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

Firefox 77

mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 167 posts

Re: Firefox 77

#31

Post by ValentineC »

okasaki wrote: post #25
jakemal wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It looks like they are already monetizing it. A few of the articles have a "Sponsored by X" below them. I don't love that, but at least they set it up in a way where they aren't collecting data on users to show them. They have to pay the bills somehow.

The $500M per year they get from Google isn't enough to pay the bills?

It's dangerous to depend on a single company (that also happens to have a competing product).

What happens if the money stops coming?

Re: Firefox 77

#32

Post by erk__ »

okasaki wrote: post #25
jakemal wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It looks like they are already monetizing it. A few of the articles have a "Sponsored by X" below them. I don't love that, but at least they set it up in a way where they aren't collecting data on users to show them. They have to pay the bills somehow.

The $500M per year they get from Google isn't enough to pay the bills?

Maybe, but that does not mean that they should put all their eggs into one basket.

Re: Firefox 77

#33

Post by IanOzsvald »

okasaki wrote: post #25
jakemal wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It looks like they are already monetizing it. A few of the articles have a "Sponsored by X" below them. I don't love that, but at least they set it up in a way where they aren't collecting data on users to show them. They have to pay the bills somehow.

The $500M per year they get from Google isn't enough to pay the bills?

Developing more than one revenue stream is likely to be a more resilient strategy than hoping that Google is happy to keep paying a competitor browser to stay in business

Re: Firefox 77

#35

Post by heffer »

okasaki wrote: post #25
jakemal wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It looks like they are already monetizing it. A few of the articles have a "Sponsored by X" below them. I don't love that, but at least they set it up in a way where they aren't collecting data on users to show them. They have to pay the bills somehow.

The $500M per year they get from Google isn't enough to pay the bills?

Having other sources of revenue outside of a benefactor whose interesting in you relies on having a relevance in the browser market with them also actively engaged in implicitly or explicitly undermining that with a product of their own doesn't seem like too bad of an idea.

Re: Firefox 77

#36

Post by Tomte »

kleiba wrote: post #29

The biggest item on my wish-list is still a user-option to restore the previous (sensible) click behavior for the address bar: one click places the cursor, double click selects (all, but if I need to triple click for that it would be fine, too). Sadly, this wish will probably not come true any time soon... or ever.

No, we're not getting it back.

I filed a bug, thinking this was an inadvertant side-effect of the new address bar, but it was closed WONTFIX. The old user setting was never really supposed to be used on Windows, just as a workaround for something I don't remember, and the use case is invalid.

I still wish I'd get that distinction between single click and double click back.

Re: Firefox 77

#37

Post by asldfhasdf2 »

ValentineC wrote: post #31
okasaki wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The $500M per year they get from Google isn't enough to pay the bills?

It's dangerous to depend on a single company (that also happens to have a competing product). What happens if the money stops coming?

> that also happens to have a competing product

Firefox is a "feature" for Google Chrome.

The day Google stops paying mozilla and mozilla close shop, they will get the same treatment Google itself set up in courts against Microsoft for IE6. It's pretty much protection money for their past selfs.

Re: Firefox 77

#38

Post by jakemal »

bzb3 wrote: post #30
pcx wrote: post #24

Everyone not happy with pocket recommendations, what is the alternate source of revenue? Not enough will pay for the product. On the other hand Mozilla has to compete with Apple, Google & Microsoft, all of whom are fighting hard for the Web. Mozilla is doing good overall. They are doing some fundamental work to get back the technical edge, still trying to keep the future of the platform open with WebAssembly and thei…

They could use the donations to improve Firefox, to pay the salaries of the engineers, instead of all the political nonsense they do with the foundation. Yes, your donations go towards that. And they could cut the salaries of management instead of giving themselves raises. Instead we got ads in the home page.

Ads that, with a single click, you can hide forever.

Re: Firefox 77

#39

Post by [deleted] »

randlet wrote: post #23
have_faith wrote: post #13

> ...some of the best stories on the web, will appear on the Firefox new tab... Why is FireFox trying to get into article recommendations? I can only assume it allows some method of monetisation once users get used to it being there. Feels a bit off.

I'm sure it will be able to be disabled but it's so frustrating seeing more advertising being baked into the browser. I really don't want web browsers to subtly (or not so subtly) influence what people are reading. edit: Like many others have noted before this everything is "free" model of the Internet seems completely broken to me and I feel a bit sad/hopeless about it.

[deleted]

Re: Firefox 77

#40

Post by Tagbert »

AtticHacker wrote: post #18

Whenever I looked at pocket recommendations, I would either get: 1. political content; which is something I barely read. And a lot of the content doesn't even align with me (But again, I don't read a lot of political articles) 2. US Sports; I'm european! I'd try to mark everything as "Not interested", but that never really changed anything in the end. I do use Pocket, but mostly as a bookmarking tool. And all the top…

Yes, you can turn it off. I keep it on on my home machine as I frequently come across interesting articles. (I’ve never seen any sports articles)
Post reply on HN