Mitchell Baker: ...but that is the most fundamental aspect I think of Firefox and partly it's because the product is great, partly for those that know it's because we are a public benefit organisation and we are not trying to maximise our revenue and we're not trying to generate massive private wealth for a few people. The asset is owned by the public.
Dan Warne (APC): Well it seems to me that one of the most attractive things about Firefox is the plug-in eco system and I think it's amusing to watch Microsoft trying very, very hard to replicate that, but their plug‑in eco system is full of "pay $30 to register this", "pay $50 to register that" - it's all commercialware and I think
it is testament to the fact that in your open source model it's not easy to replicate that unless you are actually open source.
Mitchell Baker: Yes, yes well first of all it's hard to replicate interest in public benefit as opposed to shareholder personal wealth because fundamentally you're two different organisations and each has legal constraints that drive you in a different direction, so that, I think, by definition can't be replicated...
Mozilla, and the Firefox web browser as well as other pieces of software it produces, is a democratic entity. It exists to serve the public, providing a service and receiving feedback through the open source framework and the multitude of plug-ins users write. Mozilla doesn't tell the user what the user wants, users tell Mozilla what they want, directly and democratically. Contrasting this with Microsoft's oligarchic nature, I can't help but wish Mozilla made an operating system. The success of Firefox is a testimony to the arguments made by James Scott about the importance of local knowledge. Mozilla and Firefox are far more flexible and in tune with what users need than Microsoft, and it shouldn't be a surprise that they make a better product.
Powered by ScribeFire.
No comments:
Post a Comment