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

Promoted Add-ons Pilot

blog.mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 138 posts

Re: Promoted Add-ons Pilot

#61

Post by tgsovlerkhgsel »

jngonsfip wrote: post #49
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…

It does create a conflict of interest, and a significant risk that at some point greed will win - compare e.g. AdBlock Plus that started with the "acceptable ads" program and then allowed the worst of clickbait (Taboola & Co.) despite heavy user complaints.

On the other hand, it also provides an opportunity to have a trusted addon ecosystem. If the price is reasonable, popular free addons can collect it through donations, and in exchange, users can be sure that the addons were actually reviewed (hopefully thoroughly and by humans, i.e. with a much lower "oops bad thing slipped through" rate than addon stores that rely mostly on automation).

Could even be a great way to generate revenue. Have two versions of the addon. One is free. One costs $1/year but is reviewed. Same addon. I know which one I'd pick (for myself and all relatives). Mozilla and the addon dev can split the revenue 50:50.

Re: Promoted Add-ons Pilot

#62

Post by MCOfficer »

aninteger wrote: post #8
lykr0n wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Do they though? https://www.zdnet.com/article/sources-mozilla-extends-its-go...

they just had to lay off dozens.

Re: Promoted Add-ons Pilot

#63

Post by Animats »

I just applied. I don't want my add-on "promoted". I just want to get rid of the Mozilla message: "This is not monitored for security through Mozilla's Recommended Extensions program. Make sure you trust it before installing."

I wrote back to Mozilla: "This is an old add-on. I just want to get rid of the warning label. How much will that cost me?"

I feel like I'm asking the extortionist goon how much it's going to cost me to not be beaten up.

Re: Promoted Add-ons Pilot

#64

Post by ohyeshedid »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #26
Gys wrote: post #21

Maybe a first step of turning the add-ons into a kind of paid app store? Worked well for some others ;-) If eventually some kind of payments would be possible, Forefox could transform into a kind of platform and bring completely new possibilities.

It's the opposite of a paid app store. Instead of users paying to download apps, developers are paying to list them.

Which usually comes with some percentage of devs looking to recoup that cost. I'm hoping this doesn't lead to in-add-on advertising conglomerates being able to dominate these sections.

Re: Promoted Add-ons Pilot

#65

Post by abawany »

leeoniya wrote: post #52
wizzwizz4 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Haven't they been asking for that for years?

it has always been impossible to donate directly for firefox or any specific mozilla initiative. any donations just got black-holed with questionable sideshow shit continuing to happen. i stopped donating at that point; that's not how i want to "vote with my wallet". really bummed about the whole thing.

I specify in the note where I want the donation to go to when I send a donation (e.g. "for Thunderbird"); I have received notes back from the Thunderbird team referencing the donation, which satisfies the question in mind as to whether my donation preference was respected.

Re: Promoted Add-ons Pilot

#66

Post by antman »

TimLeland wrote: post #42

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.

Any comment or key points from the procedure?

Re: Promoted Add-ons Pilot

#67

Post by jacekm »

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…

> Considering the relatively small market share of FF

FF's market share may be tiny, but these ~5% still translate to ~200 million users.

Re: Promoted Add-ons Pilot

#68

Post by laksdjfkasljdf »

Animats wrote: post #63

I just applied. I don't want my add-on "promoted". I just want to get rid of the Mozilla message: "This is not monitored for security through Mozilla's Recommended Extensions program. Make sure you trust it before installing." I wrote back to Mozilla: "This is an old add-on. I just want to get rid of the warning label. How much will that cost me?" I feel like I'm asking the extortionist goon how much it's going to co…

What's so bad about reminding people to "Make sure you trust it before installing"?

Re: Promoted Add-ons Pilot

#70

Post by Macha »

feanaro wrote: post #22
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…

A bit of a tangent, but I noticed the developer says this on the website: > By using it, you explicitly allow websites to do whatever they want with cookies they set on your computer (which they mostly do anyway, whether you allow them or not). Taking GDPR into account, this seems wrong, since GDPR enforces opt-in, not opt-out. Therefore, a notification only gives you an opportunity to opt in and blocking the notific…

I think this is less about what websites are legally allowed to do and more about what websites actually do. I think a lot of these websites are not compliant with GDPR, but DPAs have been pretty timid so far in enforcing it.
Post reply on HN