This is why the rich get richer
Partnering with publishers for a better journalism experience
11–20 of 188 posts
Re: Partnering with publishers for a better journalism experience
#12In case you are also wondering how that works and what's supported.
Based on https://blog.mozilla.org/futurereleases/2019/02/25/exploring... it looks like it's a collaboration with https://scroll.com/ and supports sites like:
- Vox
- The Atlantic
- Buzzfeed
- Gizmodo
- Slate
Re: Partnering with publishers for a better journalism experience
#13It looks like if you're a publisher you've partner up with Mozilla for this. Isn't this becoming a little dependent on Mozilla?
Publishers are already dependent on Google and if Google wants to screw them over, they can. How is this different from that?
Re: Partnering with publishers for a better journalism experience
#14Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s an MVP. It doesn’t have to work.
So what does viable mean?
An MVP should consist of the minimum work required to test an hypothesis.
In this case the hypothesis is: "People would buy a browser if it offers an ad-free experience".
So it's viable according to that idea.
Viable doesn't mean useful though :)
Re: Partnering with publishers for a better journalism experience
#15This looks like it's a bundling of Scroll into Firefox, probably with different UX. It seems dishonest to me if you're gonna say "Ad-Free Internet" and "We share your payment directly with the sites you read" and really only do that for 12 domains. The internet is much bigger than that. Find a way to do this for ALL sites!
Re: Partnering with publishers for a better journalism experience
#16Note the following:
* This is yet not available.
* It's not "Ad-Free Internet" but more like "a dozen websites ad-free".
* They expect a monthly payment - which is fine, but the first thing I imagined from the title was a built-in blocker in the browser but this is quite different.
Re: Partnering with publishers for a better journalism experience
#17If the same service could be used for paywalled news sites as well, this could be great
4.99 would not even cover the NY Times or WSJ alone.
That's because their prices are ridiculously high. Sure, I want access to NY Times. But maybe I'll read 1-2 articles per day. Not the whole damn paper. Same for any other site.
Re: Partnering with publishers for a better journalism experience
#18It looks like if you're a publisher you've partner up with Mozilla for this. Isn't this becoming a little dependent on Mozilla? Publishers are already dependent on Google and if Google wants to screw them over, they can. How is this different from that?
It's not perfect, but I'd rather trust mozilla than google.
Re: Partnering with publishers for a better journalism experience
#19I got the following when I tried the link to subscribe: Thank you for your interest in Firefox Ad-free Internet! This product isn't available yet, but we're working on it. Would you please click the Next button to take a short survey to tell us what you think? At the end of the survey we'll get your (optional!) e-mail address so that we can let you know when the Firefox Ad-free Internet beta launches. If you don't wa…
must be a geo-ip thing ... I got a page offering me this service for $4.99 a month
EDIT never mind, once you click through to subscribe it's that survey. This whole thing seems a bit disingenuous ...
Re: Partnering with publishers for a better journalism experience
#20It looks like if you're a publisher you've partner up with Mozilla for this. Isn't this becoming a little dependent on Mozilla? Publishers are already dependent on Google and if Google wants to screw them over, they can. How is this different from that?
It's not perfect, but I'd rather trust mozilla than google.
I'm the other way, google is probably the best company in my lifetime. Its recent Apple exploit 0day, I'm a bit skeptical of the programming.
Google has the resources to make better products.