17 ms·

Mozilla will reportedly launch a paid version of Firefox this fall

298 points by rohmanhakim 7y ago

hajxg 7y ago
If it's a paid version of Firefox this means it will respect our privacy by having no telemetry, no remote code execution via Normandy, etc, or will it be the same thing in that regard?
- pjmlp 7y ago
  Better than Chrome will ever be.
  - hajxg 7y ago
    That's open to discussion. Even if Chrome sends your data to Google (and it probably sends more data than Firefox), at least you know the data is being received by Google and not by unrelated third parties, like when Mozilla sent full URL history of some users to an advertisement company: https://blog.mozilla.org/press-uk/2017/10/06/testing-cliqz-in-firefox/ https://blog.mozilla.org/press-uk/2017/10/06/testing-cliqz-i...
    - ForHackernews 7y ago
      > One of Mozilla’s core privacy principles is No Surprises: we will use and share data in ways that are transparent and benefit our users. That is why we are telling you about this today. We want users to understand why we’ve taken this approach and what it means for them. While still a small experiment, the data collection and new search experience are major changes in the way this build of Firefox performs. We hope that users will appreciate the improved experience, but if users want to turn it off, they can always disable data collection or remove the Cliqz add-on entirely. Those monsters!
      - hajxg 7y ago
        Yes, if you go to the Google privacy policy they surely sound the same. But the truth is that they were funnelling your data to a third party. It doesn't matter if they say it's for the benefit of their users or how transparent they are. They were sending your private data to a third party and it was on by default for some users.
        hedora 7y ago
        https://policies.google.com/terms?hl=en https://policies.google.com/terms?hl=en > When you upload, submit, store, send or receive content to or through our Services, you give Google (and those we work with) a worldwide license to use, host, store, reproduce, modify, create derivative works (such as those resulting from translations, adaptations or other changes we make so that your content works better with our Services), communicate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute such content. The rights you grant in this license are for the limited purpose of operating, promoting, and improving our Services, and to develop new ones. This license continues even if you stop using our Services (for example, for a business listing you have added to Google Maps)
    - HugoDaniel 7y ago
      The logic here is that Google will never send/sell your data to third parties ? How do you think Facebook et al gets a hold of your google data ? How do you think companies like Cambridge Analytica thrive ? I am genuinely curious to know what your view of the world on these topics is and why are you so insistently (and apparently naively) defending google in this regard.
      - hajxg 7y ago
        I said Firefox is bad at protecting my privacy. Someone compared Mozilla to Google, so I said that even Google is better. In other words I'm not defending Google, I'm saying Mozilla is even worse. I despise Google, too. What's your proof that Google gives your data to Facebook? That doesn't sound right. On the other hand, I showed proof that Mozilla gives your personal data (list of URLs you visit, no less!) to a third party.
        headsoup 7y ago
        Are you hoping people don't read the article you linked or do you not understand the approach Mozilla used? The data is not used to identify the user by building a profile and the source IP is removed on collection. Now of course there's a level of trust required in them doing what they say, but this is nowhere near Google et al's levels of data hoarding and reselling anyway.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
  - lucideer 7y ago
    That's a low bar. Pretty sure we can aim higher than that.
- miohtama 7y ago
  Would privacy oriented use pay for anything in the first place? Based on my experience they are quite a tough audience to sell any products. No enterprise sales, and the small privacy oriented userbase usually has less disposable income. As far as I understood Firefox is already very pro privacy and, unlike some competition, telemetry and others must be explicit opt-ins from the users. Where the paid offering would shine is the bundled services: password manager, notification center, etc. All those features already there, but having a sustainable business model around them. Though not sure how free offering vs. paid offering can be discriminated so that the latter is attractive.
- a_imho 7y ago
  Sounds like a good option to have around, but gives off a protection racket vibe to remove all the crapware included.
josefresco 7y ago
Will it be called ... Netscape 10? I'm honestly asking / hoping. Does AOL still own the brand?
- josefresco 7y ago
  Since I got crickets on my question (as well as downvotes - love you HNers!) I looked it up. Answer: Maybe Facebook? https://boingboing.net/2019/03/30/facebook-navigator.html https://boingboing.net/2019/03/30/facebook-navigator.html TLDR; AOL bought Netscape, who sold it to Microsoft, who then sold it to Facebook. Edit: Maybe not, the domain WHOIS shows it points to Yahoo! Oath Inc. - https://www.whois.com/whois/netscape.net https://www.whois.com/whois/netscape.net
Hasknewbie 7y ago
They kind of have to go that way (offer extra VPN/storage as a service for a monthly fee), their market share of users has tanked since their last deal with Google, they're not going to get that kind of money from them any more. Gotta diversify.
tannhaeuser 7y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20144521 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20144521
ForHackernews 7y ago
Good. Anyone who wants to avoid the internet becoming a Google/blink monoculture should be happy to pay for this.
onyva 7y ago
Excellent idea bundling VPN and cloud storage. Currently using proton and iCloud (mostly though relying on self hosted Nextcloud). Hopefully they’ll offer NextCloud too.
t0t4lnoo3 7y ago
This is really scary. I keep getting messages from friends I converted to Signal, asking me to go back to WhatsApp since Facebook has a deal with their providers to not charge WhatsApp data. Now picture those able to afford their first mobile plan, they don’t have disposable income, they don’t have the option to pay for Firefox, I’m afraid this will drive people to use Google even more.
- headsoup 7y ago
  It's a paid premium service, the free version will still be there. People need to also stop thinking free internet services are genuinely free. Pay for things that provide value and if it's free, ask what value is in it for the provider instead.
  - asdkhadsj 7y ago
    Yup. The more "free" it is the more incentive companies/etc have to start misusing your data/etc. Google is "free". Facebook is "free". If there's a cost I want to see that passed on to the consumer. Otherwise I can't trust a company, simply put.
  - t0t4lnoo3 7y ago
    I’m referring to those with no money to pay for anything, no wifi at home, no computer, their mobile phone is the first chance to access the web, so they are 100% on Android which already comes with Chrome. Chances are very small they will download a new browser (they don’t have much data to download stuff) even if it’s free. But once the word gets out that you have to pay for Firefox, it won’t matter if the free version is still there or if it’s as good as the paid one, Google broadcasts a louder message that it’s definitely free.
pornel 7y ago
I'll buy whatever they're selling. I'm very happy with Firefox quantum, and I'd like Mozilla to have a sustainable income that doesn't come from the AdTech/surveillance industry.
- alexis_fr 7y ago
  But they fired their CEO, Brendan Eich, founder of Javascript, for donating to a charity they disagreed with (abortion). Given that I hold different political opinions than Mozilla, is Mozilla going to use this money to help or worsen intolerance between citizens? Same for Wikipedia, who donated hundreds of thousands to feminist organizations to « rewrite Wikipedia ». Do I really want Wikipedia to rewrite history?
- dorgo 7y ago
  I'll buy too. I spend hours every day using firefox. It's worth almost every price they could demand. But I still hope they give me some freedom back I had before quantum.
swtrs 7y ago
Interesting bundling their services via the browser. Its a single point of entry vs Google (seemingly) access disjoint. Password management, notes, file transfer (and storage?) browse and secure connections through one browser is something I think Id want.
jasonhansel 7y ago
As long as it's all FOSS, this sounds like an excellent idea. I'd gladly pay for Mozilla to stop being beholden to Google.
- nexuist 7y ago
  Is it still FOSS if it's paid?
  - otabdeveloper3 7y ago
    Yes. "Free as in freedom".
    - sjwright 7y ago
      To be as charitable as possible to the grandparent, it may depend on whether there are any closed-source elements to the cloud services. We don't know for certain because it has yet to be announced. (Of course there's no realistic chance of that happening given Mozilla's foundational principles and solid track record thereof.)
      - bscphil 7y ago
        Aren't all the server side components of Pocket closed source?
  - Millennium 7y ago
    As long as all of the source is available under FOSS licenses, yes. Free as in speech, not free as in beer, remember? Question is, will Mozilla actually stick to that? What the paid features also be open-source, at least to whatever extent the concept of source code applies?
    - jasonhansel 7y ago
      Ideally, Mozilla would let us pay to use their servers, while also providing an OSS self-hosted version with equivalent functionality. (Firefox is available under the MPL, which is a sort of compromise between copyleft and MIT-style licenses. So it'd be difficult to make any new FF feature entirely closed source.)
libeclipse 7y ago
A centralized VPN solution for all users is a terrible idea, and what is "secure cloud storage" going to offer that Dropbox doesn't? I understand that developing a browser is expensive work and Mozilla need money to do it. I support them in this effort. But honestly no ones gonna buy this
- zrobotics 7y ago
  I personally plan to, even though I run my own VPN & already pay for Dropbox. I definitely won't use the VPN, if the cloud storage looks decent I'll likely use it (since I already use encrypted volumes that I store in Dropbox, I only need to trust they won't delete/lose them). I already donate to mozilla, I guess people have forgotten the web was during the days IE was dominant. I'm frankly shocked that so many web developers seem to be fine only supporting Chrome, at least those were the sentiments I was hearing when Edge went to chromium.
- scriptkiddy 7y ago
  I'll probably buy it. I've been using Firefox for almost 15 years. Mozilla has never really let me down. I would much rather pay for an integrated vpn/cloud storage provider than maintain multiple accounts with multiple providers. Not to mention Mozilla's general focus on privacy protections that not all platforms share.
weinzierl 7y ago
I'd be happy to pay for Firefox, but I have a few points that are important to me. They are probably not very realistic but here they are anyway: 1. I would like my money to go into Firefox development and nowhere else. I certainly don't want my money spent on their content business, even if it is used as a leverage to generate more money for Firefox development. I'm torn about Rust development because I certainly would love to see Rust flourish, but if we allow the money go into personally preferred projects it becomes hard to draw the line. 2. I would like a Firefox with absolutely no strings attached. - No Pocket, not even a trace of it. The proper place for Pocket is a plugin. - No experiments, labs or whatever they call it (see Mr. Robot for an example) - No network connections to third party hosts as long I haven't explicitly opted in. - Safe search off by default - No predefined search engines - No predefined start page 3. I would like Mozilla (as a whole and not only the Firefox branch) to be more careful with the selection of their businesses partners. I'm am not aiming at their co-operations with Google, Yandex and the like, which are OK for me. At least as long as my points from above are respected. Specifically I'm OK if the free version of Firefox continues to be sponsored mainly by Google. I'm not OK with business deals of the kind they had with Cliqz for example. 4. I would like to be able to pay without having to be logged into a Firefox account. This is actually davidhyde's idea from another thread [1] but I added it here because I fully agree. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20144726 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20144726
- boudin 7y ago
  Yes, I couldn't agree more. I'm a Firefox user, never switched to chrome because I always had concerned with it. If this an attempt to switch the business model and become independent from search engines, it needs to do it properly. If it's the case, I would be a happily paying as, as much as I'm not fond of some of the decisions made by Mozilla like pocket or labs as you mentioned, it's the only browser I feel I can use without spitting on my beliefs.
- sametmax 7y ago
  I'm pretty sure you are right now paying a lot more money to companies doing a lot less efforts Mozilla is currently doing. And now you are asking even more of them, just as a condition for maybe giving them something day. See, that's one of the weirdest problem in FOSS: the fans hold them to a way too high standard, making it twice as hard to thrive. Once because it's hard to make money as an open source, benevolent product in a world of free for all. And another time because the very people that should be supporting you will always say you don't do enough.
Millennium 7y ago
Good luck to them, assuming they stick to their principles. But IIRC, experiments with paid browsers have typically not ended well. What makes them think they can pull it off?
- sametmax 7y ago
  Because: - it's only an experimental additional source of revenue. They already got money covered, they are just trying to find new way to become more financially independent. - they don't intend to sell the current state of Firefox. It will still be free. They intend to add stuff on top of the already awesome experience.
- nallerooth 7y ago
  My guess is that they won't be performing experiments with paying users, for two reasons: 1. Paying users are too valuable. 2. Free users can "opt out" of experiments by paying - and they'll get some nice features for "free" as they do so. (Edit, formatting)
bambax 7y ago
Chrome crippling adblockers creates a huge opportunity for paid competition. I would gladly buy a browser just to be sure adblock will always work. Of course, FF + uBO is free, and one can always make donations. But buying a product feels different. Also, businesses can expense what they buy with an invoice -- usually not the case with donations.
wyc 7y ago
There is a class of products with strong elements of charitable contribution. For example Plex Pass, endangered species chocolate, LWN subscription, and select blockchain tokens--and maybe this too. There are hard to pin down non-commercial benefits to purchasers mixed in with traditional value drivers. With Plex, I purchased a lifetime membership not because I valued any of the added features (I don't use them to this day), but because I got so much value out of the project that I felt indebted and wished to express my gratitude. I wanted the project to live on, and I also got to brag about my deeds on tech forums. The incredible scaling characteristics of software allow me to already enjoy most of the benefit from the free/open base edition alone. Here are reasons for my "charity-driven" purchases: - Admiration for project vision and desire to ensure its longevity - A sense of gratitude due to incommensurate value enjoyed for very cheap or free - Wanting to belong to the community and feel like part of the journey I find myself valuing these items as "real commercial benefit": - Strong privacy guarantees - Cost-plus models such as selling managed storage, bandwidth, etc. - Subscription to updates backed by regular human labor - Access to premium support/SLA
osrec 7y ago
If they want us to pay, they MUST provide dev tools that are as good as Chrome's, if not better. My team builds a lot of PWAs, and Firefox simply did not provide good enough diagnostic tools, so we couldn't use it in earnest (even though we really wanted to).
- yorwba 7y ago
  What specific functionality of the Chrome dev tools did you miss in Firefox?
  - fernandotakai 7y ago
    yeah, i keep hearing that here on HN (and only here, for some reason) but i myself use firefox and chrome dev tools almost daily and i never once thought "yeah this is missing". well, for one, chrome is actually missing one big thing for me: a dark theme.
    - SquareWheel 7y ago
      Chrome dev tools have a dark theme. It's under settings.
  - osrec 7y ago
    Ability to stop/start/reinstall service workers, view app manifests, validate app manifests, add apps to the desktop etc, store local results as global variables in the console. Connect mobile devices and run a local server on the mobile device. There are more, but I can't think of them currently.
    - bzbarsky 7y ago
      The UI is not very pretty, but about:serviceworkers lets you reinstall or unregister serviceworkers.
  - BoumTAC 7y ago
    Working source map
user17843 7y ago
When it comes to dependence on ad-tech money, the writing is on the wall: > Cost per click on Google properties — which roughly measures the amount Alphabet charges advertisers for each ad served on its web sites — dropped 29 percent from last year and 9 percent from last quarter, which might be alarming investors concerned that Google’s pricing power for ads is eroding. [1] Additionally, Firefox is losing users, around 50,000 - 100,000 per day. [2] They now want to add all kinds of additional stuff in order to make money. For a browser this is a death sentence. A browser can not be more than a browser, and ad tiles are the only practical way of making money next to search engine deals. While a pro-version of Firefox is certainly an interesting idea which can be sold to a tech-savvy minority, it neither can diversify their revenue in a meaningful way, nor is clear yet whether Mozilla is going to offer a paid Firefox version, or simply tries to upsell a software bundle branded with their name. Mozilla paid around 30 million to aquire Pocket (one of their supposed foundations for making money), but there isn't any data to show whether they are profitable with it. Given the low number of ads in Pocket, they probably aren't profitable. In 2017, according to their financial report, they only made 2,5 million with Pocket ads. Opera is the only other major browser that has to survive without having a tech giant behind them. They do everything they can to make money with Opera. And it has boiled down to ads in the start page and licensing. There’s nothing more you can do. Opera is surviving on three kind of deals: [3] – search (ca 60%) – ads in start page – licensing deals on mobile phones Licensing is off limits to mozilla because they have lost the mobile market. So all that is left is ads on the start page. Its that simple. There’s also a lesson to learn for Mozilla from the time Opera abandoned Presto: [4] > “Because of our switch to the Blink engine, our retention rate on desktop users is much better now. This is because most websites work in Opera since we’re using the same engine as Google. We think we’ve become more relevant after we moved over to the Blink platform, and more companies now start to work with us,” Boilesen said. > “We’ve got twice as many developers on the desktop browser now than we had with Presto, because all [our] resources went into maintaining Presto. The only error we made with Presto was that we kept it too long. Our change to Blink was because we wanted to get on the offensive with regards to innovation, we used too many resources to keep Presto competitive." There are only two ways. You either stay innovative and keep up with the times, or you downsize and develop for a small niche group. Mozilla is doing neither. [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/04/alphabet-earnings-q4-2018.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/04/alphabet-earnings-q4-2018.ht... [2] https://data.firefox.com https://data.firefox.com [3] https://techcrunch.com/2018/07/02/browser-maker-opera-has-filed-to-go-public/ https://techcrunch.com/2018/07/02/browser-maker-opera-has-fi... [4] https://www.zdnet.com/article/show-me-the-money-how-opera-started-thinking-about-the-bottom-line-and-what-that-did-to-its-software/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/show-me-the-money-how-opera-st...
eitland 7y ago
I'm a huge Firefox fan, but as many others here point out: for this to work in the long run they have to respect us and stop pulling all kinds of iRobot nonsense etc. Mozilla needs to understand it is not OK to mess with my Internet banking client. The browser is now critical Internet infrastructure and it is not OK when someone scares me by force installing extensions. Also while Normandie would have been OK with me of I knew about it ot annoyed me when I found out about it because of a mistake. Mozilla could have had a 9/10 score but thanks to issues like this I rate them 7/10. (Chrome however is far worse.)
Vinnl 7y ago
This looks like they're not so much launching a paid version of Firefox-the-browser, but a paid subscription service, including e.g. a VPN service. This is in line with their recent push towards Firefox as a brand for related services and products like Firefox Send and Lockwise in general, with the browser being specifically referred to as Firefox Browser. So presumably, Firefox accounts will become a freemium service, where paid accounts have e.g. higher limits for Firefox Send, a VPN, etc.
- absorber 7y ago
  If Mozilla is able to setup Firefox as a turn-key noob-friendly solution for a more secure and private web experience, then I can definitely see this as a sustainable business model. For that however, many things (which are far from trivial) have to be done. Among other things: 1. Focus on security. That means among other things: 1a: Reducing core code complexity (for example, removing Pocket and integrating it only as an opt-in extension) 1b: More audits 1c: More Rust (and Servo by that extension) 2. Focus on integrating more privacy-enhancing features, such as: 2a: Reducing the effectiveness of browser fingerprinting 2b: Integrating more features from Tor-Browser into vanilla Firefox. Would be even better if they integrated Tor out of the box too. In fact, Firefox should perhaps aim at 0 difference between TBB and vanilla Firefox. 2c: Reducing reliance on (user-hostile) search engines. Perhaps integrate DuckDuckGo as default search engine in the future? 3. Focus on marketing campaign which includes super noob-friendly (video) tutorials. I'm thinking something in the Kurzgesagt style.
MikusR 7y ago
It will come with Premium Mr. Robot adds.
robohoe 7y ago
Remember when Opera had a free version with an ad on it? Ah those days... Hopefully Mozilla will not go down that path. I certainly don't think so with all they are doing in respect to privacy.
scandox 7y ago
I will pay for this IF they improve their PDF view/print. I know a lot of people say this, but it's just a really important feature for me which is really poor in Firefox. And I do pay for software and contribute financially to open source projects.
DiseasedBadger 7y ago
I would do that in an instant if it: Dropped WideVine Dropped WebRtc Brought back XUL Extensions Otherwise, I'll keep using a pre-australis fork, until I probably eventually just decide to use Chrome. Firefox different distinguish itself from Chrome.
- dralley 7y ago
  Wow, that's the most unreasonable take I think I've ever seen. Also, Firefox doesn't come with Widevine. You have to click yes to download the module the first time you visit a page that uses it.
  - jandrese 7y ago
    Dropping WebRTC doesn't seem all that unreasonable. It's not used that often and is a major source of information leaks.
samcday 7y ago
Finally, a proper way to vote with my wallet in the browser wars. I'm sure Firefox can make more money from me individually by allowing me to pay them, rather than funneling me through Google for some eyeball $$$s, especially since I've personally switched to DuckDuckGo. Actually that makes me wonder - how does Mozilla currently make money off me if I've stopped using Google searches in Firefox?
- pkaye 7y ago
  How much would you pay for Firefox per year?
  - Brain_Thief 7y ago
    Not OP but I would pay $5-10 per month without blinking an eye.
    - tracker1 7y ago
      Similarly, if there were a $20-50/year option, I'd probably go that route.
  - samcday 7y ago
    It depends on what other value adds they bolt onto their "Firefox Pro" offering. Just for Firefox itself as it currently is, if there was some official way to pay for it, I think $5-10 (some small multiple of a cup of coffee deal) is fair to support development for what is essentially the only remaining competitor to Google.
el_cujo 7y ago
Not sure about a Mozilla-run VPN. I'd trust them to have a competent-enough service, but I would definitely not expect them to try resisting any western government getting hold of their logs (though I guess the claim of any VPN to actually accomplish this is dubious at best). Maybe a good option if you live somewhere like China or certain Middle Eastern countries where you need a VPN just to get news not controlled by the government, but all of the VPN users who just want to hide their IP when torrenting will probably look elsewhere.
- morpheuskafka 7y ago
  I think the latter would be fine as well. The objective their is to block DMCA notices sent by bots not suboeonas that require a human to be involved. Those rarely if ever occur.
- magduf 7y ago
  >Maybe a good option if you live somewhere like China or certain Middle Eastern countries where you need a VPN just to get news not controlled by the government Could this cause Firefox to be banned in China?
cgtyoder 7y ago
Let's hope it includes blocking auto-play videos from TheNextWeb.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- SanchoPanda 7y ago
  About:config Media autoplay default: 1 Media autoplay allow muted: false
burtonator 7y ago
I really want a version of Firefox that doesn't have adblock and is ad paid so it's free. We could call it.. Chrome!
chrshawkes 7y ago
I would pay for a browser that didn't spy on me everywhere I went, this doesn't fit the bill for me.
- verbatim 7y ago
  How does it spy on you?
hjek 7y ago
Looks to me like they'll be charging for an integrated VPN service; not like they're releasing a separate version of Firefox with proprietary components. Brilliant way of funding free/libre software.
neilv 7y ago
If this move will let Mozilla fund its operations, in an honest and straightforward manner, while doing things that peeve the surveillance&brochure&bigmoat dotcoms, that seems potentially great news.
yogthos 7y ago
I already donate to Mozilla, and I'd be happy to pay to fund an actual open source browser that's not being produced by an ads company.
gurumeditations 7y ago
$500M a year isn’t enough to develop Firefox?
- bdcravens 7y ago
  Most of their money comes from Google. I presume they see a future where that becomes less likely.
egypturnash 7y ago
Can we talk about the auto play video in the middle of this for a “Smell DJ” box for a moment. People keep on trying to make the Internet of Smells and the devices keep on being bought by absolutely nobody. Who funds these things? Who thinks there’s a market waiting to be tapped? I see some kind of scent-making box announced every four or five years and they all just fade without a trace. This one can be controlled by Alexa. I doubt that’s gonna be the wrinkle that makes it a must-have.
Proven 7y ago
> with features like a VPN and secure cloud storage. A VPN: where you don't need it, you can use it. Where you need it, you can't access it. This is true in most cases. Cloud storage: it can be cheaper only if value is extracted by data mining. As they presumably won't do that, I can't see how it can be cheaper or more user friendly than sharing a self encrypted drive hosted on cheap S3 service. And most S3 Web drives work with any client, while Firefox secure storage is likely to be Firefox-only (single app). It's going to be hard to pull that off.
acjohnson55 7y ago
Take my money! I've received incalculable value from using Mozilla products and I'll gladly pay to support them, especially when it comes to increased privacy.
- farisjarrah 7y ago
  I really hope there is a Paid Mozilla email service in there somewhere. That's what will get me to instantly sign up.
  - newscracker 7y ago
    I've been donating to Thunderbird the past few years when it started accepting donations just for it (instead of being a donation to Mozilla though Thunderbird was spun off as a community driven project with some support from Mozilla). If Mozilla comes with a paid email service focusing on privacy that's not just a white label rebranding of ProtonMail (which I won't use) or another existing provider, I'd surely be one of the first to try it out. Something that's preferably cheaper for multiple mailboxes with own domain support would be awesome.
    - TechieKid 7y ago
      Why would you not use ProtonMail? Genuine case of out of the loop.
virusduck 7y ago
Netscape is back on the menu, boys!
JoshMnem 7y ago
I'm a long-time Firefox/Mozilla user, and I'd give it a try for $10/month. It would be an easy sell to me if it includes a reasonable amount of online storage.
Endy 7y ago
There is no way Mozilla can remain a corporate entity and simultaneously make me feel like they deserve my money. It would require a complete clean break with Google, with the understanding that if they can't make it on their own, with their users, then it needs to be just a community project. If it makes money for Google, I don't trust it. If it supports Google, I don't trust it. And right now, Firefox does both.
lmorchard 7y ago
Yeah, this is a kind of misleading headline. I can't predict the future, but AFAIK there are no plans to launch a paid version of Firefox. There are plans to launch paid subscription services & products in a Firefox brand family. Some of services may even be independent from the browser and be separate standalone apps & products. Some of the services may even - gasp - work in a non-Firefox browser. Think of things like Firefox Send, Firefox Monitor, Firefox Lockbox, a system-wide VPN, an in-browser secure proxy. Specific plans are still in progress, but I don't think any of them are literally "you pay for browser now"
newscracker 7y ago
I see more than a few comments with some form of "I would pay if X/if not X/does X/does not X". The article, which has limited details, says that it would b some bundled services, such as a VPN service (like what Mozilla partnered with ProtonVPN for as a limited trial before) and online cloud storage. At this time, it doesn't seem like this would be a paid version of the Firefox browser with a different feature set. Any decision of that kind could confuse people and hurt the Firefox brand, IMO. Can we instead put out our wishlist of services that we'd want Mozilla to handle because we trust it? 1. I'm stealing at least one idea from elsewhere in this discussion, which is a private paid email service with standard protocol support (like IMAP) with cheaper pricing for multiple mailboxes. 2. Another would be a revival of the Persona (authentication) project and service. In light of Apple's announcement of "Sign in with Apple" in WWDC, this would make a lot more sense for people who trust Apple now, but don't really like the idea of trusting a for-profit corporation forever or have some other reservations with "Sign in with Apple". Persona can actually work with "Sign in with Apple" and many other providers. 3. A hosted Bitwarden or Bitwarden-like service that can work on multiple platforms and browsers could be interesting.
richliss 7y ago
I'd happily pay as long as: 1. It also funds Thunderbird. 2. Their focus is on privacy/no telemetry, security and overall experience. NOT more rebrands! 3. It helps pay for continuously updated blocklists, miner blocking lists, anti-content farm lists etc. that get built into the browser rather than through add-ons. 4. Curated add-ons that are funded especially around security - too many add-ons don't get updated. 5. Real profile management and switching. 6. An expert mode with a proper download manager (pausing, reordering etc.) 7. Self-maintaining, self-repairing and self-updating options so it ALWAYS just works. 8. An outreach program to get websites/apps/etc. that are broken to fix them so we don't have to open up an instance of Chrome.
- ForHackernews 7y ago
  You can (and I do) specifically donate to fund Thunderbird: https://donate.mozilla.org/en-US/thunderbird/ https://donate.mozilla.org/en-US/thunderbird/ Unfortunately, I believe that general Mozilla funding no longer supports Thunderbird in any way.
dontbenebby 7y ago
Looking at their previous partnership with ProtonVPN, ten dollars a month for a VPN seems a bit high. My self hosted Algo instance only run ~6 a month with tax. Maybe if they also gave some cloud storage it would be worth it. Being able to store a veracrypt volume with my important data in the cloud securely would be nice. Current options seem to be Amazon, Google, or Dropbox. Spideroak has the "hive" but there's not really an option to just upload stuff, it needs to reside locally and be mirrored.
- unimpressive 7y ago
  > Looking at their previous partnership with ProtonVPN, ten dollars a month for a VPN seems a bit high. My self hosted Algo instance only run ~6 a month with tax. You are not the target market for this product. "A few more dollars than my self hosted solution..." is a sentence that typically takes you way outside the target audience of most products in this vein.
  - dontbenebby 7y ago
    >You are not the target market for this product. I've been using Firefox since it was Firebird. The people who did not abandon it are technically savvy folks who enjoy controlling our browser experience.
floatingatoll 7y ago
The original interview is here: https://t3n.de/news/mozilla-ceo-chris-beard-anbieten-1168614/ https://t3n.de/news/mozilla-ceo-chris-beard-anbieten-1168614...
madisfun 7y ago
I use Firefox and have setup a monthly donation anyway. I understand that many people need something extra in return to give their money. So if there is a paid version which gives access to some _services_ like VPN or storage, and it works better than donations, then why not.
equalunique 7y ago
I'd pay for firefox. Relatively fine quality FOSS deserves it, so long as the "do no evil"
BuckRogers 7y ago
I'm unsure how many of the comments here read the article at all, but I see this as a smart move. Built-in VPN and cloud storage makes a lot of sense. They're building enough features between Lockwise, Send and soon VPN and some cloud storage, they're going to have a compelling package. Toss in a secure @firefox.com email to use on the included cloud storage and Mozilla has my money.

298 points by rohmanhakim 7y ago

If it's a paid version of Firefox this means it will respect our privacy by having no telemetry, no remote code execution via Normandy, etc, or will it be the same thing in that regard?

pjmlp 7y ago
Better than Chrome will ever be.
- hajxg 7y ago
  That's open to discussion. Even if Chrome sends your data to Google (and it probably sends more data than Firefox), at least you know the data is being received by Google and not by unrelated third parties, like when Mozilla sent full URL history of some users to an advertisement company: https://blog.mozilla.org/press-uk/2017/10/06/testing-cliqz-in-firefox/ https://blog.mozilla.org/press-uk/2017/10/06/testing-cliqz-i...
  - ForHackernews 7y ago
    > One of Mozilla’s core privacy principles is No Surprises: we will use and share data in ways that are transparent and benefit our users. That is why we are telling you about this today. We want users to understand why we’ve taken this approach and what it means for them. While still a small experiment, the data collection and new search experience are major changes in the way this build of Firefox performs. We hope that users will appreciate the improved experience, but if users want to turn it off, they can always disable data collection or remove the Cliqz add-on entirely. Those monsters!
    - hajxg 7y ago
      Yes, if you go to the Google privacy policy they surely sound the same. But the truth is that they were funnelling your data to a third party. It doesn't matter if they say it's for the benefit of their users or how transparent they are. They were sending your private data to a third party and it was on by default for some users.
      - hedora 7y ago
        https://policies.google.com/terms?hl=en https://policies.google.com/terms?hl=en > When you upload, submit, store, send or receive content to or through our Services, you give Google (and those we work with) a worldwide license to use, host, store, reproduce, modify, create derivative works (such as those resulting from translations, adaptations or other changes we make so that your content works better with our Services), communicate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute such content. The rights you grant in this license are for the limited purpose of operating, promoting, and improving our Services, and to develop new ones. This license continues even if you stop using our Services (for example, for a business listing you have added to Google Maps)
  - HugoDaniel 7y ago
    The logic here is that Google will never send/sell your data to third parties ? How do you think Facebook et al gets a hold of your google data ? How do you think companies like Cambridge Analytica thrive ? I am genuinely curious to know what your view of the world on these topics is and why are you so insistently (and apparently naively) defending google in this regard.
    - hajxg 7y ago
      I said Firefox is bad at protecting my privacy. Someone compared Mozilla to Google, so I said that even Google is better. In other words I'm not defending Google, I'm saying Mozilla is even worse. I despise Google, too. What's your proof that Google gives your data to Facebook? That doesn't sound right. On the other hand, I showed proof that Mozilla gives your personal data (list of URLs you visit, no less!) to a third party.
      - headsoup 7y ago
        Are you hoping people don't read the article you linked or do you not understand the approach Mozilla used? The data is not used to identify the user by building a profile and the source IP is removed on collection. Now of course there's a level of trust required in them doing what they say, but this is nowhere near Google et al's levels of data hoarding and reselling anyway.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- lucideer 7y ago
  That's a low bar. Pretty sure we can aim higher than that.
miohtama 7y ago
Would privacy oriented use pay for anything in the first place? Based on my experience they are quite a tough audience to sell any products. No enterprise sales, and the small privacy oriented userbase usually has less disposable income. As far as I understood Firefox is already very pro privacy and, unlike some competition, telemetry and others must be explicit opt-ins from the users. Where the paid offering would shine is the bundled services: password manager, notification center, etc. All those features already there, but having a sustainable business model around them. Though not sure how free offering vs. paid offering can be discriminated so that the latter is attractive.
a_imho 7y ago
Sounds like a good option to have around, but gives off a protection racket vibe to remove all the crapware included.

josefresco 7y ago

Will it be called ... Netscape 10? I'm honestly asking / hoping. Does AOL still own the brand?

josefresco 7y ago
Since I got crickets on my question (as well as downvotes - love you HNers!) I looked it up. Answer: Maybe Facebook? https://boingboing.net/2019/03/30/facebook-navigator.html https://boingboing.net/2019/03/30/facebook-navigator.html TLDR; AOL bought Netscape, who sold it to Microsoft, who then sold it to Facebook. Edit: Maybe not, the domain WHOIS shows it points to Yahoo! Oath Inc. - https://www.whois.com/whois/netscape.net https://www.whois.com/whois/netscape.net

Hasknewbie 7y ago

They kind of have to go that way (offer extra VPN/storage as a service for a monthly fee), their market share of users has tanked since their last deal with Google, they're not going to get that kind of money from them any more. Gotta diversify.

tannhaeuser 7y ago

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20144521 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20144521

ForHackernews 7y ago

Good. Anyone who wants to avoid the internet becoming a Google/blink monoculture should be happy to pay for this.

onyva 7y ago

Excellent idea bundling VPN and cloud storage. Currently using proton and iCloud (mostly though relying on self hosted Nextcloud). Hopefully they’ll offer NextCloud too.

t0t4lnoo3 7y ago

This is really scary. I keep getting messages from friends I converted to Signal, asking me to go back to WhatsApp since Facebook has a deal with their providers to not charge WhatsApp data. Now picture those able to afford their first mobile plan, they don’t have disposable income, they don’t have the option to pay for Firefox, I’m afraid this will drive people to use Google even more.

headsoup 7y ago
It's a paid premium service, the free version will still be there. People need to also stop thinking free internet services are genuinely free. Pay for things that provide value and if it's free, ask what value is in it for the provider instead.
- asdkhadsj 7y ago
  Yup. The more "free" it is the more incentive companies/etc have to start misusing your data/etc. Google is "free". Facebook is "free". If there's a cost I want to see that passed on to the consumer. Otherwise I can't trust a company, simply put.
- t0t4lnoo3 7y ago
  I’m referring to those with no money to pay for anything, no wifi at home, no computer, their mobile phone is the first chance to access the web, so they are 100% on Android which already comes with Chrome. Chances are very small they will download a new browser (they don’t have much data to download stuff) even if it’s free. But once the word gets out that you have to pay for Firefox, it won’t matter if the free version is still there or if it’s as good as the paid one, Google broadcasts a louder message that it’s definitely free.

pornel 7y ago

I'll buy whatever they're selling. I'm very happy with Firefox quantum, and I'd like Mozilla to have a sustainable income that doesn't come from the AdTech/surveillance industry.

alexis_fr 7y ago
But they fired their CEO, Brendan Eich, founder of Javascript, for donating to a charity they disagreed with (abortion). Given that I hold different political opinions than Mozilla, is Mozilla going to use this money to help or worsen intolerance between citizens? Same for Wikipedia, who donated hundreds of thousands to feminist organizations to « rewrite Wikipedia ». Do I really want Wikipedia to rewrite history?
dorgo 7y ago
I'll buy too. I spend hours every day using firefox. It's worth almost every price they could demand. But I still hope they give me some freedom back I had before quantum.

swtrs 7y ago

Interesting bundling their services via the browser. Its a single point of entry vs Google (seemingly) access disjoint. Password management, notes, file transfer (and storage?) browse and secure connections through one browser is something I think Id want.

jasonhansel 7y ago

As long as it's all FOSS, this sounds like an excellent idea. I'd gladly pay for Mozilla to stop being beholden to Google.

nexuist 7y ago
Is it still FOSS if it's paid?
- otabdeveloper3 7y ago
  Yes. "Free as in freedom".
  - sjwright 7y ago
    To be as charitable as possible to the grandparent, it may depend on whether there are any closed-source elements to the cloud services. We don't know for certain because it has yet to be announced. (Of course there's no realistic chance of that happening given Mozilla's foundational principles and solid track record thereof.)
    - bscphil 7y ago
      Aren't all the server side components of Pocket closed source?
- Millennium 7y ago
  As long as all of the source is available under FOSS licenses, yes. Free as in speech, not free as in beer, remember? Question is, will Mozilla actually stick to that? What the paid features also be open-source, at least to whatever extent the concept of source code applies?
  - jasonhansel 7y ago
    Ideally, Mozilla would let us pay to use their servers, while also providing an OSS self-hosted version with equivalent functionality. (Firefox is available under the MPL, which is a sort of compromise between copyleft and MIT-style licenses. So it'd be difficult to make any new FF feature entirely closed source.)

libeclipse 7y ago

A centralized VPN solution for all users is a terrible idea, and what is "secure cloud storage" going to offer that Dropbox doesn't? I understand that developing a browser is expensive work and Mozilla need money to do it. I support them in this effort. But honestly no ones gonna buy this

zrobotics 7y ago
I personally plan to, even though I run my own VPN & already pay for Dropbox. I definitely won't use the VPN, if the cloud storage looks decent I'll likely use it (since I already use encrypted volumes that I store in Dropbox, I only need to trust they won't delete/lose them). I already donate to mozilla, I guess people have forgotten the web was during the days IE was dominant. I'm frankly shocked that so many web developers seem to be fine only supporting Chrome, at least those were the sentiments I was hearing when Edge went to chromium.
scriptkiddy 7y ago
I'll probably buy it. I've been using Firefox for almost 15 years. Mozilla has never really let me down. I would much rather pay for an integrated vpn/cloud storage provider than maintain multiple accounts with multiple providers. Not to mention Mozilla's general focus on privacy protections that not all platforms share.

weinzierl 7y ago

I'd be happy to pay for Firefox, but I have a few points that are important to me. They are probably not very realistic but here they are anyway: 1. I would like my money to go into Firefox development and nowhere else. I certainly don't want my money spent on their content business, even if it is used as a leverage to generate more money for Firefox development. I'm torn about Rust development because I certainly would love to see Rust flourish, but if we allow the money go into personally preferred projects it becomes hard to draw the line. 2. I would like a Firefox with absolutely no strings attached. - No Pocket, not even a trace of it. The proper place for Pocket is a plugin. - No experiments, labs or whatever they call it (see Mr. Robot for an example) - No network connections to third party hosts as long I haven't explicitly opted in. - Safe search off by default - No predefined search engines - No predefined start page 3. I would like Mozilla (as a whole and not only the Firefox branch) to be more careful with the selection of their businesses partners. I'm am not aiming at their co-operations with Google, Yandex and the like, which are OK for me. At least as long as my points from above are respected. Specifically I'm OK if the free version of Firefox continues to be sponsored mainly by Google. I'm not OK with business deals of the kind they had with Cliqz for example. 4. I would like to be able to pay without having to be logged into a Firefox account. This is actually davidhyde's idea from another thread [1] but I added it here because I fully agree. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20144726 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20144726

boudin 7y ago
Yes, I couldn't agree more. I'm a Firefox user, never switched to chrome because I always had concerned with it. If this an attempt to switch the business model and become independent from search engines, it needs to do it properly. If it's the case, I would be a happily paying as, as much as I'm not fond of some of the decisions made by Mozilla like pocket or labs as you mentioned, it's the only browser I feel I can use without spitting on my beliefs.
sametmax 7y ago
I'm pretty sure you are right now paying a lot more money to companies doing a lot less efforts Mozilla is currently doing. And now you are asking even more of them, just as a condition for maybe giving them something day. See, that's one of the weirdest problem in FOSS: the fans hold them to a way too high standard, making it twice as hard to thrive. Once because it's hard to make money as an open source, benevolent product in a world of free for all. And another time because the very people that should be supporting you will always say you don't do enough.

Millennium 7y ago

Good luck to them, assuming they stick to their principles. But IIRC, experiments with paid browsers have typically not ended well. What makes them think they can pull it off?

sametmax 7y ago
Because: - it's only an experimental additional source of revenue. They already got money covered, they are just trying to find new way to become more financially independent. - they don't intend to sell the current state of Firefox. It will still be free. They intend to add stuff on top of the already awesome experience.
nallerooth 7y ago
My guess is that they won't be performing experiments with paying users, for two reasons: 1. Paying users are too valuable. 2. Free users can "opt out" of experiments by paying - and they'll get some nice features for "free" as they do so. (Edit, formatting)

bambax 7y ago

Chrome crippling adblockers creates a huge opportunity for paid competition. I would gladly buy a browser just to be sure adblock will always work. Of course, FF + uBO is free, and one can always make donations. But buying a product feels different. Also, businesses can expense what they buy with an invoice -- usually not the case with donations.

wyc 7y ago

There is a class of products with strong elements of charitable contribution. For example Plex Pass, endangered species chocolate, LWN subscription, and select blockchain tokens--and maybe this too. There are hard to pin down non-commercial benefits to purchasers mixed in with traditional value drivers. With Plex, I purchased a lifetime membership not because I valued any of the added features (I don't use them to this day), but because I got so much value out of the project that I felt indebted and wished to express my gratitude. I wanted the project to live on, and I also got to brag about my deeds on tech forums. The incredible scaling characteristics of software allow me to already enjoy most of the benefit from the free/open base edition alone. Here are reasons for my "charity-driven" purchases: - Admiration for project vision and desire to ensure its longevity - A sense of gratitude due to incommensurate value enjoyed for very cheap or free - Wanting to belong to the community and feel like part of the journey I find myself valuing these items as "real commercial benefit": - Strong privacy guarantees - Cost-plus models such as selling managed storage, bandwidth, etc. - Subscription to updates backed by regular human labor - Access to premium support/SLA

osrec 7y ago

If they want us to pay, they MUST provide dev tools that are as good as Chrome's, if not better. My team builds a lot of PWAs, and Firefox simply did not provide good enough diagnostic tools, so we couldn't use it in earnest (even though we really wanted to).

yorwba 7y ago
What specific functionality of the Chrome dev tools did you miss in Firefox?
- fernandotakai 7y ago
  yeah, i keep hearing that here on HN (and only here, for some reason) but i myself use firefox and chrome dev tools almost daily and i never once thought "yeah this is missing". well, for one, chrome is actually missing one big thing for me: a dark theme.
  - SquareWheel 7y ago
    Chrome dev tools have a dark theme. It's under settings.
- osrec 7y ago
  Ability to stop/start/reinstall service workers, view app manifests, validate app manifests, add apps to the desktop etc, store local results as global variables in the console. Connect mobile devices and run a local server on the mobile device. There are more, but I can't think of them currently.
  - bzbarsky 7y ago
    The UI is not very pretty, but about:serviceworkers lets you reinstall or unregister serviceworkers.
- BoumTAC 7y ago
  Working source map

user17843 7y ago

When it comes to dependence on ad-tech money, the writing is on the wall: > Cost per click on Google properties — which roughly measures the amount Alphabet charges advertisers for each ad served on its web sites — dropped 29 percent from last year and 9 percent from last quarter, which might be alarming investors concerned that Google’s pricing power for ads is eroding. [1] Additionally, Firefox is losing users, around 50,000 - 100,000 per day. [2] They now want to add all kinds of additional stuff in order to make money. For a browser this is a death sentence. A browser can not be more than a browser, and ad tiles are the only practical way of making money next to search engine deals. While a pro-version of Firefox is certainly an interesting idea which can be sold to a tech-savvy minority, it neither can diversify their revenue in a meaningful way, nor is clear yet whether Mozilla is going to offer a paid Firefox version, or simply tries to upsell a software bundle branded with their name. Mozilla paid around 30 million to aquire Pocket (one of their supposed foundations for making money), but there isn't any data to show whether they are profitable with it. Given the low number of ads in Pocket, they probably aren't profitable. In 2017, according to their financial report, they only made 2,5 million with Pocket ads. Opera is the only other major browser that has to survive without having a tech giant behind them. They do everything they can to make money with Opera. And it has boiled down to ads in the start page and licensing. There’s nothing more you can do. Opera is surviving on three kind of deals: [3] – search (ca 60%) – ads in start page – licensing deals on mobile phones Licensing is off limits to mozilla because they have lost the mobile market. So all that is left is ads on the start page. Its that simple. There’s also a lesson to learn for Mozilla from the time Opera abandoned Presto: [4] > “Because of our switch to the Blink engine, our retention rate on desktop users is much better now. This is because most websites work in Opera since we’re using the same engine as Google. We think we’ve become more relevant after we moved over to the Blink platform, and more companies now start to work with us,” Boilesen said. > “We’ve got twice as many developers on the desktop browser now than we had with Presto, because all [our] resources went into maintaining Presto. The only error we made with Presto was that we kept it too long. Our change to Blink was because we wanted to get on the offensive with regards to innovation, we used too many resources to keep Presto competitive." There are only two ways. You either stay innovative and keep up with the times, or you downsize and develop for a small niche group. Mozilla is doing neither. [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/04/alphabet-earnings-q4-2018.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/04/alphabet-earnings-q4-2018.ht... [2] https://data.firefox.com https://data.firefox.com [3] https://techcrunch.com/2018/07/02/browser-maker-opera-has-filed-to-go-public/ https://techcrunch.com/2018/07/02/browser-maker-opera-has-fi... [4] https://www.zdnet.com/article/show-me-the-money-how-opera-started-thinking-about-the-bottom-line-and-what-that-did-to-its-software/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/show-me-the-money-how-opera-st...

eitland 7y ago

I'm a huge Firefox fan, but as many others here point out: for this to work in the long run they have to respect us and stop pulling all kinds of iRobot nonsense etc. Mozilla needs to understand it is not OK to mess with my Internet banking client. The browser is now critical Internet infrastructure and it is not OK when someone scares me by force installing extensions. Also while Normandie would have been OK with me of I knew about it ot annoyed me when I found out about it because of a mistake. Mozilla could have had a 9/10 score but thanks to issues like this I rate them 7/10. (Chrome however is far worse.)

Vinnl 7y ago

This looks like they're not so much launching a paid version of Firefox-the-browser, but a paid subscription service, including e.g. a VPN service. This is in line with their recent push towards Firefox as a brand for related services and products like Firefox Send and Lockwise in general, with the browser being specifically referred to as Firefox Browser. So presumably, Firefox accounts will become a freemium service, where paid accounts have e.g. higher limits for Firefox Send, a VPN, etc.

absorber 7y ago
If Mozilla is able to setup Firefox as a turn-key noob-friendly solution for a more secure and private web experience, then I can definitely see this as a sustainable business model. For that however, many things (which are far from trivial) have to be done. Among other things: 1. Focus on security. That means among other things: 1a: Reducing core code complexity (for example, removing Pocket and integrating it only as an opt-in extension) 1b: More audits 1c: More Rust (and Servo by that extension) 2. Focus on integrating more privacy-enhancing features, such as: 2a: Reducing the effectiveness of browser fingerprinting 2b: Integrating more features from Tor-Browser into vanilla Firefox. Would be even better if they integrated Tor out of the box too. In fact, Firefox should perhaps aim at 0 difference between TBB and vanilla Firefox. 2c: Reducing reliance on (user-hostile) search engines. Perhaps integrate DuckDuckGo as default search engine in the future? 3. Focus on marketing campaign which includes super noob-friendly (video) tutorials. I'm thinking something in the Kurzgesagt style.

MikusR 7y ago

It will come with Premium Mr. Robot adds.

robohoe 7y ago

Remember when Opera had a free version with an ad on it? Ah those days... Hopefully Mozilla will not go down that path. I certainly don't think so with all they are doing in respect to privacy.

scandox 7y ago

I will pay for this IF they improve their PDF view/print. I know a lot of people say this, but it's just a really important feature for me which is really poor in Firefox. And I do pay for software and contribute financially to open source projects.

DiseasedBadger 7y ago

I would do that in an instant if it: Dropped WideVine Dropped WebRtc Brought back XUL Extensions Otherwise, I'll keep using a pre-australis fork, until I probably eventually just decide to use Chrome. Firefox different distinguish itself from Chrome.

dralley 7y ago
Wow, that's the most unreasonable take I think I've ever seen. Also, Firefox doesn't come with Widevine. You have to click yes to download the module the first time you visit a page that uses it.
- jandrese 7y ago
  Dropping WebRTC doesn't seem all that unreasonable. It's not used that often and is a major source of information leaks.

samcday 7y ago

Finally, a proper way to vote with my wallet in the browser wars. I'm sure Firefox can make more money from me individually by allowing me to pay them, rather than funneling me through Google for some eyeball $$$s, especially since I've personally switched to DuckDuckGo. Actually that makes me wonder - how does Mozilla currently make money off me if I've stopped using Google searches in Firefox?

pkaye 7y ago
How much would you pay for Firefox per year?
- Brain_Thief 7y ago
  Not OP but I would pay $5-10 per month without blinking an eye.
  - tracker1 7y ago
    Similarly, if there were a $20-50/year option, I'd probably go that route.
- samcday 7y ago
  It depends on what other value adds they bolt onto their "Firefox Pro" offering. Just for Firefox itself as it currently is, if there was some official way to pay for it, I think $5-10 (some small multiple of a cup of coffee deal) is fair to support development for what is essentially the only remaining competitor to Google.

el_cujo 7y ago

Not sure about a Mozilla-run VPN. I'd trust them to have a competent-enough service, but I would definitely not expect them to try resisting any western government getting hold of their logs (though I guess the claim of any VPN to actually accomplish this is dubious at best). Maybe a good option if you live somewhere like China or certain Middle Eastern countries where you need a VPN just to get news not controlled by the government, but all of the VPN users who just want to hide their IP when torrenting will probably look elsewhere.

morpheuskafka 7y ago
I think the latter would be fine as well. The objective their is to block DMCA notices sent by bots not suboeonas that require a human to be involved. Those rarely if ever occur.
magduf 7y ago
>Maybe a good option if you live somewhere like China or certain Middle Eastern countries where you need a VPN just to get news not controlled by the government Could this cause Firefox to be banned in China?

cgtyoder 7y ago

Let's hope it includes blocking auto-play videos from TheNextWeb.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
SanchoPanda 7y ago
About:config Media autoplay default: 1 Media autoplay allow muted: false

burtonator 7y ago

I really want a version of Firefox that doesn't have adblock and is ad paid so it's free. We could call it.. Chrome!

chrshawkes 7y ago

I would pay for a browser that didn't spy on me everywhere I went, this doesn't fit the bill for me.

verbatim 7y ago
How does it spy on you?

hjek 7y ago

Looks to me like they'll be charging for an integrated VPN service; not like they're releasing a separate version of Firefox with proprietary components. Brilliant way of funding free/libre software.

neilv 7y ago

If this move will let Mozilla fund its operations, in an honest and straightforward manner, while doing things that peeve the surveillance&brochure&bigmoat dotcoms, that seems potentially great news.

yogthos 7y ago

I already donate to Mozilla, and I'd be happy to pay to fund an actual open source browser that's not being produced by an ads company.

gurumeditations 7y ago

$500M a year isn’t enough to develop Firefox?

bdcravens 7y ago
Most of their money comes from Google. I presume they see a future where that becomes less likely.

egypturnash 7y ago

Can we talk about the auto play video in the middle of this for a “Smell DJ” box for a moment. People keep on trying to make the Internet of Smells and the devices keep on being bought by absolutely nobody. Who funds these things? Who thinks there’s a market waiting to be tapped? I see some kind of scent-making box announced every four or five years and they all just fade without a trace. This one can be controlled by Alexa. I doubt that’s gonna be the wrinkle that makes it a must-have.

Proven 7y ago

> with features like a VPN and secure cloud storage. A VPN: where you don't need it, you can use it. Where you need it, you can't access it. This is true in most cases. Cloud storage: it can be cheaper only if value is extracted by data mining. As they presumably won't do that, I can't see how it can be cheaper or more user friendly than sharing a self encrypted drive hosted on cheap S3 service. And most S3 Web drives work with any client, while Firefox secure storage is likely to be Firefox-only (single app). It's going to be hard to pull that off.

acjohnson55 7y ago

Take my money! I've received incalculable value from using Mozilla products and I'll gladly pay to support them, especially when it comes to increased privacy.

farisjarrah 7y ago
I really hope there is a Paid Mozilla email service in there somewhere. That's what will get me to instantly sign up.
- newscracker 7y ago
  I've been donating to Thunderbird the past few years when it started accepting donations just for it (instead of being a donation to Mozilla though Thunderbird was spun off as a community driven project with some support from Mozilla). If Mozilla comes with a paid email service focusing on privacy that's not just a white label rebranding of ProtonMail (which I won't use) or another existing provider, I'd surely be one of the first to try it out. Something that's preferably cheaper for multiple mailboxes with own domain support would be awesome.
  - TechieKid 7y ago
    Why would you not use ProtonMail? Genuine case of out of the loop.

virusduck 7y ago

Netscape is back on the menu, boys!

JoshMnem 7y ago

I'm a long-time Firefox/Mozilla user, and I'd give it a try for $10/month. It would be an easy sell to me if it includes a reasonable amount of online storage.

Endy 7y ago

There is no way Mozilla can remain a corporate entity and simultaneously make me feel like they deserve my money. It would require a complete clean break with Google, with the understanding that if they can't make it on their own, with their users, then it needs to be just a community project. If it makes money for Google, I don't trust it. If it supports Google, I don't trust it. And right now, Firefox does both.

lmorchard 7y ago

Yeah, this is a kind of misleading headline. I can't predict the future, but AFAIK there are no plans to launch a paid version of Firefox. There are plans to launch paid subscription services & products in a Firefox brand family. Some of services may even be independent from the browser and be separate standalone apps & products. Some of the services may even - gasp - work in a non-Firefox browser. Think of things like Firefox Send, Firefox Monitor, Firefox Lockbox, a system-wide VPN, an in-browser secure proxy. Specific plans are still in progress, but I don't think any of them are literally "you pay for browser now"

newscracker 7y ago

I see more than a few comments with some form of "I would pay if X/if not X/does X/does not X". The article, which has limited details, says that it would b some bundled services, such as a VPN service (like what Mozilla partnered with ProtonVPN for as a limited trial before) and online cloud storage. At this time, it doesn't seem like this would be a paid version of the Firefox browser with a different feature set. Any decision of that kind could confuse people and hurt the Firefox brand, IMO. Can we instead put out our wishlist of services that we'd want Mozilla to handle because we trust it? 1. I'm stealing at least one idea from elsewhere in this discussion, which is a private paid email service with standard protocol support (like IMAP) with cheaper pricing for multiple mailboxes. 2. Another would be a revival of the Persona (authentication) project and service. In light of Apple's announcement of "Sign in with Apple" in WWDC, this would make a lot more sense for people who trust Apple now, but don't really like the idea of trusting a for-profit corporation forever or have some other reservations with "Sign in with Apple". Persona can actually work with "Sign in with Apple" and many other providers. 3. A hosted Bitwarden or Bitwarden-like service that can work on multiple platforms and browsers could be interesting.

richliss 7y ago

I'd happily pay as long as: 1. It also funds Thunderbird. 2. Their focus is on privacy/no telemetry, security and overall experience. NOT more rebrands! 3. It helps pay for continuously updated blocklists, miner blocking lists, anti-content farm lists etc. that get built into the browser rather than through add-ons. 4. Curated add-ons that are funded especially around security - too many add-ons don't get updated. 5. Real profile management and switching. 6. An expert mode with a proper download manager (pausing, reordering etc.) 7. Self-maintaining, self-repairing and self-updating options so it ALWAYS just works. 8. An outreach program to get websites/apps/etc. that are broken to fix them so we don't have to open up an instance of Chrome.

ForHackernews 7y ago
You can (and I do) specifically donate to fund Thunderbird: https://donate.mozilla.org/en-US/thunderbird/ https://donate.mozilla.org/en-US/thunderbird/ Unfortunately, I believe that general Mozilla funding no longer supports Thunderbird in any way.

dontbenebby 7y ago

Looking at their previous partnership with ProtonVPN, ten dollars a month for a VPN seems a bit high. My self hosted Algo instance only run ~6 a month with tax. Maybe if they also gave some cloud storage it would be worth it. Being able to store a veracrypt volume with my important data in the cloud securely would be nice. Current options seem to be Amazon, Google, or Dropbox. Spideroak has the "hive" but there's not really an option to just upload stuff, it needs to reside locally and be mirrored.

unimpressive 7y ago
> Looking at their previous partnership with ProtonVPN, ten dollars a month for a VPN seems a bit high. My self hosted Algo instance only run ~6 a month with tax. You are not the target market for this product. "A few more dollars than my self hosted solution..." is a sentence that typically takes you way outside the target audience of most products in this vein.
- dontbenebby 7y ago
  >You are not the target market for this product. I've been using Firefox since it was Firebird. The people who did not abandon it are technically savvy folks who enjoy controlling our browser experience.

floatingatoll 7y ago

The original interview is here: https://t3n.de/news/mozilla-ceo-chris-beard-anbieten-1168614/ https://t3n.de/news/mozilla-ceo-chris-beard-anbieten-1168614...

madisfun 7y ago

I use Firefox and have setup a monthly donation anyway. I understand that many people need something extra in return to give their money. So if there is a paid version which gives access to some _services_ like VPN or storage, and it works better than donations, then why not.

equalunique 7y ago

I'd pay for firefox. Relatively fine quality FOSS deserves it, so long as the "do no evil"

BuckRogers 7y ago

I'm unsure how many of the comments here read the article at all, but I see this as a smart move. Built-in VPN and cloud storage makes a lot of sense. They're building enough features between Lockwise, Send and soon VPN and some cloud storage, they're going to have a compelling package. Toss in a secure @firefox.com email to use on the included cloud storage and Mozilla has my money.