909
Total 2022 pay: $6,903,089
Total 2023 pay: $6,260,072 - a $643,017 decrease
Base chair pay: $600,000
2023 chair bonuses and other incentives: $5,622,600
Sources:
For comparison, here are other executive salaries ($0 bonuses for each)
| Executive name | Title | Total Pay (2023) |
|---|---|---|
| MARK SURMAN | PRESIDENT & EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR | 715,143 |
| J. BOB ALOTTA | SVP, GLOBAL PROGRAMS | 508,138 |
| ANGELA PLOHMAN | COO, SECRETARY & TREASURER | 452,234 |
| ASHLEY BOYD | SVP, GLOBAL ADVOCACY | 427,701 |
| ZHILUN PANG | DIRECTOR OF FINANCE | 273,069 |
| DAVID WALKER | SENIOR COUNSEL | 268,565 |
| LAINIE DECOURSY | DIRECTOR, ORG EFFECTIVENESS | 267,028 |
| JUAN BARANI | SENIOR DIRECTOR, GIFT PLANNING | 262,879 |
| STEPHANIE WRIGHT | SR PROGRAM MANAGER, MOZFEST | 236,785 |
Is it adjusted for an inflation?
I smell some spurious correlation.
22% inflation vs 700% increase for the CEO between 2016 and 2022?
But inflation for the wealthy was a lot more than inflation for everybody else. If you earn over a million a year, your income MUST increase by at least 2x PER YEAR in order to stay competitive against the rest of the ruling class! Won’t somebody think of the billionaires!!!
We need our CEO to be the greediest, most unethical, unemphatic selfish prick we can get to try to gobble up as much cash for the company as possible. If we pay any less, the greedy assholes won't apply and we might get someone who gives some of the value back to the customer
Minimum wage went up to $35 an hour, so nothing to see here. /$
Nobody said this was causal... But also 14x increase is not inflation.
Its just that its a window into whats wrong with mozilla. Ofcourse many other things led to their downfall aswell.
The CEOs salary has almost zero affect on Firefox's market share.
That decline can be explained relatively simply by two things.
One, people are increasing using mobile devices and very very rarely do they install another browser so they are using Chrome on Android and Safari on Apple devices.
Two, Google was/is using Google dot com to promote chrome. That is not something Mozilla could ever replicate.
Then there is the other bit where Mozilla tries to diversify their revenue sources and the faithful skewer them for it and tell them "just work on Firefox" when it is clear the market is unwilling to pay for a browser at all.
Still, increasing payment while market share is falling seems to be the wrong incentive, doesn't it?
The point is that Firefox market share isn't indicative of anything useful.
A better comparison would be something like revenue - if Mozilla makes more money, the CEO can earn more.
Mozilla does a lot more than just Firefox and I'm fact increasing revenue from other sources should have been a priority anyway
If you look at it from an incentive view point you have to pay people more to Capitan a sinking ship.
Also worth noting is that market share may or may not be relevant. Android has a higher market share world wide compared to Apple, however Apple users generate more revenue.
All this to say that the op graph is at best an incomplete picture of things designed to rile up people who lack critical thinking.
sfgsdgdsgdsgdsgdfs
I also wonder how much the shift toward mobile devices in browser market share (>60% today from nearly non-existent 20 years ago) played into declining Firefox market share.
Not only was Chrome lean, clean and fast at the time, it was also the default option on mobile for Android. Same for Safari on iPhone. Since (most?) people use the default option, especially if it worked well during early adoption on mobile, it seems pretty understandable why we see chrome / safari where they are in browser market share.
Anyway, I'm glad we still have options like Firefox, and hope we don't see decreasing support for the Gecko browser engine associated with the lower market share.
sfgsdgdsgdsgdsgdfs
"barely functional" and it was fantastic