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

Update on Firefox Send and Firefox Notes

blog.mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 203 posts

Re: Update on Firefox Send and Firefox Notes

#151

Post by ifmpx »

evolve2k wrote: post #44
varbhat wrote: post #22

Looks like Mozilla is becoming VPN company shifting it's previous focus which was on browserware. Mozilla VPN seems to be just rebranded resell of Mullavad VPN with Mozilla Goodies. Mozilla Monitor seems to use https://haveibeenpwned.com/ (also as seen in Firefox desktop) Mozilla Firefox Private Network looks like another Cloudflare Warp's rebrand (with litte good additions maybe?) seeing that it uses Cloudflare . Mo…

They are going through the necessary but deeply painful process of diversifying their income away from Google payments, which is much easier said than done. Mozillas initially incredible partnership with Google, from which they earn the vast majority of their income, essentially turned toxic once Google started experimenting with Chrome. On that day Google’s favourite browser to support shifted from Firefox to Chrome…

This is only necessary because the company has been honorably mismanaged for so long and lacks any sort of consistent vision.

Maybe Mozilla should also look into reducing leadership compensation or at least have it reflect the performance of the company.

Re: Update on Firefox Send and Firefox Notes

#152

Post by smichel17 »

evolve2k wrote: post #44
varbhat wrote: post #22

Looks like Mozilla is becoming VPN company shifting it's previous focus which was on browserware. Mozilla VPN seems to be just rebranded resell of Mullavad VPN with Mozilla Goodies. Mozilla Monitor seems to use https://haveibeenpwned.com/ (also as seen in Firefox desktop) Mozilla Firefox Private Network looks like another Cloudflare Warp's rebrand (with litte good additions maybe?) seeing that it uses Cloudflare . Mo…

They are going through the necessary but deeply painful process of diversifying their income away from Google payments, which is much easier said than done. Mozillas initially incredible partnership with Google, from which they earn the vast majority of their income, essentially turned toxic once Google started experimenting with Chrome. On that day Google’s favourite browser to support shifted from Firefox to Chrome…

>Being financially reliant on your main competitor is a deeply troubling and dysfunctional position to be in.

This seems like an inherent problem with sufficiently large companies; the more areas the expand into, the harder it is not to compete.

Re: Update on Firefox Send and Firefox Notes

#153

Post by xnyan »

fanatic2pope wrote: post #104
thesimon wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>and Management division may force in future to ditch Gecko and adopt Webkit/Blink in the hope that it could bring more userbase (just my thought) to lessen maintainance and focus on revenue. They laid off most people working on Servo, so the adoption of WebKit/Blink seems rather likely.

If they switched to webkit there'd be no more reason to use it over degoogled chromium.

Unless there are very significant differences that are noticeable to mass user base, the engine is not a relevant factor in browser market share. When chrome came charging in, Microsoft had let IE fall so far behind that even to my 74-year-old opa, chrome was noticeably better.

People largely don't choose firefox over non-degoogled chrome today. All browsers on iOS are reskinned safari with different accounts for synced bookmarks and tabs, and yet people choose to use different iOS browsers for various reasons, the browser's engine not among them.

It pains me to think about, but from a realpolitik perspective it makes zero sense for Mozilla not to slap an orange fox on chromium and call it a day,

Re: Update on Firefox Send and Firefox Notes

#154

Post by Reelin »

Spivak wrote: post #82
nine_k wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no way around it. Either [insert technology name] works for bad guys and good guys alike, or it does not work for bad guys and good guys alike. You can't make technology follow morals. The moral panic almost inevitably tilts the scales towards [insert technology name] not working for anyone, rather than allowing bad guys use it publicly. So bad guys use it privately, and good guys... well, they can also use…

Like it’s a pseudo-public file storage system. If you’re not going to put up the moderation effort and block the spread of malware, cp, phishing attempts, and spam then the people who would get kicked off of, say Dropbox, will migrate to your service and now you’re the company whose links are inherently sketchy. It’s not really a moral panic so much as it’s damaging to Mozilla’s reputation.

You're missing the point. Dropbox isn't E2E encrypted. Send was. The technology is E2E encrypted file transfer via a central server.

It doesn't matter whether the response is due to a moral panic or an attempt to protect their reputation. The end result is the same - reduced public availability of while the bad guys generally continue using it the same as before.

Re: Update on Firefox Send and Firefox Notes

#155

Post by rndgermandude »

codefined wrote: post #7

Hm, been spending a while creating a 'Firefox Send' copy, attempting to host files. Check out a new verison at: - https://v2.femto.pw/ Looking for some help if anyone can, :) - https://github.com/femto-apps/web-file-uploader The old copy ( https://femto.pw/ ) has been used over 100 million times and sent over 13PB of data!

Well, not exactly a copy. Firefox Send encrypts/decrypts files client-side if I remember correctly. Your service receives the files in plaintext thus theoretically allowing you (or anybody who is able to gain access to the servers) to snoop on the contents.

Re: Update on Firefox Send and Firefox Notes

#156

Post by koolba »

ifmpx wrote: post #151
evolve2k wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are going through the necessary but deeply painful process of diversifying their income away from Google payments, which is much easier said than done. Mozillas initially incredible partnership with Google, from which they earn the vast majority of their income, essentially turned toxic once Google started experimenting with Chrome. On that day Google’s favourite browser to support shifted from Firefox to Chrome…

This is only necessary because the company has been honorably mismanaged for so long and lacks any sort of consistent vision. Maybe Mozilla should also look into reducing leadership compensation or at least have it reflect the performance of the company.

s/honorably/horribly/?

Re: Update on Firefox Send and Firefox Notes

#157

Post by xnyan »

binaryjay wrote: post #59
jherdman wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you using Chrome? If so https://killedbygoogle.com/ . Google is guilty of the same.

And so if Microsoft. https://pastebin.com/PMQwd8Q0

Not long ago I worked in a lab that was still using Microsoft Windows 95 for one workstation that was a host for a microscope that had a very expensive license tied to that specific set of hardware.

The system has worked great for decades. Data is automatically gathered via a hardware datalogger accessory that has a ethernet interface. Is there any google product with anything close to that useful lifespan?

Re: Update on Firefox Send and Firefox Notes

#158

Post by xnyan »

lmedinas wrote: post #87

Another disappointment from Mozilla. Some of the tools that were kinda of unique from a browser and company that values privacy. I actually thought one of the strategies from Mozilla was to actually build an ecosystem around the browser to bring new users and to have something unique to fight chrome. It seems they have lost completely all focus have no strategy after killing the Servo and Rust Team. What is next kill…

Unfortunately, that seems like exactly the direction things are heading. What is the point developing arguably the single most complex type of application when not even an entity with the resources of Microsoft can't make the numbers work?

A few months months ago I would have argued that there were clear non-monetary motivations behind Mozilla and Firefox. I don't think that is as true today.

Re: Update on Firefox Send and Firefox Notes

#159

Post by evolve2k »

ifmpx wrote: post #151
evolve2k wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are going through the necessary but deeply painful process of diversifying their income away from Google payments, which is much easier said than done. Mozillas initially incredible partnership with Google, from which they earn the vast majority of their income, essentially turned toxic once Google started experimenting with Chrome. On that day Google’s favourite browser to support shifted from Firefox to Chrome…

This is only necessary because the company has been honorably mismanaged for so long and lacks any sort of consistent vision. Maybe Mozilla should also look into reducing leadership compensation or at least have it reflect the performance of the company.

> lacks any sort of consistent vision

I have no insider knowledge of how well it’s been managed so I’ll leave that to other commentators.

However I’d say that their vision for openness is part of their curse.

Google in developing Chrome are not held to the same community expectations.

It’s expensive to build and maintain a modern day browser and the competitors have deep pockets to the extent of it being worth completing even at a loss due to the benefits of controlling the platform (being the browser platform).

Mozilla have to extract value somewhere. But where should it be?

I think the challenge is to reframe that Mozilla are maintaining an open commons that all are welcome to visit for free without access fees while also metaphorically “selling cool drinks nearby for a price”.

If the community won’t let them charge for anything they do, and claim “extraction/extraction!” with every move they are destined to go under.

I think the most useful framing for Mozilla fans is:

What here should be part of our global commons and needs to be freely available and what would I/we be willing to pay Mozilla for that extends or compliments these core offerings?

Post reply on HN