<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Michael Gall - Internet Marketing and SEO Consultant - Melbourne &#187; safari</title>
	<atom:link href="http://wakeless.net/tag/safari/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://wakeless.net</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 13 Apr 2012 07:40:30 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
		<item>
		<title>Mozilla, Sugardaddies, Sustainability and Targets</title>
		<link>http://wakeless.net/archive/2008/03/mozilla-sugardaddies-sustainability-and-targets</link>
		<comments>http://wakeless.net/archive/2008/03/mozilla-sugardaddies-sustainability-and-targets#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Mar 2008 01:16:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Gall</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[apple]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[firefox]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mozilla]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[safari]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wakeless.net/archive/2008/03/mozilla-sugardaddies-sustainability-and-targets</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[There has been a massive uproar regarding John Lilly&#8217;s post about Apple&#8217;s dubious update/install process of Safari (follow up regarding competition). I don&#8217;t think it needs to be discussed, but John Gruber (Apple fanboy extraodinaire) has a great post regarding exactly why it is wrong. The hoo-haa has largely been largely focused on the idea [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There has been a massive uproar regarding John Lilly&#8217;s post about <a href="http://john.jubjubs.net/2008/03/21/apple-software-update/">Apple&#8217;s dubious update/install process of Safari</a> (<a href="http://john.jubjubs.net/2008/03/23/on-competition/">follow up regarding competition</a>). I don&#8217;t think it needs to be discussed, but John Gruber (Apple fanboy extraodinaire) has a great <a href="http://daringfireball.net/2008/03/update">post regarding exactly why it is wrong</a>. The hoo-haa has largely been largely focused on the idea that this move jeopardises Mozilla&#8217;s primary income source, that is searches performed on Google originating from Firefox. Mitchell Baker has <a href="http://blog.lizardwrangler.com/2008/03/25/revenue-and-motives/">extended the commentary</a> writing about her experiences with people often taking this, <em>protecting your income stream</em>, angle on conversations.</p>
<p>Let me show you how I see Mozilla&#8217;s angle on this. I don&#8217;t think Mozilla gives a flying duck about earning $20 million or $60 million from Google. Looking at their <a href="http://blog.lizardwrangler.com/2007/10/22/beyond-sustainability/">most recent financials</a> you will see that the money is clearly not an issue. They are sitting on a nest egg of almost $60 million, with outgoings of around $20million. In the coming year, I suppose we can estimate that outgoings may be around $30million and even assuming that this move from Apple does squeeze the income down (which I doubt very much) the Foundation will still be turning over a tidy profit. It&#8217;s also good to keep in mind, that we don&#8217;t need to even speculate for more than a year over Mozilla&#8217;s financial situation. The books will be published.&nbsp; </p>
<p>A recurring theme throughout Mitchell Baker&#8217;s writing is sustainability and I have no doubt that even with a hypothetic 50% dive in earnings the Mozilla Foundation will remain self-sufficient. </p>
<p>Now before I cast some nasturtiums of my own and add a little bit of food to the fire let me say this. I have no doubt that what John has said as CEO of the Mozilla Corporation is exactly what he means. However something that hasn&#8217;t been disclosed are details of the position of CEO of the Mozilla Corporation. I&#8217;m certain that in the contract of CEO there are certain goals that must be met and if they are exceeded, certain bonuses will be paid. If this isn&#8217;t true, then by all means I will eat my words, however I think that for any person to perform there should be a carrot and there is no reason that the Mozilla Corporation should be any different. (<strong>Although after I&#8217;ve thought about this, it&#8217;s certainly possible that a bonus could be paid purely on a board decision rather than any particular metrics</strong>) </p>
<p>It certainly is possible that market share or revenue is a KPI for the CEO or at the very least taken into consideration when their bonus review comes around and comments such as John&#8217;s could be seen as influenced by this. Now, don&#8217;t take this the wrong way, it is always going to be a hard line to walk and I have no doubt that John, Mitchell and the Mozilla Corporation will continue take Mozilla&#8217;s mission forward.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://wakeless.net/archive/2008/03/mozilla-sugardaddies-sustainability-and-targets/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

