3 ms·

Won't argue that Mozilla/Firefox has been comprehensively out-manouvered by Google/Chrome. I'm still puzzled why Moz haven't tried a paid-for Firefox option.

Won't argue that Mozilla/Firefox has been comprehensively out-manouvered by Google/Chrome. I'm still puzzled why Moz haven't tried a paid-for Firefox option. They've gone to the bother of creating entire new paid-for products - with all the budget and product/market fit uncertainty that involves. Surely a paid-for FF option would have been a less expensive experiment? Perhaps the terms of the Google "donation" prevent/constrain that. I wouldn't be surprised if so. Which does lead to an interesting - if probably fanciful - scenario from the anti-trust investigation announced today... ...charactertise the browser as a "utility" and require G to (a) transfer it into Mozilla's stewardship and (b) force them to license from there. (I know: unrealistic, unworkable, lots of other "just no"s. But a fun idea nonetheless).

modo_mario 6y ago
>Won't argue that Mozilla/Firefox has been comprehensively out-manouvered by Google/Chrome. And sometimes without being at fault really. I remember a key moment when firefox was bleeding users was when google decided that H264 would be the standard after switching for a while and mozilla having to run after it trying to get implementations going and then still having a laggy af experience on youtube and the like because the implementation google went with was proprietary. >I'm still puzzled why Moz haven't tried a paid-for Firefox option. and what functionality would the paid version of firefox have? Chances are it would cause an outrage and user-loss due to cries that functionality would be premium only tbh. It would also probably make not much of a dent in the budget.
- spinningslate 6y ago
  > and what functionality would the paid version of firefox have? Maybe it's what it _doesn't_ have. No ads for Pocket/VPN/whatever. Maybe it comes with DDG as the default search engine. Or maybe it's pre-configured with a set of tested privacy-focused extensions. Pro-privacy advocates might be in the minority, but it's a growing and generally vociferous minority. Mozilla's VPN offering suggests they see privacy as a market. FF is still by far their most popular offering; so I'm simply wondering why there's been no effort I'm aware of to explore the intersection of FF, privacy and revenue. Recognising Google would most likey challenge that.

modo_mario 6y ago

>Won't argue that Mozilla/Firefox has been comprehensively out-manouvered by Google/Chrome. And sometimes without being at fault really. I remember a key moment when firefox was bleeding users was when google decided that H264 would be the standard after switching for a while and mozilla having to run after it trying to get implementations going and then still having a laggy af experience on youtube and the like because the implementation google went with was proprietary. >I'm still puzzled why Moz haven't tried a paid-for Firefox option. and what functionality would the paid version of firefox have? Chances are it would cause an outrage and user-loss due to cries that functionality would be premium only tbh. It would also probably make not much of a dent in the budget.

spinningslate 6y ago
> and what functionality would the paid version of firefox have? Maybe it's what it _doesn't_ have. No ads for Pocket/VPN/whatever. Maybe it comes with DDG as the default search engine. Or maybe it's pre-configured with a set of tested privacy-focused extensions. Pro-privacy advocates might be in the minority, but it's a growing and generally vociferous minority. Mozilla's VPN offering suggests they see privacy as a market. FF is still by far their most popular offering; so I'm simply wondering why there's been no effort I'm aware of to explore the intersection of FF, privacy and revenue. Recognising Google would most likey challenge that.