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

171–180 of 200 posts

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

#171

Post by absorber »

Vinnl wrote: post #64

This looks like they're not so much launching a paid version of Firefox-the-browser, but a paid subscription service, including e.g. a VPN service. This is in line with their recent push towards Firefox as a brand for related services and products like Firefox Send and Lockwise in general, with the browser being specifically referred to as Firefox Browser. So presumably, Firefox accounts will become a freemium servic…

If Mozilla is able to setup Firefox as a turn-key noob-friendly solution for a more secure and private web experience, then I can definitely see this as a sustainable business model.

For that however, many things (which are far from trivial) have to be done. Among other things:

  1. Focus on security. That means among other things: 
   1a: Reducing core code complexity (for example, removing Pocket and integrating it only as an opt-in extension)
   1b: More audits
   1c: More Rust (and Servo by that extension)
  2. Focus on integrating more privacy-enhancing features, such as:
   2a: Reducing the effectiveness of browser fingerprinting
   2b: Integrating more features from Tor-Browser into vanilla Firefox. Would be even better if they integrated Tor out of the box too. 
       In fact, Firefox should perhaps aim at 0 difference between TBB and vanilla Firefox.
   2c: Reducing reliance on (user-hostile) search engines. Perhaps integrate DuckDuckGo as default search engine in the future?
  3. Focus on marketing campaign which includes super noob-friendly (video) tutorials. I'm thinking something in the Kurzgesagt style.

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

#172

Post by tracker1 »

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…

1. Rust development is expressly used with Firefox development though. The point is more reasonable libraries with fewer security issues and tighter constraints that is more maintainable.

2. Would be happy with an install / first run option to speciry autocomplete and/or start page options.

3. Agreed, and definitely no such shenanigans in the paid version.

4. Not sure that would be possible, you'd probably at the very least need to log into something (like the VPN service included).

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

#173

Post by Konnstann »

magduf wrote: post #167
sidlls wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 industr…

I don't buy them. One of the many hobbies I enjoy, alongside coding, rock climbing, and a host of other activities, is gaming. You can turn your nose up at people's hobbies as much as you want, but playing games is no less mindless that most sports. My complaint is that game series that I enjoy playing turn into micro-transaction-ridden garbage.

Street fighter 4: great game, some netcode issues, DLC expansions released every year or two. Street fighter 5: buggy mess that didn't even work for the first 3 days after release, even after two(!) betas, with half the content locked behind a paywall, and literal advertisements put on costumes. That was probably the last AAA game I bought. I pretty much only play games from devs/publishers I respect, my problem is that list is ever-shrinking.

A lot of consumers are not like me: the hype is too much and they don't care about the actual game as much as getting to play it with other people.

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

#174

Post by pseudalopex »

sjwright wrote: post #88
pseudalopex wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Firefox Sync is client-side encrypted, open source, and theoretically self-hostable. Pocket is none of those.

These are all good reasons to not use Pocket. I do agree that it should be easier to disable. I guess I just don't see it as a big deal because I disabled it years ago and it hasn't ever come back.

Pocket replaced Reading List, which was all of those things.

Pocket was a third party when Mozilla integrated the service into Firefox. Mozilla employees denied for months that Mozilla took money for the integration. It came out later that Mozilla took money for referrals.

Pocket doesn't follow Mozilla's privacy principles.[1] Despite that, the Pocket website says "as a member of the Firefox family, privacy is paramount."[2]

Mozilla committed to make Pocket open source over 2 years ago. There are no longer plans to release the server-side code.[3]

It's a big deal to some people because they trusted Mozilla and vouched for Mozilla to other people. My parents understood "even Mozilla can't see your bookmarks". Explaining that Mozilla could see the new kind but not the old kind was harder.

[1] https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/privacy/principles/

[2] https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/pocket/

[3] https://github.com/Pocket/extension-save-to-pocket/issues/75...

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

#175

Post by tracker1 »

Brain_Thief wrote: post #118
pkaye wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How much would you pay for Firefox per year?

Not OP but I would pay $5-10 per month without blinking an eye.

Similarly, if there were a $20-50/year option, I'd probably go that route.

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

#176

Post by magduf »

Konnstann wrote: post #173
magduf wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 industr…

I don't buy them. One of the many hobbies I enjoy, alongside coding, rock climbing, and a host of other activities, is gaming. You can turn your nose up at people's hobbies as much as you want, but playing games is no less mindless that most sports. My complaint is that game series that I enjoy playing turn into micro-transaction-ridden garbage. Street fighter 4: great game, some netcode issues, DLC expansions releas…

>You can turn your nose up at people's hobbies as much as you want, but playing games is no less mindless that most sports.

I don't watch sports at all; I think they're idiotic and mostly a waste of time. I'll make a few rare exceptions for things like winter olympics events (downhill skiing for instance).

But I don't think this is a great comparison. At least with sports, when you pay the fee to watch the game, that's it: you go (or sit, if it's pay-per-view), watch the game in its entirety, and you're done. You don't suddenly get your view obstructed at half-time and are then required to pay an additional fee to watch the rest. If sports got that ridiculous, then I'd be making fun of people who continued to patronize them too.

>A lot of consumers are not like me: the hype is too much and they don't care about the actual game as much as getting to play it with other people.

So they're happy to support the publishers who treat them this way, and make them highly profitable. I don't really see the problem here: why shouldn't the publishers act this way then? They can treat their customers poorly, the customers happily come back for more, and they make a boatload of money. Maybe they lose a few people like you, but apparently that's not a big problem for them because they're making so much money on everyone else who refuses to abandon them. What's more, it sounds like there are some publishers who still do things the "old way" (according to your post here), but since that list is "ever-shrinking" according to you, that means this just isn't that viable a business model, because they're losing to the publishers who treat the gamers poorly. The people are speaking with their wallets, and apparently they like being treated this way, even when they actually still have alternatives!

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

#177

Post by iamnothere »

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…

Adding my comment from the other thread since it also applies here.

I agree, I'd be interested in this as well. Based on the replies you're getting, I'd also like to point out that I'm tired of this trend in discussions:

Person A states their preferences regarding a product and says that they wish that the company would offer certain options. Person A says that they would be more likely to buy (or would only buy) the product with those options available. Nowhere is it demanded that the company implement these options, but person A has very clearly indicated their preferences.

Persons B, C, and D then immediately come out of the woodwork to shut down the discussion:

* Person B explains why nobody else would be interested in the options that person A has asked for. Person A is a "niche" user and their opinions are unimportant.

* Person C characterizes person A as "unreasonable" or "entitled" and explains why no company in their right mind would want person A as a customer.

* Person D counters person A's statement by explaining that the company can produce any product they want to, and that they don't have to listen to person A's request. It's a private company, etc, etc. (Note that nowhere did person A imply that the company had to listen to their request.)

For real-world examples of this phenomenon, see any thread regarding (in particular) Apple, Mozilla, or Tesla.

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

#178

Post by unimpressive »

dontbenebby wrote: post #159

Looking at their previous partnership with ProtonVPN, ten dollars a month for a VPN seems a bit high. My self hosted Algo instance only run ~6 a month with tax. Maybe if they also gave some cloud storage it would be worth it. Being able to store a veracrypt volume with my important data in the cloud securely would be nice. Current options seem to be Amazon, Google, or Dropbox. Spideroak has the "hive" but there's not…

> Looking at their previous partnership with ProtonVPN, ten dollars a month for a VPN seems a bit high. My self hosted Algo instance only run ~6 a month with tax.

You are not the target market for this product. "A few more dollars than my self hosted solution..." is a sentence that typically takes you way outside the target audience of most products in this vein.

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

#179

Post by dontbenebby »

unimpressive wrote: post #178
dontbenebby wrote: post #159

Looking at their previous partnership with ProtonVPN, ten dollars a month for a VPN seems a bit high. My self hosted Algo instance only run ~6 a month with tax. Maybe if they also gave some cloud storage it would be worth it. Being able to store a veracrypt volume with my important data in the cloud securely would be nice. Current options seem to be Amazon, Google, or Dropbox. Spideroak has the "hive" but there's not…

> Looking at their previous partnership with ProtonVPN, ten dollars a month for a VPN seems a bit high. My self hosted Algo instance only run ~6 a month with tax. You are not the target market for this product. "A few more dollars than my self hosted solution..." is a sentence that typically takes you way outside the target audience of most products in this vein.

>You are not the target market for this product.

I've been using Firefox since it was Firebird. The people who did not abandon it are technically savvy folks who enjoy controlling our browser experience.

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

#180

Post by zeendo »

coldtea wrote: post #140
zeendo wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

What would it even mean, though? It would just let them free up other, unencumbered funds, for things that aren't browser related when they would have otherwise been spent on the browser.

Surely the influence of "wow look at all this money coming in from browser development" is going to influence them to invest it there? If you don't think that then you don't trust them enough to give them money. And that's fine. But this idea that it makes sense to try to put strings on the very small amount of money we're talking about here...seems to imply some naive notion that you one could operate without trusting Mozilla...

Post reply on HN