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

181–190 of 200 posts

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

#181

Post by sjwright »

prophesi wrote: post #166
chc wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 eithe…

The OP is what I responded to. That idea is what I described as a train-wreck. And I stand by it.

I agree it's not a train-wreck to have your browser offer the choice of Google, Ask Jeeves or Lycos upon performing the first search. What this is is pointless. Nearly everyone doesn't care and will just reflexively select Google. The remaining people will have changed the setting themselves anyway.

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

#182

Post by sjwright »

fouc wrote: post #128
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"…

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

I've got no problem if he wants to lobby Mozilla to offer Firefox: Weinzierl Edition alongside the standard one. I do have a problem whenever someone speaks like their specific array of demands are more important than the quiet people who may actually prefer the status quo.

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

#183

Post by madisfun »

I use Firefox and have setup a monthly donation anyway. I understand that many people need something extra in return to give their money. So if there is a paid version which gives access to some _services_ like VPN or storage, and it works better than donations, then why not.

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

#184

Post by asymptotically2 »

bwat49 wrote: post #169
sokoloff wrote: post #74

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…

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.

>All browsers have a default search engine and start page... it's expected.

Maybe on the first launch you could get a wizard allowing you to pick your search engines, or to have none at all.

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

#186

Post by prophesi »

sjwright wrote: post #181
prophesi wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 eithe…

The OP is what I responded to. That idea is what I described as a train-wreck. And I stand by it. I agree it's not a train-wreck to have your browser offer the choice of Google, Ask Jeeves or Lycos upon performing the first search. What this is is pointless. Nearly everyone doesn't care and will just reflexively select Google. The remaining people will have changed the setting themselves anyway.

Not pointless. A step in the right direction. And a step we should all take in the software we develop, because defaults matter.

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

#187

Post by c256 »

magduf wrote: post #138
lightbritefight wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 tot…

Your analogy is off, because (for example) the OP specifically said that they didn’t want the money to be spent on other things Mozilla does even if those things generate more money for Firefox in the end. That’s the analogy for spending the money on rent or advertising, or building a ball pit (be it called Pocket or VPN) in order to bring in more users.

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

#188

Post by BuckRogers »

I'm unsure how many of the comments here read the article at all, but I see this as a smart move. Built-in VPN and cloud storage makes a lot of sense. They're building enough features between Lockwise, Send and soon VPN and some cloud storage, they're going to have a compelling package.

Toss in a secure @firefox.com email to use on the included cloud storage and Mozilla has my money.

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

#189

Post by kaffee »

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…

I would pay about $250 a year for software with these features. I don't think I'm alone.

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

#190

Post by smolder »

sokoloff wrote: post #74
maxsilver wrote: post #46

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…

I'm pretty sure the poster meant no 3rd party connections initiated by Firefox independently of what's in the actual HTML it's loading. No telemetry, in other words. I strongly agree that telemetry features should be excluded.
Post reply on HN