I don't want to subscribe, I also don't want to see ads or be tracked. I wish there was a universal micropayments way of paying for what I read.
If you mean automatic micropayments when reading articles then you'll still be tracked, because the payment provider has to track what you read to make the payments and even has to be able to provide a log of it in case there is a payment dispute, so they will store what urls you visit and when. Without a proper log payment disputes can't be resolved legally.
Also I'm pretty sure the credit card companies sell your transaction data.
> Apple does the very same thing. I understand that Apple does everything in its power to make the life of developers miserable (such as requiring a Mac to be used for iOS development), but Mozilla were supposed to be the good guys on the web.
I think you misunderstood there. Apple's primary aim by limiting the access to the store isn't to make devs miserable, it's to have users trust the app store. Mozilla's aim is (likely) the same. If a user finds an addon in Mozilla's addon store, then Mozilla wants the user to fully trust that this addon will not violate their privacy in unexpected ways or install malware on their computer or otherwise interfere with…
>Apple's primary aim by limiting the access to the store isn't to make devs miserable, it's to have users trust the app store.
What about when they force devs to buy their multi-thousand dollar ecosystem?
That has nothing to do with quality apps.
Also, by excluding the poor from developing for iOS, they are widening income inequality.
Lots of heat in this thread... So, Addons are mostly reviewed by volunteers. Sometimes people make mistakes. The best course of action is to try to reach out for the AMO team on IRC or their mailing list. - Addons forum is at https://discourse.mozilla.org/c/add-ons - All contact info for AMO dev stuff is at: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons#Con... - Developer Hub for addons is at: https://addo…
My experience with firefox add-on reviewers has been hit or miss - One of the most frustrating things is that reviews often happen long after your add-on has been published. I'd rather have a longer waiting time, but once an add-on is published then it means it's been approved.
From the developer point of view it means that it's very hard to communicate on releases, because you never know when your addon is going to be reviewed. From the end user, it means that if someone maliciouly changes one of your addons, you may already have updated to that version before the review.
I also feel that the guidelines around reviews aren't well explained, and the reviewers comments are often terse, bordering on the incomprehensible : at least with Apple, you get pointed to which part of the rules they think you didn't respect - with firefox, we often get broad comments that require a bit of back and forth to figure out what it is they're actually thinking is wrong.
Lots of heat in this thread... So, Addons are mostly reviewed by volunteers. Sometimes people make mistakes. The best course of action is to try to reach out for the AMO team on IRC or their mailing list. - Addons forum is at https://discourse.mozilla.org/c/add-ons - All contact info for AMO dev stuff is at: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons#Con... - Developer Hub for addons is at: https://addo…
Surely there should be a clear appeal process, and escalation if there is to be an app store like review for addons that can remove something. Particularly if they are assessed by volunteers who may vary significantly.
There seems something off when spyware infested stylish remains an acceptable addon and this gets arbitrarily blocked.
A vague "try and reach out" doesn't, to me, seem to come close to an appeal process.
> Release and Beta versions of Firefox do not allow unsigned extensions to be installed I'm really disappointed at Mozilla regarding this. I recently wanted to do some Firefox customization for my own private use (not even an extension, I just wanted to have some visual indication of which Firefox windows belong to which profile). I was surprised to find out that even just a header .png in a theme can't be loaded loc…
I think you misunderstood there. Apple's primary aim by limiting the access to the store isn't to make devs miserable, it's to have users trust the app store. Mozilla's aim is (likely) the same. If a user finds an addon in Mozilla's addon store, then Mozilla wants the user to fully trust that this addon will not violate their privacy in unexpected ways or install malware on their computer or otherwise interfere with…
>Apple's primary aim by limiting the access to the store isn't to make devs miserable, it's to have users trust the app store. What about when they force devs to buy their multi-thousand dollar ecosystem? That has nothing to do with quality apps. Also, by excluding the poor from developing for iOS, they are widening income inequality.
That's an entirely separate decision from deciding to control what goes into the shop and by that not really part of the discussion, isn't it? And Apple asking for a fee to allow uploading apps is also a separate issue, after all, Mozilla is doing it without a fee by using volunteers to screen apps.
Both points are true and a problem but it's distracting from what this is about, no?
if there was something like anonymous payments (cryptocoin-based maybe?) then it would be possible without any tracking. In the few cases where you ask your penny cash back because something happened, most companies would just give it back without questions asked assuming they dont get tons of cashback requests from your IP.
That's why they need a log, because there will be cashback requests which people could abuse. And this will not necessarily be only pennies. A penny for a single page, for example, but if you visit many pages of the same site then the amount will be much higher and a user could claim then he has never visited that site and wants his money back.
Seems like there has to be some method to solve this? Maybe the transaction is part of the page load? You don't get the page until you pay via anonymous cryptocurrency. No need for any post-transaction verification and reconciliation? The problem there will be if the page fails to load, how can I safely get a second attempt without creating some kind of "double-spending" problem.
I don't want to subscribe, I also don't want to see ads or be tracked. I wish there was a universal micropayments way of paying for what I read.
Flattr set out do that, many years ago. They still exist. Brave is trying to address that. There's patreon, and many others. Have you tried them ?
We need something integrated directly into the browser with microtransactions for each page load (or X amount of pages) paid for anonymously via cryptocurrency.
> Release and Beta versions of Firefox do not allow unsigned extensions to be installed I'm really disappointed at Mozilla regarding this. I recently wanted to do some Firefox customization for my own private use (not even an extension, I just wanted to have some visual indication of which Firefox windows belong to which profile). I was surprised to find out that even just a header .png in a theme can't be loaded loc…
don't worry, that is not true! you absolutely can load local unsigned extensions! that's how they are developed ;(