Firefox’s Unusual Approach to Decreasing it's Browser Share

Firefox’s newer versions are pretty solid.  And with the demise of Opera presto, Firefox should have seen a jump in market share.  However, behind a decent product lies a cacophony of  numb-skulls that believe misguided political correctness is more important than business dominance. 

As you may recall, Mozilla’s CEO (Brendan Eich) was forced to resign.  This was precipitated because he gave a donation in support of status quo traditional marriage.  From what I've read, this charitable action created a backlash in the Mozilla community that forced his resignation. The motivators of this SJW jury-rigging appear to have been an online, small potatoes, dating site. It's been reported that this odd little (homoerotic?) site called for a boycott unless Mozilla served up Eich's head as a peace offering.  Mozilla seems to have felt that this particular globally held personal belief that their CEO espoused would result in lower user-ship of their browser.  This is my speculation, it is possible that their action was philosophical in nature. Whatever the case, the end point would still be the same.  We do know that he wasn't forced out because of a lack of qualifications:  seeing as Eich was a co-founder of Mozilla and one the the architects of java-script.

So why was this an unusual maneuver for a business seeking to expand its base?  To me, it seems risky … given that each debate has two hostile sides (each of which can turn against your business).  The flip side of this coin is that those that agreed with Eich’s position:  such as orthodox Jews, Christians, Muslims, Sikhism, Mormans, etc - - - basically, the majority of the planet, wouldn't be pleased with Mozilla's corporate direction that penalizes their personally held beliefs.  What if all the Mormans in Salt Lake City banned the gecko engine (used by Firefox)?  You see what I’m saying?  Perhaps it would have been better to weather the storm and do nothing (in truth, it wasn't really a storm, maybe a brisk breeze) and not feed the media.  I suspect it would have dissipated as quickly as it precipitated. 

Maybe I’m wrong and Mozilla isn't anti-traditional marriage?  Maybe they pragmatically acted in damage control mode and pacified the more antagonistic side?  And the pro-traditional marriage side simply wasn't interested.  Unlikely.  Being vocal in the media does't mean you are the more passionate in the debate.  The traditionalists may not want to engage in a media spectacle of hysterics. Instead, they might simply and silently choose to stop using Firefox.  Time will tell.

It is worth mentioning that Mozilla is not a discriminatory company (or whatever you call these open source types).  Your sexual orientation has no bearing on whether you are allowed to use it or not.  It does not filter or alter content to reflect personal biases.  It employs anyone and takes volunteers from all political persuasions and sexual preferences.  Or at least, it used to.

What’s next for Mozilla?  Perhaps they should make a survey for all their employees and volunteers.  One that can pin-point where they sit on the political spectrum.  Then they can remove the rest of those dissenting from the firmly held convictions of that online dating site.