Mozilla To Show Sponsored Links To First-Time Firefox Users 182
Mozilla has announced a new initiative to show sponsored content within the Firefox browser. Currently, opening a new tab in Firefox will display a set of nine tiles showing your most commonly visited websites. When a user installs Firefox and opens it for the first time, they see these tiles, but eight of them are blank (one links to a Firefox tutorial). As the user browses the web, those tiles gradually fill in with visited sites. But Mozilla is going to fill out those blank eight tiles for new users. They say, "Some of these tile placements will be from the Mozilla ecosystem, some will be popular websites in a given geographic location, and some will be sponsored content from hand-picked partners to help support Mozilla’s pursuit of our mission. The sponsored tiles will be clearly labeled as such, while still leading to content we think users will enjoy." Existing users shouldn't see any difference, and the tiles will be replaced with commonly-visited sites like they do now.
Re: (Score:2)
How childish
RIP (Score:2, Insightful)
RIP you were fun while you lasted but now you have sponsored ad browsing based on like's/visits Do not want.
Re:RIP (Score:5, Insightful)
Hold the knee-jerk reaction to the perceived spam and realize what it really means.
If they are true to their promise, all it really means is that the 9 slots that hold the "most visited" pages in your browser are now, when you do a clean install, not empty as they are now but filled with ad pics. If they keep that promise and don't "secretly" or "accidentally" replace your pages with their ads, I fail to see the harm. As soon as you have "frequently visited" pages, the ad pages are rotated out of existence.
If that's all it takes them to keep going, well, why'd I complain? It's one more browser to choose from and competition is by definition a good thing. If it becomes actually invasive and if it replaces my frequent pages with their spam pages... NEXT!
Re:RIP (Score:4, Insightful)
FireFox has done a really good job of keeping itself relevant, along with Chrome. Specifically I am referring to the developer tools. I use FireFox myself, although Adobe mobile developers also have a cool tool to render mobile devices inside the Chrome browser, where they can work using Chrome dev tools. But I still like the new FireFox dev tools better, along with the older FireBug and a few of its odd plugins.
Re: (Score:2)
If that's all it takes them to keep going, well, why'd I complain? It's one more browser to choose from and competition is by definition a good thing. If it becomes actually invasive and if it replaces my frequent pages with their spam pages... NEXT!
Next?
Next what? IE? Chrome? Opera???
I hope Firefox doesn't become adware. But I don't mind them using those tiles for ads, as long as they don't track what I browse.
Re: (Score:1)
If I even smell ads I am gone, forever. Previously donated $20 bucks, more than I have ever paid for any browser. So suck it if they want to blow out their base of users.
Re: (Score:1)
It's actually a bit less harmless than it sounds.
This will primarily affect new installations of Firefox. So if I have just installed my operating system, and I just installed Firefox to be able to use a sane browser to get my anti-virus software, and I open up Firefox, then advertisements show up? Being that people distribute malware through advertising, this seems unpromising.
Also, how do I make the ads go away? I have the start page, but need to visit 8 other websites, to fill a 3x3 grid? That seems
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd agree if they loaded the pages, but this is more akin to putting some favorites into your fav list. Don't click on them and you're good.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, let's be honest. This change doesn't bother me. If another one will, it's trivial to dump FF and use a different browser.
I have no reason to believe they can "hold against it". But I don't need to. If they bend over, I'll toss them the lube on my way out.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Iceweasel is a direct port I believe due to the Mozilla binary/branding issue (that Gentoo avoids interestingly enough, with a disclaimer).
Firefox fork in the future?
Re: (Score:2)
"Well, let's be honest. This change doesn't bother me."
Me neither. Any new installation also invades you with umpteen trackers and ads and selfplaying crap before you install the necessary blockers. I also delete my cookies/history etc. on closure, so my 'preferred' sites are always empty.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not trivial for those locked into the browser because of add-on functionality not available elsewhere.
Luckily however, there are people who forked FF while still getting the security updates and such.
Besides my new tab is about:blank.
Why in the first place? (Score:2)
I never even liked the stupid tiles in the first place. What's the point in setting a "Home page" if you never see it (since opening a new tab happens a lot more than restarting the browser). The last thing I want is to open a new tab with other people there to see JustUsBoys, Gaytube, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if they're half way sensible, they won't rely on Google alone. If you only have one sponsor, you're sink or swim tied to them, not only to their own survival but also to their whims. I'd rather have FF turn for other sources of income rather than being in the pockets of Google where they'd have to bend over every time Google wants something "bundled".
Re: RIP (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
The blankness was a feature.
Re: (Score:1)
The first thing you do with a new OS installation is removing all the bloatware, right? That was just using blank space too.
Besides, it's a matter of principle, i.e. having a principle and sticking with it. "Users first" is one such principle that Mozilla should have stuck to. Once the user has been turned into a product, the path is chosen. Accepting money from search engines may have seemed benign as long as the choice of search engine was apolitical. Almost everybody would have chosen Google anyway. But
Re: (Score:1)
Worked just fine for Opera! .. or didn't it?
Re:RIP (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Those ads have to come from somewhere not local to the workstation FF is running on. That means that they eat bandwidth. What if you have a bandwith cap? What if you have to pay for each MB of traffic?
If they do this, its bye-bye FF for me :(
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
That's a pretty intense over-reaction to Mozilla filling in some previously blank tiles with some temporary filler.
By "temporary filler", you mean advertising. If I want an ad-supported browser, why don't I just use Chrome? At least then I can do away with the phony veneer of a "non-profit" that's concerned about users and not making profit (the truth is Mozilla formed a for-profit corporation years ago to handle the Google mega-millions, so they have no accountability on that end).
Re: (Score:2)
Oh Christ, I just clicked the article. Look at this Ministry of Information, self-serving bullshit:
We believe that if you put the user front and center, you can make every experience for them richer and more meaningful. The Content Services team has embraced this, and today I wanted to share some of our thinking and explain our first steps for putting it into practice.
That's right, just what the user was missing from their life. More advertisements!
Re: (Score:2)
This must surely be the first in a wave of repression meant to lull us into a false sense of security so that we'll get ads like Opera used to serve, or like Android/iOS spills everywhere!
Why not? First it started with sponsored search. Because that isn't somehow enough, they're now going with direct ads.
Seriously, if you're going to invoke 1984, at least try to not sound juvenile.
If the shoe fits, wear it. You've got to be a real asshole to start talking about putting the user "front and center" right before you soft sell how you're going to start putting ads into the browser.
You don't even seem to understand or care about this
Enlighten me. What am I missing?
Re: (Score:2)
Clearly it isn't [enough money].
How is it clear? Because they want more? People always want more money.
They're an NPO
Already addressed upthread [slashdot.org] by me: "the truth is Mozilla formed a for-profit corporation years ago to handle the Google mega-millions, so they have no accountability on that end"
In other words, all the money pouring into the for-profit corporation does not have to be publicly accounted for. They could be giving themselves million dollar salaries or bonuses and you wouldn't know about it.
If you have something useful to contribute then do so.
I did. I called them out on their propaganda. If you
Re: (Score:2)
You can believe what you wish, but don't expect me to blindly follow your ideas any more than I follow the next person's.
I didn't expect you to blindly follow them. You claimed they were an NPO and parroted their claim that they need more money -- without any evidence. I correctly pointed out the for-profit arm that reaps in millions of dollars. If you still have faith in them, fine, but it's despite evidence to the contrary and a lack of transparency.
Even if they're the ones doing all of the work, and you're just some guy telling them they can't monetize their product because... reasons.
Actually, I'm not the only one. There were many people, their users which they claim to be holding front and center, who were upset with this move.
And yes, reasons. If Google wa
Re: (Score:2)
If you'll forgive others for doing the same because they profited on the backs of other's hard work, like Apple did with Webkit, and your only beef is that they aren't being as transparent as you'd like, then who am I to argue?
What does this have anything to do with Apple? First off, they are a for-profit company. That's never been in dispute. Second, when did I "forgive" Apple? I've said nothing about them. This is about Mozilla and the issues that have been brought up in this thread. You can't deflect away from that by pointing to for-profit companies and other cases.
I still think you're being childish as hell about it.
That's ok, because I think you're being childish in your naive defense and faith in some pretty awful corporate behavior under the guise of still being about users
Re: (Score:3)
And if you see a pothole then the entire system of roads is finished, because they could all crumble and fail and never be patched! OMG!
Noting that there's a mild concern to watch for is one thing. Declaring that the sky is falling because of a way that something might be added to a product (which could have been added to the product just as easily a month ago, I might add, since these tiles have nothing to do with ads elsewhere) is just silly.
Re: (Score:1)
It's windows-centric and therefore useless.
Re: (Score:1)
Right, because no one is using Windows.
Re: (Score:2)
A minority of people use Windows. Both Android and iOS have overtaken it.
that's like saying that majority of people don't use cars since walking is more popular.
how about this: majority of android users use windows.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Time to switch to Pale Moon (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Mozilla based with plugin support? SOLD!
Oh, an IRC client. How quaint!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
To be honest, with [Personal Titlebar](https://addons.mozilla.org/addon/personal-titlebar/) and [Status-4-Evar](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/status-4-evar/) installed I like the interface more than older Firefox or any of the other browsers. But that's just my personal preference; thank you for sharing a link to Pale Moon - it's good to know about what's available.
Re:Confusion (Score:5, Insightful)
Chrome
Because you dislike advertisements, you want to use a browser made by an advertising company?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Chrome
Because you dislike advertisements, you want to use a browser made by an advertising company?
At this point asking wether to use Firefix or Chrome is like choosing between Democrats or Republicans.
Makes no fucking difference at all. They both shit on their users.
Re: (Score:2)
"At this point asking wether to use Firefix or Chrome"
I am sure that wether, along with the rest of the sheep, are using IE if they are running windows.
" like choosing between Democrats or Republicans"
At least Democrats recognize that the Earth is more than 6013 years old, and that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas...
Re: (Score:1)
At least Republicans don't rub their thumbs around on crystals hoping to improve their karma and believe that men are the source of all evil...
See, I can point to a minority and act as if they're representative of the whole as well. All sides have their Pajama Boys. Try not to shatter your teeth when you jerk your knee.
Minority? Many of the core tenets of the republican party are hostile to science, technology, the environment, and even people. When it's the official stance of your party, you can't exactly dismiss it as just a few crazies casting a bad shadow on the party as a whole.
Re: (Score:1)
At least Republicans don't rub their thumbs around on crystals hoping to improve their karma and believe that men are the source of all evil...
See, I can point to a minority and act as if they're representative of the whole as well. All sides have their Pajama Boys. Try not to shatter your teeth when you jerk your knee.
Minority? Many of the core tenets of the republican party are hostile to science, technology, the environment, and even people. When it's the official stance of your party, you can't exactly dismiss it as just a few crazies casting a bad shadow on the party as a whole.
Remember it was a republican, Bush that boosted NASAs budget and planned that they return to the moon and go to Mars. Obama the democrat killed that. Which party is anti science?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
and this is why I refuse to upgrade FF beyond 10 - that's high enough as I sure as hell don't need it to go to 11. What's interesting is that the one and only security hole in 10 is still open in the latest fucking version. Makes me wonder what the fucking devs are doing that they can't/haven't patched the first hole yet they're now up to 24 and trying to keep up with Googles insane numbering.
FF10 with Noscript solves the fucking security hole (Jscript based) so I see little advantage to using the latest an
Re: (Score:2)
Then get pale moon. It's basically FF's new features but without the fucked up UI. It still has all those things you mentioned. And they are actually improved on, like the status bar is significantly more customizable.
Re:Confusion (Score:5, Insightful)
Because you dislike advertisements, you want to use a browser made by an advertising company?
Pretty sure you meant "because you dislike advertisements, you want to to use a browser made by an advertising company which will also pillage and rape your personal information."
Re: (Score:2)
About time! (Score:5, Funny)
Just today I said to myself, I said, self, how can I possibly get more of those advertisements I get bombarded with everywhere I go? It's as if Mozillia has been inside my head and giving me exactly what I have always wanted my browser to do - GIVE ME MORE ADS! (!!)
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.forbes.com/sites/er... [forbes.com]
This Is A Problem... How? (Score:2)
It's on a page users don't have to see more than once, if they don't want to.
Even if they don't change their startup page, the ads go away pretty quickly, and permanently.
I see no problem (Score:1)
I hope all the advertisement is so non intrusive as Mozilla is trying to do, and for all the negative reactions to this, you should realize that that free beer was paid by someone.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup - I had my company buy Netscape licenses for everyone at ~$22 a pop IIRC too. Most people didn't, of course, which is how we ended up with the conundrum that everyone wants browsers to be free even though they're phenomenally complicated pieces of software that form the center of the modern PC's user interface. Since fewer companies are willing to donate employees to work on a browser than they are for, say, the Linux kernel, and the developers like to eat and enjoy housing, they have to figure out so
Re: (Score:2)
There's always debian IceWeasel; Firefox minus Mozilla branding.
Google reliance (Score:5, Insightful)
If this reduces Mozilla's reliance on Google's money then that can only be a good thing. Especially since Mozilla's main sponsor is now also a competitor :/
Re: (Score:3)
Think of it as a way to support Mozilla without making a donation. People who don't like ads will, presumably, grab a plugin that disables them and just cut Mozilla a cheque instead.
Re: (Score:2)
cut mozilla a check??
google already bankrolls them!
fuck that shit. seriously, fuck that. mozilla has jumped the shark and they are basically controlled by google now. 'ads' are yet another money grab and I'm sick of this crap. first time user or not, it does NOT belong.
how greedy do you have to be in order to both take google's AND insist on extra money from ads?
sheesh. just goes to prove: projects grow until they finally end up sucking. mozilla has not shown this to be a falsehood, sadly ;(
Re: (Score:2)
And where do you think the sponsored links come from? Google is a virtual monopoly on online advertising, has the vast majority of mobile, and is branching out to other forms of advertising.
Sure Mozilla may be doing it with someone who's "Not Google", but who really knows if they're not some "A Google Company" through many layers of acquisitions (yes, th
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
I care.
Who's paying for the bandwidth the ads use up? Probably not Mozilla.
What if your connection has a bandwidth cap or you pay per MB for traffic?
Re: (Score:2)
Remember when you trusted Google more than Microsoft or Apple?
Remember when you trusted Apple more than Microsoft?
Remember when you trusted Microsoft? (I kid, I kid (perhaps))
Being worthy of trust in the recent past does not grant anyone a blank check for current or future actions.
Re: (Score:2)
Remember when you trusted Microsoft? (I kid, I kid (perhaps))
They were actually more trustworthy when it came to privacy than Google because they made so much money on their OS and other software that they played by old standards that software should not spy on what you do. They wouldn't want to jeopardize that by being sleazy. Times have changed and old standards have eroded. It's pretty much expected now that software is reporting back on you for advertising.
"sponsored links" (Score:1)
you know they are doing things that aren't beneficial for the user when they start making up pretty names... just call it what it is... SPAM
Sponsored Firefox (Score:3)
So the new version with this sponsorship should be cheaper then?
Re: (Score:2)
They give the software away for free. Do you want to be paid to use it?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, they will reduce the current price by 50%. They may even do a 75% for early adopters.
Current status of Custom FF builds?? (Score:2)
and btw what the quickest way of turning those tiles OFF?? (cover windows and Android please)
Re: (Score:2)
Tools > Options
In general tab "home page" should be set to "about:blank" (without quote marks).
In tabs tab, "when opening a new tab show" option should be set to "blank page".
$300M (Score:2)
I read that Mozilla received $300M from Google, and that that money stops, so they're looking for other sources of income. But that makes me think: $300M? What on earth did they spend it on? Certainly not on a 2000 programmer years.
Re: (Score:2)
I read that Mozilla received $300M from Google, and that that money stops, so they're looking for other sources of income. But that makes me think: $300M? What on earth did they spend it on? Certainly not on a 2000 programmer years.
What do you mean, "certainly not"? Their codebase is currently sitting north of 10 million LOC. Depending on their goals, 2000 man-years (design, development, testing, documentation, outreach, etc which could all be done by "developer" types) might not take all that long to go through.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok. I had estimated the code base more than an order of magnitude lower. Even 1 million lines seems quite a lot for a browser; 10 million hurts the brain. But you're right, that takes a long time to write.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
TBH, Firefox is pretty slow compared to Safari and Chrome.
Re: (Score:2)
For comparison, Win95 was reportedly 16M lines of code.
Since when does it take a whole operating system worth of code just to be a browser? No wonder it's so damned slow... and uses more RAM than WinXP.
Not to mention the memory leaks that get worse and worse (and which appear to be largely due to bad coding Zen wrt caching).
Firefox Mobile (Score:3, Interesting)
Jumped the shark (Score:2)
Firefox has jumped the shark.
Re: (Score:1)
What about blocking third party cookiest first? (Score:5, Insightful)
Considering that Mozilla promised to block third-party cookies by default in Firefox years ago, surely the sponsored links feature is going to take the backseat until they sort out the handling of third-party cookies first?
It depends on what "sponsored content" means (Score:2)
If it's just a link to a website the way tiles normally work? And if the links go to reputable websites? I don't have a problem with Firefox asking Amazon for some money to put them on the front page.
On the other hand, the tiles could be more like banner ads, flashy spammy things, controlled by a 3rd-party network where Mozilla doesn't have much control over what shows up there. That would suck.
About those "nine tiles" ... (Score:2)
I've installed (or helped others install) firefox on a few new machines lately, and noticed that they always fill new windows/tabs with that google search page. Nothing wrong with that, of course, but it's a bit redundant, what with the search widget at the upper right. So we've tried to get it to produce that "tiling" of favorite/frequently-visited sites like you see in Opera, Safari, and some other browsers. And we've failed.
I just tried in this firefox that I'm typing this to, installed about a wee
Correction (Score:1)
Mozilla To Show Sponsored Links To Last-Time Firefox Users
FTFY.
going downhill fast (Score:1)
Totally don't care at all (Score:3)
I already thought the "show pages it thinks you might want to open in a new tab" feature was sort of annoying right when they first released it, ages ago. You can turn the feature off. My new tabs have always been one blank white tile; I can open my own urls, thank you very much. I really couldn't care less what they pre-fill that screen with for people who don't turn the feature off, as long as you can still turn the feature off.
IE did it first (Score:2)
Never forget
Am I the only who disables this? (Score:1)
gotta make money but... (Score:2)
Mozilla has to make money somehow and be independent from google. But I don't want to see amazon or whatever when I first load firefox. If mozilla gets strapped for cash its very likely that they will move to a model where some of these tabs are always reserved for sponsorship. Slippery slope.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, Mozilla probably won't give your IP address to anyone, but your browser will. It's in the header of every IP packet sent to anyone, because without it, they can't reply to your request. Note that the "tiles" usually contain a small image of each site's main page, and to display that, the browser must send a request to each site, and each request contains the site's IP address and your IP address. That's how the IP (Internet Protocol) works. So every time you open a blank window or tab, no matter w
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Firefox generates those thumbnails when you visit the site, not when you open a new tab.
Well, that's good news. I use FF, Opera, Safari, and a few others on my Macbook (but no Safari on my linux box ;-). Both Opera and Safari sometimes update the images when I haven't visited the site, and sometimes keep the same image for several days. I don't know what their trigger for refreshing them might be.
For Firefox, I can't tell, because I can't get it to show me the array of little pictures for my "home page". Anyone know where they hid the setting to enable it? It'll let me pick a page, or