Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Mozilla will reportedly launch a paid version of Firefox this fall

thenextweb.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 200 posts

Re: Mozilla will reportedly launch a paid version of Firefox this fall

#121

Post by inapis »

heinrichhartman wrote: post #35
weinzierl wrote: post #25

I'd be happy to pay for Firefox, but I have a few points that are important to me. They are probably not very realistic but here they are anyway: 1. I would like my money to go into Firefox development and nowhere else. I certainly don't want my money spent on their content business, even if it is used as a leverage to generate more money for Firefox development. I'm torn about Rust development because I certainly wo…

It's very unlikely that this will happen. Payed subscriptions to news-websites/magazines are also not advertising free. When you have demonstrated you are willing to pay money for a service, you are likely to also spent money on other goods. This only makes you more attractive as an advertising target. Most likely we will see premium features like: - premium color themes - more cloud storage for settings and extensio…

>Payed subscriptions to news-websites/magazines are also not advertising free.

I have only seen major US news outlets do this - namely NYT, Bloomberg, WSJ etc.

I have subs to different publications - Ars, Ken, Nautilus - and they definitely are ad-free and a lot of others also claim to be ad-free for subscribers.

Re: Mozilla will reportedly launch a paid version of Firefox this fall

#122

Post by sjwright »

prophesi wrote: post #112
sjwright wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a principle thing? No, it's a train wreck. It's a sure-fire recipe for cutting the installed base of Firefox in half overnight. Using your example and estimate, the 90% of people who use default settings will install Firefox and then immediately conclude it's broken because it can't search the internet. So they'll just switch back to Chrome and never try Firefox again. Remember, these are the "default settings"…

This is an oddly vehement response to a lot of sane defaults. One simple solution to this "train wreck" would be for Firefox to simply link users directly to the search engine settings if they try to search without one set.

That’s not a simple solution because the OP is not just calling for the removal of a default search engine, but also calling for "no predefined search engines," so there will be nothing in settings to choose from.

Re: Mozilla will reportedly launch a paid version of Firefox this fall

#123

Post by Proven »

> with features like a VPN and secure cloud storage.

A VPN: where you don't need it, you can use it. Where you need it, you can't access it. This is true in most cases.

Cloud storage: it can be cheaper only if value is extracted by data mining. As they presumably won't do that, I can't see how it can be cheaper or more user friendly than sharing a self encrypted drive hosted on cheap S3 service. And most S3 Web drives work with any client, while Firefox secure storage is likely to be Firefox-only (single app).

It's going to be hard to pull that off.

Re: Mozilla will reportedly launch a paid version of Firefox this fall

#124

Post by scriptkiddy »

osrec wrote: post #43

If they want us to pay, they MUST provide dev tools that are as good as Chrome's, if not better. My team builds a lot of PWAs, and Firefox simply did not provide good enough diagnostic tools, so we couldn't use it in earnest (even though we really wanted to).

I've been working as a professional web developer for 5+ years. In that time I have always used Firefox for development. I have never once felt that Firefox dev tools was missing any tool that I needed.

I'm curious what kind of applications your building that require some sort of specialized tool that Firefox dev tools doesn't provide.

The best thing about Firefox is that if there is a dev tools feature that you need, you can easily submit a feature request in the support forums: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/firefox

Or, if you have the time and energy, you can always build it yourself: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Developer_g...

Re: Mozilla will reportedly launch a paid version of Firefox this fall

#125

Post by sidlls »

Konnstann wrote: post #86
dazzawazza wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is just people: I make games. Players want 100 hours of unique experience, DRM free, DLC free and oh free. Plus they want all their features and bugs fixed or they threaten you. The reasons for this are complicated but just like FOSS, videogames have convinced players we can provide them with the moon on a stick when in reality it's a photo of the moon and they need to provide the stick.

Are you saying the pervasive DRM which degrades performance, day 1 DLC practices, and sectioning up content that used to come with the $60 game I bought are not problems with the game dev industry? Yeah there are some people who want exactly what you said, but the majority just want a complete experience. I'm perfectly fine with a 20 hour game with no DRM(or at least no denuvo) and DLC after a few weeks of the game b…

Consumers bear the brunt of the blame for this. I worked at a few AAA game shops when DLC was just starting to be a thing. Consumers drove that by their habits: they demanded add-ons and extras that took enormous effort to develop but didn't want to pay as much as a third or half the original purchase price, so we tinkered with smaller releases at much lower price points and consumers ate it up.

Then as mass development by indies offering free apps took off the "problem" got worse. Consumers now expect apps, including games, to have a tiny purchase price or be free and to pay a-la carte for things they want.

Re: Mozilla will reportedly launch a paid version of Firefox this fall

#126

Post by scriptkiddy »

libeclipse wrote: post #24

A centralized VPN solution for all users is a terrible idea, and what is "secure cloud storage" going to offer that Dropbox doesn't? I understand that developing a browser is expensive work and Mozilla need money to do it. I support them in this effort. But honestly no ones gonna buy this

I'll probably buy it. I've been using Firefox for almost 15 years. Mozilla has never really let me down. I would much rather pay for an integrated vpn/cloud storage provider than maintain multiple accounts with multiple providers. Not to mention Mozilla's general focus on privacy protections that not all platforms share.

Re: Mozilla will reportedly launch a paid version of Firefox this fall

#127

Post by lcfcjs2 »

scriptkiddy wrote: post #124
osrec wrote: post #43

If they want us to pay, they MUST provide dev tools that are as good as Chrome's, if not better. My team builds a lot of PWAs, and Firefox simply did not provide good enough diagnostic tools, so we couldn't use it in earnest (even though we really wanted to).

I've been working as a professional web developer for 5+ years. In that time I have always used Firefox for development. I have never once felt that Firefox dev tools was missing any tool that I needed. I'm curious what kind of applications your building that require some sort of specialized tool that Firefox dev tools doesn't provide. The best thing about Firefox is that if there is a dev tools feature that you need…

Try Chrome Dev Tools, you'll never go back.

Re: Mozilla will reportedly launch a paid version of Firefox this fall

#128

Post by fouc »

sjwright wrote: post #84
vcavallo wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i think it’s a principle thing. for 90% of people, they’ll use it with default settings. seems like OP doesn’t want to support the usage of those default services in general (say, google search default?), so supporting a product that implicitly advances their usage is unattractive.

It's a principle thing? No, it's a train wreck. It's a sure-fire recipe for cutting the installed base of Firefox in half overnight. Using your example and estimate, the 90% of people who use default settings will install Firefox and then immediately conclude it's broken because it can't search the internet. So they'll just switch back to Chrome and never try Firefox again. Remember, these are the "default settings"…

He's talking about the PAID version of firefox when he asks for "no default settings". How would that cut the installed base?

Re: Mozilla will reportedly launch a paid version of Firefox this fall

#129

Post by fouc »

sjwright wrote: post #48
weinzierl wrote: post #25

I'd be happy to pay for Firefox, but I have a few points that are important to me. They are probably not very realistic but here they are anyway: 1. I would like my money to go into Firefox development and nowhere else. I certainly don't want my money spent on their content business, even if it is used as a leverage to generate more money for Firefox development. I'm torn about Rust development because I certainly wo…

Your list of "strings attached" to Firefox are fairly weak because most represent a trivial few clicks in settings. Insisting that a piece of software must ship preconfigured exactly to your liking seems a bit selfish to me. Really though, how onerous is it to configure a fresh Firefox profile to suit your preferences? (And how often do you reset your Firefox profile anyway?) Complaints about Pocket are largely emoti…

He's basically saying the PAID version of firefox probably shouldn't be promoting google or other services with kickbacks.

Re: Mozilla will reportedly launch a paid version of Firefox this fall

#130

Post by prophesi »

sjwright wrote: post #122
prophesi wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an oddly vehement response to a lot of sane defaults. One simple solution to this "train wreck" would be for Firefox to simply link users directly to the search engine settings if they try to search without one set.

That’s not a simple solution because the OP is not just calling for the removal of a default search engine, but also calling for "no predefined search engines," so there will be nothing in settings to choose from.

My point is that you can have sane defaults without sacrificing usability. I'm sure with a few minutes of brainstorming, you could find a solution that both educates the user on why a predefined search engine is a bad practice, and direct them to resources to make an educated-choice on which one they'll choose.
Post reply on HN