That much is unclear. http://www.ghacks.net/2015/12/05/mozilla-has-a-revenue-share...

Wow, if that article is true then not only were Mozilla [indirectly] taking money for the integrations but they also lied to us all about it.

Is there corroboration that Mozilla had/has revenue sharing with Pocket and Telefonica? I've always trusted Mozilla, this suggests that trust has been badly misplaced.

I can't help but feel that I'm being suckered somewhere here - who from Mozilla is benefiting personally out of this acquisition and why are they being allowed to steer the ship?

It's 14 months since that blog post, I realise it's not news to some, but it's really disappointing to me.

Mozilla releases their financial reports about two years after any given financial year, so we should soon know for sure and I also just really can't imagine them having lied as a result of that.

IMO the simple reality is they need to diversify their income sources to avoid putting all their eggs in one basket, and they decided Pocket makes sense. I'm still a huge Mozilla fan, the whole Pocket episode is not a big deal to me.

Where did Mozilla say that they didn't have revenue sharing with those?

In that article the Mozilla spokesman says that they had no financial interest in the integration of Pocket. If they get revenue from customers introduced through the integration that seems like a barefaced lie.

>Chad Weiner, Mozilla's director of project management told PC World in an email back then that "there [was] no monetary benefit to Mozilla from the integration" and that Pocket "didn't pay for placement in the browser". (ibid) //

vs.

>Although the company emphasizes that Pocket and Telefonica didn’t pay for placement in the Firefox browser, Mozilla Corp. chief legal and business officer Denelle Dixon-Thayer told WIRED that Mozilla has revenue sharing arrangements with both companies. (Wired, as quoted ibid) //

They seem directly conflicting statements to me barring a monumental coincidence. Even if it were considered not contradictory, per se, then it's highly misleading. If I say "I wasn't paid to write this car review" and it turns out I get a cut of sales of the cars ... pretty fraud-y.

At the time, this was the most baffling aspect to me; it would've been more understandable if Pocket were paying Mozilla for the preinstall, but Mozilla opting to corrupt their own ideals of an open web without any monetary gain was mind-boggling.

Now it makes at least some sense.