4 ms·

>its level of bundled spyware is not very different from any other commercial software product. Maybe that is more a sign of how necessary it is, rather than i

>its level of bundled spyware is not very different from any other commercial software product. Maybe that is more a sign of how necessary it is, rather than indication that Mozilla is somehow an evil company. "Phoning home" let's them know which features are being used and need to be maintained, and where the bugs are occurring. Experiments are how Firefox tests improvements in a controlled way. Sponsored search engines are how Firefox can exist at all.

ta17711771 6y ago
> Sponsored search engines are how Firefox can exist at all. Mozilla used to do just fine in making their browser before the hundreds of millions of "Google doesn't want an antitrust suit" dollars............
- fyfy18 6y ago
  Most of the revenue for the Mozilla Foundation comes from bundling Google as the default browser, and has done for a long time. https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/annualreport/2018/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/annualreport/2018/
  - aspenmayer 6y ago
    I think what parent poster was referring to is not the source of the money but the reason: Much like Intel has cross-licensed patents with AMD in order to keep their competition viable enough to stave off monopoly and anticompetitive business practices accusations, it could be argued that Google’s promotional search agreements with Mozilla for Firefox are more to Google’s benefit than to Firefox’s.
    - nindalf 6y ago
      What does it matter if Google avoided an anti-trust suit? What matters to me and (I bet) other consumers is that we have a good browser that isn't Chrome. One that tries to keep Chrome honest when it comes to web standards. Consumers actually have increased choice, we're in a better place than we would be if Chrome was a monopoly. If that helps Google avoid anti-trust scrutiny in this area, fine by me.
      - aspenmayer 6y ago
        The comment thread we’re both replying to implied that Firefox couldn’t exist without the Google money, which is disingenuous, because Firefox existed in its various code rebases, and under former Mozilla brand names, long before the Google money came in. Mozilla would have to make some tough choices, but Firefox would be maintained by volunteers independent of Mozilla if necessary. Mozilla isn’t Firefox. Maybe the Google money benefits Mozilla more than Firefox, and more than it benefits Firefox users. For now, Firefox still has the edge on features which enhance user privacy[1], so I hope to see a project like OP for Firefox and Edge soon. More choices is a good thing. [1] https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/ublock-origin-125-now-blocks-cloaked-first-party-scripts-firefox-only/ https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/ublock-origin...
AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
> "Phoning home" let's them know which features are being used and need to be maintained This is part of the reason modern software is often crap. It gets sanded down to only the most used features, screwing over anyone with a slightly niche use case in the process.
- bagacrap 6y ago
  I think Firefox would be more "crap"py if every feature at least one of its users wanted was included. The binary size and startup time would suffer, new feature development would slow to a crawl as every change becomes more difficult, and the interface would be clogged with things I don't want.
- pfraze 6y ago
  I think the situation is more complex than you're asserting. Unless a program has stopped development, it is not a product -- it is an ongoing work that's more akin to a service being provided by the developers. UI changes, bugfixes, refactors, and etc mean that existing features are not zero-cost to the developers. I understand that it's frustrating to lose niche features, but that's a symptom of other complexities, not a cause-free act of foolishness by developers.
MintelIE 6y ago
It’s not necessary. It’s invasive and intrusive and unacceptable. I use Icecat and will continue to do so.

ta17711771 6y ago

> Sponsored search engines are how Firefox can exist at all. Mozilla used to do just fine in making their browser before the hundreds of millions of "Google doesn't want an antitrust suit" dollars............

fyfy18 6y ago
Most of the revenue for the Mozilla Foundation comes from bundling Google as the default browser, and has done for a long time. https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/annualreport/2018/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/annualreport/2018/
- aspenmayer 6y ago
  I think what parent poster was referring to is not the source of the money but the reason: Much like Intel has cross-licensed patents with AMD in order to keep their competition viable enough to stave off monopoly and anticompetitive business practices accusations, it could be argued that Google’s promotional search agreements with Mozilla for Firefox are more to Google’s benefit than to Firefox’s.
  - nindalf 6y ago
    What does it matter if Google avoided an anti-trust suit? What matters to me and (I bet) other consumers is that we have a good browser that isn't Chrome. One that tries to keep Chrome honest when it comes to web standards. Consumers actually have increased choice, we're in a better place than we would be if Chrome was a monopoly. If that helps Google avoid anti-trust scrutiny in this area, fine by me.
    - aspenmayer 6y ago
      The comment thread we’re both replying to implied that Firefox couldn’t exist without the Google money, which is disingenuous, because Firefox existed in its various code rebases, and under former Mozilla brand names, long before the Google money came in. Mozilla would have to make some tough choices, but Firefox would be maintained by volunteers independent of Mozilla if necessary. Mozilla isn’t Firefox. Maybe the Google money benefits Mozilla more than Firefox, and more than it benefits Firefox users. For now, Firefox still has the edge on features which enhance user privacy[1], so I hope to see a project like OP for Firefox and Edge soon. More choices is a good thing. [1] https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/ublock-origin-125-now-blocks-cloaked-first-party-scripts-firefox-only/ https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/ublock-origin...

AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago

> "Phoning home" let's them know which features are being used and need to be maintained This is part of the reason modern software is often crap. It gets sanded down to only the most used features, screwing over anyone with a slightly niche use case in the process.

bagacrap 6y ago
I think Firefox would be more "crap"py if every feature at least one of its users wanted was included. The binary size and startup time would suffer, new feature development would slow to a crawl as every change becomes more difficult, and the interface would be clogged with things I don't want.
pfraze 6y ago
I think the situation is more complex than you're asserting. Unless a program has stopped development, it is not a product -- it is an ongoing work that's more akin to a service being provided by the developers. UI changes, bugfixes, refactors, and etc mean that existing features are not zero-cost to the developers. I understand that it's frustrating to lose niche features, but that's a symptom of other complexities, not a cause-free act of foolishness by developers.

MintelIE 6y ago

It’s not necessary. It’s invasive and intrusive and unacceptable. I use Icecat and will continue to do so.