Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 17th Dec 2017 19:39 UTC
Mozilla & Gecko clones

For a long time, it was just setting the default search provider to Google in exchange for a beefy stipend. Later, paid links in your new tab page were added. Then, a proprietary service, Pocket, was bundled into the browser - not as an addon, but a hardcoded feature. In the past few days, we’ve discovered an advertisement in the form of browser extension was sideloaded into user browsers. Whoever is leading these decisions at Mozilla needs to be stopped.

Mozilla garnered a lot of fully deserved goodwill with the most recent Firefox release, and here they are, jeopardising all that hard work. People expect this kind of nonsense from Google, Apple, or Microsoft - not Mozilla. Is it unfair to judge Mozilla much more harshly than those others? Perhaps, but that's a consequence of appealing to more demanding users when it comes to privacy and open source.

Thread beginning with comment 652138
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Damn
by Alfman on Mon 18th Dec 2017 02:22 UTC in reply to "RE: Damn"
Alfman
Member since:
2011-01-28

ssokolow,

Do we know if anyone from Google found their way to Mozilla management?

Could be another "Stephen Elop at Nokia" situation.


Nah, mozilla is doing this because it needs money, it's that simple. For better or worse, advertisers (including google) make up most of mozilla's revenue stream. Mozilla has millions of users, however they're not valuable to advertisers unless mozilla can direct traffic to them, which is why they've been resetting user preferences and adding new ways to capture users' attention in the browser.

I don't like that they are messing with FF like this, but I can see why they are stuck between a rock and a hard place. I had a discussion about this recently with Morgan, and he was bothered that mozilla wasn't being more upfront about it's motivations for doing these things.

http://www.osnews.com/thread?651626

What does everyone here think? If mozilla came out and said "we can ditch the advertisers, but it means users would have to pay a recurring donation of $x.xx", then how many users would actually do it? Does the donation business model work without major cutbacks?

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: Damn
by WorknMan on Mon 18th Dec 2017 03:44 in reply to "RE[2]: Damn"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

Nah, mozilla is doing this because it needs money, it's that simple.


I wish they'd just give us the option to pay real money to completely turn off the bullshit. I'm sure most wouldn't pay, but some of us would. Maybe like $20 a year to run it on all my devices.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Damn
by Alfman on Mon 18th Dec 2017 04:17 in reply to "RE[3]: Damn"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

WorknMan,

I wish they'd just give us the option to pay real money to completely turn off the bullshit. I'm sure most wouldn't pay, but some of us would. Maybe like $20 a year to run it on all my devices.


Yeah, I hear you. I suspect it would have to be on the honor system because many would install the "get out of my way" edition of FF and I'm not sure whether mozilla can sidestep the requirements of the MPL, which is an open source license allowing public redistribution.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Damn
by dnebdal on Mon 18th Dec 2017 16:09 in reply to "RE[2]: Damn"
dnebdal Member since:
2008-08-27

ssokolow,

Nah, mozilla is doing this because it needs money, it's that simple. For better or worse, advertisers (including google) make up most of mozilla's revenue stream. Mozilla has millions of users, however they're not valuable to advertisers unless mozilla can direct traffic to them, which is why they've been resetting user preferences and adding new ways to capture users' attention in the browser.

I don't like that they are messing with FF like this, but I can see why they are stuck between a rock and a hard place. I had a discussion about this recently with Morgan, and he was bothered that mozilla wasn't being more upfront about it's motivations for doing these things.

http://www.osnews.com/thread?651626

What does everyone here think? If mozilla came out and said "we can ditch the advertisers, but it means users would have to pay a recurring donation of $x.xx", then how many users would actually do it? Does the donation business model work without major cutbacks?


The worst part: Apparently, they weren't paid for this; it was solely a PR cooperation thing.

Reply Parent Score: 3