5 ms·

How? Their three main competitors: Chrome, Edge (if that even counts, being Chromium based), and Safari are completely free AND installed by default on their re

How? Their three main competitors: Chrome, Edge (if that even counts, being Chromium based), and Safari are completely free AND installed by default on their respective operating system(s). "Not being installed by default" is already a very high hurdle for mainstream acceptance. If you tack on some sort of cost, I can't see that working well for adoption. Personally, I think they're on the right track with the VPN service. VPN services are already something people are used to paying for, and one of the biggest issues with VPN services are trying to figure out who you can trust out of all the nameless shell companies out there. Mozilla is a trusted brand.

mrweasel 6y ago
I have no idea, but I'm also not head of Mozilla. If they can't make money on Firefox in the future, why even bother to build and maintain it. Then they just become a VPN resell who for some unknown reason keeps building a browser. That doesn't make any sense business wise. If the management of Mozilla can't find a way to profit from Firefox, other than leaching on the goodwill and branding, then I don't think they're sufficiently competent to full fill their roles.
gmb2k1 6y ago
What I don't get about the VPN thing is, that they're just a reseller of mullvad VPN. So, even if I trust Mozilla, that isn't of any help, if I don't trust mullvad. And if I do trust mullvad, why wouldn't I buy access from them directly? The only reason to get the Mozilla VPN is, to help them to a little commission for ideological reasons.
- dorchadas 6y ago
  I don't think the VPN is targeted to people like you or me, who know about them already and know how to research and trust them. It's targeted towards a more "everyday" user, which might not think to go to Mullvad to buy it, or necessarily worry about the privacy implications (personally, I've heard good things about Mullvad and switched over after PIA sold), and just like the ease of integration through buying it with Firefox.
  - gmb2k1 6y ago
    FWIW, I heard good things about mullvad, too. Can't claim, that they didn't pick a reputable provider.
- s_dev 6y ago
  >why wouldn't I buy access from them directly? Because far more people are familiar with Mozilla than Mullvad. Knowing they're the same service is just insight that can save a few euro.
  - gmb2k1 6y ago
    It's not like they're hiding the fact that they utilize mullvad. The price doesn't differ that much also. Currently, it's even cheaper through Mozilla: 4,99$ < 5,00€. You're right that they have indeed more brand recognition. Basically, the value proposition is: Out of all the VPN providers, we already did the research for you, to pick one that's trustworthy.
    - manquer 6y ago
      Yes, if the product picks up they can build it in-house anytime they want . They have only spent effort on a reseller partnership till now, so if it fails to pickup not much Engg effort has been wasted either
- heavyset_go 6y ago
  Mozilla famously signs contracts with firms that secure extra privacy protections for their customers. It's what they did with CloudFlare and Comcast. If I were to use CloudFlare's VPN service of Comcast's DNS, I'd use it through Mozilla because their contracts stipulate extra protections.
  - discordance 6y ago
    Interesting... so Mozilla is kind of acting like a certification and licensing service for other privacy services
    - heavyset_go 6y ago
      That's one way to look at it. The way I see it is that these partnerships prove that companies don't need to collect and share private data to make a buck.
    - 20after4 6y ago
      Mozilla, Google, Microsoft and Apple collectively decide which SSL certificate authorities are trusted. The world would be a much worse place if Mozilla were not part of that process. Which organization would you rather trust to vet the security of every TLS connection your browser makes.
  - floatingatoll 6y ago
    And with Google, too: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20807600 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20807600 "Mozilla has a legal contract with Google that prevents them from using our Google Analytics data for mining or from sharing it with third parties, among other privacy-protecting provisions."
xorcist 6y ago
That's an argument to give up on Firefox and let the community take over, if winning the browser war was the only reason to exist. If instead the opposite strategy is chosen, the one where Firefox is kept relevant, Servo and WASM would instead be strategically important. This middle road is a risky one, which can lead to nowhere.
andor 6y ago
It's right that people are paying for VPNs, but I'm wondering why. Most connections use TLS now, including DNS over HTTP. MITM attacks should not be much of an issue. What's the use case for regular consumers? Is it about getting around geoblocking or using P2P file sharing without consequences?
- corford 6y ago
  >Is it about getting around geoblocking or using P2P file sharing without consequences? Yes
  - stjohnswarts 6y ago
    Also for privacy in general from the ISP you use. It's nice to decouple your traffic from what is happening in that traffic. Only facebook/amazon/etc need to know where I'm headed on their particular website.
    - 20after4 6y ago
      SSL already does that for you.
- gruez 6y ago
  >What's the use case for regular consumers? Is it about getting around geoblocking or using P2P file sharing without consequences? It also makes you harder to track. If your ISP doesn't use CGNAT (ie. you have a dedicated ip), then your IP identifies you on a household level. Combine this with webrtc leaks or device fingerprinting and you can reliably identified at a device level. Compare this to a VPN server, which probably puts you in a pool of a few hundred/thousand people. If you rotate servers, it puts you in a pool of tens or hundreds of thousands of people.
- stjohnswarts 6y ago
  Most of us prefer the isp not going which IPs are going through so they can't QoS the stuff we like to the lowest. Although I suppose they could they could do the same with any traffic they can't readily identify and just throttle anything that looks like a VPN.
RJIb8RBYxzAMX9u 6y ago
Here's a VPN idea for Mozilla: bundle your VPN with a PO box / mail forwarding service. Target it to all the FAANG developers who's trying to take advantage of the WFH situation by moving to a lower CoL area, but are hesitant due to their companies' aggressive geographic-based compensation adjustments and enforcement. /s
- pkaye 6y ago
  Those FAANG developers have to use their employers laptops and VPN.
  - RJIb8RBYxzAMX9u 6y ago
    That's not a problem. For example, you could run the Mozilla VPN on your router, and your work VPN on your laptop.
randomsearch 6y ago
I agree. Use your brand and use Apple-like privacy oriented marketing. Start with a VPN. Other products could be: password manager; secure storage like Dropbox; and one day even email. Anything which dovetails with the browser and includes privacy issues. Having a well known browser brand is a huge asset to build upon.

mrweasel 6y ago

I have no idea, but I'm also not head of Mozilla. If they can't make money on Firefox in the future, why even bother to build and maintain it. Then they just become a VPN resell who for some unknown reason keeps building a browser. That doesn't make any sense business wise. If the management of Mozilla can't find a way to profit from Firefox, other than leaching on the goodwill and branding, then I don't think they're sufficiently competent to full fill their roles.

gmb2k1 6y ago

What I don't get about the VPN thing is, that they're just a reseller of mullvad VPN. So, even if I trust Mozilla, that isn't of any help, if I don't trust mullvad. And if I do trust mullvad, why wouldn't I buy access from them directly? The only reason to get the Mozilla VPN is, to help them to a little commission for ideological reasons.

dorchadas 6y ago
I don't think the VPN is targeted to people like you or me, who know about them already and know how to research and trust them. It's targeted towards a more "everyday" user, which might not think to go to Mullvad to buy it, or necessarily worry about the privacy implications (personally, I've heard good things about Mullvad and switched over after PIA sold), and just like the ease of integration through buying it with Firefox.
- gmb2k1 6y ago
  FWIW, I heard good things about mullvad, too. Can't claim, that they didn't pick a reputable provider.
s_dev 6y ago
>why wouldn't I buy access from them directly? Because far more people are familiar with Mozilla than Mullvad. Knowing they're the same service is just insight that can save a few euro.
- gmb2k1 6y ago
  It's not like they're hiding the fact that they utilize mullvad. The price doesn't differ that much also. Currently, it's even cheaper through Mozilla: 4,99$ < 5,00€. You're right that they have indeed more brand recognition. Basically, the value proposition is: Out of all the VPN providers, we already did the research for you, to pick one that's trustworthy.
  - manquer 6y ago
    Yes, if the product picks up they can build it in-house anytime they want . They have only spent effort on a reseller partnership till now, so if it fails to pickup not much Engg effort has been wasted either
heavyset_go 6y ago
Mozilla famously signs contracts with firms that secure extra privacy protections for their customers. It's what they did with CloudFlare and Comcast. If I were to use CloudFlare's VPN service of Comcast's DNS, I'd use it through Mozilla because their contracts stipulate extra protections.
- discordance 6y ago
  Interesting... so Mozilla is kind of acting like a certification and licensing service for other privacy services
  - heavyset_go 6y ago
    That's one way to look at it. The way I see it is that these partnerships prove that companies don't need to collect and share private data to make a buck.
  - 20after4 6y ago
    Mozilla, Google, Microsoft and Apple collectively decide which SSL certificate authorities are trusted. The world would be a much worse place if Mozilla were not part of that process. Which organization would you rather trust to vet the security of every TLS connection your browser makes.
- floatingatoll 6y ago
  And with Google, too: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20807600 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20807600 "Mozilla has a legal contract with Google that prevents them from using our Google Analytics data for mining or from sharing it with third parties, among other privacy-protecting provisions."

xorcist 6y ago

That's an argument to give up on Firefox and let the community take over, if winning the browser war was the only reason to exist. If instead the opposite strategy is chosen, the one where Firefox is kept relevant, Servo and WASM would instead be strategically important. This middle road is a risky one, which can lead to nowhere.

andor 6y ago

It's right that people are paying for VPNs, but I'm wondering why. Most connections use TLS now, including DNS over HTTP. MITM attacks should not be much of an issue. What's the use case for regular consumers? Is it about getting around geoblocking or using P2P file sharing without consequences?

corford 6y ago
>Is it about getting around geoblocking or using P2P file sharing without consequences? Yes
- stjohnswarts 6y ago
  Also for privacy in general from the ISP you use. It's nice to decouple your traffic from what is happening in that traffic. Only facebook/amazon/etc need to know where I'm headed on their particular website.
  - 20after4 6y ago
    SSL already does that for you.
gruez 6y ago
>What's the use case for regular consumers? Is it about getting around geoblocking or using P2P file sharing without consequences? It also makes you harder to track. If your ISP doesn't use CGNAT (ie. you have a dedicated ip), then your IP identifies you on a household level. Combine this with webrtc leaks or device fingerprinting and you can reliably identified at a device level. Compare this to a VPN server, which probably puts you in a pool of a few hundred/thousand people. If you rotate servers, it puts you in a pool of tens or hundreds of thousands of people.
stjohnswarts 6y ago
Most of us prefer the isp not going which IPs are going through so they can't QoS the stuff we like to the lowest. Although I suppose they could they could do the same with any traffic they can't readily identify and just throttle anything that looks like a VPN.

RJIb8RBYxzAMX9u 6y ago

Here's a VPN idea for Mozilla: bundle your VPN with a PO box / mail forwarding service. Target it to all the FAANG developers who's trying to take advantage of the WFH situation by moving to a lower CoL area, but are hesitant due to their companies' aggressive geographic-based compensation adjustments and enforcement. /s

pkaye 6y ago
Those FAANG developers have to use their employers laptops and VPN.
- RJIb8RBYxzAMX9u 6y ago
  That's not a problem. For example, you could run the Mozilla VPN on your router, and your work VPN on your laptop.

randomsearch 6y ago

I agree. Use your brand and use Apple-like privacy oriented marketing. Start with a VPN. Other products could be: password manager; secure storage like Dropbox; and one day even email. Anything which dovetails with the browser and includes privacy issues. Having a well known browser brand is a huge asset to build upon.