3 ms·

There are currently 21,100 add-ons on the store. Considering the relatively small market share of FF, I feel like the amount of companies that would pay for re

There are currently 21,100 add-ons on the store. Considering the relatively small market share of FF, I feel like the amount of companies that would pay for review could be pretty small (<= 1000). The ad model also creates an awkward conflict of interest: the add-ons most willing to pay good good money for placement are probably ones that you shouldn't install and Firefox should not promote. Think tracking, ads, .... Or commercial ad blockers trying to always appear above Ublock Origin. It will be detrimental to open source/hobby add-ons in general, unless Mozilla includes those in the review program for free. Overall, I can't see how this will bring in any considerable amount of revenue, not even considering the labour cost of manual review. At least while keeping shady actors out. I can imagine this just to be an effort to balance out the costs of curating the store, while still bringing in a bit of additional money. I'm tentatively supportive, assuming they provide free reviews for non-commercial open source extensions and are strict with the promotions they allow.

random_dork1 6y ago
Fair point about comercial vs open and non-commercial, but until we see what Mozilla actually does, I wouldn't choose the pessimistic view. I can imagine why not all details are addressed here. Seems like big part of the community is very negative towards Mozilla and for sure they extremely careful with what they say and what they promise.
bsaul 6y ago
There is definitely another way to look at it: Having mozilla people review your add on so that they officially say it is « safe » from tracking, malware, privacy intrusion, etc.
jngonsfip 6y ago
> the add-ons most willing to pay good good money for placement are probably ones that you shouldn't install and Firefox should not promote. Think tracking, ads, .... Or commercial ad blockers trying to always appear above Ublock Origin. The whole point is for people to pay to have their add-on manually vetted by Firefox staff to verify that it meets the recommendation standards. As the article says, this process is repeated regularly to account for updates. > I'm tentatively supportive, IF they provide free reviews for non-commercial open source extensions and are strict with the promotions they allow. No mention of this in the announcement though... This is already how it works, every recommended add-on has been manually reviewed. The article says that they will use this to expand the reviewing process, not to replace it. They also say, "During the pilot program, these services will be provided to a small number of participants without cost." The extent of the two promotional "levels" are clearly outlined as well. This is just a way for companies to get their add-ons on the fast track to wide adoption by having them reviewed for policy compliance and, if they choose to pay more, added to a promotional section to increase visibility. The Twitter-style hot take to find a flaw right away is not warranted.
- tgsovlerkhgsel 6y ago
  It does create a conflict of interest, and a significant risk that at some point greed will win - compare e.g. AdBlock Plus that started with the "acceptable ads" program and then allowed the worst of clickbait (Taboola & Co.) despite heavy user complaints. On the other hand, it also provides an opportunity to have a trusted addon ecosystem. If the price is reasonable, popular free addons can collect it through donations, and in exchange, users can be sure that the addons were actually reviewed (hopefully thoroughly and by humans, i.e. with a much lower "oops bad thing slipped through" rate than addon stores that rely mostly on automation). Could even be a great way to generate revenue. Have two versions of the addon. One is free. One costs $1/year but is reviewed. Same addon. I know which one I'd pick (for myself and all relatives). Mozilla and the addon dev can split the revenue 50:50.
  - Vinnl 6y ago
    That might even be an interesting next step: allow users to chip in for review, right on the AMO page.
ghostpepper 6y ago
This was my first thought as well. Best case scenario this takes off and now Mozilla becomes dependent on the money. Now they can't afford to do do anything that will upset their customers, who are now the people who pay them to review their add-ons. I don't see how any amount of explanation and good intention can outweigh a fundamental conflict of interest.
jacekm 6y ago
> Considering the relatively small market share of FF FF's market share may be tiny, but these ~5% still translate to ~200 million users.
LargoLasskhyfv 6y ago
Are you sure about the counting? Years ago it looked like they count the same add-on in multiple categories, and in reality there were a only a few thousands, not 10s of thousands, and yes, I already excluded things like color-schemes, personas, and even themes. edit: That was before the discontinueing support of XUL-based extensions. I can't imagine there are more webex-based now. Except when adding the endless persona/colorscheme stuff which adds no real functionality, only changing some looks. Or, they count the symlinks, instead of the original file.

random_dork1 6y ago

Fair point about comercial vs open and non-commercial, but until we see what Mozilla actually does, I wouldn't choose the pessimistic view. I can imagine why not all details are addressed here. Seems like big part of the community is very negative towards Mozilla and for sure they extremely careful with what they say and what they promise.

bsaul 6y ago

There is definitely another way to look at it: Having mozilla people review your add on so that they officially say it is « safe » from tracking, malware, privacy intrusion, etc.

jngonsfip 6y ago

> the add-ons most willing to pay good good money for placement are probably ones that you shouldn't install and Firefox should not promote. Think tracking, ads, .... Or commercial ad blockers trying to always appear above Ublock Origin. The whole point is for people to pay to have their add-on manually vetted by Firefox staff to verify that it meets the recommendation standards. As the article says, this process is repeated regularly to account for updates. > I'm tentatively supportive, IF they provide free reviews for non-commercial open source extensions and are strict with the promotions they allow. No mention of this in the announcement though... This is already how it works, every recommended add-on has been manually reviewed. The article says that they will use this to expand the reviewing process, not to replace it. They also say, "During the pilot program, these services will be provided to a small number of participants without cost." The extent of the two promotional "levels" are clearly outlined as well. This is just a way for companies to get their add-ons on the fast track to wide adoption by having them reviewed for policy compliance and, if they choose to pay more, added to a promotional section to increase visibility. The Twitter-style hot take to find a flaw right away is not warranted.

tgsovlerkhgsel 6y ago
It does create a conflict of interest, and a significant risk that at some point greed will win - compare e.g. AdBlock Plus that started with the "acceptable ads" program and then allowed the worst of clickbait (Taboola & Co.) despite heavy user complaints. On the other hand, it also provides an opportunity to have a trusted addon ecosystem. If the price is reasonable, popular free addons can collect it through donations, and in exchange, users can be sure that the addons were actually reviewed (hopefully thoroughly and by humans, i.e. with a much lower "oops bad thing slipped through" rate than addon stores that rely mostly on automation). Could even be a great way to generate revenue. Have two versions of the addon. One is free. One costs $1/year but is reviewed. Same addon. I know which one I'd pick (for myself and all relatives). Mozilla and the addon dev can split the revenue 50:50.
- Vinnl 6y ago
  That might even be an interesting next step: allow users to chip in for review, right on the AMO page.

ghostpepper 6y ago

This was my first thought as well. Best case scenario this takes off and now Mozilla becomes dependent on the money. Now they can't afford to do do anything that will upset their customers, who are now the people who pay them to review their add-ons. I don't see how any amount of explanation and good intention can outweigh a fundamental conflict of interest.

jacekm 6y ago

> Considering the relatively small market share of FF FF's market share may be tiny, but these ~5% still translate to ~200 million users.

LargoLasskhyfv 6y ago

Are you sure about the counting? Years ago it looked like they count the same add-on in multiple categories, and in reality there were a only a few thousands, not 10s of thousands, and yes, I already excluded things like color-schemes, personas, and even themes. edit: That was before the discontinueing support of XUL-based extensions. I can't imagine there are more webex-based now. Except when adding the endless persona/colorscheme stuff which adds no real functionality, only changing some looks. Or, they count the symlinks, instead of the original file.