Mozilla to put ads in Firefox address bar suggestions • Hacker News Board

Re: Mozilla to put ads in Firefox address bar suggestions

#571

Post by soundnote » Thu, Oct 07, 2021, 1:26 PM UTC

morganvachon wrote: post #383

deepstack wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>(don't mention Brave, I'm gonna get mad) Just wonder the reason? Is it because it support the monopoly of google rendering engine? Or other reasons?

Not OP but I've avoided Brave from the beginning because of its reliance on an ad-fueled crypto scam to generate revenue. If you're trying to avoid Mozilla's new ad-based revenue scheme, moving to a browser that is wholly funded by tracking your browsing and showing you ads while pretending to "pay" you with cryptocurrency that they never actually pay out, seems like a step backwards.

Tracking how? You know how browsers can download malicious software blocklists as one large local list insteas of consulting an online service for every url which would allow the provider to know what you do?

Their ad setup works the same. The browser downloads an entire country-specific catalog in one go, and decides what to show you completely locally. Whether you trust their cryptographic setup that tells them you've seen an ad is another thing entirely and is its own brand of black magic.

But the basic setup is simple. They sell adspace and show you ads from that local catalog. Brave takes a cut, users get a cut. They have a tipping service to compensate creators.

There's definitely parts that might be suspect, like that proof of having seen an ad.

And even if it all works just as intended, there is the concern that ads that don't track are generally less valuable so even widespread adoption of Brave's system would cause a decrease in ad revenue and thus ability to keep sites up and running. We've already seen the fallout of Apple's recent anti-tracking changes, and Brave's system is definitely similar in effect.

Re: Mozilla to put ads in Firefox address bar suggestions

#572

Post by chobytes » Thu, Oct 07, 2021, 1:27 PM UTC

INTPenis wrote: post #545

So just disable it. I'm sick and tired of people smearing Firefox because they're trying to make a living. It's still the best open source browser out there, it's still free, as in freedom and as in beer. Any fork of Firefox is mainly a change in default settings or branding. None of them would exist without the huge contributions Mozilla Foundation receive. People who criticize Firefox and then use one of its many f…

They're choosing a very unethical, and (given their own ads) hypocritical funding model. The corporate speak euphemisms for this model signal the further underlying rot.

To me your position reads analogous to "Im sick of people smearing organic produce corp for trying to make a living selling agent orange. If you dont like it dont buy it!"

Re: Mozilla to put ads in Firefox address bar suggestions

#573

Post by Townsendin » Thu, Oct 07, 2021, 1:27 PM UTC

krono wrote: post #368

morsch wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, a couple of minutes on Google. I just looked at all results for "sponsored" on the forum and it is in fact the only thread that uses it in that sense. I'm still waiting for any concrete evidence, as I am genuinely curious what kind of sponsorships of that kind there are, or were, if any.

You're fully aware I was making an assumption or a false recollection. There's absolutely no need for this adversarial tone.

The point is: you were wrong. In your previous posts you claimed you weren't wrong. Now in the first post where you acknowledge that you were wrong, you're going to complain that you feel attacked?

;)

Re: Mozilla to put ads in Firefox address bar suggestions

#574

Post by slothtrop » Thu, Oct 07, 2021, 1:28 PM UTC

denton-scratch wrote: post #534

xfitm3 wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Remember Mozilla is ultimately a non profit and must spend a healthy percentage of their income every year. Mozilla is just representing the collective self interest of those it employs. People wanting to keep their cushy job.

"Mozilla" isn't a non-profit. Mozilla, as such, isn't a thing. Mozilla Corporation (which is where your donations go - you can't donate to Firefox as such) is a taxable, profit-making company. Mozilla Foundation wholly owns Mozilla Corporation, and is a non-profit. But you can't donate to Mozilla Foundation. (I don't know how you can be a non-profit that wholly owns a profit-making corporation; I'm not an accountant,…

Sounds almost farcical.

Re: Mozilla to put ads in Firefox address bar suggestions

#575

Post by jlokier » Thu, Oct 07, 2021, 1:28 PM UTC

skywal_l wrote: post #322

callahad wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They've not stopped updating that page; it just takes longer than you would otherwise expect to get final numbers, prepare the reports, run them past auditors, etc. The 2019 statements were published in October of 2020, so I'd expect the 2020 numbers some time this month. It's also worth noting that there is a strict separation between the Mozilla Foundation (the tax exempt non-profit) and Mozilla Corporation (the wh…

> It's also worth noting that there is a strict separation between the Mozilla Foundation (the tax exempt non-profit) and Mozilla Corporation (the wholly owned, for-profit subsidiary which builds Firefox). The Foundation is not directly involved in the creation of Firefox. Wow I didn't know that. I always assumed Firefox was developed by a non-profit. So it basically means that Firefox is a commercial product (the pu…

It's actually a common arrangement with charities and other non-profits, done that way to make a tax and administration boundary.

The subsidiary is a for-profit, but the profit all goes to the parent non-profit, which is then constrained in how it can use that income.

Think of a little charity shop that sells, say, second hand clothes in order that the profit from sales funds a charitable purpose like fighting cancer. The little shop is likely to be a for-profit company, wholly owned by its parent charity.

Charities have to follow strict rules about how they spend their money, care for their assets, make decisions, report on everything and be audited.

Everything they do is required to be demonstrably for the charity's purposes, which clashes with the on-the-ground flexilibilty required to make business-like decisions for something like a shop. For example when you decide to spruce up the lighting at the front of the shop to attract customers, which only indirectly serves the charity's goals.

That may be a poor example. The point is that the subsidiary business can be run more like a business, being managed, making decisions and spending its income in the freer way a business is allowed to do. The parent charity retains shareholder-like ultimate control, but that is indirect control; the subsidiary has its own directors and executives.

In the case of a shop that means it can spend on things that may attract customers, take gambles that may bring in more profit for the parent charity to use, and make day to day decisions that aren't subject to the same level of reporting, auditing and trustee oversight that the parent charity is. The shop's operating assets are outside the charity, giving it operational flexibility, but when it transfers some portion of assets as profits to the charity, those assets become inside and how they are spent becomes more tightly regulated.

Re: Mozilla to put ads in Firefox address bar suggestions

#576

Post by toyg » Thu, Oct 07, 2021, 1:28 PM UTC

boomboomsubban wrote: post #501

toyg wrote: post #432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is that the whole system was thought out and initiated before exec salaries spiralled. There is no visible correlation between exec compensation and this type of negotiation.

The amount the execs negotiated is reflected in their salary, the last year we have the CEO salary was shortly after they negotiated a new deal with Yahoo worth over a hundred million dollars more per year seeing them get a raise. I doubt that Baker is getting anything near Beard's salary given she negotiated it right before the layoffs.

> The amount the execs negotiated is reflected in their salary

No it isn't - salary is salary, and these deals existed when the Mozilla CEO was not paid as much. By her own admission, at one point Baker just went "fuck it, other CEOs get paid multiples, why not me?", so now she brings home $3m per year, with the whole exec structure likely benefiting in similar fashion (because why only the CEO?). See: https://calpaterson.com/mozilla.html but it's on wikipedia too.

That's $3m that could pay for a dozen engineers at Bay-Area salaries, or 30-60 in cheaper locations - maybe enough to match (or surpass) Google's continuous push for new specifications that forces everyone else to play catch-up all the time, as well as stacking the standard committees where Mozilla is systematically overpowered.

> I doubt that Baker is getting anything near Beard's salary

You're right, she's making 3x Beard's salary. Even with 7 years of inflation, that's a lot more.

Mitchell Baker has given a lot to Mozilla, but she's now very clearly decided it's her time to cash in.

Re: Mozilla to put ads in Firefox address bar suggestions

#577

Post by denton-scratch » Thu, Oct 07, 2021, 1:29 PM UTC

Certhas wrote: post #56

AegirLeet wrote: post #46

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.

A browser is not "expensive". A modern marketing tool is expensive.

Take out all the crap, and strip it back to a plain browser. Freeze all new features. The only maintenance that is needed is security patches. That shouldn't need more than a handful of full-time devs. They could be paid using just one exec's salary.

I'll maintain my contribution to Thunderbird; if Mozilla doesn't feel like helping financially with that more-or-less unique product, fair enough. But I'm not OK with having to drill into about:config to disable Firefox Pocket's hijacking of high-profile screen real-estate - why hasn't it gone yet?

Re: Mozilla to put ads in Firefox address bar suggestions

#578

Post by jamienicol » Thu, Oct 07, 2021, 1:29 PM UTC

Hendrikto wrote: post #150

callahad wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Firefox gets hundreds of millions from Google alone in royalties, that is not enough to build a web browser? Empirically, it is not. Even Microsoft gave up that chase. Browsers are staggeringly complex and expensive to build. Which may be an indictment of the Web itself, but in the absence of a simpler alternative (Gemini?), the Web we have is the Web we've got, and browsers have to meet it where it is.

> Empirically, it is not. This is just not true. Mozilla spends millions on exec salaries and useless side projects, yet they still have hundreds of millions in cash reserves.

We're talking about hundreds of millions, not millions. And spending cash reserves is not sustainable

Re: Mozilla to put ads in Firefox address bar suggestions

#579

Post by tomrod » Thu, Oct 07, 2021, 1:29 PM UTC

tempest_ wrote: post #549

tomrod wrote: post #496

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, this issue is also reflected with the mobile upgrade that wiped most of the functionality, extension integration, and good will. Whomever they have hired to (1) perform UX research and (2) make executive decisions aren't performing, IMHO.

I did not use the mobile version until after they redid the design. I dont really have a lot of complaints about it. I like the dark mode and the address bar at the bottom it has ad blocker. What all changed between those versions ?

Drastically reduced universe of extensions

Poor design of tab history (chronological order)

No more about:config

Change in the text rendering engine causes some websites to be unreadable (esp. news, arstechnica, and reddit), accessibility out the window

There are many more, but I don't mean to rehash because it's been a passionate discussion for many over the past year.

Re: Mozilla to put ads in Firefox address bar suggestions

#580

Post by Yizahi » Thu, Oct 07, 2021, 1:31 PM UTC

strken wrote: post #276

Certhas wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Mozilla takes hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue a year. For decades it hired its engineers from the single most expensive place on earth to hire an engineer, the Bay Area. It boosted CEO pay into the millions shortly before laying off a big chunk of its engineering team. If they had taken the cash they spent on "diversifying their revenue streams" (i.e. getting distracted by side projects while their moneyma…

Chrome-Brave, Chrome-Chromium, Chrome-Vivaldi, Chrome-Edge and other Chrome clones are no go because it entrenches Google monopoly and bad practices. IceCat doesn't exist on Windows.

There is really close to no choice for browser alternatives.