10 ms·

I'd really love for Mozilla to focus on actually... you know... building a web browser. There are 1,000's of issues firefox needs to improve, from integrating

I'd really love for Mozilla to focus on actually... you know... building a web browser. There are 1,000's of issues firefox needs to improve, from integrating native gnome-keyring support, to performance, to porting to rust, to... Let me PM or run Mozilla for a year. We won't buy any more companies, and we're going to focus on engineering.

878654Tom 3y ago
Why do you expect this from Mozilla but not Microsoft, Google, Apple,...?
- function_seven 3y ago
  Because I expect Microsoft and Google to build more features for advertisers to target me, and Apple to build more features that lock me into their ecosystem. I expect better from Mozilla.
  - hammyhavoc 3y ago
    If history is any indicator, why are you still expecting anything different from Mozilla in 2023? Same shit, different year.
    - function_seven 3y ago
      Because I let my nostalgia of 2004 get the best of me. And as much as I may gripe about their loss of focus, or their lagging behind in certain areas, I still appreciate them for the good things they do (e.g. fingerprint resisting, containers) and for the potential that they still have—even today—to implement user-focused improvements in their browser. They may not lean into it as much as I'd like, but they still do better than Google or Microsoft in this regard.
      - hammyhavoc 3y ago
        Microsoft has the potential to make Windows 11 UX great. They made it worse than 10 by removing functionality that's existed for years. Will Microsoft do it just because the potential exists? No. Mozilla CEO takes a $3m salary and their biggest earner by many magnitudes is a search partnership with Google. Nothing is going to change with how they treat Firefox at a consumer-level until they need to man the battle stations with a rugpull on losing that partnership. "Why would they lose it?" AI happened and the current economic climate means Google is reducing spending by killing things that don't bring tangible value.
        JohnFen 3y ago
        > Microsoft has the potential to make Windows 11 UX great. Technically true, but I've become convinced that Microsoft is genuinely incapable of actually accomplishing that.
- gnicholas 3y ago
  Is this a serious question? Mozilla is mostly known for its web browser, and historically this was always the case. Microsoft is known for its OS and office suite, Google is known for search (and many other things), and Apple for its iDevices. None of these companies has ever been a browser-first company, so I wouldn't expect any of them to focus primarily on building a web browser.
  - 878654Tom 3y ago
    Is the focus of Mozilla not primarely their browser anymore because of this acquisition?
- cxr 3y ago
  Which of those three corporations are non-profits chartered for a specific purpose with an additional implied social contract with their contributors and users?
  - 878654Tom 3y ago
    And is Mozilla suddenly not focussing anymore on Firefox after this acquisition? If I remember correctly the Mozilla foundation is more than Firefox. You also have Thunderbird for example.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
- smsm42 3y ago
  Because Mozilla is supposed to be an alternative to Microsoft, Google, Apple,.. and not just "the same but with less money".
  - 878654Tom 3y ago
    And how does this acquisition change that?
    - smsm42 3y ago
      It shows that there's no strong-focused mission. Which is ok for a generic shareholder company - ultimately, not many care how exactly the profits are achieved, as long as there are profits. But less ok for a purposeful non-profit.
jdwithit 3y ago
I suspect Mozilla is large enough that they can do more than one thing at once. Some finance and legal people spending time on an acquisition is not the reason they haven't integrated gnome-keyring.
- notatoad 3y ago
  the general state of firefox suggests that they are not large enough to do more than one thing.
  - Aeolun 3y ago
    What state is that? I’ve been very satisfied with FF over the past 5 years.
    - cma 3y ago
      Basic keyboard shortcuts that worked in the 90s don't work on Firefox Android.
      - hammyhavoc 3y ago
        Android is a touch-first OS, keyboard shortcut support is woeful in general in most apps. '90s desktop browsers didn't work well with touchscreens.
        wiseowise 3y ago
        > Android is a touch-first OS Android has native support for keyboards since API 1.
        hammyhavoc 3y ago
        The word "first" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here and has jackshit to do with it supporting it. Why? Because the overwhelming majority of Android users aren't using a keyboard and are using a touchscreen. You could even extrapolate the woeful state of Android tablet UX, because there's far more Android tablet users than there will be keyboard users because hey, most Android devices only ship with a touchscreen and are cellphones. An iPad can support a keyboard too. It's a touch-first device. A Mac can support a touchscreen with a third-party driver, but it's a KBM-first UX and support of the touchscreen is horrible in most apps that only accept one input at a time.
Barrin92 3y ago
If your first step as PM of a browser that desperately needs to win back market share is to work on gnome-keyring, a feature only relevant on an operating system that less than 1% of people use your tenure is going to be very short-lived. This is engineering virtue-signaling, for lack of a better phrase.
- qzw 3y ago
  But the first line of his resume will be “Achieved 100% market share among gnome-keyring users.” That’s gonna bring all the recruiters to the yard.
- m4rtink 3y ago
  Many Linux distros use Gnome, including enterprise ones.
- lkbm 3y ago
  I agree, but to be fair, software usability often experiences death by a thousand UX cuts, and gnome-keyring support is one of those cuts. I don't think that's the case with web browsers, though. for the most part, things that matter do just work, both in Firefox and Chrome. The things I suspect could make a difference to Firefox marketshare are performance and transformative features. For performance, UI latency needs to be near-zero to make it feel snappier than Chrome, and JS- and CSS-heavy pages noticeably faster than in Chrome. (Yes, pages shouldn't be so JS- and CSS-heavy, but they are, and users don't care that it's the web developers' fault. The browser that solves that problem wins.) For features, tabs are one clear example, as were blocking popups, and session restore. Containers, adblock, Pocket integration, and Reader Mode all seem like they could have been this, but they weren't. Big features will be hit-or-miss, and will quickly be copied, but possibly a big deal for a short while. Perf, of course, is a lot of hard engineering work, and features may be as well, in addition to being potential duds. Things like gnome-keyring feels like a relatively simple quick-win, despite being very low value compared to various other possibilities. Personally, I thing I switched back to Firefox when they made restarting it when you have a hundred tabs retain the tabs, but not load them until you switch to them. That moved restarting the browser from a big deal to something I can just do whenever. (It was also when Quantum/Servo stuff was happening, but I think it was the tab thing that got me.)
boringuser2 3y ago
You'd have to invest in quality engineering on the browser itself with no guarantee that this would actually improve anything or drive revenue. The idea would be a gambit that you could improve the software sufficiently that it accidentally became actually competitive with chrome. Right now, it feels like some weird hobby project that falls short of the engineering chops that went into Chrome, and I suspect people can feel this too.
hammyhavoc 3y ago
Mediocre web browsers aren't making them money though. The search partnership royalties are. If it is still making them money, why try harder? Is Firefox-centric Mozilla still relevant in 2023? No, not really. People also assume that x is a distraction to the goal of y, but why would it be? If it hasn't happened yet, it probably isn't going to. At this point, they arguably lost the browser war, even if they made a great browser, it is going to struggle to win meaningful marketshare, and even then, how many people are going to subscribe to Pocket or a VPN? Nowhere near as much as what their search royalties make them, which likely isn't going to last forever in this climate. What about if Google pulls the plug on their search partnership due to declining Firefox numbers? They're largely dependent on Google. They probably can't pay their CEO $3m salary if that goes South.
- gnicholas 3y ago
  > Mediocre web browsers aren't making them money though. The search partnership royalties are. If it is still making them money, why try harder? Wouldn't they get more royalties if they could attract more users to their web browser?
  - hammyhavoc 3y ago
    It's a coin-flip. Google could just decide to pull the deal if consumers end up using AI more than search engines. AI is the next warfront for Google. The browser war isn't going to be won by Mozilla at this point. It's been and gone. Most consumers live in non-browser apps most of the time.
    - kjkjadksj 3y ago
      Sure, most consumers have marched off desktop os entirely to walled garden mobile apps. That probably also means whats left of the desktop browser users are perhaps more likely to be firefox users than beforehand when it was more of a mass market.
      - hammyhavoc 3y ago
alex_lav 3y ago
This seems incredibly naive. Why can't 1500 people work on two things at once?
- dblohm7 3y ago
  That's basically been the tone of every bit of Mozilla commentary for the past decade.
waboremo 3y ago
I'm confused, are you assuming that this acquisition is what is preventing those things from happening?
causi 3y ago
Still no way to change UserAgent on Firefox Mobile.
- mdaniel 3y ago
  The irony doesn't escape me that if they'd just turn off the extension restriction there are like a thousand extensions that would do that and more for any audience where such a thing still matters I haven't tried to build Firefox for Android in a really long time but I wonder what the level of effort would be to just track the release tags with such a patch applied (i.e. the world's shallowest fork)
  - godshatter 3y ago
    > if they'd just turn off the extension restriction That's basically Fennec. Download it from F-Droid. It's basically a clone of Firefox with extensions turned back on.
    - mdaniel 3y ago
      Negative, I just tried https://f-droid.org/en/packages/org.mozilla.fennec_fdroid/ https://f-droid.org/en/packages/org.mozilla.fennec_fdroid/ (which, delightfully, wasn't 0.99.beta-patch3 or some such nonsense) but it for sure was not "allow me to install whatever add-on I want". It's the same stupid list as normal Firefox for Android Maybe you're thinking of Firefox Nightly, which I do run from the Play store and is better than "normal people Firefox" but this for sure is not the good old days of "Let Me Install Violentmonkey not stupid Tapermonkey"
      - godshatter 3y ago
        Weird, I thought Fennec had those. I downloaded it and use it for browsing, but I mostly don't browse on my phone. From a web search though, I found out you can go into settings, click on "About Fennec" and click on the logo five times to unlock debug mode which apparently gives you access to custom add-on collections. You have to go to the firefox add-ons page and make a custom collection under your account for it to be useful. This presumably allows all add-ons through this method.
renewiltord 3y ago
This is just the Mythical Man Month stated differently: that if only more people were on the browser the projects it's on would get faster. The company is obviously desperately searching for a way to stay in the game as Safari / Chrome / Edge come bundled with platforms. It took this massive effort 15 years ago to get Firefox onto people's computers back in the day. Mozilla kicked off the web standardization drive and transformed the Internet. That sort of thing is not feasible now because the commercial browsers are damned good. They're either done or they have to find another way to use their resources to advance their mission. Unsurprisingly, they pick the latter.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
0xDEF 3y ago
On the contrary Mozilla correctly anticipates that low quality AI generated content will increasingly ruin web experience and has therefore correctly chosen to invest in technology that will combat that.
dokem 3y ago
I use firefox everyday at work and home and can't think of a single thing that 'needs' to be fixed from a user perspective. It loads up the internet and is fast. So I don't think defining Mozilla's vision as 'fix a bunch of random issues' is very wise. Gnome key-ring support and porting to rust? How is that going to grow the user base?
Rapzid 3y ago
It would be nice if they added the ability to more completely style their scrollbars. They could at least pretend it's 2015 or so.
derefr 3y ago
Mozilla doesn't build Firefox (which is what I assume you're meaning here by "building a web browser.") Firefox — and all those system-integration features you're mentioning — are developed by Firefox Corporation. Mozilla is a separate company, with separate employees, that does everything except building Firefox. (This division was originally created to firewall off the corporate moneys donated to, and influence of corporate developers on, Firefox, from the rest of Mozilla. Back when Google was sponsoring Firefox to use Google as its search engine, their money went exclusively to Firefox Corporation, with none of that money ever going to Mozilla.) Note that this doesn't mean that Mozilla doesn't build a web browser. Mozilla develop the engine (Gecko/Servo) that goes into Firefox; and they also co-develop some of the Gecko/Servo-based browsers used by various FOSS projects — Tor Browser, for example. This is roughly the same structure as how the open-source Chromium project (which produces its own "Chromium browser") is the basis for the closed-source Google Chrome. Interestingly, this means that for Firefox Corporation to get features into Gecko, they have to submit PRs "upstream" to Mozilla, who might very well reject them as "only serving corporate interests at the expense of the user." This is quite unlike Chromium, where both Chromium and Chrome are ultimately steered by Google.
- pseudalopex 3y ago
  Firefox developers work for Mozilla Corporation. Mozilla Corporation is a subsidiary of Mozilla Foundation. Mitchell Baker is CEO of both. In 2005 they said a for profit subsidiary was for revenue flexibility. Where did you learn it was to limit corporate developers influencing Mozilla Foundation? Google's sponsorship of Firefox continues. Most of Mozilla Foundation's revenue comes from Google through Mozilla Corporation. Mozilla Corporation employees develop Gecko. They developed Servo until it was transferred to the Linux Foundation. They land code with no sign of Mozilla Foundation review routinely. Can you show a PR Mozilla Foundation rejected as "only serving corporate interests at the expense of the user."?

878654Tom 3y ago

Why do you expect this from Mozilla but not Microsoft, Google, Apple,...?

function_seven 3y ago
Because I expect Microsoft and Google to build more features for advertisers to target me, and Apple to build more features that lock me into their ecosystem. I expect better from Mozilla.
- hammyhavoc 3y ago
  If history is any indicator, why are you still expecting anything different from Mozilla in 2023? Same shit, different year.
  - function_seven 3y ago
    Because I let my nostalgia of 2004 get the best of me. And as much as I may gripe about their loss of focus, or their lagging behind in certain areas, I still appreciate them for the good things they do (e.g. fingerprint resisting, containers) and for the potential that they still have—even today—to implement user-focused improvements in their browser. They may not lean into it as much as I'd like, but they still do better than Google or Microsoft in this regard.
    - hammyhavoc 3y ago
      Microsoft has the potential to make Windows 11 UX great. They made it worse than 10 by removing functionality that's existed for years. Will Microsoft do it just because the potential exists? No. Mozilla CEO takes a $3m salary and their biggest earner by many magnitudes is a search partnership with Google. Nothing is going to change with how they treat Firefox at a consumer-level until they need to man the battle stations with a rugpull on losing that partnership. "Why would they lose it?" AI happened and the current economic climate means Google is reducing spending by killing things that don't bring tangible value.
      - JohnFen 3y ago
        > Microsoft has the potential to make Windows 11 UX great. Technically true, but I've become convinced that Microsoft is genuinely incapable of actually accomplishing that.
gnicholas 3y ago
Is this a serious question? Mozilla is mostly known for its web browser, and historically this was always the case. Microsoft is known for its OS and office suite, Google is known for search (and many other things), and Apple for its iDevices. None of these companies has ever been a browser-first company, so I wouldn't expect any of them to focus primarily on building a web browser.
- 878654Tom 3y ago
  Is the focus of Mozilla not primarely their browser anymore because of this acquisition?
cxr 3y ago
Which of those three corporations are non-profits chartered for a specific purpose with an additional implied social contract with their contributors and users?
- 878654Tom 3y ago
  And is Mozilla suddenly not focussing anymore on Firefox after this acquisition? If I remember correctly the Mozilla foundation is more than Firefox. You also have Thunderbird for example.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
smsm42 3y ago
Because Mozilla is supposed to be an alternative to Microsoft, Google, Apple,.. and not just "the same but with less money".
- 878654Tom 3y ago
  And how does this acquisition change that?
  - smsm42 3y ago
    It shows that there's no strong-focused mission. Which is ok for a generic shareholder company - ultimately, not many care how exactly the profits are achieved, as long as there are profits. But less ok for a purposeful non-profit.

jdwithit 3y ago

I suspect Mozilla is large enough that they can do more than one thing at once. Some finance and legal people spending time on an acquisition is not the reason they haven't integrated gnome-keyring.

notatoad 3y ago
the general state of firefox suggests that they are not large enough to do more than one thing.
- Aeolun 3y ago
  What state is that? I’ve been very satisfied with FF over the past 5 years.
  - cma 3y ago
    Basic keyboard shortcuts that worked in the 90s don't work on Firefox Android.
    - hammyhavoc 3y ago
      Android is a touch-first OS, keyboard shortcut support is woeful in general in most apps. '90s desktop browsers didn't work well with touchscreens.
      - wiseowise 3y ago
        > Android is a touch-first OS Android has native support for keyboards since API 1.
        hammyhavoc 3y ago
        The word "first" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here and has jackshit to do with it supporting it. Why? Because the overwhelming majority of Android users aren't using a keyboard and are using a touchscreen. You could even extrapolate the woeful state of Android tablet UX, because there's far more Android tablet users than there will be keyboard users because hey, most Android devices only ship with a touchscreen and are cellphones. An iPad can support a keyboard too. It's a touch-first device. A Mac can support a touchscreen with a third-party driver, but it's a KBM-first UX and support of the touchscreen is horrible in most apps that only accept one input at a time.

Barrin92 3y ago

If your first step as PM of a browser that desperately needs to win back market share is to work on gnome-keyring, a feature only relevant on an operating system that less than 1% of people use your tenure is going to be very short-lived. This is engineering virtue-signaling, for lack of a better phrase.

qzw 3y ago
But the first line of his resume will be “Achieved 100% market share among gnome-keyring users.” That’s gonna bring all the recruiters to the yard.
m4rtink 3y ago
Many Linux distros use Gnome, including enterprise ones.
lkbm 3y ago
I agree, but to be fair, software usability often experiences death by a thousand UX cuts, and gnome-keyring support is one of those cuts. I don't think that's the case with web browsers, though. for the most part, things that matter do just work, both in Firefox and Chrome. The things I suspect could make a difference to Firefox marketshare are performance and transformative features. For performance, UI latency needs to be near-zero to make it feel snappier than Chrome, and JS- and CSS-heavy pages noticeably faster than in Chrome. (Yes, pages shouldn't be so JS- and CSS-heavy, but they are, and users don't care that it's the web developers' fault. The browser that solves that problem wins.) For features, tabs are one clear example, as were blocking popups, and session restore. Containers, adblock, Pocket integration, and Reader Mode all seem like they could have been this, but they weren't. Big features will be hit-or-miss, and will quickly be copied, but possibly a big deal for a short while. Perf, of course, is a lot of hard engineering work, and features may be as well, in addition to being potential duds. Things like gnome-keyring feels like a relatively simple quick-win, despite being very low value compared to various other possibilities. Personally, I thing I switched back to Firefox when they made restarting it when you have a hundred tabs retain the tabs, but not load them until you switch to them. That moved restarting the browser from a big deal to something I can just do whenever. (It was also when Quantum/Servo stuff was happening, but I think it was the tab thing that got me.)

boringuser2 3y ago

You'd have to invest in quality engineering on the browser itself with no guarantee that this would actually improve anything or drive revenue. The idea would be a gambit that you could improve the software sufficiently that it accidentally became actually competitive with chrome. Right now, it feels like some weird hobby project that falls short of the engineering chops that went into Chrome, and I suspect people can feel this too.

hammyhavoc 3y ago

Mediocre web browsers aren't making them money though. The search partnership royalties are. If it is still making them money, why try harder? Is Firefox-centric Mozilla still relevant in 2023? No, not really. People also assume that x is a distraction to the goal of y, but why would it be? If it hasn't happened yet, it probably isn't going to. At this point, they arguably lost the browser war, even if they made a great browser, it is going to struggle to win meaningful marketshare, and even then, how many people are going to subscribe to Pocket or a VPN? Nowhere near as much as what their search royalties make them, which likely isn't going to last forever in this climate. What about if Google pulls the plug on their search partnership due to declining Firefox numbers? They're largely dependent on Google. They probably can't pay their CEO $3m salary if that goes South.

gnicholas 3y ago
> Mediocre web browsers aren't making them money though. The search partnership royalties are. If it is still making them money, why try harder? Wouldn't they get more royalties if they could attract more users to their web browser?
- hammyhavoc 3y ago
  It's a coin-flip. Google could just decide to pull the deal if consumers end up using AI more than search engines. AI is the next warfront for Google. The browser war isn't going to be won by Mozilla at this point. It's been and gone. Most consumers live in non-browser apps most of the time.
  - kjkjadksj 3y ago
    Sure, most consumers have marched off desktop os entirely to walled garden mobile apps. That probably also means whats left of the desktop browser users are perhaps more likely to be firefox users than beforehand when it was more of a mass market.
    - hammyhavoc 3y ago

alex_lav 3y ago

This seems incredibly naive. Why can't 1500 people work on two things at once?

dblohm7 3y ago
That's basically been the tone of every bit of Mozilla commentary for the past decade.

waboremo 3y ago

I'm confused, are you assuming that this acquisition is what is preventing those things from happening?

causi 3y ago

Still no way to change UserAgent on Firefox Mobile.

mdaniel 3y ago
The irony doesn't escape me that if they'd just turn off the extension restriction there are like a thousand extensions that would do that and more for any audience where such a thing still matters I haven't tried to build Firefox for Android in a really long time but I wonder what the level of effort would be to just track the release tags with such a patch applied (i.e. the world's shallowest fork)
- godshatter 3y ago
  > if they'd just turn off the extension restriction That's basically Fennec. Download it from F-Droid. It's basically a clone of Firefox with extensions turned back on.
  - mdaniel 3y ago
    Negative, I just tried https://f-droid.org/en/packages/org.mozilla.fennec_fdroid/ https://f-droid.org/en/packages/org.mozilla.fennec_fdroid/ (which, delightfully, wasn't 0.99.beta-patch3 or some such nonsense) but it for sure was not "allow me to install whatever add-on I want". It's the same stupid list as normal Firefox for Android Maybe you're thinking of Firefox Nightly, which I do run from the Play store and is better than "normal people Firefox" but this for sure is not the good old days of "Let Me Install Violentmonkey not stupid Tapermonkey"
    - godshatter 3y ago
      Weird, I thought Fennec had those. I downloaded it and use it for browsing, but I mostly don't browse on my phone. From a web search though, I found out you can go into settings, click on "About Fennec" and click on the logo five times to unlock debug mode which apparently gives you access to custom add-on collections. You have to go to the firefox add-ons page and make a custom collection under your account for it to be useful. This presumably allows all add-ons through this method.

renewiltord 3y ago

This is just the Mythical Man Month stated differently: that if only more people were on the browser the projects it's on would get faster. The company is obviously desperately searching for a way to stay in the game as Safari / Chrome / Edge come bundled with platforms. It took this massive effort 15 years ago to get Firefox onto people's computers back in the day. Mozilla kicked off the web standardization drive and transformed the Internet. That sort of thing is not feasible now because the commercial browsers are damned good. They're either done or they have to find another way to use their resources to advance their mission. Unsurprisingly, they pick the latter.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

0xDEF 3y ago

On the contrary Mozilla correctly anticipates that low quality AI generated content will increasingly ruin web experience and has therefore correctly chosen to invest in technology that will combat that.

dokem 3y ago

I use firefox everyday at work and home and can't think of a single thing that 'needs' to be fixed from a user perspective. It loads up the internet and is fast. So I don't think defining Mozilla's vision as 'fix a bunch of random issues' is very wise. Gnome key-ring support and porting to rust? How is that going to grow the user base?

Rapzid 3y ago

It would be nice if they added the ability to more completely style their scrollbars. They could at least pretend it's 2015 or so.

derefr 3y ago

Mozilla doesn't build Firefox (which is what I assume you're meaning here by "building a web browser.") Firefox — and all those system-integration features you're mentioning — are developed by Firefox Corporation. Mozilla is a separate company, with separate employees, that does everything except building Firefox. (This division was originally created to firewall off the corporate moneys donated to, and influence of corporate developers on, Firefox, from the rest of Mozilla. Back when Google was sponsoring Firefox to use Google as its search engine, their money went exclusively to Firefox Corporation, with none of that money ever going to Mozilla.) Note that this doesn't mean that Mozilla doesn't build a web browser. Mozilla develop the engine (Gecko/Servo) that goes into Firefox; and they also co-develop some of the Gecko/Servo-based browsers used by various FOSS projects — Tor Browser, for example. This is roughly the same structure as how the open-source Chromium project (which produces its own "Chromium browser") is the basis for the closed-source Google Chrome. Interestingly, this means that for Firefox Corporation to get features into Gecko, they have to submit PRs "upstream" to Mozilla, who might very well reject them as "only serving corporate interests at the expense of the user." This is quite unlike Chromium, where both Chromium and Chrome are ultimately steered by Google.

pseudalopex 3y ago
Firefox developers work for Mozilla Corporation. Mozilla Corporation is a subsidiary of Mozilla Foundation. Mitchell Baker is CEO of both. In 2005 they said a for profit subsidiary was for revenue flexibility. Where did you learn it was to limit corporate developers influencing Mozilla Foundation? Google's sponsorship of Firefox continues. Most of Mozilla Foundation's revenue comes from Google through Mozilla Corporation. Mozilla Corporation employees develop Gecko. They developed Servo until it was transferred to the Linux Foundation. They land code with no sign of Mozilla Foundation review routinely. Can you show a PR Mozilla Foundation rejected as "only serving corporate interests at the expense of the user."?