6 ms·

Mozilla also offers a white-label version of Mullvad VPN, while subtly implying that they operate the VPN themselves: “A Virtual Private Network from the makers

Mozilla also offers a white-label version of Mullvad VPN, while subtly implying that they operate the VPN themselves: “A Virtual Private Network from the makers of Firefox.”

ducktective 5y ago
Why Mozilla doesn't host their own WireGuard-based VPNs? Could be a good way to lure users.
- sparkling 5y ago
  Running a VPN service is not a simple operation. I assume Mozilla simply did not want to maintain their own infrastructure. Apart from all the legal trouble like dealing with copyright violations (DMCA emails), law enforcement requests etc. it is also increasingly difficult for the VPN providers to circumvent VPN detection services (like https://focsec.com https://focsec.com). Netflix, Spotify and others are investing heavily into VPN detection technology, so it is a constant cat and mouse game, they always need to bring up new locations.
  - SimeVidas 5y ago
    Yep, Mozilla does not have VPN infrastructure money. They're happy if they have enough money to develop Firefox.
    - detaro 5y ago
      Of course they could afford it, but would it be good use of money? I kind of doubt a Mozilla-hosted VPN would be much more popular than the Mullvad-based one, and them partnering companies that do a good job instead of competing sounds like not a bad thing.
      - SimeVidas 5y ago
        What makes you so sure they could afford it? How much does it cost to set up an independent global VPN service?
        detaro 5y ago
        Not sure about exact numbers, but e.g. Mullvad appears to have less than 25 employees, some of which are going to be administrative overhead Mozilla already covers for the entire company, so lets say ~20 people on the product (including support etc)? Even a now downsized Mozilla has to be able to dedicate 20 people to an attempt to make money. And that is probably not as small as you could do it if you had to.
        SimeVidas 5y ago
        Don’t VPNs have a very large number of servers all over the world? That must cost a ton of money and make it hard for new players to enter the market without a significant investment. I’m not sure Mozilla can spare such an investment right now.
  - _wolfie_ 5y ago
    > Netflix, Spotify and others are investing heavily into VPN detection technology I never understood why. It seems to me that only effect of this "investing" is surge in piracy.
    - sparkling 5y ago
      My guess would be that they are required to enforce geoblocking as part of their licensing agreements with the studios.
    - blitzar 5y ago
      I assume the push comes from the original license holders of the content, wanting to bargain effectively with multiple parties region by region around the world. Back in the day Netflix really didnt seem to care about region blocking beyond the most basic check, and why would they - you pay your subs and you get content. Being able to get more content by proxying to say the US etc actually got them more subscribers not less.
      - eptcyka 5y ago
        Why can't they do region locking based on the billing address of the credit/debit card used to pay for their services?
        gwicks56 5y ago
        Travel. Content is licensed to geographic areas, not people/billing areas.
        helloworld11 5y ago
        Which is utterly, brainlessly, grubbily stupid as a facet of modern digital content streaming. Aside from being absurd in principle, will large numbers of people suddenly migrate to another country so they can use its Netflix selection? Probably not.
        eptcyka 5y ago
- craftinator 5y ago
  Because they drank the evil corporate Kool aid years ago; it's cheaper and easier just to misappropriate someone else's service.
  - detaro 5y ago
    How are they misappropriating anything?
    - samhw 5y ago
      Well, by virtue of what the GP comment said: > Mozilla also offers a white-label version of Mullvad VPN, while subtly implying that they operate the VPN themselves: “A Virtual Private Network from the makers of Firefox.” Maybe 'misappropriate' is a bit of a stretch, and certainly the rest of the language in the above comment is tiresomely partisan, but it's not hard to see what they meant.
tyingq 5y ago
That's true, though they did write their own client UIs.
duxup 5y ago
I like it. I can support Mozilla and use Mullvad at the same time. It wasn't a mystery who was running the underlying service to me, that was actually a selling point.
jikbd 5y ago
That’s not “subtly implying”. That’s a blatant lie. But, you see, Mozilla are good for some reason, so we must judge them under a double standard.
- kadoban 5y ago
  There's not really anything at all wrong with whitelabelling. This article only exists because malwarebytes is doing it poorly.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
boomboomsubban 5y ago
Though they could make the connection more explicit, their "servers" link on the Mozilla VPN homepage is a link to Mullvad. And presumably it isn't violating any licenses.
that_guy_iain 5y ago
The entire point of white labeling is to act like you provide it. They pay for the right to say the VPN is from them. You're buying it from them not Mullvad. It is from them. They aren't saying a VPN network operated by the makers for Firefox.
alam2000 5y ago

Mozilla also offers a white-label version of Mullvad VPN, while subtly implying that they operate the VPN themselves: “A Virtual Private Network from the makers of Firefox.”

ducktective 5y ago

Why Mozilla doesn't host their own WireGuard-based VPNs? Could be a good way to lure users.

sparkling 5y ago
Running a VPN service is not a simple operation. I assume Mozilla simply did not want to maintain their own infrastructure. Apart from all the legal trouble like dealing with copyright violations (DMCA emails), law enforcement requests etc. it is also increasingly difficult for the VPN providers to circumvent VPN detection services (like https://focsec.com https://focsec.com). Netflix, Spotify and others are investing heavily into VPN detection technology, so it is a constant cat and mouse game, they always need to bring up new locations.
- SimeVidas 5y ago
  Yep, Mozilla does not have VPN infrastructure money. They're happy if they have enough money to develop Firefox.
  - detaro 5y ago
    Of course they could afford it, but would it be good use of money? I kind of doubt a Mozilla-hosted VPN would be much more popular than the Mullvad-based one, and them partnering companies that do a good job instead of competing sounds like not a bad thing.
    - SimeVidas 5y ago
      What makes you so sure they could afford it? How much does it cost to set up an independent global VPN service?
      - detaro 5y ago
        Not sure about exact numbers, but e.g. Mullvad appears to have less than 25 employees, some of which are going to be administrative overhead Mozilla already covers for the entire company, so lets say ~20 people on the product (including support etc)? Even a now downsized Mozilla has to be able to dedicate 20 people to an attempt to make money. And that is probably not as small as you could do it if you had to.
        SimeVidas 5y ago
        Don’t VPNs have a very large number of servers all over the world? That must cost a ton of money and make it hard for new players to enter the market without a significant investment. I’m not sure Mozilla can spare such an investment right now.
- _wolfie_ 5y ago
  > Netflix, Spotify and others are investing heavily into VPN detection technology I never understood why. It seems to me that only effect of this "investing" is surge in piracy.
  - sparkling 5y ago
    My guess would be that they are required to enforce geoblocking as part of their licensing agreements with the studios.
  - blitzar 5y ago
    I assume the push comes from the original license holders of the content, wanting to bargain effectively with multiple parties region by region around the world. Back in the day Netflix really didnt seem to care about region blocking beyond the most basic check, and why would they - you pay your subs and you get content. Being able to get more content by proxying to say the US etc actually got them more subscribers not less.
    - eptcyka 5y ago
      Why can't they do region locking based on the billing address of the credit/debit card used to pay for their services?
      - gwicks56 5y ago
        Travel. Content is licensed to geographic areas, not people/billing areas.
        helloworld11 5y ago
        Which is utterly, brainlessly, grubbily stupid as a facet of modern digital content streaming. Aside from being absurd in principle, will large numbers of people suddenly migrate to another country so they can use its Netflix selection? Probably not.
        eptcyka 5y ago
craftinator 5y ago
Because they drank the evil corporate Kool aid years ago; it's cheaper and easier just to misappropriate someone else's service.
- detaro 5y ago
  How are they misappropriating anything?
  - samhw 5y ago
    Well, by virtue of what the GP comment said: > Mozilla also offers a white-label version of Mullvad VPN, while subtly implying that they operate the VPN themselves: “A Virtual Private Network from the makers of Firefox.” Maybe 'misappropriate' is a bit of a stretch, and certainly the rest of the language in the above comment is tiresomely partisan, but it's not hard to see what they meant.

tyingq 5y ago

That's true, though they did write their own client UIs.

duxup 5y ago

I like it. I can support Mozilla and use Mullvad at the same time. It wasn't a mystery who was running the underlying service to me, that was actually a selling point.

jikbd 5y ago

That’s not “subtly implying”. That’s a blatant lie. But, you see, Mozilla are good for some reason, so we must judge them under a double standard.

kadoban 5y ago
There's not really anything at all wrong with whitelabelling. This article only exists because malwarebytes is doing it poorly.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

boomboomsubban 5y ago

Though they could make the connection more explicit, their "servers" link on the Mozilla VPN homepage is a link to Mullvad. And presumably it isn't violating any licenses.

that_guy_iain 5y ago

The entire point of white labeling is to act like you provide it. They pay for the right to say the VPN is from them. You're buying it from them not Mullvad. It is from them. They aren't saying a VPN network operated by the makers for Firefox.

alam2000 5y ago