61–70 of 721 posts
It’s sucky and I particularly hate ads percolating to every part if my life, BUT how are they meant to support Firefox and other software without a revenue stream? Mozilla seems to attract criticism for how they run the whole operation, I can’t tell how correct it is, but even if they run it perfectly they still need revenue.
Let me pay for Firefox, please!
Meh, the feature is easily deactivable, the settings are clear and extensive. As far as ads go, it's one of the best implementations. Firefox still has no alternative in the privacy / user-centric space (don't mention Brave, I'm gonna get mad). Mozilla has done a lot for the web, I can give them some slack for exploring different revenue models. Still, I'm going to keep on eye for this kind of practices in the future…
> don't mention Brave, I'm gonna get mad Brave
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let me pay for Firefox, please!
Exactly, I would not mind paying 50 usd a year (it's what I already have paid in donation for mozilla).
1mn users paying $4/m is going to be just over $40mn per year. There's no way any company can compete with MS or Google on that revenue stream. Get investors and they will enforce whatever it takes to build revenue = ads.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indeed. They should just state "It's an Ad". I doubt they actually going to try every product that they are advertising, to make wording "suggestion" be even close to the truth. That said, I don't understand, why would somebody use Firefox instead of Chrome, Edge, or Safari if they ad in-browser ads.
Because all the browsers you mention are controlled by megacorps who want to own the web for their own gain. As mismanaged as Mozilla is, they are in it to make the web a decent place for users. This said, of course, I hate this "feature" and I'll make sure I disable it.
Placing ads in the search bar and datamining everything you search for is failing at this mission.
Can anybody think of a sustainable business model for companies that mean well for users? (Mozilla, Signal)
Possibly the more sustainable model overall is for software to become a gig job, where engineers get paid for the features they deliver and there's only a skeleton crew of maintainers keeping the project on track (to keep the ongoing costs minimal).
To offset the cost to users even further, you could potentially apply for government grants, at least in Europe. Or corporate sponsorships in some places, in the vein of the Django Software Foundation.
As someone who has used Firefox since v0.* I really, really, really dislike the language they have used lately. > relevant suggestions from our trusted partners The suggestions are not relevant to, and the partners not trusted by, me.
Then you won't enable it. What is there to dislike?
It’s sucky and I particularly hate ads percolating to every part if my life, BUT how are they meant to support Firefox and other software without a revenue stream? Mozilla seems to attract criticism for how they run the whole operation, I can’t tell how correct it is, but even if they run it perfectly they still need revenue.
There should be a paid ad free membership for anyone who doesn’t like ads. Even if not many people take them up on this offer, it would be more fair since there would be a choice.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For example because Chrome treats Google cookies differently [1]? This is a red flag for people. With Firefox you at least know what you get. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18064537
I didn't know about it, thanks. But I'm software engineer, and I didn't know about it. I don't think most (as in 95%+, even in tech) people would know difference to care. My point is visibly – firefox seem to be just as ad-hungry as competition. They could be better behind the scenes, but customer wouldn't know it.
Yeah, I'm sorry. I'm just grumpy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, it really sucks. I've been using Firefox for 15 years or so but this shit is just so discouraging. Can't we have one piece of good software that doesn't try to shove "relevant" "suggestions" from "trusted" "partners" down our throats? I just want a browser that isn't controlled by the ad mafia.
A browser is expensive. Currently Firefox is funded (though not controlled) by Google's Ad business. I am all for them reducing their reliance on Google's Ad business. In this sense this is a step _towards_ what you want. I really really dislike them double speaking about this though.
Maybe a way to rely less on Google and "trusted partners" money is just to spend less.
[1] https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/who-we-are/public-records/
If their CEO salary was not paid in millions dollars maybe the users would be more keen to donate money? I never saw a fundraising like the ones from Wikipedia.
What’s wrong with paying market rates for a CEO? Do you think they should find a CEO below market rates? Have you donated money to Mozilla or Wikipedia?
I'm not saying they are doing a bad job, but I really can't say if they've been doing a good job either.