6 ms·

Did you miss the episode in 2017 in which they used an internal control to force the installation of an add-on as part of a promotion for a television show? ht

Did you miss the episode in 2017 in which they used an internal control to force the installation of an add-on as part of a promotion for a television show? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15941302 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15941302 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15940144 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15940144 I feel similarly to you...long-time user, bummed out by stuff like this. Sometimes it feels like Firefox would be a lot better off without Mozilla occasionally making deals like this.

0cf8612b2e1e 3y ago
I read a conspiracy that Google has paid off Mozilla management to specifically sabotage the browser development. Actions like this make it hard to dispute the moves that frequently seem deliberately anti-user.
- evv 3y ago
  It's not a conspiracy that Google pays Mozilla for default search engine placement. Maybe that arrangement led to the stagnation of Firefox, without malicious intent from any party. Hanlon's razor, yadda yadda
  - letsdothisagain 3y ago
    Hanlon's razor only makes sense if you're a teenager posting on reddit. Just world theory and all that. Once you get into corporate politics it's the exact opposite. God help you if you ever get into the nuts and bolts of governmental, or gasp intergovernmental politics.
    - orangecat 3y ago
      Eh, from my experience in several large companies there's some malice, but there's way more incompetence.
      - pessimizer 3y ago
        From my experience, companies are happy to strategically feign incompetence, blindness and deafness.
- dehrmann 3y ago
  Th other conspiracy I've heard is Google subsidizes Mozilla so they have a credible claim there's competition in the market.
  - mozman 3y ago
    This is the correct answer
    - warkdarrior 3y ago
      Why would Google try to prop up Firefox as a competitor? Both Safari and Edge on desktop are twice the market share of Firefox, so the browser market is competitive enough without Firefox. https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share/desktop/worldwide https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share/desktop/worl...
      - kuratkull 3y ago
        Chrome, edge and safari are just, well chrome, on a single family of rendering engines
      - wongarsu 3y ago
        Safari can probably be discounted since Apple discontinued the Windows version in 2012. A browser that can only run on 18% of desktops worldwide isn't necessarily the competitor Google is looking for. Edge is available on Windows, Linux and macOS, so it would probably do. But that would allow one of Google's biggest competitors to drop an under-performing product and lobby for antitrust against Google. Unlikely to happen, but a risk Google might not want to take. https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/desktop/worldwide https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/desktop/worldwide
      - jonas21 3y ago
        Google would probably prefer if Safari and Edge did not gain market share. They're both developed by large corporations that pose a major threat to Google. Firefox, not so much.
      - 3y ago
- DANmode 3y ago
  Conspiracy theory
- philistine 3y ago
  That makes no sense. Mozilla goes so hard on the VPN ads exactly because it wants to diversify its revenues away from its vassalage to Google.
  - worrycue 3y ago
    A pet theory of mine is Mozilla’s C-suite knows no matter how bad Firefox gets and how low their user count, Google will continue to fund them because Google likes something to point to if antitrust came knocking - in fact the lower Firefox’s influence the better as Chrome can then unilaterally control the web. So they spend all of Mozilla’s money on various BS like Pocket and now VPN to try to make more money so they can further increase their already high salaries, instead of reinvesting into Firefox - hence the anti-user intrusive ads, the reduction of head count while paying themselves millions of dollars.
- tivert 3y ago
  > I read a conspiracy that Google has paid off Mozilla management to specifically sabotage the browser development. Actions like this make it hard to dispute the moves that frequently seem deliberately anti-user. IIRC, didn't Mozilla lay off some R&D team that was doing some promising work on modernizing and improving its browser engine?
  - slondr 3y ago
    That "promising work" was "inventing the Rust programming language," and, yes.
    - mlry 3y ago
      I think parent is refering to the servo team.
  - 0cf8612b2e1e 3y ago
    My annoyance is more the half-brained projects which Mozilla pursues. Then surprised Pikachu when they have to cut budgets and Firefox is impacted.
- crossroadsguy 3y ago
  Reminds of good old Mr Elop.
SilasX 3y ago
(Not the OP.) Nope, and I also didn't miss the torrent of HNers saying "what's the problem, you already trust them to provide the software, you should trust anything they want to send along with it."
jeroenhd 3y ago
The execution was definitely terrible, but "browser company ships promotional easter egg" isn't that bad as "browser company inserts ads into browsing experience" in my opinion. These ads are why Windows 10+ has become a trash fire despite all the technical improvements made to Windows. Mozilla were stupid enough to try and sneak this Roboto stuff in, probably as part of the requirements or intentions of the ad campaign, rather than be transparent about it. Stupidity rather than malice. The VPN ad is a targeted decision comingffrom within the non-profit. I sort of get it, Mozilla is desperate for income because Google is keeping them afloat, barely anyone who donates cares about anything but the browser, and the for-profit ventures aren't gaining much success.
- isomorphic 3y ago
  The thing is, if I was somewhat interested in a Mozilla VPN service, this spectacularly idiotic decision to deploy full-page intrusive advertising into Firefox makes it 100% certain I will never buy the Mozilla VPN service--because, how can I trust that they won't do the equivalent to that service? What's to stop them from blocking certain sites (on the other side of the VPN) as part of some promotion? Or worse? They've made it clear they don't believe their own language about privacy and user choice. They've compromised one product to advertise another. And perhaps worse, they doubled-down about it in Bugzilla with corporate doublespeak, which to me is the tell that they'll absolutely do it again. It's amazing how apt the trust-thermocline analogy is.
  - s3p 3y ago
    I see what you're saying but.. it's one popup. Maybe you can't, but I can live with that.
    - cyanwave 3y ago
      Correct. There’s a bit of entitlement here by some.
    - InCityDreams 3y ago
      Slippery slope has people scared.

0cf8612b2e1e 3y ago

I read a conspiracy that Google has paid off Mozilla management to specifically sabotage the browser development. Actions like this make it hard to dispute the moves that frequently seem deliberately anti-user.

evv 3y ago
It's not a conspiracy that Google pays Mozilla for default search engine placement. Maybe that arrangement led to the stagnation of Firefox, without malicious intent from any party. Hanlon's razor, yadda yadda
- letsdothisagain 3y ago
  Hanlon's razor only makes sense if you're a teenager posting on reddit. Just world theory and all that. Once you get into corporate politics it's the exact opposite. God help you if you ever get into the nuts and bolts of governmental, or gasp intergovernmental politics.
  - orangecat 3y ago
    Eh, from my experience in several large companies there's some malice, but there's way more incompetence.
    - pessimizer 3y ago
      From my experience, companies are happy to strategically feign incompetence, blindness and deafness.
dehrmann 3y ago
Th other conspiracy I've heard is Google subsidizes Mozilla so they have a credible claim there's competition in the market.
- mozman 3y ago
  This is the correct answer
  - warkdarrior 3y ago
    Why would Google try to prop up Firefox as a competitor? Both Safari and Edge on desktop are twice the market share of Firefox, so the browser market is competitive enough without Firefox. https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share/desktop/worldwide https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share/desktop/worl...
    - kuratkull 3y ago
      Chrome, edge and safari are just, well chrome, on a single family of rendering engines
    - wongarsu 3y ago
      Safari can probably be discounted since Apple discontinued the Windows version in 2012. A browser that can only run on 18% of desktops worldwide isn't necessarily the competitor Google is looking for. Edge is available on Windows, Linux and macOS, so it would probably do. But that would allow one of Google's biggest competitors to drop an under-performing product and lobby for antitrust against Google. Unlikely to happen, but a risk Google might not want to take. https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/desktop/worldwide https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/desktop/worldwide
    - jonas21 3y ago
      Google would probably prefer if Safari and Edge did not gain market share. They're both developed by large corporations that pose a major threat to Google. Firefox, not so much.
    - 3y ago
DANmode 3y ago
Conspiracy theory
philistine 3y ago
That makes no sense. Mozilla goes so hard on the VPN ads exactly because it wants to diversify its revenues away from its vassalage to Google.
- worrycue 3y ago
  A pet theory of mine is Mozilla’s C-suite knows no matter how bad Firefox gets and how low their user count, Google will continue to fund them because Google likes something to point to if antitrust came knocking - in fact the lower Firefox’s influence the better as Chrome can then unilaterally control the web. So they spend all of Mozilla’s money on various BS like Pocket and now VPN to try to make more money so they can further increase their already high salaries, instead of reinvesting into Firefox - hence the anti-user intrusive ads, the reduction of head count while paying themselves millions of dollars.
tivert 3y ago
> I read a conspiracy that Google has paid off Mozilla management to specifically sabotage the browser development. Actions like this make it hard to dispute the moves that frequently seem deliberately anti-user. IIRC, didn't Mozilla lay off some R&D team that was doing some promising work on modernizing and improving its browser engine?
- slondr 3y ago
  That "promising work" was "inventing the Rust programming language," and, yes.
  - mlry 3y ago
    I think parent is refering to the servo team.
- 0cf8612b2e1e 3y ago
  My annoyance is more the half-brained projects which Mozilla pursues. Then surprised Pikachu when they have to cut budgets and Firefox is impacted.
crossroadsguy 3y ago
Reminds of good old Mr Elop.

SilasX 3y ago

(Not the OP.) Nope, and I also didn't miss the torrent of HNers saying "what's the problem, you already trust them to provide the software, you should trust anything they want to send along with it."

jeroenhd 3y ago

The execution was definitely terrible, but "browser company ships promotional easter egg" isn't that bad as "browser company inserts ads into browsing experience" in my opinion. These ads are why Windows 10+ has become a trash fire despite all the technical improvements made to Windows. Mozilla were stupid enough to try and sneak this Roboto stuff in, probably as part of the requirements or intentions of the ad campaign, rather than be transparent about it. Stupidity rather than malice. The VPN ad is a targeted decision comingffrom within the non-profit. I sort of get it, Mozilla is desperate for income because Google is keeping them afloat, barely anyone who donates cares about anything but the browser, and the for-profit ventures aren't gaining much success.

isomorphic 3y ago
The thing is, if I was somewhat interested in a Mozilla VPN service, this spectacularly idiotic decision to deploy full-page intrusive advertising into Firefox makes it 100% certain I will never buy the Mozilla VPN service--because, how can I trust that they won't do the equivalent to that service? What's to stop them from blocking certain sites (on the other side of the VPN) as part of some promotion? Or worse? They've made it clear they don't believe their own language about privacy and user choice. They've compromised one product to advertise another. And perhaps worse, they doubled-down about it in Bugzilla with corporate doublespeak, which to me is the tell that they'll absolutely do it again. It's amazing how apt the trust-thermocline analogy is.
- s3p 3y ago
  I see what you're saying but.. it's one popup. Maybe you can't, but I can live with that.
  - cyanwave 3y ago
    Correct. There’s a bit of entitlement here by some.
  - InCityDreams 3y ago
    Slippery slope has people scared.