Promoted Add-ons Pilot • Hacker News Board

Re: Promoted Add-ons Pilot

#41

Post by Cyphase » Wed, Sep 09, 2020, 9:16 PM UTC

bartvk wrote: post #3

I really like this step, but I think this limitation is quite a shame: "You (or your company) must be based in the United States, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, the United Kingdom, Malaysia, or Singapore, because once the pilot ends, we can only accept payment from these countries" I've got two extensions which I'm really fond of: "I don't care about cookies" (1), and its paid version "No thanks" (2). The creator, D…

That whole bullet point reads as follows:

> You (or your company) must be based in the United States, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, the United Kingdom, Malaysia, or Singapore, because once the pilot ends, we can only accept payment from these countries. (If you’re interested in participating but live outside these regions, please sign up to join the waitlist. We’re currently looking into how we can expand to more countries.)

Specifically note the last sentence.

Re: Promoted Add-ons Pilot

#42

Post by TimLeland » Wed, Sep 09, 2020, 9:17 PM UTC

This sounds like a good idea. I was lucky to get my Weather Extension listed as a recommended extension. There is extra work involved and the code reviews are strict. I plan on submitting my Link Shortener extension to see if I can get it promoted.

Re: Promoted Add-ons Pilot

#43

Post by leeoniya » Wed, Sep 09, 2020, 9:18 PM UTC

aaomidi wrote: post #39

marsrover wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the positivity comes from the fact that Mozilla has struggled to survive since its inception and is generally a good company.

Except when they fired basically all their talent. I don't really have any love for them after this. Mozilla should've always been structured as a co-op.

if they asked their advanced users to pitch in $10/mo to keep at least some of that talent and to ween off google revenue, i doubt any of us would have had issues. but they did the most absurd thing possible :(

Re: Promoted Add-ons Pilot

#44

Post by wizzwizz4 » Wed, Sep 09, 2020, 9:24 PM UTC

leeoniya wrote: post #43

aaomidi wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except when they fired basically all their talent. I don't really have any love for them after this. Mozilla should've always been structured as a co-op.

if they asked their advanced users to pitch in $10/mo to keep at least some of that talent and to ween off google revenue, i doubt any of us would have had issues. but they did the most absurd thing possible :(

Haven't they been asking for that for years?

Re: Promoted Add-ons Pilot

#45

Post by franga2000 » Wed, Sep 09, 2020, 9:27 PM UTC

bartvk wrote: post #29

dageshi wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the old days we used to complain about Microsoft for not keeping up with standards and holding the web back. We can't have it both ways.

Aren't you painting it a bit as an either-or situation? It's clear to me that Google is moving towards a web where the browser basically discloses all OS-level APIS on the Javascript level. But browser makers can pick and choose what they want to implement. And we end users can pick the browers we like.

> But browser makers can pick and choose what they want to implement. And we end users can pick the browers we like.

Unfortunately that doesn't actually work like that in practice. We don't get to pick all of the websites we use and we certainly don't get to pick which APIs their developers use to make them. This in turn limits both your freedom to choose the browser you want and the browser vendor's freedom to choose what to implement.

As fun as it is to blame Google for the fall of the open Web, a big part of the blame lies with the developers that use those APIs without regard for their status.

Re: Promoted Add-ons Pilot

#46

Post by random_dork1 » Wed, Sep 09, 2020, 9:36 PM UTC

the_duke wrote: post #31

There are currently 21,100 add-ons on the store. Considering the relatively small market share of FF, I feel like the amount of companies that would pay for review could be pretty small ( The ad model also creates an awkward conflict of interest: the add-ons most willing to pay good good money for placement are probably ones that you shouldn't install and Firefox should not promote. Think tracking, ads, .... Or comme…

Fair point about comercial vs open and non-commercial, but until we see what Mozilla actually does, I wouldn't choose the pessimistic view. I can imagine why not all details are addressed here. Seems like big part of the community is very negative towards Mozilla and for sure they extremely careful with what they say and what they promise.

Re: Promoted Add-ons Pilot

#47

Post by bsaul » Wed, Sep 09, 2020, 9:38 PM UTC

the_duke wrote: post #31

There are currently 21,100 add-ons on the store. Considering the relatively small market share of FF, I feel like the amount of companies that would pay for review could be pretty small ( The ad model also creates an awkward conflict of interest: the add-ons most willing to pay good good money for placement are probably ones that you shouldn't install and Firefox should not promote. Think tracking, ads, .... Or comme…

There is definitely another way to look at it:

Having mozilla people review your add on so that they officially say it is « safe » from tracking, malware, privacy intrusion, etc.

Re: Promoted Add-ons Pilot

#48

Post by random_dork1 » Wed, Sep 09, 2020, 9:42 PM UTC

shahsyed wrote: post #4

This is the exact same thing they said they wouldn't do, and now they're doing it. This is very unfortunate. I'm not liking how the future is looking here. Fired a bunch of people, then announce a partnership with Google, and now this.

> This is the exact same thing they said they wouldn't do.

Please explain. Your comment is very negative with 0 reasoning.

Re: Promoted Add-ons Pilot

#49

Post by jngonsfip » Wed, Sep 09, 2020, 9:48 PM UTC

the_duke wrote: post #31

There are currently 21,100 add-ons on the store. Considering the relatively small market share of FF, I feel like the amount of companies that would pay for review could be pretty small ( The ad model also creates an awkward conflict of interest: the add-ons most willing to pay good good money for placement are probably ones that you shouldn't install and Firefox should not promote. Think tracking, ads, .... Or comme…

> the add-ons most willing to pay good good money for placement are probably ones that you shouldn't install and Firefox should not promote. Think tracking, ads, .... Or commercial ad blockers trying to always appear above Ublock Origin.

The whole point is for people to pay to have their add-on manually vetted by Firefox staff to verify that it meets the recommendation standards. As the article says, this process is repeated regularly to account for updates.

> I'm tentatively supportive, IF they provide free reviews for non-commercial open source extensions and are strict with the promotions they allow. No mention of this in the announcement though...

This is already how it works, every recommended add-on has been manually reviewed. The article says that they will use this to expand the reviewing process, not to replace it. They also say, "During the pilot program, these services will be provided to a small number of participants without cost." The extent of the two promotional "levels" are clearly outlined as well.

This is just a way for companies to get their add-ons on the fast track to wide adoption by having them reviewed for policy compliance and, if they choose to pay more, added to a promotional section to increase visibility. The Twitter-style hot take to find a flaw right away is not warranted.

Re: Promoted Add-ons Pilot

#50

Post by beervirus » Wed, Sep 09, 2020, 9:50 PM UTC

lykr0n wrote: post #6

shahsyed wrote: post #4

This is the exact same thing they said they wouldn't do, and now they're doing it. This is very unfortunate. I'm not liking how the future is looking here. Fired a bunch of people, then announce a partnership with Google, and now this.

The company needs money. They're the only browser out there not directly controlled by Google & Apple.

Step 1: fire everybody who isn't a programmer.

Step 2: budget problem is solved.