> Mozilla Foundation, as owner of Mozilla Corp, is a non-profit. Thus the second argument is not that important.
“Non-profit” doesn’t mean “don’t make profits” or “set a pile of money on fire”.
> Mozilla Foundation, as owner of Mozilla Corp, is a non-profit. Thus the second argument is not that important.
I included that argument because it's mentioned explicitly by them:
> as we weighed the cost of our overall portfolio and strategic focus, we made the decision not to relaunch the service.
First argument is more relevant, I see it as underestimated the risk there and coming out of a technical experiment ...
That all said: Mozilla Corp's "focussing" doesn't convince me.