28 ms·

Is There a Google-Free Future for Firefox?

143 points by kiyanwang 6y ago

Y_Y 6y ago
> “Subscriptions are – I sometimes joke – like trading money for services, an idea whose time has come, rather than getting spied on and hoping everything works out.” I laughed in a sad way. I would actually pay for Firefox now, but I think charging for it isn't going to work out. (See also: Opera)
- afterburner 6y ago
  But then how long until I'm paying subscriptions and being spied on? It's kinda like how cable TV started with no commercials as a contrast to over-the-air TV, and then quickly introduced them...
  - qzw 6y ago
    I’m afraid it’s inevitable. If there’s a large enough audience, someone will be willing to pay to market to them. Almost no business will be able to say no to the money.
    - narag 6y ago
      Netflix?
      - jon-wood 6y ago
        Are doubtless taking money for product placement, which while less irritating than cutting into the show for an ad break, is still marketing.
      - vinay_ys 6y ago
        Don't they do brand product placement in their shows and do cross-promotion campaigns with those brands?
      - claudeganon 6y ago
        Netflix invests massively in tracking how users engage with content on their platform. They’ll either sell these services down the road to third parties or become a kind of quasi-monopoly player doing this in the entertainment industry, like Google or Facebook.
      - qzw 6y ago
        Call me a pessimist, but I think Netflix will only be ad-free for as long as it is a competitive advantage. The day will come when that’s no longer true, and the ads will come. When their growth has stalled and they have raised prices as much as the market will bear, how long can they resist “free” ad money? Will their shareholders just let them leave it on the table?
    - addicted 6y ago
      Ads are not the same thing as spying. One of the biggest problems with this whole discussion is that people, including those who should know better, are not making distinctions between ads based maybe on broad characteristics vs ads that are based on tracking every move you make across the internet, purchases in stores with credit cards, and micro targeting based on specific interests. With just ads you can place a direct value on how much people are willing to pay to not see them. Netflix does this. Hulu does this by offering 2 services, as free and and supported at different prices. Normal business practices should create a market that allows people who are willing to see ads and those who wish to pay more to be ad free to both be serviced. The problem right now with micro targeting and extreme spying is that you have a race to the bottom that has users paying for the services they use not through watching ads, or monetary payments but through data and information about themselves. That data is much more valuable than just for ads. It makes it extremely difficult for someone who isn’t the biggest player in a market to, for example, compete with the entrenched power. So it’s not just people watching creepy ads, but it also entrenches monopolies, and allows the likes of Google and Facebook to create new monopolies based on data they have gained from their existing monopolies. Ads are, if anything, the least problematic part about the spying and data collection because at least they are open and obvious to everyone. Google and Facebook do far more creepy things than what they do with the ads privately, but the largest uproar has been about ads simply because that’s the most transparent use of the crazy data collection practices.
      - Mediterraneo10 6y ago
        > distinctions between ads based maybe on broad characteristics vs ads that are based on tracking every move you make across the internet, purchases in stores with credit cards, and micro targeting based on specific interests. That very broad and general advertising of which you speak will only dwindle with time and therefore the distinction will not be a very useful one. Already ordinary billboards are being upgraded to smart billboards that can scan and identify the people walking by (facial recognition, Bluetooth, perhaps soon gait, etc.). The decline of print media means that we’re losing the one kind of advertising that can't hook into technology to track you.
      - m463 6y ago
  - 0xcde4c3db 6y ago
    Indeed. A paradox inherent to the notion of paying to avoid ads is that it identifies you as someone who has disposable income and is willing to spend it, i.e. someone who advertisers really want to target.
    - tehjoker 6y ago
      Pretty much the only way to make it happen is a foundation that has it written into their incorporation documents that they will never take ads or government bans. The incentives are too strong, so the large corporations get to manipulate the development of technologies by dangling ad money. Ad money isn't innocuous. It's about control, because if the recipient were to do something an advertiser doesn't like, they pull the money... for example strong privacy/anti-advertising technologies. This desire to please the interests of large corporations leads to large scale conformity.
      - jopsen 6y ago
        If you feel that way, perhaps advertising should be prohibited by law. But having absolutely no ads might not be ideal (or realistic).
        kovac 6y ago
        I don't think the problem is with ads. It's with personalised ads (or more specifically how they go about showing us personalised ads). A model where a site shows you a notice asking to opt in for personalised ads (otherwise show generic ads anyway) would be fine. But this means no site, no third party service should be allowed to track the user or collect data unless opted in.
        indigochill 6y ago
        Fundamentally, advertisers just want good ad<->user alignment and the zeitgeist is to accomplish this with invasive tracking. However, it needn't (I think) necessarily be this way. What if, instead, we looked at the material on the page and said, "This is a blog post about Linux. Let's put our advertisements about sysadmin books/seminars here." Or provide the content creator with a library of ads that they can choose from (they will typically be incentivized to select the most effective ads by performance-based compensation). Maybe prioritize the sorting of those ads against keywords in the content. Essentially, as opposed to profiling the user, profile the content. And give content creators more control over the user experience to discourage sleazy ads and encourage ads creators actually want on their site. There's some optimism wrapped into this, so I look forward to someone popping my optimism bubble.
  - AdmiralAsshat 6y ago
    Don't forget streaming now, too. I was a big fan of Pluto TV until it got purchased by Viacom or whomever. Now, just like cable TV, there are 800 channels going at any given moment, and all of them show their commercials at exactly the same time. I joke, but only partly, that there's not a jury in the country that would convict me if I murdered whoever instituted that change.
    - srtjstjsj 6y ago
      Why do you think giving you what you are paying for justifies murder?
  - srtjstjsj 6y ago
    "no ads" was never a selling point of cable. it's always been a balance of fees and ads.
    - SubiculumCode 6y ago
      It was when I first heard about cable as a kid.
    - pessimizer 6y ago
      This is not true. https://youtu.be/ZcDUttzlKLU?t=110 https://youtu.be/ZcDUttzlKLU?t=110 http://web.cecs.pdx.edu/~trent/ochs/lyrics/talking-pay-tv.html http://web.cecs.pdx.edu/~trent/ochs/lyrics/talking-pay-tv.ht...
    - wyclif 6y ago
      Nope. When cable TV first became available in the US the primary selling point is that there were no ads at all, unlike the big three networks.
    - misanthropian00 6y ago
      May I ask approximately how old you are?
  - elcritch 6y ago
    I cancelled a subscription to the Economist because after paying about 10x more than other news sources their online website still showed obnoxious ads. That irked me. If I'm paying a premium for a service good news I want it without ads and digital is my primary viewing media. But I don't think many companies can resist double dipping.
  - xg15 6y ago
    Also, subscriptions for software always have a kind of smell. I'm not paying for a service - the service is done by my PC via execution of the software (using my own power, storage and computing resources too, btw). So superficially, I'm paying for the permission to execute some software on my PC. It makes more sense if this is understood as paying to continuously keep the software up-to-date. But then, this would be the most honest thing to do: Request money for each update but let the user executive a particular version as long as they want.
    - edoceo 6y ago
      This leads to the issue of users running the insecure versions of the software, then blaming the vendor. Why didn't v30 have all the security fixes of v40!?
      - xg15 6y ago
        Yeah, sorry, then how about we stop producing so many security vulnerabilities? Because otherwise, we will end up in a world where no running code can be older than a month and software that is not actively being developed as part of a profitable business is automatically dead. Code does not rot and can be copied arbitrary many times. Why do we bend over backwards to turn an abundant resource not just into a scarce but into an expiring resource?
    - smt88 6y ago
      > But then, this would be the most honest thing to do: Request money for each update but let the user executive a particular version as long as they want. What software subscriptions don't work this way? The true desktop subscriptions, where you lose access to the software after you stop paying, seem to all offer the traditional alternative (pay once for the current version).
- smitty1e 6y ago
  "Freedom isn't free There's a heavy [FLOWERBED] fee."--Team America by way of the Babylon Bee
- echelon 6y ago
  The solution is for the DOJ to strip Chrome away from Google. They're doing dangerous things like AMP, removing the URL, and crippling ad blockers. Firefox would regain market traction without monopoly-funded loss leader Chrome.
  - dehrmann 6y ago
    Chrome is interesting because Firefox shows it could actually be a standalone business, and it's one of the scarier ones to let Google keep because of how much power it gives it.
    - srtjstjsj 6y ago
      Huh? Firefox is almost entirely funded by Google search.
      - dehrmann 6y ago
        Right. Chrome could do the same as an independent entity.
syshum 6y ago
Given the Mozilla is turning on the developer network, discontinuing RD in to the browser space, and focusing on "other products" like VPN, Pocket, and other services I am left to wonder if there is a future for Firefox at all Dev Tools is dead, Servo is Dead, MDN is dead, what is left. The current administration of Mozilla seems to want to turn it into a "consumer services" company focused instead of a browser developer. I am wonder how much longer before they drop the pretense, shut down the foundation, and change their mission statement hell I would not be surprised that with in 5 years they do not fall in line with what Microsoft called for [1] a little over a year ago and just make Firefox another Chromium based browser... [1] https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-guy-mozilla-should-give-up-on-firefox-and-go-with-chromium-too/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-guy-mozilla-should-g...
- gruez 6y ago
  >MSDN is dead I think you mean MDN. MSDN is the Microsoft variant ;)
  - syshum 6y ago
    You are correct, I have fixed the above...
- giancarlostoro 6y ago
  I wonder if the alternative is for the Rust foundation to one day buy out Firefox and pull it out of the claws of Mozilla if they are just going to have a nonprofit receiving donations not even going towards Firefox. Has anyone figured out what jacked up reason this is? My best guess is that if Mozilla is seen as selling adspace services (default browser search engine in this case) it is somehow seen as a for profit venture and would not allow them to have a non profit status, but at that point why not just have Firefox be like Chromium vs Google Chrome? Firefox Libre and Mozilla Firefox. I fail to understand why we cant directly donate to Firefox and only Firefox. Most people really dont care for anything else Mozilla is doing outside of Rust and Thunderbird and tbe latter two seem to have a solid future as far as I can tell.
surround 6y ago
How do other companies that develop free/open source software make money? (Other than the professional support/training model that Canonical and Redhat use - it probably doesn’t apply to Firefox)
- jlarocco 6y ago
  Giving software away for free isn't a business model, was never meant to be, and the math just doesn't work. There are some very small niche projects where a few small core developers make a living doing contract development implementing features and fixing bugs, but it typically doesn't scale into a company. Most successful "open source" companies use an open core model, where they provide services and proprietary add-ons related to an open source project that they contribute to but may not actually own. Think GitHub or Docker.
- xiphias2 6y ago
  There were multiple successful open source projects here where companies payed for taking part of the planning of new features. Google already pays for the built-in default search for Firefox, I don't see a reason why other services couldn't be built in as long as the user gets something in return and keeps its privacy/freedom.
  - ZekeSulastin 6y ago
    Like Pocket/etc.? I seem to remember the userbase of sites like this excoriating Mozilla for including that, so I would assume any such effort now would be similarly rejected.
    - xiphias2 6y ago
      Pocket was a too strong integration probably. Offline browsing on mobile phones is still a missing feature, and pocket doesn't solve it well. Firefox could have added the necessary features for a great pocket plugin (and its competitors) instead of just integrating with it (and buying it). Blender is a much more successful example (and there was another open source project here on HN with $300k income where companies could pay for features to be implemented, but still not company specific).
ve55 6y ago
I'm not sure there is a Google-free future for any major part of the Internet, so likely no
- yepthatsreality 6y ago
  As long as devs keep drinking the Chrome kool-aid it won’t. Developers actually have a lot of pull but do not exercise it. As the job market shifts to more blue collar workers. There is less expertise required and those workers are responsible for running tools they don’t understand rather than coding and making ideas. Google’s best interest is to keep development behind closed doors until they’re ready for the public to use their tech, rather than having new tech developed by other companies or via open source.
  - oscargrouch 6y ago
    I think this is a case where "It's the economy, stupid" gets right. We need to build a economy for open-source projects or else the tech titans will eat the world. People need to wake up that its not the nineties anymore, and without a better ecosystem for independent projects to thrive, we are doomed to depend on the scraps of what the titans left to us (mostly their open-source collaterals) Some independent project might pop here and there, but keep them going without structure will lead them to a slow burn to death.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
- dehrmann 6y ago
  That might be like saying, in 2001, there isn't a Microsoft-free future for desktop computing. Apple gained a little market share since then, but it's a mostly moot point because of the rise of mobile. There's going to be a next big thing, and there's a good chance it won't be Google...or Google will just buy it.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
Hnrobert42 6y ago
I read (probably on HN) that Google keeps paying FF, so Google can point to FF as a viable competitor during anti-trust investigations. Since it seems those investigations are able to launch in the US, it will be interesting to see what happens to the relationship afterwards.
- pmoriarty 6y ago
  Firefox wouldn't even need the money if web standards weren't so insanely bloated that you actually need to hire teams of professional programmers to write and maintain a browser.
  - marcinzm 6y ago
    Web standards are bloated because that's what users want: features. That's like saying "Firefox would be fine if there wasn't any well funded competition driving up the feature count of browsers to meet consumer demand."
    - pjmlp 6y ago
      Actually no, Web was perfectly fine with HTML 4.01/XHTML, but then some people at browser teams decided to declare war on native apps, HTML 5 was born and we are a couple of years before ChromeOS takes it all.
      - jacob019 6y ago
        That depends on what you consider fine. Modern decelopment is so much more productive, no way I could go back to the jquery days.
        pjmlp 6y ago
        Interactive documents, everything else should be a native app using Internet protocols.
      - lights0123 6y ago
flerchin 6y ago
Firefox is great. I use it as my primary browser on both my android and linux workstations. I do have to drop to Chrome occasionally for some aspects of web development, not because the tools are better, but expose things differently. I... should probably send Mozilla some money.
- jacob019 6y ago
  I was thinking the same thing. I would probably donate if they asked.
- surround 6y ago
  Money donated to the Mozilla Foundation doesn’t actually go towards browser development, does it?
  - bzb5 6y ago
    The time has come for Mozilla to offer a way of donating that guarantees that 100% of the cash goes to Firefox.
    - srtjstjsj 6y ago
      Mozilla has 20 years of evidence showing that people "who would donate but only on my terms" aren't a serious revenue source.
      - luckylion 6y ago
        Have they? My impression was that you were never able to donate to Firefox directly. You could only buy the whole package, that is: Firefox + some stuff you don't care about and some stuff you might disagree with.
        eitland 6y ago
        Actually it seems to be worse: - Donations goes to the foundation - Profits from the corporation (after engineers are paid for) goes to the foundation Net money never goes from the foundation to the browser it seems. (Please anyone correct me if I'm wrong. Also, I'm not necessarily saying their projects are bad, only that when they go at the expense of Firefox something is seriously wrong.)
3gg 6y ago
The TOR browser is based on Firefox, so this also affects them, right? A chrome-based TOR browser would be the biggest joke in the history of online rights. I have the impression that Mozilla, and all of us, are at a crossroads here. I really hope they find a way to continue the development of Firefox and their other products without having to resort to prostituting people's identities.
- modzu 6y ago
  tor "browser" is but not tor itself. for example brave (based on chromium) has a tor window built in. and its extremely handy for many use cases (not all but then for that other 10% you really should be running tails etc...)
  - 3gg 6y ago
    I think the TOR browser does a lot more than just run a browser through TOR. It uses Firefox's built-in fingerprint counter-measures; it spoofs the user agent; it starts using specific window dimensions to counter resolution fingerprinting; and many more things that I am probably not aware of. Running a random browser through the TOR network does not really anonymize you from the myriad number of ways a website can fingerprint you, and the TOR browser / Firefox go to some lengths to protect you from those things too. I think Google, being an advertising company, would have a conflict of interest in providing that same level of anonymity.
- dvlat 6y ago
  Out of curiosity, what problems do you see with potential Chromium (not Chrome)-based TOR browser?
  - ffpip 6y ago
    It doesn't support the anti-fingerprinting measures of TOR. I don't thing you can block fingerprinting in Chromium. We can only fake it. There is no flag to outright block the fingerprinting. And things like first party isolation and other about:config tweaks.
  - 6y ago
zodzedzi 6y ago
Is it possible to fork and develop Firefox with organization similar to how the Linux kernel is developed?
- zamalek 6y ago
  The Linux kernel has contributors from Redhat, OEMs, etc. There unfortunately isn't that type of interest in FF.
  - surround 6y ago
    What about Debian?
    - bad_user 6y ago
      Debian could hardly maintain their Iceweasel fork, and all they did was to change the branding. People seriously underestimate how much effort there is in developing a browser these days. Let’s be honest, if Mozilla goes under, Firefox is dead, because it takes companies like Google, or Apple to develop and maintain a browser. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_software_rebranded_by_Debian#Iceweasel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_software_rebranded_by_...
- johannes1234321 6y ago
  In theory: Yes. In practical terms: Hardly. Getting a large enough group of contributors is hard. For Linux this works since it was built over decades and contributors come from variety of backgrounds (students who want to learn, hardware companies who want to have support of their hardware, users who want it to be fast, companies which want to make it sort of a product (distributors etc.)) For "end user" software like firefox this is harder. In the kernel a contributor can start by providing a self contained device driver. Such a concept doesn't exist in a browser in similar form. From such a driver the kernel contributor can grow into neighboring subsystems. Google decided to go with Chrome. Microsoft jump on their ship and is unlikely to switch, again. Who else could push this? Facebook (would we like that!?), Twitter, Amazon?
throwarayoiu5 6y ago
Firefox is hardly at the forefront of 'thwarting advertisers'. Apple & Safari have been far more aggressive at this; Firefox is merely mimicking the policies that Apple applied ~3 years past. We really need to have a way to talk about things without making it into yet another Good vs Evil fight.
- claudeganon 6y ago
  Whoever it is that allows UBlock Origin/UMatrix on their platform, without making moves against them, is at the forefront of thwarting advertisers. Apple doesn’t allow it on iOS, so I’d still put Firefox ahead of them.
cadence- 6y ago
With more than 30% of employees laid off this year, it is going to be extremely difficult for Mozilla to get back market share from other browsers. If they were not able to do it before, how can they do it now with fewer people? And without market share, there will not be enough alternative revenue streams to have a google-free future. Firefox will continue to slowly lose users, at around the current 10% a year, until it becomes too small for google to even pay them anything anymore. Sad but that’s the reality. Trying to compete in extremely competitive areas like VPN services is not going to work.
- bad_user 6y ago
  They did not fire employees working on Firefox. The questionable layoffs were the Servo devs, which were arguably working on next-gen stuff. But the Gecko team remained intact. It’s actually not bad for orgs to trim expenses. Given Mozilla still has solid revenue, we could view these layoffs as refocusing on stuff that matters (Firefox, plus revenue diversification via services), while ensuring they stay in business for years to come. Everyone knows that they are too reliant on Google’s revenue stream. Now that they are taking steps to diversify and to be leaner, everyone jumps on them. Well I for one am optimistic about Mozilla and Firefox’s future.
  - DocTomoe 6y ago
    They also laid off the Rust guys, and the mozdev folks. Both of which were pretty essential for the mission. I now consider Firefox to be a failed, and quickly sinking project. It's time to give up on them.
    - kungato 6y ago
      They strayed too far from the core product and had to be cut. I consider it a sensible decision from a budget perspective? How much does it make sense for a nonprofit to fund a growing language? Now corps can spend their money on Rush instead directly
      - 6y ago
butz 6y ago
There should be a "Firefoxium" version of Firefox with all base functionality, but without any commercial additions, like Pocket or upcoming VPN. Would there be a way to sponsor such Firefox development directly with monthly subscription like OpenCollective or Patreon? Would EU be interested to sponsor development of free browser to keep browser market competitive?
- laumars 6y ago
  Pale Moon[0] used to loosely fit that brief but these days it’s diverged a bit more from Firefox. There is also Seamonkey[1]. [0] https://www.palemoon.org/ https://www.palemoon.org/ [1] https://www.seamonkey-project.org/ https://www.seamonkey-project.org/
  - misanthropian00 6y ago
    You did not mention Waterfox. It seems to have better compatibility with modern web sites than Pale Moon. Not sure what is going on with Seamonkey these days. I may have to give that a try. The problem I have with Firefox is that it is now way too similar to Chrome to bother with it. Maybe Seamonkey has retained its own identity.
- srtjstjsj 6y ago
  GNU IceCat, for desktop and Android https://f-droid.org/en/packages/org.gnu.icecat/ https://f-droid.org/en/packages/org.gnu.icecat/
  - reirob 6y ago
    Thank you for reminding that there exists a browser that is based a Firefox, without the "services" from Mozilla. As a Firefox user, I will give it a try on desktop and android. But can anybody maybe tell what are the limitations in daily real world use, if any?
- michelledepeil 6y ago
  I think it's an interesting point to discuss whether state funding is possible for FOSS software like firefox that creates market competition within a certain segment. It would certainly work well with a more pure view of capitalism, to prevent the monopoly that is the chromium browser (engine). And I also think the EU would be a great candidate for the size/importance of an alternative-to like firefox. I wrote a more extensive post on my blog, fwiw: https://whatshouldyoueat.com/2020/08/15/mozilla-ideals/ https://whatshouldyoueat.com/2020/08/15/mozilla-ideals/
dehrmann 6y ago
Mozilla would be smart to build up and endowment while Firefox still has a user base and is still paid for searches by Google. I'd be really hesitant to subscribe to Firefox because looking at other things the company has done (Pocket, for one, and I feel mixed about dropping Thunderbird) and how Firefox was left to languish as Chrome gained a user base, I'm not sure this is something I want to directly support.
ffpip 6y ago
There is no Google-free future for anyone. They are more powerful than all governments.
modzu 6y ago
just came here to say brave rewards. its the only idea ive seen that seems viable, and ironically where firefox might be without the eich fiasco :/
aleppe7766 6y ago
Even non users should donate to Firefox: the presence of a independent browser in a market dominated by browsers following the agenda of this le that huge tech company benefits the whole market. Of course using it (or any other independent browser, but only FF has a chance to stay in the double digits) and contributing to its market share would be even more beneficial. Apple’s Safari will never effectively stop Facebook’s sneaky spyops as Facebook is a core partner for Apple’s richest platform. And Chrome, well...
- martin_a 6y ago
  As far as I know I can not donate to or for Firefox development but only to Mozilla. And we all have seen and heard and read what they will use the money for (hint: massive paychecks for the C-level) and how their priorities are set. So: While I love the product, I very much dislike the company. And that's why they won't get any money from me.
  - faitswulff 6y ago
    I hope they end up spinning that off into its own nonprofit focused solely on browser development.
  - passthejoe 6y ago
    Mozilla is definitely NOT equal to your average open-source project like Debian or LibreOffice. The development on those projects is done entirely by volunteers. Maybe some of those "volunteers" are paid by companies to be contributors, which is the case with the Linux kernel. But Mozilla is a large company. It may be a nonprofit, but there are HUNDREDS of millions in Google money funding the company and paying salaries for the 1,000 (??) or so employees, including, as mentioned above, a very well-compensated C-suite. Firefox and whatever else Mozilla produces is funded with this very, very large pot of money. Could they run the Mozilla operation on $10 million (or $20 million) a year and invest the rest ($90 million to $390 million) a year in an endowment that could ensure Mozilla's independence in perpetuity? They could do that, but like many nonprofits, the "profit" goes to a large number of well-paid people. I can't think of another open-source project with such enormous funding that isn't part of a for-profit company. Red Hat isn't asking individuals for money to fund Fedora or RHEL development. I don't know what crazy universe a company -- even one hiding behind the framework of a "foundation" -- gets $100 million to $400 million a YEAR from Google -- and still has the chutzpah to ask individual users to make a contribution. I love Firefox, and I absolutely agree that browser diversity is important. I use Firefox daily. But Mozilla is a huge outlier -- a "nonprofit" dragging in hundreds of millions and spending it. Do you think Debian collected more than $1 million last year? I'm not sure it did. It sure didn't get $100M or $400M. Mozilla is a huge company. It just doesn't have shareholders.
sorenjan 6y ago
I tried to buy a subscription to Firefox VPN to support Firefox, but it's not available in my country even though their partner, Mullvad VPN, had no issue doing business with me. I also just now noticed that Firefox VPN has changed name to Mozilla VPN, and I'm not really interested in funding all of Mozilla since I don't agree with how they spend their money. https://vpn.mozilla.org/ https://vpn.mozilla.org/ https://mullvad.net/ https://mullvad.net/
sn 6y ago
I think I would like to see mozilla do is act as a micropayments service provider to websites based on aggregated browsing history, and take a small service fee for it. I already use firefox. There's no other company right now I would trust more with some knowledge of my browsing history. I believe I would pay for a subscription service to support both mozilla and the news websites I visit. And they're already working on something like that it seems: https://www.fastcompany.com/90403645/mozilla-and-creative-commons-want-to-reimagine-the-internet-without-ads-and-they-have-100m-to-do-it https://www.fastcompany.com/90403645/mozilla-and-creative-co... There's a question of "what extra do you get for that payment" - maybe an NPR or PBS style pledge drive gift is a possible answer, not sure.
- carlosdp 6y ago
  This is exactly what Brave [1] does already, founded by one of the original cofounders of Mozilla. [1] https://brave.com/ https://brave.com/
  - rriepe 6y ago
    Zuck the cuck drinks water like a duck Sorry but I just can't take them seriously with their absurd advertising.
    - kaszanka 6y ago
      > Zuck the cuck drinks water like a duck Where did you find that? Was it ever a part of Brave's official advertising material?
      - rriepe 6y ago
        Are you just curious, or is this like a witch hunt thing? Brave doesn't "get us" (the people it was advertising to) but I also don't want to see them suffer for trying. So I don't think I'll share that information with you.
        6y ago
0xdky 6y ago
I wouldn’t mind buying a bundle subscription for VPN, curated news, email and chat from Mozilla. Those are are most important for me and I do not want any tracking and false biased news. Keep it clean and play fair, I will be happy to pay.
swatson741 6y ago
The unfortunate reality is that there probably isn't a google-free future for Mozilla. I don't see any way they can generate the same amount of capital that they get by partnering with Google, etc. But, that doesn't have to be a bad thing. As far as I know, Google doesn't pull Mozilla's strings and, the 2 companies can exist as competitors and partners.
- hu3 6y ago
  For Mozilla there's probably no Google-free future. But for an independent Firefox foundation? Perhaps. We were never allowed to directly donate to Firefox to know the answer.
wolftune 6y ago
If we didn't have our own issues with zero-funding and all-volunteer efforts, we'd have gotten Snowdrift.coop launched by now (we're still working on it, hope to show some real public updates soon). Our focus on 'crowdmatching' is aiming specifically to address this type of dilemma, and we'd be thrilled to see it work for Firefox. We just need to get the whole thing functioning (and proven with more likely first adopter projects, tweaking and solidifying the platform) before Firefox dies. The basic point: we all (the users and general public) do need to be donating. But I do not donate myself to Firefox. After all, I'm underemployed, low-income, and volunteering thousands of hours for related software-freedom and anti-ad etc. efforts. For me to donate won't change the overall situation. We need a critical mass of donors, hundreds of thousands, millions of donors. We cannot get there by just asking each person to unilaterally sacrifice. I want to pledge to the world that I'm willing to be part of that critical mass. I'll donate more of what I can for each of you others who join me in such a pledge. This is about the best we can do short of funding these sorts of public goods with taxes. As long as it's open to the public and not paywalled (and that's fundamentally important), we're stuck with the freerider dilemmas and need to resolve the challenges of collective-action and coordination.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
eitland 6y ago
The saddest thing I see in these comments are always people hating on some minor thing like Pocket or something and who has decided to go with Chrome instead :-/ I mean I get the frustration but this is "cutting off the nose to spite the face"-level logic IMO. BTW: There was always something. Back in the day I think people hated on awesombar and used that as an excuse to stay with IE6 ;-)
- SergeAx 6y ago
  A week ago I've experienced a fresh-off-the-shelf PC without uBlock Origin. That was some scary five minutes, not gonna lie. I can't imagine using my Android phone without Firefox with uBlock.
- chrisseaton 6y ago
  > The saddest thing I see in these comments are always people hating on some minor thing like Pocket or something and who has decided to go with Chrome instead :-/ What should people do? Quietly put up with Firefox being hostile to them simply because it's Firefox? Firefox has to pay its own way by being good. It can't just assume user blind loyalty because they think they're the good guys.
  - pjmlp 6y ago
    Then the same people should not complain when they get ChromeOS Platform instead of the Web.
  - eitland 6y ago
    > Quietly put up with Firefox being hostile to them simply because it's Firefox? That's not what I've been suggesting. My suggestion is to not go to the even more problematic competitor.
  - hamlsandwich 6y ago
    I think I’ve missed something here: how is Pocket user-hostile?
    - 6y ago

143 points by kiyanwang 6y ago

Y_Y 6y ago

> “Subscriptions are – I sometimes joke – like trading money for services, an idea whose time has come, rather than getting spied on and hoping everything works out.” I laughed in a sad way. I would actually pay for Firefox now, but I think charging for it isn't going to work out. (See also: Opera)

afterburner 6y ago
But then how long until I'm paying subscriptions and being spied on? It's kinda like how cable TV started with no commercials as a contrast to over-the-air TV, and then quickly introduced them...
- qzw 6y ago
  I’m afraid it’s inevitable. If there’s a large enough audience, someone will be willing to pay to market to them. Almost no business will be able to say no to the money.
  - narag 6y ago
    Netflix?
    - jon-wood 6y ago
      Are doubtless taking money for product placement, which while less irritating than cutting into the show for an ad break, is still marketing.
    - vinay_ys 6y ago
      Don't they do brand product placement in their shows and do cross-promotion campaigns with those brands?
    - claudeganon 6y ago
      Netflix invests massively in tracking how users engage with content on their platform. They’ll either sell these services down the road to third parties or become a kind of quasi-monopoly player doing this in the entertainment industry, like Google or Facebook.
    - qzw 6y ago
      Call me a pessimist, but I think Netflix will only be ad-free for as long as it is a competitive advantage. The day will come when that’s no longer true, and the ads will come. When their growth has stalled and they have raised prices as much as the market will bear, how long can they resist “free” ad money? Will their shareholders just let them leave it on the table?
  - addicted 6y ago
    Ads are not the same thing as spying. One of the biggest problems with this whole discussion is that people, including those who should know better, are not making distinctions between ads based maybe on broad characteristics vs ads that are based on tracking every move you make across the internet, purchases in stores with credit cards, and micro targeting based on specific interests. With just ads you can place a direct value on how much people are willing to pay to not see them. Netflix does this. Hulu does this by offering 2 services, as free and and supported at different prices. Normal business practices should create a market that allows people who are willing to see ads and those who wish to pay more to be ad free to both be serviced. The problem right now with micro targeting and extreme spying is that you have a race to the bottom that has users paying for the services they use not through watching ads, or monetary payments but through data and information about themselves. That data is much more valuable than just for ads. It makes it extremely difficult for someone who isn’t the biggest player in a market to, for example, compete with the entrenched power. So it’s not just people watching creepy ads, but it also entrenches monopolies, and allows the likes of Google and Facebook to create new monopolies based on data they have gained from their existing monopolies. Ads are, if anything, the least problematic part about the spying and data collection because at least they are open and obvious to everyone. Google and Facebook do far more creepy things than what they do with the ads privately, but the largest uproar has been about ads simply because that’s the most transparent use of the crazy data collection practices.
    - Mediterraneo10 6y ago
      > distinctions between ads based maybe on broad characteristics vs ads that are based on tracking every move you make across the internet, purchases in stores with credit cards, and micro targeting based on specific interests. That very broad and general advertising of which you speak will only dwindle with time and therefore the distinction will not be a very useful one. Already ordinary billboards are being upgraded to smart billboards that can scan and identify the people walking by (facial recognition, Bluetooth, perhaps soon gait, etc.). The decline of print media means that we’re losing the one kind of advertising that can't hook into technology to track you.
    - m463 6y ago
- 0xcde4c3db 6y ago
  Indeed. A paradox inherent to the notion of paying to avoid ads is that it identifies you as someone who has disposable income and is willing to spend it, i.e. someone who advertisers really want to target.
  - tehjoker 6y ago
    Pretty much the only way to make it happen is a foundation that has it written into their incorporation documents that they will never take ads or government bans. The incentives are too strong, so the large corporations get to manipulate the development of technologies by dangling ad money. Ad money isn't innocuous. It's about control, because if the recipient were to do something an advertiser doesn't like, they pull the money... for example strong privacy/anti-advertising technologies. This desire to please the interests of large corporations leads to large scale conformity.
    - jopsen 6y ago
      If you feel that way, perhaps advertising should be prohibited by law. But having absolutely no ads might not be ideal (or realistic).
      - kovac 6y ago
        I don't think the problem is with ads. It's with personalised ads (or more specifically how they go about showing us personalised ads). A model where a site shows you a notice asking to opt in for personalised ads (otherwise show generic ads anyway) would be fine. But this means no site, no third party service should be allowed to track the user or collect data unless opted in.
      - indigochill 6y ago
        Fundamentally, advertisers just want good ad<->user alignment and the zeitgeist is to accomplish this with invasive tracking. However, it needn't (I think) necessarily be this way. What if, instead, we looked at the material on the page and said, "This is a blog post about Linux. Let's put our advertisements about sysadmin books/seminars here." Or provide the content creator with a library of ads that they can choose from (they will typically be incentivized to select the most effective ads by performance-based compensation). Maybe prioritize the sorting of those ads against keywords in the content. Essentially, as opposed to profiling the user, profile the content. And give content creators more control over the user experience to discourage sleazy ads and encourage ads creators actually want on their site. There's some optimism wrapped into this, so I look forward to someone popping my optimism bubble.
- AdmiralAsshat 6y ago
  Don't forget streaming now, too. I was a big fan of Pluto TV until it got purchased by Viacom or whomever. Now, just like cable TV, there are 800 channels going at any given moment, and all of them show their commercials at exactly the same time. I joke, but only partly, that there's not a jury in the country that would convict me if I murdered whoever instituted that change.
  - srtjstjsj 6y ago
    Why do you think giving you what you are paying for justifies murder?
- srtjstjsj 6y ago
  "no ads" was never a selling point of cable. it's always been a balance of fees and ads.
  - SubiculumCode 6y ago
    It was when I first heard about cable as a kid.
  - pessimizer 6y ago
    This is not true. https://youtu.be/ZcDUttzlKLU?t=110 https://youtu.be/ZcDUttzlKLU?t=110 http://web.cecs.pdx.edu/~trent/ochs/lyrics/talking-pay-tv.html http://web.cecs.pdx.edu/~trent/ochs/lyrics/talking-pay-tv.ht...
  - wyclif 6y ago
    Nope. When cable TV first became available in the US the primary selling point is that there were no ads at all, unlike the big three networks.
  - misanthropian00 6y ago
    May I ask approximately how old you are?
- elcritch 6y ago
  I cancelled a subscription to the Economist because after paying about 10x more than other news sources their online website still showed obnoxious ads. That irked me. If I'm paying a premium for a service good news I want it without ads and digital is my primary viewing media. But I don't think many companies can resist double dipping.
- xg15 6y ago
  Also, subscriptions for software always have a kind of smell. I'm not paying for a service - the service is done by my PC via execution of the software (using my own power, storage and computing resources too, btw). So superficially, I'm paying for the permission to execute some software on my PC. It makes more sense if this is understood as paying to continuously keep the software up-to-date. But then, this would be the most honest thing to do: Request money for each update but let the user executive a particular version as long as they want.
  - edoceo 6y ago
    This leads to the issue of users running the insecure versions of the software, then blaming the vendor. Why didn't v30 have all the security fixes of v40!?
    - xg15 6y ago
      Yeah, sorry, then how about we stop producing so many security vulnerabilities? Because otherwise, we will end up in a world where no running code can be older than a month and software that is not actively being developed as part of a profitable business is automatically dead. Code does not rot and can be copied arbitrary many times. Why do we bend over backwards to turn an abundant resource not just into a scarce but into an expiring resource?
  - smt88 6y ago
    > But then, this would be the most honest thing to do: Request money for each update but let the user executive a particular version as long as they want. What software subscriptions don't work this way? The true desktop subscriptions, where you lose access to the software after you stop paying, seem to all offer the traditional alternative (pay once for the current version).
smitty1e 6y ago
"Freedom isn't free There's a heavy [FLOWERBED] fee."--Team America by way of the Babylon Bee
echelon 6y ago
The solution is for the DOJ to strip Chrome away from Google. They're doing dangerous things like AMP, removing the URL, and crippling ad blockers. Firefox would regain market traction without monopoly-funded loss leader Chrome.
- dehrmann 6y ago
  Chrome is interesting because Firefox shows it could actually be a standalone business, and it's one of the scarier ones to let Google keep because of how much power it gives it.
  - srtjstjsj 6y ago
    Huh? Firefox is almost entirely funded by Google search.
    - dehrmann 6y ago
      Right. Chrome could do the same as an independent entity.

syshum 6y ago

Given the Mozilla is turning on the developer network, discontinuing RD in to the browser space, and focusing on "other products" like VPN, Pocket, and other services I am left to wonder if there is a future for Firefox at all Dev Tools is dead, Servo is Dead, MDN is dead, what is left. The current administration of Mozilla seems to want to turn it into a "consumer services" company focused instead of a browser developer. I am wonder how much longer before they drop the pretense, shut down the foundation, and change their mission statement hell I would not be surprised that with in 5 years they do not fall in line with what Microsoft called for [1] a little over a year ago and just make Firefox another Chromium based browser... [1] https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-guy-mozilla-should-give-up-on-firefox-and-go-with-chromium-too/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-guy-mozilla-should-g...

gruez 6y ago
>MSDN is dead I think you mean MDN. MSDN is the Microsoft variant ;)
- syshum 6y ago
  You are correct, I have fixed the above...
giancarlostoro 6y ago
I wonder if the alternative is for the Rust foundation to one day buy out Firefox and pull it out of the claws of Mozilla if they are just going to have a nonprofit receiving donations not even going towards Firefox. Has anyone figured out what jacked up reason this is? My best guess is that if Mozilla is seen as selling adspace services (default browser search engine in this case) it is somehow seen as a for profit venture and would not allow them to have a non profit status, but at that point why not just have Firefox be like Chromium vs Google Chrome? Firefox Libre and Mozilla Firefox. I fail to understand why we cant directly donate to Firefox and only Firefox. Most people really dont care for anything else Mozilla is doing outside of Rust and Thunderbird and tbe latter two seem to have a solid future as far as I can tell.

surround 6y ago

How do other companies that develop free/open source software make money? (Other than the professional support/training model that Canonical and Redhat use - it probably doesn’t apply to Firefox)

jlarocco 6y ago
Giving software away for free isn't a business model, was never meant to be, and the math just doesn't work. There are some very small niche projects where a few small core developers make a living doing contract development implementing features and fixing bugs, but it typically doesn't scale into a company. Most successful "open source" companies use an open core model, where they provide services and proprietary add-ons related to an open source project that they contribute to but may not actually own. Think GitHub or Docker.
xiphias2 6y ago
There were multiple successful open source projects here where companies payed for taking part of the planning of new features. Google already pays for the built-in default search for Firefox, I don't see a reason why other services couldn't be built in as long as the user gets something in return and keeps its privacy/freedom.
- ZekeSulastin 6y ago
  Like Pocket/etc.? I seem to remember the userbase of sites like this excoriating Mozilla for including that, so I would assume any such effort now would be similarly rejected.
  - xiphias2 6y ago
    Pocket was a too strong integration probably. Offline browsing on mobile phones is still a missing feature, and pocket doesn't solve it well. Firefox could have added the necessary features for a great pocket plugin (and its competitors) instead of just integrating with it (and buying it). Blender is a much more successful example (and there was another open source project here on HN with $300k income where companies could pay for features to be implemented, but still not company specific).

ve55 6y ago

I'm not sure there is a Google-free future for any major part of the Internet, so likely no

yepthatsreality 6y ago
As long as devs keep drinking the Chrome kool-aid it won’t. Developers actually have a lot of pull but do not exercise it. As the job market shifts to more blue collar workers. There is less expertise required and those workers are responsible for running tools they don’t understand rather than coding and making ideas. Google’s best interest is to keep development behind closed doors until they’re ready for the public to use their tech, rather than having new tech developed by other companies or via open source.
- oscargrouch 6y ago
  I think this is a case where "It's the economy, stupid" gets right. We need to build a economy for open-source projects or else the tech titans will eat the world. People need to wake up that its not the nineties anymore, and without a better ecosystem for independent projects to thrive, we are doomed to depend on the scraps of what the titans left to us (mostly their open-source collaterals) Some independent project might pop here and there, but keep them going without structure will lead them to a slow burn to death.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
dehrmann 6y ago
That might be like saying, in 2001, there isn't a Microsoft-free future for desktop computing. Apple gained a little market share since then, but it's a mostly moot point because of the rise of mobile. There's going to be a next big thing, and there's a good chance it won't be Google...or Google will just buy it.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

Hnrobert42 6y ago

I read (probably on HN) that Google keeps paying FF, so Google can point to FF as a viable competitor during anti-trust investigations. Since it seems those investigations are able to launch in the US, it will be interesting to see what happens to the relationship afterwards.

pmoriarty 6y ago
Firefox wouldn't even need the money if web standards weren't so insanely bloated that you actually need to hire teams of professional programmers to write and maintain a browser.
- marcinzm 6y ago
  Web standards are bloated because that's what users want: features. That's like saying "Firefox would be fine if there wasn't any well funded competition driving up the feature count of browsers to meet consumer demand."
  - pjmlp 6y ago
    Actually no, Web was perfectly fine with HTML 4.01/XHTML, but then some people at browser teams decided to declare war on native apps, HTML 5 was born and we are a couple of years before ChromeOS takes it all.
    - jacob019 6y ago
      That depends on what you consider fine. Modern decelopment is so much more productive, no way I could go back to the jquery days.
      - pjmlp 6y ago
        Interactive documents, everything else should be a native app using Internet protocols.
    - lights0123 6y ago

flerchin 6y ago

Firefox is great. I use it as my primary browser on both my android and linux workstations. I do have to drop to Chrome occasionally for some aspects of web development, not because the tools are better, but expose things differently. I... should probably send Mozilla some money.

jacob019 6y ago
I was thinking the same thing. I would probably donate if they asked.
surround 6y ago
Money donated to the Mozilla Foundation doesn’t actually go towards browser development, does it?
- bzb5 6y ago
  The time has come for Mozilla to offer a way of donating that guarantees that 100% of the cash goes to Firefox.
  - srtjstjsj 6y ago
    Mozilla has 20 years of evidence showing that people "who would donate but only on my terms" aren't a serious revenue source.
    - luckylion 6y ago
      Have they? My impression was that you were never able to donate to Firefox directly. You could only buy the whole package, that is: Firefox + some stuff you don't care about and some stuff you might disagree with.
      - eitland 6y ago
        Actually it seems to be worse: - Donations goes to the foundation - Profits from the corporation (after engineers are paid for) goes to the foundation Net money never goes from the foundation to the browser it seems. (Please anyone correct me if I'm wrong. Also, I'm not necessarily saying their projects are bad, only that when they go at the expense of Firefox something is seriously wrong.)

3gg 6y ago

The TOR browser is based on Firefox, so this also affects them, right? A chrome-based TOR browser would be the biggest joke in the history of online rights. I have the impression that Mozilla, and all of us, are at a crossroads here. I really hope they find a way to continue the development of Firefox and their other products without having to resort to prostituting people's identities.

modzu 6y ago
tor "browser" is but not tor itself. for example brave (based on chromium) has a tor window built in. and its extremely handy for many use cases (not all but then for that other 10% you really should be running tails etc...)
- 3gg 6y ago
  I think the TOR browser does a lot more than just run a browser through TOR. It uses Firefox's built-in fingerprint counter-measures; it spoofs the user agent; it starts using specific window dimensions to counter resolution fingerprinting; and many more things that I am probably not aware of. Running a random browser through the TOR network does not really anonymize you from the myriad number of ways a website can fingerprint you, and the TOR browser / Firefox go to some lengths to protect you from those things too. I think Google, being an advertising company, would have a conflict of interest in providing that same level of anonymity.
dvlat 6y ago
Out of curiosity, what problems do you see with potential Chromium (not Chrome)-based TOR browser?
- ffpip 6y ago
  It doesn't support the anti-fingerprinting measures of TOR. I don't thing you can block fingerprinting in Chromium. We can only fake it. There is no flag to outright block the fingerprinting. And things like first party isolation and other about:config tweaks.
- 6y ago

zodzedzi 6y ago

Is it possible to fork and develop Firefox with organization similar to how the Linux kernel is developed?

zamalek 6y ago
The Linux kernel has contributors from Redhat, OEMs, etc. There unfortunately isn't that type of interest in FF.
- surround 6y ago
  What about Debian?
  - bad_user 6y ago
    Debian could hardly maintain their Iceweasel fork, and all they did was to change the branding. People seriously underestimate how much effort there is in developing a browser these days. Let’s be honest, if Mozilla goes under, Firefox is dead, because it takes companies like Google, or Apple to develop and maintain a browser. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_software_rebranded_by_Debian#Iceweasel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_software_rebranded_by_...
johannes1234321 6y ago
In theory: Yes. In practical terms: Hardly. Getting a large enough group of contributors is hard. For Linux this works since it was built over decades and contributors come from variety of backgrounds (students who want to learn, hardware companies who want to have support of their hardware, users who want it to be fast, companies which want to make it sort of a product (distributors etc.)) For "end user" software like firefox this is harder. In the kernel a contributor can start by providing a self contained device driver. Such a concept doesn't exist in a browser in similar form. From such a driver the kernel contributor can grow into neighboring subsystems. Google decided to go with Chrome. Microsoft jump on their ship and is unlikely to switch, again. Who else could push this? Facebook (would we like that!?), Twitter, Amazon?

throwarayoiu5 6y ago

Firefox is hardly at the forefront of 'thwarting advertisers'. Apple & Safari have been far more aggressive at this; Firefox is merely mimicking the policies that Apple applied ~3 years past. We really need to have a way to talk about things without making it into yet another Good vs Evil fight.

claudeganon 6y ago
Whoever it is that allows UBlock Origin/UMatrix on their platform, without making moves against them, is at the forefront of thwarting advertisers. Apple doesn’t allow it on iOS, so I’d still put Firefox ahead of them.

cadence- 6y ago

With more than 30% of employees laid off this year, it is going to be extremely difficult for Mozilla to get back market share from other browsers. If they were not able to do it before, how can they do it now with fewer people? And without market share, there will not be enough alternative revenue streams to have a google-free future. Firefox will continue to slowly lose users, at around the current 10% a year, until it becomes too small for google to even pay them anything anymore. Sad but that’s the reality. Trying to compete in extremely competitive areas like VPN services is not going to work.

bad_user 6y ago
They did not fire employees working on Firefox. The questionable layoffs were the Servo devs, which were arguably working on next-gen stuff. But the Gecko team remained intact. It’s actually not bad for orgs to trim expenses. Given Mozilla still has solid revenue, we could view these layoffs as refocusing on stuff that matters (Firefox, plus revenue diversification via services), while ensuring they stay in business for years to come. Everyone knows that they are too reliant on Google’s revenue stream. Now that they are taking steps to diversify and to be leaner, everyone jumps on them. Well I for one am optimistic about Mozilla and Firefox’s future.
- DocTomoe 6y ago
  They also laid off the Rust guys, and the mozdev folks. Both of which were pretty essential for the mission. I now consider Firefox to be a failed, and quickly sinking project. It's time to give up on them.
  - kungato 6y ago
    They strayed too far from the core product and had to be cut. I consider it a sensible decision from a budget perspective? How much does it make sense for a nonprofit to fund a growing language? Now corps can spend their money on Rush instead directly
    - 6y ago

butz 6y ago

There should be a "Firefoxium" version of Firefox with all base functionality, but without any commercial additions, like Pocket or upcoming VPN. Would there be a way to sponsor such Firefox development directly with monthly subscription like OpenCollective or Patreon? Would EU be interested to sponsor development of free browser to keep browser market competitive?

laumars 6y ago
Pale Moon[0] used to loosely fit that brief but these days it’s diverged a bit more from Firefox. There is also Seamonkey[1]. [0] https://www.palemoon.org/ https://www.palemoon.org/ [1] https://www.seamonkey-project.org/ https://www.seamonkey-project.org/
- misanthropian00 6y ago
  You did not mention Waterfox. It seems to have better compatibility with modern web sites than Pale Moon. Not sure what is going on with Seamonkey these days. I may have to give that a try. The problem I have with Firefox is that it is now way too similar to Chrome to bother with it. Maybe Seamonkey has retained its own identity.
srtjstjsj 6y ago
GNU IceCat, for desktop and Android https://f-droid.org/en/packages/org.gnu.icecat/ https://f-droid.org/en/packages/org.gnu.icecat/
- reirob 6y ago
  Thank you for reminding that there exists a browser that is based a Firefox, without the "services" from Mozilla. As a Firefox user, I will give it a try on desktop and android. But can anybody maybe tell what are the limitations in daily real world use, if any?
michelledepeil 6y ago
I think it's an interesting point to discuss whether state funding is possible for FOSS software like firefox that creates market competition within a certain segment. It would certainly work well with a more pure view of capitalism, to prevent the monopoly that is the chromium browser (engine). And I also think the EU would be a great candidate for the size/importance of an alternative-to like firefox. I wrote a more extensive post on my blog, fwiw: https://whatshouldyoueat.com/2020/08/15/mozilla-ideals/ https://whatshouldyoueat.com/2020/08/15/mozilla-ideals/

dehrmann 6y ago

Mozilla would be smart to build up and endowment while Firefox still has a user base and is still paid for searches by Google. I'd be really hesitant to subscribe to Firefox because looking at other things the company has done (Pocket, for one, and I feel mixed about dropping Thunderbird) and how Firefox was left to languish as Chrome gained a user base, I'm not sure this is something I want to directly support.

ffpip 6y ago

There is no Google-free future for anyone. They are more powerful than all governments.

modzu 6y ago

just came here to say brave rewards. its the only idea ive seen that seems viable, and ironically where firefox might be without the eich fiasco :/

aleppe7766 6y ago

Even non users should donate to Firefox: the presence of a independent browser in a market dominated by browsers following the agenda of this le that huge tech company benefits the whole market. Of course using it (or any other independent browser, but only FF has a chance to stay in the double digits) and contributing to its market share would be even more beneficial. Apple’s Safari will never effectively stop Facebook’s sneaky spyops as Facebook is a core partner for Apple’s richest platform. And Chrome, well...

martin_a 6y ago
As far as I know I can not donate to or for Firefox development but only to Mozilla. And we all have seen and heard and read what they will use the money for (hint: massive paychecks for the C-level) and how their priorities are set. So: While I love the product, I very much dislike the company. And that's why they won't get any money from me.
- faitswulff 6y ago
  I hope they end up spinning that off into its own nonprofit focused solely on browser development.
- passthejoe 6y ago
  Mozilla is definitely NOT equal to your average open-source project like Debian or LibreOffice. The development on those projects is done entirely by volunteers. Maybe some of those "volunteers" are paid by companies to be contributors, which is the case with the Linux kernel. But Mozilla is a large company. It may be a nonprofit, but there are HUNDREDS of millions in Google money funding the company and paying salaries for the 1,000 (??) or so employees, including, as mentioned above, a very well-compensated C-suite. Firefox and whatever else Mozilla produces is funded with this very, very large pot of money. Could they run the Mozilla operation on $10 million (or $20 million) a year and invest the rest ($90 million to $390 million) a year in an endowment that could ensure Mozilla's independence in perpetuity? They could do that, but like many nonprofits, the "profit" goes to a large number of well-paid people. I can't think of another open-source project with such enormous funding that isn't part of a for-profit company. Red Hat isn't asking individuals for money to fund Fedora or RHEL development. I don't know what crazy universe a company -- even one hiding behind the framework of a "foundation" -- gets $100 million to $400 million a YEAR from Google -- and still has the chutzpah to ask individual users to make a contribution. I love Firefox, and I absolutely agree that browser diversity is important. I use Firefox daily. But Mozilla is a huge outlier -- a "nonprofit" dragging in hundreds of millions and spending it. Do you think Debian collected more than $1 million last year? I'm not sure it did. It sure didn't get $100M or $400M. Mozilla is a huge company. It just doesn't have shareholders.

sorenjan 6y ago

I tried to buy a subscription to Firefox VPN to support Firefox, but it's not available in my country even though their partner, Mullvad VPN, had no issue doing business with me. I also just now noticed that Firefox VPN has changed name to Mozilla VPN, and I'm not really interested in funding all of Mozilla since I don't agree with how they spend their money. https://vpn.mozilla.org/ https://vpn.mozilla.org/ https://mullvad.net/ https://mullvad.net/

sn 6y ago

I think I would like to see mozilla do is act as a micropayments service provider to websites based on aggregated browsing history, and take a small service fee for it. I already use firefox. There's no other company right now I would trust more with some knowledge of my browsing history. I believe I would pay for a subscription service to support both mozilla and the news websites I visit. And they're already working on something like that it seems: https://www.fastcompany.com/90403645/mozilla-and-creative-commons-want-to-reimagine-the-internet-without-ads-and-they-have-100m-to-do-it https://www.fastcompany.com/90403645/mozilla-and-creative-co... There's a question of "what extra do you get for that payment" - maybe an NPR or PBS style pledge drive gift is a possible answer, not sure.

carlosdp 6y ago
This is exactly what Brave [1] does already, founded by one of the original cofounders of Mozilla. [1] https://brave.com/ https://brave.com/
- rriepe 6y ago
  Zuck the cuck drinks water like a duck Sorry but I just can't take them seriously with their absurd advertising.
  - kaszanka 6y ago
    > Zuck the cuck drinks water like a duck Where did you find that? Was it ever a part of Brave's official advertising material?
    - rriepe 6y ago
      Are you just curious, or is this like a witch hunt thing? Brave doesn't "get us" (the people it was advertising to) but I also don't want to see them suffer for trying. So I don't think I'll share that information with you.
      - 6y ago

0xdky 6y ago

I wouldn’t mind buying a bundle subscription for VPN, curated news, email and chat from Mozilla. Those are are most important for me and I do not want any tracking and false biased news. Keep it clean and play fair, I will be happy to pay.

swatson741 6y ago

The unfortunate reality is that there probably isn't a google-free future for Mozilla. I don't see any way they can generate the same amount of capital that they get by partnering with Google, etc. But, that doesn't have to be a bad thing. As far as I know, Google doesn't pull Mozilla's strings and, the 2 companies can exist as competitors and partners.

hu3 6y ago
For Mozilla there's probably no Google-free future. But for an independent Firefox foundation? Perhaps. We were never allowed to directly donate to Firefox to know the answer.

wolftune 6y ago

If we didn't have our own issues with zero-funding and all-volunteer efforts, we'd have gotten Snowdrift.coop launched by now (we're still working on it, hope to show some real public updates soon). Our focus on 'crowdmatching' is aiming specifically to address this type of dilemma, and we'd be thrilled to see it work for Firefox. We just need to get the whole thing functioning (and proven with more likely first adopter projects, tweaking and solidifying the platform) before Firefox dies. The basic point: we all (the users and general public) do need to be donating. But I do not donate myself to Firefox. After all, I'm underemployed, low-income, and volunteering thousands of hours for related software-freedom and anti-ad etc. efforts. For me to donate won't change the overall situation. We need a critical mass of donors, hundreds of thousands, millions of donors. We cannot get there by just asking each person to unilaterally sacrifice. I want to pledge to the world that I'm willing to be part of that critical mass. I'll donate more of what I can for each of you others who join me in such a pledge. This is about the best we can do short of funding these sorts of public goods with taxes. As long as it's open to the public and not paywalled (and that's fundamentally important), we're stuck with the freerider dilemmas and need to resolve the challenges of collective-action and coordination.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

eitland 6y ago

The saddest thing I see in these comments are always people hating on some minor thing like Pocket or something and who has decided to go with Chrome instead :-/ I mean I get the frustration but this is "cutting off the nose to spite the face"-level logic IMO. BTW: There was always something. Back in the day I think people hated on awesombar and used that as an excuse to stay with IE6 ;-)

SergeAx 6y ago
A week ago I've experienced a fresh-off-the-shelf PC without uBlock Origin. That was some scary five minutes, not gonna lie. I can't imagine using my Android phone without Firefox with uBlock.
chrisseaton 6y ago
> The saddest thing I see in these comments are always people hating on some minor thing like Pocket or something and who has decided to go with Chrome instead :-/ What should people do? Quietly put up with Firefox being hostile to them simply because it's Firefox? Firefox has to pay its own way by being good. It can't just assume user blind loyalty because they think they're the good guys.
- pjmlp 6y ago
  Then the same people should not complain when they get ChromeOS Platform instead of the Web.
- eitland 6y ago
  > Quietly put up with Firefox being hostile to them simply because it's Firefox? That's not what I've been suggesting. My suggestion is to not go to the even more problematic competitor.
- hamlsandwich 6y ago
  I think I’ve missed something here: how is Pocket user-hostile?
  - 6y ago