Live data from Hacker News

Mozilla will reportedly launch a paid version of Firefox this fall

thenextweb.com

161–170 of 200 posts

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

#161

I'd happily pay as long as: 1. It also funds Thunderbird. 2. Their focus is on privacy/no telemetry, security and overall experience. NOT more rebrands! 3. It helps pay for continuously updated blocklists, miner blocking lists, anti-content farm lists etc. that get built into the browser rather than through add-ons. 4. Curated add-ons that are funded especially around security - too many add-ons don't get updated. 5.…

You can (and I do) specifically donate to fund Thunderbird: https://donate.mozilla.org/en-US/thunderbird/

Unfortunately, I believe that general Mozilla funding no longer supports Thunderbird in any way.

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

#162
post #12

I'll buy whatever they're selling. I'm very happy with Firefox quantum, and I'd like Mozilla to have a sustainable income that doesn't come from the AdTech/surveillance industry.

I'll buy too. I spend hours every day using firefox. It's worth almost every price they could demand. But I still hope they give me some freedom back I had before quantum.

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

#163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What you're describing is a terrible user experience. The only people who would want that are people who don't need the education. The people who need the education don't want to spend money on software just for it to lecture them when they launch it and force them to make a bunch of decisions. This would literally be paying Firefox to make you do extra work.

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

#164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think a default search engine and default first tab is fine as two examples where that list of demands is excessive. And depending on what “no network connections to third-party hosts unless I’ve explicitly opted in” means, this probably breaks CDNs, multi-host content serving, and lots of common js distribution mechanisms in ways that normal users will find confusing and result in “Firefox doesn’t work” if that’s…

I'm not sure why that is excessive, except that Mozilla made (maybe still does, I'm not sure) most of their money from getting paid to put search engines as their default. How hard is it to pop a dialog in the installer or on first run to let you pick? I don't think that is unreasonable. And the default tab just means loading a blank tab up. The last time I used Firefox, this was already a setting that you could pick…

When I last installed it, the default tab was the Firefox home page (or some other Mozilla landing page), which seems perfectly reasonable to me.

I find a lot of open source software insufficiently opinionated. Can't decide? Make it an option. Want to be "fair" to all? Make it an option and prompt the user during installation! As a user, I like when I have options but when some kind of sensible default has been pre-selected to shorten the time and mental effort between deciding to install and the first "wow" moment.

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

#166
post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What you're describing is a terrible user experience. The only people who would want that are people who don't need the education. The people who need the education don't want to spend money on software just for it to lecture them when they launch it and force them to make a bunch of decisions. This would literally be paying Firefox to make you do extra work.

True, which is why I go back to my original comment of just having it take you to the search engine settings, with the different services listed out. It's a reasonable compromise of being honest & sane without much friction on the user's end.

I know you're claiming that's not what the OP is calling for, but we're literally just going on four words from them. Regardless, "train wreck" is an over-exaggeration for either of our assumptions.

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

#167
post #156
post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 servi…

I don't think it's that simple: there was a feedback loop involved in which game (and app) developers share some of the "blame" for what has happened. A few could have differentiated themselves by continuing to offer high-end gaming and app experiences at a premium, but chose short-term, easy money. I don't blame them entirely, but someone in a position of power with even reasonable patience and foresight back then c…

But if there's more money in doing it the way they're doing it now (leading to you calling it "short-term, easy money"), and switching back to the old way isn't more profitable, then that's really down to the consumers, because without them there would be zero revenue for these game companies.

The game companies aren't really in a position of power here; the consumers are. If they stop buying, then the entire industry goes under immediately. As I said before, games are purely a luxury, though it seems like gamers refuse to believe this. But apparently there's no shortage of people willing to throw their money at these companies and buy into these business models of buying broken games and paying extra to "unlock" content to keep playing.

I have coworkers like this. They complain a lot about the state of games, about how buggy they are and how they're entirely broken when they're first released, yet they keep buying them anyway. I ask them why and they don't really have an answer. Personally, I have much better things to spend my time and money on than entertainment products that disrespect me: I can go on a hike or bike ride, I can go on a date, I can go to cultural events, I can go to the gym, I can work on one of the languages I'm learning, or if I want to kill time at home doing something "mindless" I can just watch stuff on YouTube for free, watch Netflix, or play an old video game in an emulator even. Why so many young men insist on spending all their free time playing buggy games that aren't even complete when you buy them, I have no idea; there's many other things to do with your time.

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

#168

Earlier 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. 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 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…

donating to mozilla specifically does NOT go towards firefox development, unfortunately. It just goes towards mozilla foundation's advocacy stuff.

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

#169

Earlier 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…

I think a default search engine and default first tab is fine as two examples where that list of demands is excessive. And depending on what “no network connections to third-party hosts unless I’ve explicitly opted in” means, this probably breaks CDNs, multi-host content serving, and lots of common js distribution mechanisms in ways that normal users will find confusing and result in “Firefox doesn’t work” if that’s…

Agreed, I was totally on board with the parent comment until those points. All browsers have a default search engine and start page... it's expected.

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

#170

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…

I like the idea of a privacy-preserving Firefox that removes pocket/start page/mr. robot/etc..
Post reply on HN