> In practice, you can dilute glycemic index using fat and protein in addition to water.
And people really don't understand this. For instance, you basically can't find full-fat yogurt in an American grocery store. Instead there's 20 kinds of non-fat yogurt packed with sugar, which have a much higher glycemic load than yogurt with the same amount of sugar and fat would. But they're all advertised as being healthy because they're non-fat. It's crazy.
"The article is not saying "Firefox doesn't need any corporate money". Corporate deals are really the only reason why they're still alive at all since they are virtually nonexistent in mind share.
Instead, the article is simply saying that Google wised up and realized they had no need to give Mozilla that much money so instead, Mozilla convinced other gullible corporations to give them money.
Once that stream dries up (and it will), Mozilla will meet the fate that it deserves and die."
== I don't see why this text was offensive or the comment was killed by flags...
The article clearly says that 2014 revenues was something like $300 million and most if not all was from a single-point corporate contract. Somehow, undisclosed in the article, all of this revenue has been replaced by non-google corporate contracts. Such that 2015/2016 will presumably not see much decline. Or, in other words, Mozilla was able to fully replace one Corporate sponsor with another (or another set).
The key question for everyone here is what, if anything, does that matter? By not explaining of discussing the changes in the terms of the contracts/business model, not much at all transparency has been added to Mozilla's motivations or long-term outlook.
Maybe this info is out there somewhere else, but decent reporting should have highlighted those links somewhere in tha artcicle. I'm surprised as well HN comments don't seem to cover this topic anywhere either, but maybe I;ve missed the discussion somewhere...
These are the cold, hard numbers on which @incepted based his comments:
Mozilla gets the bulk of its revenue from search deals. For 9 years, from 2005 to 2014, Google paid Mozilla to set Firefox's default search provider to be google.com. In those 9 years, the Firefox browser share rose to peak of ~30% in 2010 and then fell consistently due to competition from Chrome.
In 2014, when Google's contract with Mozilla came up for renewal, Firefox browser market share was just 12.4%. Google probably decided that continuing to pay Mozilla the same amount of money for much less traffic wasn't worth it, so they didn't renew.
Mozilla then locked Yahoo! into a five-year contract. One year into the Yahoo deal, Firefox's browser market share is now 9.8%. If the long term declining trend continues, four years later the market share would be even smaller. That's when Yahoo!'s contract ends.
That's also when the question will arise: if Google paid $300 million a year for search traffic from 12.4% browser share in 2014 who will pay how much for far less search traffic in 2019?
Do you have any sense of proportion? FB is worth hundreds of BILLIONs and somebody wasted $500K or whatever on diaspora...thats not a waste of resources its a single FTE for at one of these companies today....Or do you have something else in mind?
I doubt the average FTE at FB costs 500 grant, but whatever. The point is, Diaspora didn't get that money from google or one of the giants who could care less. And it is now gone without making a lot of a splash.
But in the end, that's kind of my point - FB is humongous and I hope Mozilla does not pick a fight there. As much as I despise FB, I'd rather Mozilla enters the competitions they can win.
>that they have the most popular browser, but they have a browser with enough users
Well yes, but they arrived at this by having a vision what a good browser is at a time when browsers were abysmal. They didn't arrive there by just wanting an open-source browser. Yes, there was a network effect at play too (everyone "optimized" for MSIE), but they were able to bootstrap their user base with the tech-savvy who were fed up with the horrible HTML/CSS/JS support browsers of the time offered.
They did not have that vision with FirefoxOS - they wanted to secure a foothold in the mobile market, but had no compelling idea on how to gain that in the face of Apple/Google. Similarly, disliking Zuck is a a really bad reason to pour energy into yet another open social network.
He mentioned that he didn't want to start a predatory subprime loan shop.
He wanted to offer non-predatory lower interest loans to higher risk clients, in concert with banking services that are difficult to provide to higher risk immigrant clients like checking and savings accounts and debit cards.
But the NCUA wouldn't allow him to set interest rates lower or offer checking/debit accounts.
> But the NCUA wouldn't allow him to set interest rates lower
That indicates that those rates aren't actually predatory at all, but required in order to defend against default.
Which really isn't all that surprising: in the case of payday loans and such, there are many operators, and anyone who could lessen his profit-per-loan could very easily snap up a great number of customers, increasing his net profit. That no-one has done this indicates either collusion or that the rates are fair.
If you are making loans to high risk clients, this is predatory lending. There's a reason they are high-risk: they are less likely to be able to pay the loans, or have demonstrated prior poor handling of debt. Don't be misled by "low interest" either: the "predatory lenders" in the last housing bubble were not for the most part charging exorbitant interest rates, rather they were lending far too much money to people with almost no qualifications.
If you make credit easy to get for people who can't handle it, they will end up bankrupt and the creditors will end up holding the bag.
Lending to high risk clients, on its own, is not predatory lending. If I'm willing to accept the risk, I could loan $5k to someone with a poor credit history and frequent unemployment at a low interest rate. I have to be somewhat altruistic to do this, and most banks and lenders aren't. I have to be willing to write it off. It sounded like this was the market they wanted to be in. Poor people needing money, instead of getting payday loans or high-interest CC debt, could get low interest loans from this credit union. It's the opposite of predatory.
I'm not sure it's viable or sustainable, but it is a noble goal, at least.
The issue is that you are using your customer deposits to make the loans. When the loans default and they aren't paying a high interest rate to compensate you for the higher default rates, you don't have the money to redeem those deposits at face value, and then the NCUSIF (FDIC for credit unions) will have to step it. The regulators would rather prevent that in the first place.
Right, I understand why they couldn't make the loans (regulators not allowing it). But if someone were to establish themselves in a way that could make the sorts of loans this credit union wanted to, they wouldnot be predatory.
> If you are making loans to high risk clients, this is predatory lending.
What I was specifically replying to. High risk loans are not predatory loans. Predatory loans are high risk, high interest, unfavorable terms (short repayment periods, high-value collateral for low-value loans, aggressive collection tactics, etc.). We have to be clear when we talk about a topic to not mix the terms in a way that skews our discussion from the actual circumstances. That way lies miscommunication and misrepresentation of those involved.
A bank has to be self sustaining, its deposits must cover portions of its debts. It can't work if it is based on the changeable altruism of an individual. As actually even happened in this case, hewasn't prepared to endlessly indemnify the loans, which is something he could do as a private lender.
I was curious so I looked up the definition (well, Wikipedia). Turns out, you're correct. Lending to high risk clients is the key component of subprime lending.
What many people seem to think of is the high interest rates, unfavorable terms and other things which push subprime loans into the predatory loan category. It's entirely possible (though apparently hard here, with the restrictions on rates they could provide) to offer non-predatory subprime loans.
No, this one does not apply for free gift of education, but it applies to any gift that have some sort of monetary value, because when you educate people you enlighten them and give them ability of understanding true value of what they are receiving too. so you are wrong again. you give a man fish you feed him for a day ( your case ), you teach him fishing, you feed him for life ( education case ).