Take my money!
I've received incalculable value from using Mozilla products and I'll gladly pay to support them, especially when it comes to increased privacy.
Mozilla will reportedly launch a paid version of Firefox this fall
131–140 of 200 posts
Re: Mozilla will reportedly launch a paid version of Firefox this fall
#132If 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).
What specific functionality of the Chrome dev tools did you miss in Firefox?
Working source map
Re: Mozilla will reportedly launch a paid version of Firefox this fall
#133Earlier 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…
Don't forget the "90 day roadmap" that tells players when the game will be worth playing and then gets blanked out like Anthem's when the players give up.
Re: Mozilla will reportedly launch a paid version of Firefox this fall
#134If 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…
see my responses lower down to a similar question
or direct link: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20146535
Re: Mozilla will reportedly launch a paid version of Firefox this fall
#135Earlier quoted context omitted.
You really want Firefox to release a paid web browser that can't search the Internet out of the box?
It's a browser. Right out of the box, if I type in www.google.com, it will load the site and I'll be able to search.
You are not average.
The average person loads up the browser and wants it to just work. We're software engineers, but we have to understand our users too - and they're vastly different to us.
Anecdote incoming - most of the people who use Firefox in my immediate circle are family members, and they don't care about configuring a default search. They don't know about DDG, they don't know about Bing, and they don't care. They want to open their browser and search whatever they need to find.
Configurability is the engineer's pipe dream, but it dismisses a lot of people - and what matters is the masses, not the HN minority.
We are a minority.
Re: Mozilla will reportedly launch a paid version of Firefox this fall
#136I'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…
I'm pretty sure you are right now paying a lot more money to companies doing a lot less efforts Mozilla is currently doing. And now you are asking even more of them, just as a condition for maybe giving them something day. See, that's one of the weirdest problem in FOSS: the fans hold them to a way too high standard, making it twice as hard to thrive. Once because it's hard to make money as an open source, benevolent…
>I'm pretty sure you are right now paying a lot more money to companies doing a lot less efforts Mozilla is currently doing. And now you are asking even more of them
Examples, please. I'm not sure that I am, except perhaps in places where I don't have a lot of choice (e.g., my ISP). If your examples include things like Spotify, I don't use online music services. If your examples include things like Office 365, I sure as hell don't subscribe to that.
Re: Mozilla will reportedly launch a paid version of Firefox this fall
#137Take my money! I've received incalculable value from using Mozilla products and I'll gladly pay to support them, especially when it comes to increased privacy.
I really hope there is a Paid Mozilla email service in there somewhere. That's what will get me to instantly sign up.
Re: Mozilla will reportedly launch a paid version of Firefox this fall
#138Earlier quoted context omitted.
I generally agree with this (FOSS fans can be wildly too demanding, especially for the tiny amount of cash donated) But is the comment above really too high a standard? If a paid version of Firefox doesn't (1) at least strip the adware out, and (2) actually fund Firefox development, then what would even be the point? If you want to blanket donate to everything Mozilla, you can already do that today. https://donate.mo…
Its pretty out there to expect to dictate a companies budget because you opted to buy a product from them. Will you only buy a big Mac if McDonalds commits the money to ball pit maintaine only?
No, it's not really that "out there", you just don't see it because the vast majority of companies take the money you give them, and spend it on one of two things: 1) operations, or 2) shareholder dividends/profits/etc. (with most going to #1 for normal companies). Operations, of course, includes employee salaries, building rent, utilities, but also new development/R&D, advertising, etc. (I might not be using the totally correct business definition of "operations" here; bear with me.)
Most companies do NOT spend a lot of money on things which do not help their bottom line or benefit (or return profit to) their shareholders. At best, they'll spend some token amount on some donation, in return for getting their name plastered on stuff, which in effect a form of advertising, just a better one than handing money to some media company for ad time or something, and creates something beneficial for the community (such as sponsoring a museum exhibit).
Re: Mozilla will reportedly launch a paid version of Firefox this fall
#139Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 developm…
This is absolutely correct. If this stuff didn't work, then consumers wouldn't buy it, and the game companies would go out of business or change their practices. Game companies are highly profitable, therefore this strategy, as horribly as it sounds, is apparently a successful one which consumers are happy to fund with their disposable income.
Games are a luxury; this isn't something like ISP access or cellular service that you basically need these days to fully function and participate in modern society. If people really didn't like the practices of the game companies, they could easily just not buy any games and do something else with their free time. The consumers are absolutely to blame here.
Re: Mozilla will reportedly launch a paid version of Firefox this fall
#140Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm pretty sure you are right now paying a lot more money to companies doing a lot less efforts Mozilla is currently doing. And now you are asking even more of them, just as a condition for maybe giving them something day. No, right now I'm not paying a dime to companies that don't provide me with the products I want. Parent is talking about being a customer, not a charity.
The parent is not only talking about the products they receive but how that money is spent. Those assurances are pretty impractical and I doubt any company can reasonably be held to that kind of standard.
Well, a company where what you buy is "how the money is spent" (since browsers are free anyway), better provide it...