMD has doubled sales or whatever, they were already such a small part of the overall pie that Nvidia (85%+ of the market) shitting the bed isn't something AMD can suddenly fix.
It'd be like if all carmakers except Mazda shat the bed, Mazda can't suddenly expand and fix the market. They could increase it a bit, probably, but filling the orders that the VW or Toyota group usually do? Impossible.
Also, whenever there's excess demand for CPUs, AMD would prefer to service that market. It's far higher margin.
It objectively is.