Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Saturday September 20 2014, @01:13PM   Printer-friendly
from the innovate-or-die dept.

Ian Bicking has confirmed that Mozilla has quietly shut down Mozilla Labs.

This development raises some interesting questions about the future of Mozilla and their products:

With Firefox's usage declining, with Firefox on Android seeing limited uptake, with Firefox not being available on iOS, with Thunderbird stagnating, with SeaMonkey remaining as irrelevant as ever, with Firefox OS suffering from poor reviews and little adoption, and now with a reduction in innovation due to the closure of Mozilla Labs, does Mozilla have any hope of remaining relevant as time goes on?

Will Mozilla be able to reignite the spark that originally allowed them to create products like Firefox and Thunderbird that were, at one time, wildly popular and innovative?

Is Mozilla still capable of innovating without Mozilla Labs, or will they slowly fade into irrelevance as the last remaining users of their products move on to other offerings from competitors?

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by khallow on Tuesday September 23 2014, @02:45AM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 23 2014, @02:45AM (#97013) Journal

    Ignoring whether or not the issue at hand was a full ban or just "refusal to accept"

    We can't ignore that. The phrase was "refusal to accept gay marriage" not "full ban on gay marriage". That's a huge difference. chris.alex.thomas claims that we don't have a right to think or say certain things, not use the force of law to ban certain things or prevent certain rights from being exercised.
     
     

    Of course, if we abolished state recognition of marriage and the associated benefits entirely, that would solve that issue. Not sure why they have any business being involved these days anyway...

    I agree.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by urza9814 on Tuesday September 23 2014, @12:01PM

    by urza9814 (3954) on Tuesday September 23 2014, @12:01PM (#97116) Journal

    Ignoring whether or not the issue at hand was a full ban or just "refusal to accept"

    We can't ignore that. The phrase was "refusal to accept gay marriage" not "full ban on gay marriage". That's a huge difference. chris.alex.thomas claims that we don't have a right to think or say certain things, not use the force of law to ban certain things or prevent certain rights from being exercised.

    Right, there's certainly a difference, I was just saying that that distinction didn't really apply to the point I was making -- whether or not one has a legal right to say something (and I'd agree, you have a legal right to say *anything*), the question at hand doesn't involve legal action. You have a right to say anything you want, but I have a right to stop doing business with you because of it.

    • (Score: 2) by khallow on Wednesday September 24 2014, @03:26AM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday September 24 2014, @03:26AM (#97471) Journal

      You have a right to say anything you want, but I have a right to stop doing business with you because of it.

      That's not necessarily true in employment. For example, the Eich case involved legally protected political donations. It was actually against California law [vtzlawblog.com] to force him out, even using the "voluntary resignation" fig leaf. And in federal employment, there are several protected classes for which you can't discriminate (such as sexual status or religion). A case exists for religious discrimination against Eich here.