Firefox Begins Testing Sponsors on Some Users' Default Home Page/New Tab Pages (mozilla.org) 134
Earlier this year a new support page appeared at support.Mozilla.org describing sponsored shortcuts (or sponsored tiles), "an experimental feature currently being tested by a small percentage of Firefox users in a limited number of markets."
Mozilla works with advertising partners to place sponsored tiles on the Firefox default home page (or New Tab page) that would be useful to Firefox users. Mozilla is paid when users click on sponsored tiles.... [W]e only work with advertising partners that meet our privacy standards for Firefox.
When you click on a sponsored tile, Firefox sends anonymized technical data to our partner through a Mozilla-owned proxy service. The code for this proxy service is available on GitHub for interested technical audiences. This data does not include any personally identifying information and is only shared when you click on a Sponsored shortcut....
You can disable a specific Sponsored tile... You can also disable Sponsored shortcuts altogether.
Describing the as-yet-experimental feature, Engadget wrote a story headlined "Don't freak out: Firefox is testing advertisements in new tabs." These are just the tests, still mainly aimed at fresh installs of the Firefox web browser and always to beta users, before the rollout of sponsored tiles.
It does sound like adverts are in the pipe, but it depends on the reaction to Mozilla's initial tests. Mozilla's Jonathan Nightingale says that, last time around, the reaction wasn't as positive as his company hoped. "It didn't go over well," he states. Further, he insists that Firefox won't become "a mess of logos sold to the highest bidder; without user control, without user benefit."
Long-time Slashdot reader angryargus says they spotted the feature when they noticed an Ebay advertisement, but appreciated the ability to opt out, and suggested the feature is "an annoying tradeoff off using a browser that's not as directly funded by a search engine."
When you click on a sponsored tile, Firefox sends anonymized technical data to our partner through a Mozilla-owned proxy service. The code for this proxy service is available on GitHub for interested technical audiences. This data does not include any personally identifying information and is only shared when you click on a Sponsored shortcut....
You can disable a specific Sponsored tile... You can also disable Sponsored shortcuts altogether.
Describing the as-yet-experimental feature, Engadget wrote a story headlined "Don't freak out: Firefox is testing advertisements in new tabs." These are just the tests, still mainly aimed at fresh installs of the Firefox web browser and always to beta users, before the rollout of sponsored tiles.
It does sound like adverts are in the pipe, but it depends on the reaction to Mozilla's initial tests. Mozilla's Jonathan Nightingale says that, last time around, the reaction wasn't as positive as his company hoped. "It didn't go over well," he states. Further, he insists that Firefox won't become "a mess of logos sold to the highest bidder; without user control, without user benefit."
Long-time Slashdot reader angryargus says they spotted the feature when they noticed an Ebay advertisement, but appreciated the ability to opt out, and suggested the feature is "an annoying tradeoff off using a browser that's not as directly funded by a search engine."
they need better ideas (Score:5, Insightful)
If they are that hard up for money. They should consider a membership fee with voting rights. I'd pay up in an instant. They could also kill off some of their less useful non browser related projects.
Re: they need better ideas (Score:3)
I guess if that's what you want to do...
Re:they need better ideas (Score:4, Insightful)
While I agree with the wish, to be sure...
I somewhat doubt even a large group could pay enough to be worth as much as Google is paying them to sabotage their own product as hard as they have been doing these past few years.
They've been going out of their way to offer anything BUT any kind of a feature that would appear appealing compared to Chrome, instead dutifully playing catch-up with things they'll never really perform better at.
Like a fox knowing it won't outrun a fast dog refusing to ever jump off the path before it, to use its advantages for any actual purpose.
But oh - they sure do like to repaint their interface. Over and over, just stripping off the paint, then applying it again in a new pattern. Such bravery in challenging user expectations too - yes, they're really showing... their user base who's in charge, by following such a path.
Fortunately, there are other forks of the same code. I look forward to seeing what emerges after the 'wisdom' of sticking with Firefox as the most active fork fades.
Just ... I'd suggest nothing with a stock market connection, or that can be invested in for control. Maybe a few such groups to keep eachother a bit more honest and active in open collaboration.
Ryan Fenton
Re: (Score:2)
I can't imagine anything I'd want less than a product designed by public committee. Though it would be a great way to get a geek browser which never changes, because god knows you'll never get any actual work done when you're trying to please voters.
Re: (Score:2)
I do. Open source is a great example of dictatorships, or rule by a limited club rather than users. Only a very few select people have any say in development, and the overwhelming majority of open source projects are not at all designed by committee. Hell even the projects which do open to votes the votes are typically informal.
Hell what's the saying? If you don't like it, fork it and start your own. There's a reason there are so many similar open source projects out there.
Re: (Score:2)
As for a membership fee with voting rights it's pretty obvious why they wouldn't want that. It likely wouldn't draw all that many people and the decisions made might end up being extremely lop
unticked (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: unticked (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: unticked (Score:5, Insightful)
>"Also, dont allow your browser to update itself without notice. In fact dont let any program do that."
Mozilla essentially removed the ability to do that quite a while ago in Firefox. Now you are "not allowed" to tell the browser to stop the constant nagging. It won't update without your consent, but it will still attempt to download the code, and it will put a nag on the screen that can't be permanently dismissed. We used to be able to have a setting in preferences to turn all that behavior off. Then they removed that and made it an about:config setting. Then they removed that last option also. The only options left to turn off updating checking/nagging are:
1) Install ESR and ALSO use a policies.json file, which has to be updated with each Firefox update.
2) Recompile the entire browser with a hack installed.
Very hostile. But they did all this is the name of "security." It doesn't matter than you might not want to update the second something comes out, or have a locked-down kiosk, appliance, or test machine that should never do that, or thin-client, or other reason you might want to NOT update it and NOT be nagged about it. Yes, this angered me a lot.
Re: (Score:2)
>"1) Install ESR and ALSO use a policies.json file, which has to be updated with each Firefox update."
I need to make a correction- you can use the policies.json file on both ESR and "normal" Firefox. I actually do that all the time on non-ESR, so I am not quite sure why I said that. Ooops.
And for those wondering why someone might do that, other than on kiosks, thin clients, etc. If you are running "vanilla" (downloaded) Firefox on your Linux distro, then updating it is all manual. In many cases, it i
Re: (Score:3)
>"Just stop running their browser. At least run a sanitized version of it if you must."
That isn't helpful advice. There is no fork of current Quantum code. Pale Moon, for example, is not such an option, it is based on ancient code that is slow and crufty.
https://www.howtogeek.com/3357... [howtogeek.com]
There is only one alternative to Firefox for a modern, updated, multiplatform browser, and that is Chrom*. And doing so gives more power to Google and destroys browser diversity and choice. And that is not a good thin
Please, not on the home/new tab page (Score:3)
Why not just have and "ads" page that you can access and see/use ads that have "sponsored" content that you can look at "if you want".
if the sponsors or advertisers provide good content, some people may want to actually look at it. If it's another freaking Flo ad from Progressive, not so much.
I also don't want targeted ads based on my web browsing, because that's just one more thing I don't need or want to have to block.
Re:Please, not on the home/new tab page (Score:5, Informative)
Why not just have and "ads" page that you can access and see/use ads that have "sponsored" content that you can look at "if you want".
Because nobody wants ads.
Just like brainwashing, advertisement has to be forced down people's throats and be as unavoidable as possible to be effective and profitable for advertisers. Opt-in advertisement cannot exist.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"I wouldn't go quite that far. If you have actual good deals to show me, I might sign up."
Companies aren't interested in playing by your rules, they want to play by theirs. They want to sell undesirable products that are not good deals. If everything were "actual good deals", advertising wouldn't be important.
Firefox Begins Testing Sponsors (Score:2)
Re: Firefox Begins Testing Sponsors (Score:2)
There called ads It's "they're". The homonym is three different words which makes random selection a bad option. We need something more. That something is called grammar.
Re: (Score:2)
It's stupid autocorrect that does this, in combination with people who never check before posting.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
There called ads and people will just use their own chosen site for home page/new tab(I guess blank page unless that ability disappears) mmm tick tick tick. Funny just to force 1 ad show they will annoy many dollars really do drive people crazy.
Yes, too bad Mozilla already removed the custom new tab as option, unless you install an extension. And that solution is suboptimal as it takes seconds for this extension to activate and load. And we now know why Mozilla removed the option for a custom tab.
It's so sad to see a wonderful code base, that at one time revolutionized the net, being transformed to a monstrous abomination.
One should note (Score:3)
That the finances of Mozilla are so good that they should easily be able to sustain their "business" for many decades to come for just the money they got from Google:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
I mean we are talking about hundreds of millions in income, that's enough to pay for thousands of developers. Plus if they hadn't declared their users as the enemy, people would be willing to donate money to them.
Re:One should note (Score:4, Informative)
But all those executives need to grow their standard of living [itdm.com]! Think of their children!
get the feck aaway with your ad (Score:5, Insightful)
I am using firefox to *suppress* ads and scripts with umatrix, ad blocker etc.... And most FF user I know do the same. The MOMENT there is a single *sponsored ad* displayed over my wish to not have any, is the moment FF get the boot.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
It's a hobby of mine to rate apps 1-star because "It circumvented my adblocker".
Re: (Score:2)
IMHO, these are dangerous games.
Exactly. The demographic that runs Firefox intersects strongly with the demographic that doesn't want to run a browser that's visibly shoveling The Man's demands into their browsing experience. I realize that this is me being old man shaking fist at cloud, but Firefox is trying to be ... too modern. Their UX change is also horrible, among other things I can no longer tell at a glance which tab is the active one.
Re: (Score:2)
Chromium + uBlock Origin.
I made this switch once and was shocked to discover that Chromium only keeps 90 days of history. This was particularly frustrating because I teach classes and often find things during one year that I think would be fun to incorporate as I prep the next year, only to find my history was missing. I don't always know while browsing what I'll find interesting the next year, so it's not like I could easily bookmark everything potentially interesting.
Having used the internet since the mid '90s, I'd never had a
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
how do i block javascript in chromium?
The web simply breaks without Javascript. I gave up on that about a decade ago. Since most of the web-based malware comes in through ads or sketchy sites, an ad-blocker is now my safety shield, as well as improving the speed and aesthetics of the web. ublock-origin also, as a bonus, can block known bad-actor sites. Not perfect, but better than nothing, or the frustration of using noscript.
Good on you if you're determined to keep up this whack-a-mole game, but I value my time.
Re: get the feck aaway with your ad (Score:5, Informative)
The web simply breaks without Javascript Au contraire. The web is unusable without NoScript.
Re: (Score:2)
The web simply breaks without Javascript Au contraire. The web is unusable without NoScript.
I have to agree. Most pages are quite usable, and if they aren't, I either leave, temporarily allow all (if I'm in a hurry), or start allowing JS on the main host, and possibly subdomains, until it starts working (working enough for what I want).
Occasionally I watch others browse, or use their browsers ... hoo, it's a completely different web that they surf. And mine's better.
Re: (Score:2)
I have to agree. Most pages are quite usable, and if they aren't, I either leave, temporarily allow all (if I'm in a hurry), or start allowing JS on the main host, and possibly subdomains, until it starts working (working enough for what I want).
Occasionally I watch others browse, or use their browsers ... hoo, it's a completely different web that they surf. And mine's better.
Agreed, one hundred percent. This is EXACTLY how I browse the web, and when I have to use somebody else's web browser I wonder how they put up with all that crap on a daily basis. Enabling JS bit by bit until a site 'unbreaks' takes a little extra time, but the amount of shit I don't have to put up with as a result makes that transaction a bargain.
Re: (Score:2)
Au contraire. The web is unusable without NoScript.
I use it just fine without NoScript. The web is unusable without an adblocker blocking a few subset of scripts. But the reality is the web isn't useable with NoScript. The web is usable with NoScript *after* you have painstakingly gone and curated what javascript you actually allow to run.
The GP's point stands. The web breaks without Javascript. You're only cheating yourself by claiming otherwise, and we know this because we were able to read the post you somehow made. Block all Javascript and try to reply
Re: (Score:2)
There is only one reason NoScript is useful - because search engine spiders (is that term still used?) don't load scripts, and sites still want to be indexed by the search engines. Even so, NoScript breaks a lot of sites which don't care about search engine traffic.
Personally, I have NoScript installed in my browser, but off by default except on a few specific sites where it improves the experience. For everything else, regular adblock (ublock origin) generally does a great job.
Re:get the feck aaway with your ad (Score:4, Insightful)
Websites which require an exotic cocktail of scripts to function can simply fuck right off. I'd rather pay more, or take more time finding another source, than encourage that kind of shit.
Re: (Score:2)
Hyperbole. I browse w/o Javascript on all the time. Page broken? JS dropdown & allow those I've learned are OK and if it still doesn't work, leave. I don't leave that many pages.
How about this market test (Score:2, Funny)
Mozilla-owned proxy service (Score:2)
Of course you can opt out and everything's private (Score:2)
"Describing the as-yet-experimental feature, Engadget wrote a story originally headlined, 'Don't freak out: Firefox will just put the tip in'."
Fixed that for ya.
Mozilla (Score:2)
is why I've given up on Firefox and adopted Brave, despite my deep distrust of the Chromium codebase and my desire not to help Google in their effort to capture the entire web.
Good job Mozilla. You couldn't make Firefox more unappealing if you tried.
Re: (Score:2)
How does Brave make money and why do you trust what they do for that revenue stream?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't trust Brave. Choosing a browser today is choosing the lesser of many evils. I chose Brave because it seems the least evil of all at the moment. Of course I may very well be mistaken and they may play me for a fool.
Re: (Score:2)
sure, but specifically why is it you trust brave over Mozilla? I'm curious: I assume the revenue source in both cases is the main cause for concern. Brave as far as I can tell also had a revenue model based around adverts. So I figure you've compared and I'm interested in your thoughts based on that.
I've not compared them, but you know despite all the whining and claims that it's going to hell in a hand basket, slashdot still had the best comments section on the internet on the whole. So I've love to hear y
Re: (Score:2)
PaleMoon is nice because it's pre-fuckup Firefox. The problem is, not many up-to-date extensions support it.
Re: (Score:2)
>"PaleMoon is nice because it's pre-fuckup Firefox. The problem is, not many up-to-date extensions support it."
PaleMoon is NOT nice, because it is not Quantum. So it is very slow, uses too many resources, can't multithread, and isn't updated to newer web standards. It was a reasonable alternative to Firefox (main) for only a short time.
There are really only two modern, free, open, multiplatform browsers (or browser lines): Firefox and Chrom*. One of those gives Google more power to take over the web a
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, what is stopping people from forking Firefox to ad-free code? Do a LibreOffice.
Re: (Score:2)
>"Seriously, what is stopping people from forking Firefox to ad-free code? Do a LibreOffice."
There is nothing except the desire to and the resources necessary to do so. I actually wish it would happen [successfully] at this point. But Firefox (like Open/LibreOffice) is a ton of very complicated code. So it would require a lot of people to understand and support it. By support, I mean, enough people that the code remains continuously and relatively bug-free, and can deal with all the regular security
In other news... (Score:3)
Firefox user begins testing other browsers as default home page is full of sponsor bullshit.,
My way to say fuck you to Mozilla (Score:4, Insightful)
1.) download the full exe not the stub
2.) before installing disconnect network
3.) after installing starting it up and about:config
a.) proton -> disable
b.) everything's "pocket" disable and delete -> especially the id
c.) Settings
general:
disable (PiP)
disable suggestion of extensions
disable suggestion of functions
homepage:
content on FF homepage -> all disabled
page/new tab -> blankpage
privacy:
everything data collection -> disabled
search:
-> not within URL-Bar
-> no suggestions
-> delete google and also down to the minimum of "search engines"
about:blank is my homepage. (Score:4, Informative)
Subject.
Re:about:blank is my homepage. (Score:4, Informative)
>"about:blank is my homepage"
LOL- glad I am not the only one. That is on my list of things I do on all new installs.
1) Change search engine to duckduckgo or startpage
2) Turn off homepage/set to blank
3) Turn off smooth scrolling
4) Turn off all tracking, downloading, metrics, etc.
5) Turn off/remove pocket, suggestions, highlights, snippets, and other crap.
6) Install a custom Firefox userChrome to fix the UI (get back normal scrollbars, "tabs on bottom", etc)
7) Install uBlock Origin or Adblock
8) Install a policies.json to prevent updates and update nags.
9) Setup the blocking of media autoplay.
10) Turn off png/gif animation and set ui.prefersReducedMotion=1
11) Turn off a number of other annoyances in about:config (long list)
Re: (Score:2)
Install a custom Firefox userChrome
Enjoy that while it lasts. Mozilla is removing that as we speak.
I was really pissed when I could no longer move "Open Link in New Window" above "Open Link in New Tab". Tabbed browsing drives me nut, and a lot of sites don't allow you to shift-click on links anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
Ever since bookmarks became "obsolete", I set my homepage to a local HTML file with links I maintain myself.
Re: (Score:2)
What do you mean by "obsolete"? I still have the huge bookmarks tree I've been creating/curating since 1999.
Drop it, enable opt-in, or at least tiny $ opt-out (Score:3)
This is a horrible idea, and will alienate every single Firefox user if they go through with it.
And you can imagine how it goes; some MBA superhero pushes this through from experimental stage, to somehow convincing the people in charge at Mozilla that this is something the users want, to this becoming default for everyone, and at some point there is no opt-out anymore. Users start abandoning the product, and that is a sure way to lose a "browser war".
This as a default is a horrible idea. But they could do this as an opt-in, nagging users a few times (not too often) that "our browser costs money, so please please please let us put some ads on the front page", and for some that will be ok and they _choose_ to do that. You know, similar to how Wikipedia make us feel a little bit guilty for using their product for free, for a few days every year.
Alternatively, enable paying for Firefox at a really low price point. As a Firefox user on several devices, I would be ok with paying a little bit, but they need to keep it in the range that it doesn't start feeling expensive. I would easily pay $10-15 per year for the no-ads-BS experience for running Firefox logged in with my Firefox user. Anything beyond that would probably push me back to Chrome or something else, simply because I hate feeling ripped off.
And for any fancy extras, put it into premium tiers. I would _not_ pay some kind of "$10 per month and you get various premium features (that I do not care about)". You need a low cost basic offering. If there is a "you get VPN, and we back up your data, and we keep all your information, and we do XYZ", it has to be a premium service. Because if the options are (a) ad-infested product that elevates your blood pressure whenever you fire up your browser, vs (b) pay lots of money for features you care nothing about, then you pick option (c) move on to one of the other browsers.
I do understand Mozilla needs to somehow monetize this thing. But alienating their users is not the way to do it.
Fake Virus Alerts by scum sponsors (Score:2)
I don't get it (Score:2)
"When you click on a sponsored tile,"
People STILL do that?
Opera already does something like that... (Score:2)
..., at least on Android, which is the only platform on which I'm using Opera. Every now and then another icon for some company's website gets added to the "Speed Dial" page. I haven't found any way to opt out of this, either. This might be enough reason for me to move to another browser, but there is no other Android browser with the specific feature set I want (force enable zoom, force reflow text for screen width, work with Bitwarden)... And it happens rarely enough to not be a real nuisance.
Good thing I
Oh shit fuck (Score:2)
I like Firefox and hate sponsored stuff in general (Score:2)
Mozilla are wallowing in cash and want more (Score:2)
That it all, end of story and no mystery whatsoever.
Time to dump Firefox (Score:3)
Firefox has a "Slashdot problem" where in both cases those running the show display relentless contempt for their users and no one with power to coerce change calls them out.
I want Firefox to die for the sins of its owners, and their passing would be no loss either. They stopped caring about the browser long ago and their real, degenerate priorities are obvious.
I expect Google to be Google, but Firefox management are worse because they began under false pretenses then chose to become enemy parasites. I no longer recommend Firefox (geeks are influential and we should use our influcence) and wish it undermined by every legal means.
Firefox deserves to go the way of Netscape before it. Those wanting better browsers will code them as Phoenix replaced Netscape.
Re: (Score:3)
"Those wanting better browsers will code them as Phoenix replaced Netscape."
Unfortunately, I suspect browsers have become like 100x more complicated since then, due to endless frobs to satisfy corporate interests and eye candy. So, roll your own isn't a 3 month proposition any more.
As long as it can be turned off (Score:2)
If you have pocket enabled (Score:2)
Firefox has been doing this for a while. While pocket articles are links, some articles are the ad-article variety which exist only to promote a product of service and were specifically written to only to promote a product or service (not counting the articles that promote books)
Every decsion they make (Score:2)
Better than Pocket (Score:2)
The other day for some reason Pocket turned back on, and I was amazed at how low quality it was. Lowest denominator clickbait blog posts, as bad as any facebook stream... lowbrow political commentary, whackjob health advice, and so on. I'd rather see a laxative commercial.
Pocket is supposed to be a curated stream of higher-quality articles; it seems more like a stream where any quality or intelligence ha
FORK! (Score:2)
Useful to Firefox users? (Score:2)
Yeah right! I've been seeing these tiles for weeks already, before I finally found the checkbox to disable them. Useful? No, they are no different from any other so-called "sponsored content." Their only usefulness is to advertisers.
Re:No! (Score:5, Funny)
You should ask for a refund.
Re:No! (Score:5, Insightful)
Mozilla can't win. The produce a free product, but any attempt to get revenue to pay for that development is met with hostility. Deal with Google? Pocket integration? Ads on the new tab page? "Hands off my data!!1"
Is there any way of paying for development that would be acceptable? Don't say donations because those won't cover full time developers.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Then don't hire full time developers. This idea that the web browsers need to be constantly changing is absolutely insane.
Re:No! (Score:5, Insightful)
:facepalm:
Yet another way for Moz to lose: declare reality insane and insist they ignore reality.
Whether you personally like it or not the web is constantly changing, and if Firefox doesn't keep up, google will cement their lead even further, and the web will end up dominated by Google, Microsoft and Apple. Is that really a future you want?
Re: (Score:2)
Sure but while you rage against the machine, Google will take over because not only does the machine not care about you, it couldn't when notice you if it tried. people will drift away from a stagnating browser and websites will start requiring new features, pushing firefox further to the margins.
You then have the choice: adopt RMS style purity and stay in an ever shrinking bubble or step out of the bubble using untrustworthy chrome/edge/safari. Dollars to donuts days you'll do the latter. Which means firef
Re: (Score:2)
and adding dubious "features" like "pocket."
Yep, "pocket"- a bullshit, unasked for feature if I ever saw one. What a waste of code.
Let's see....fix a memory leak or waste time developing a craptacular feature that no one wants...hmmm, decisions, decisions...
Re: (Score:2)
>"Yep, "pocket"- a bullshit, unasked for feature if I ever saw one. What a waste of code."
Trying to figure out why my reply to his reply to another was marked as "Troll." Perhaps people thought the "he" I was talking about was servicope, when it was lesssock.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, that was my impression, and you're right. All of this constant UI churn.. for what? Pissing money down a hole? Pissing off users? It feels like they're paid to sabotage Firefox.
Re: (Score:2)
That would kill Firefox completely.
Re: No! (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
It costs more money than they would get from donations just to develop the core browser.
Also do you want them to stop developing web standards and just leave it all to Google?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: No! (Score:2)
Standards are about interoperability across vendors, not time. I doubt that your CD player takes vinyl records.
Re: No! (Score:2)
Pray tell, can you read this on several different browsers running on different devices? If so, that's standardization for you.
Re: No! (Score:2)
And where do the standards come from? Moses is long time gone. The C in W3C doesn't stand for a Council of sages atop a mountain, detached from worldly interests.
Anyway you were complaining about standards changing. What happens when they don't change? Would you be reading this in HTML 1.0x (whatever was first published), or would this page be âoeBest viewed with Chromeâ?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:No! (Score:4, Interesting)
Nope. All they need to do is produce a proper Firefox Pro. Charge 12 bucks/year for it, and let their paying customers actually dictate the direction the browser development takes.
Even if 1% of Firefox's 250 million users get onto the subscription, that is a 30 million per year revenue stream.
But no...their head is too far up their philosophical arse to do that.
Re: (Score:2)
I would happily pay that for Firefox. I've been addicted to it ever since it was still called Netscape.
Re: (Score:3)
1% will pay in the first year, then 0.1% in the second year because 90% of them hate that their suggestion to bring back the old extensions was rejected as technically illiterate. Then 0.01% in year 3 because another 9% are upset about some other BS.
If Firefox had been a democracy it would be dead by now, stuck on a single thread and at the mercy of every shitty Javascript developer who mashed together an extension.
Re: (Score:2)
So what? They'll have still made $30 million in the first year. They can worry about what to do in the next years closer to the time.
Re: (Score:2)
Spoken like a true CEO. Grab that bonus and move on before the shit hits the fan.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd pay for that.
I would pay for a browser that wasn't constantly being stuffed full of crap I don't want, don't need, and never asked for.
$12 a year would be well worth it. We should fork it, strip the shit out of it, and offer it to the public. I bet it would be a hit. Not a major, earth-shaking hit, but it would have an audience for sure.
Re: (Score:3)
I'd even pay 50 bucks a year for a Firefox that I could actually use without wanting to slit my wrists, and that would allow development of replacements for old extensions such as Tab Mix Plus. As it is, I keep FF as a backup for when my fully locked-down Pale Moon setup doesn't allow some site features that I need. And even at that, I've pinned FF to version 85, and will never install a version beyond that, because the UI is already beyond silly.
I'd also like to point out that for a long time now Mozilla h
Re: (Score:2)
If a subscrition would get me a vote or let me submit a proposal next time they're looking at GUI changes, I'd be all like "shut up and get my money"!
Re: No! (Score:5, Funny)
If you could pay them to imprison the UX devs, I'd chip in.
Re:No! (Score:4, Insightful)
Is there any way of paying for development that would be acceptable? Don't say donations because those won't cover full time developers.
If "donations" are not an acceptable option then the answer is "probably not."
I want Mozilla to succeed because it's highly beneficial to have competition to chromium. But if what you produce is not of enough value to others that they will voluntarily provide money in exchange, if asking someone to trade with you is unsuccessful because not enough people think the trade is worth it, then as sad as it might be that is a failed product.
What people are rebelling against is the concept of ads. You know the sad thing? I remember Firefox being the very first browser to have a built-in pop-up blocker. Meaning lots of us began using Firefox in the first place because it helped to deal with ads. The idea of introducing ads into the browser, even if it's on the home page, is unappealing to many. If that means that Mozilla can't succeed in the marketplace then, as unfortunate as that may be, that's their problem for not creating a browser that enough people want to use so that they get enough donations. I mean the model works for Wikipedia. The reason it doesn't for FF is probably because a) they have too small a user-base and b) they keep pissing off said user-base with stuff like this - so said user-base keeps shrinking over time.
Look, if the ad model works out for them then great. That means enough people love Firefox enough to deal with the ads and it keeps them afloat. But when I come across a Firefox user "in the wild" they tend to be "power users" like me who used Firefox back when it was called Phoenix, who are old enough to know what Netscape Navigator was and who want a browser that has nothing to do with Google and ad models.
Re: No! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is trust.
Supposedly, you have the ability to configure and disable some features, but if you do it in the GUI preferences, the browser will ignore your choices and do what it wants behind your back. You need to do the "special" configurations to get things to work. I tried to disable offline storage with the GUI checkbox, only to find out it was still collecting data, and that I needed to change about a dozen settings AND set the storage limit to 0. Even then, Mozilla has a tendency to rename
Re:No! (Score:4, Insightful)
>"It does sound like adverts are in the pipe, but it depends on the reaction to Mozilla's initial tests."
And I have no problem with that, as long as we can turn it off, once, and that setting sticks, with no nags. Just like I have no problem with Mozilla getting paid to make Google the default search engine. After I have a new install, I easily and immediately make it duckduckgo or startpage and never have to touch it.
There is a balance. We know it is expensive to develop such stuff and they need revenue streams. And if I know such a concept really generates ongoing revenue, I might even be willing to leave it "on" for some installations, as long as:
1) No ad is EVER animated in any way. No movement, no video, no flipping, scrolling, blinking, pop-up, pop-under, etc. And moving over by the cursor or scrolling it causes nothing to change on the screen.
2) No sound, EVER.
3) The ads are small in relation to the window size and other content, and never appear in/on actual web pages requested. Also, they scroll away with other content and take no permanent space on the screen.
4) They consume very little to no disk space.
5) They consume very little bandwidth.
6) As I said earlier- the user must be able to turn them off once and it sticks permanently, with no nags, and it is easy to do.
But I fear there is no way they will adhere to all of this.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If I didn't ask for the content it is evil! You don't pay for my data I do, so you are stealing from me.
How much did you pay for your copy of Firefox?
Re: (Score:2)
How much did they ask? Dumbass.
They asked to put ads on a tab and for your bandwidth.