Replace 'Guardian' with every other online news publisher and you will also get to my disclaimer on where I said 'nearly', especially on subscriptions.
The Guardian knows that they will eventually add paywalls and require subscriptions just like every other publisher as everyone knows 'donations' are not sustainable to fund their 'journalism'. It's all about subscriptions, paywalls, etc.
EDIT: To downvoters: Oh so donations 'are sustainable' for the likes of the Guardian, such that they are still asking their users for years to donate whilst ramping up the registrations and adding a soft pseudo-wall on their content, and the suggestion is to get Mozilla to also ask its users for donations?
What happens if Google decides NOT to renew that contract in the future due to Mozilla's declining market share?
Explain how surviving off of user's 'donations' is sustainable for Mozilla to survive, given that Google is its direct competitor and offers a browser for free (and a similar one without the Google stuff is also free).
downvoter: You made an excellent case for criticizing a different passage in a similar article. The passage you quoted, and the only organization referred to in the article, was the Guardian.
Now you're just generally (and angrily) defending mozilla against a donation model, and ignoring the passage you quoted entirely. A passage which iirc was the entirety of references to a donation model in the entire article.
Well, I wonder if you think it makes sense economically for Mozilla to go through that model for asking its users for money - For a browser. Be honest.
The Guardian knows that they will eventually add paywalls and require subscriptions just like every other publisher as everyone knows 'donations' are not sustainable to fund their 'journalism'. It's all about subscriptions, paywalls, etc.
EDIT: To downvoters: Oh so donations 'are sustainable' for the likes of the Guardian, such that they are still asking their users for years to donate whilst ramping up the registrations and adding a soft pseudo-wall on their content, and the suggestion is to get Mozilla to also ask its users for donations?
What happens if Google decides NOT to renew that contract in the future due to Mozilla's declining market share?
Explain how surviving off of user's 'donations' is sustainable for Mozilla to survive, given that Google is its direct competitor and offers a browser for free (and a similar one without the Google stuff is also free).