6 ms·

Seems like this is in support of "Firefox Suggest", which seems to show sponsored links. I really don't like advertising so I really don't like going down that

Seems like this is in support of "Firefox Suggest", which seems to show sponsored links. I really don't like advertising so I really don't like going down that road. Can't they just take Google's yearly $600,000,000 payment and build the best browser "for the user" while also addressing technical debt and organizational issues so it can continue as an open source project if/when the money ever dries up?

not2b 2y ago
Antitrust actions in the US and EU may force Google to cut off those payments (to Mozilla and Apple), and if that happens, Firefox needs to survive somehow.
- kjkjadksj 2y ago
  Somehow open source browsers still get made without a $600 million “rich uncle.” Mozilla is pretty bloated. This can buy like 1200 good engineers. People make browsers with a couple people sometimes.
  - camkego 2y ago
    It’s possible to repackage Chromium with a couple people. It’s not possible to build a browser from the ground up with a couple people.
    - marginalia_nu 2y ago
      Why not? Ladybird seems like it is coming along very well.
      - zamadatix 2y ago
        Ladybird is frickin awesome but give it 10 more years and it still won't be an equivalent to 2024 Safari/Firefox/Chrome without a lot more funding than it's already getting (~100-200k/year in sponsorships).
    - kjkjadksj 2y ago
      Using existing code is fine, that's how most software is built anyhow. Only masochists build from complete scratch. EDIT: I've been getting a lot of down votes for this stance, surprisingly. Why not share your position if you don't agree? There must be a bunch of hardcore people on here who are writing directly on the metal in machine code. Short of that, you are in fact using someone else's code in all your projects.
      - JohnFen 2y ago
        This seems to conflate two entirely different ways of "using existing code". Using tools written by others is technically "using existing code", but that's an entirely different thing than incorporating existing code into your projects. I think that when most devs hear "using existing code", they're thinking of the latter, not the former.
        kjkjadksj 2y ago
        How is calling a library and using a function someone else wrote not the same thing as using a function someone else wrote in any other way? Cite your sources by all means but still the difference is a semantical one.
        JohnFen 2y ago
        I don't understand your question. What I'm saying is that calling a library/crate/whatever is an entirely different thing from using a tool like a compiler/IDE/etc. In the former, you're incorporating external code into your project. In the latter, you're not. I think most people wouldn't say that you're "using someone else's code" in your project just by using a tool written by someone else because the tool's code is not being included in your project. Perhaps I misunderstood you, though. Your statement "There must be a bunch of hardcore people on here who are writing directly on the metal in machine code" heavily implies that you believe that using an assembler or compiler counts as "using existing code". In this context, I don't think it does. By the way, I do, in fact, sometimes write code directly in machine language. Not large amounts of it, of course, but some.
  - zamadatix 2y ago
    Most open source browsers are a reskin of actual open source browser development. E.g. Brave and Vivaldi are skins on top of the actual Chromium project, librewolf and others on Firefox's components, and Orion and others on Safari's components. Only a rare few browsers e.g. Dillo or Ladybird are actually independent and it shows in that those browsers are nearly unusably slow, compatibility limited, and insecure (that's not a diss on them, they are still awesome projects for their own reasons).
  - mead5432 2y ago
    Sorry - was looking at an older version of the page and didn’t realize there were already a bunch of the same comment. My bad. ——— Will they though? Maybe some toy ones but the distribution of other browsers are largely built on chromium with a few on Firefox and one or two on WebKit. Beyond that, there’s Arc that’s made a splash with the HN crowd but IIRC, it’s VC funded so a whole different set of concerns. There will be other browsers but almost the entire browser market is essentially funded by Google.
BadHumans 2y ago
You want them to be Google's vassal state and wait for death instead of trying to become self-sustainable? Defeatist mentality if I've ever seen one.
- Kuinox 2y ago
  I want them to not replicate google. I use Firefox to fight ads, not to get ads in my searchbar.
  - deprecative 2y ago
    Ironic that ads are what Google uses to pay Mozilla so you(we) can use Firefox.
    - immibis 2y ago
      You assume that Firefox can't exist without Mozilla. Thunderbird got a lot better after divorcing from Mozilla.
      - dralley 2y ago
        A) Firefox is vastly bigger and more complicated than Thunderbird B) Email protocols aren't a moving target to the degree that the web is C) Thunderbird has the benefit of being able to freeload off the base platform development that Firefox continues to do, although of course it's a lot of work even to adapt to those changes.
- autoexec 2y ago
  > You want them to be Google's vassal state and wait for death instead of trying to become self-sustainable? There's no shortage of privacy respecting open source software that somehow doesn't have to choose between depending on Google and selling out their users. Firefox knows that most people won't opt out. They're choosing to take Google's money and screw over their users at the same time.
- mardifoufs 2y ago
ddalex 2y ago
> addressing ... organizational issues Obviously not. It's very difficult to make people understand something when their jobs depend on them not understanding it.
pquki4 2y ago
> Can't they just take Google's yearly $600,000,000 payment They can do that for as long as Google is willing to pay. Without additional revenue stream, the day Google decides to cut cost and stop sponsoring Mozilla, that's the day Firefox will run into big trouble. Any additional revenue stream is going to help. I am no CEO but that seems very clear to me.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- zamadatix 2y ago
  It's not a sponsorship, it's a sale.It's also made such deals with Yandex, Baidu, and Yahoo before. The sale is for eyeballs on your search (ad) service. Firefox is getting in a precarious situation with it though as the number of users on Firefox has been decreasing (in absolute terms) despite the number of web users increasing.
  - xnyan 2y ago
    It's also a part of their anti-trust defense strategy. Firefox staying alive as a marginal but existent alternative to chromium based browsers is currently good for google.
sunaookami 2y ago
Sadly Firefox already shows sponsored spammy & clickbaity "articles" on the default new tab page which always makes me cringe whenever I see it on other pcs.
aquova 2y ago
I constantly see this take and I'm afraid I don't agree with it. Firefox is continuing to lose market share, and I think it's less anything they're doing and due simply to the fact that Google is a household name while Mozilla is not. When the user is already using a Google phone, email, search, maps, drive, and document editor, it follows to also use their browser. Simply being a solid browser isn't enough to motivate people to switch away. So I think they should try out some new interesting ideas in the hope that some of them take off. Now, I don't think this is the feature to do that, but I won't criticize them for trying.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- JeremyNT 2y ago
  I agree with this take. It's not like the power users who currently use Firefox and yet dislike this stuff are going to switch away from Firefox, since there's nothing to switch to other than Chrome, which is clearly worse. Personal anecdote, I didn't like Pocket being added to Firefox, but eventually I did start using it - only because it came from Mozilla. And I currently pay Mozilla money for Relay (along with VPN), which are examples of them expanding outside of their core browser features.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > not like the power users who currently use Firefox and yet dislike this stuff are going to switch away from Firefox Not a Firefox power user, but also not a fan of having to learn through HN that I need to disable some random opt-in to not have my browsing leaked by my browser. Was genuinely on the fence about deleting it and simplifying to Safari.
    - riedel 2y ago
      I am a happy user of LibreWolf: they do the opt out for me. On android I use mull. I have to say that I am quite happy and really do not understand everyone moving to chromium based browsers.
lxgr 2y ago
If you ever figure out a bulletproof solution to "just taking the money and building a good product/company without any technical debt and organizational cruft", please do share your results – this would be somewhat valuable for humanity!
- causality0 2y ago
  I dunno, the CEO getting a 400% pay rise in the same time period the browser lost 85% of its market share might be a good place to start.
immibis 2y ago
Capitalist organizations, even nonprofits, incentive moving money to the top. Mozilla has the same kind of cancer that Wikimedia has documented. Firefox is open-source, but Mozilla is not.
jasonlotito 2y ago
> Seems like this is in support of "Firefox Suggest", which seems to show sponsored links. Browsing history, bookmarks, clipboard, open tabs, shortcuts, search engines, suggestions from firefox, suggestions from sponsors. Each of those can be individually turned off and on. Why do you think Firefox Suggest using browsing history, bookmarks, clipboard, open tabs, shortcuts, search engines, suggestions from firefox isn't building the best browser "for the user"? Or were you just ignorant of what Firefox Suggest did and didn't bother to take a moment to look it up in Firefox?
- int_19h 2y ago
  They don't need my data to show me suggestions from my own browsing history, bookmarks etc. They only need it for "suggestions from sponsors", which is ad spam.

not2b 2y ago

Antitrust actions in the US and EU may force Google to cut off those payments (to Mozilla and Apple), and if that happens, Firefox needs to survive somehow.

kjkjadksj 2y ago
Somehow open source browsers still get made without a $600 million “rich uncle.” Mozilla is pretty bloated. This can buy like 1200 good engineers. People make browsers with a couple people sometimes.
- camkego 2y ago
  It’s possible to repackage Chromium with a couple people. It’s not possible to build a browser from the ground up with a couple people.
  - marginalia_nu 2y ago
    Why not? Ladybird seems like it is coming along very well.
    - zamadatix 2y ago
      Ladybird is frickin awesome but give it 10 more years and it still won't be an equivalent to 2024 Safari/Firefox/Chrome without a lot more funding than it's already getting (~100-200k/year in sponsorships).
  - kjkjadksj 2y ago
    Using existing code is fine, that's how most software is built anyhow. Only masochists build from complete scratch. EDIT: I've been getting a lot of down votes for this stance, surprisingly. Why not share your position if you don't agree? There must be a bunch of hardcore people on here who are writing directly on the metal in machine code. Short of that, you are in fact using someone else's code in all your projects.
    - JohnFen 2y ago
      This seems to conflate two entirely different ways of "using existing code". Using tools written by others is technically "using existing code", but that's an entirely different thing than incorporating existing code into your projects. I think that when most devs hear "using existing code", they're thinking of the latter, not the former.
      - kjkjadksj 2y ago
        How is calling a library and using a function someone else wrote not the same thing as using a function someone else wrote in any other way? Cite your sources by all means but still the difference is a semantical one.
        JohnFen 2y ago
        I don't understand your question. What I'm saying is that calling a library/crate/whatever is an entirely different thing from using a tool like a compiler/IDE/etc. In the former, you're incorporating external code into your project. In the latter, you're not. I think most people wouldn't say that you're "using someone else's code" in your project just by using a tool written by someone else because the tool's code is not being included in your project. Perhaps I misunderstood you, though. Your statement "There must be a bunch of hardcore people on here who are writing directly on the metal in machine code" heavily implies that you believe that using an assembler or compiler counts as "using existing code". In this context, I don't think it does. By the way, I do, in fact, sometimes write code directly in machine language. Not large amounts of it, of course, but some.
- zamadatix 2y ago
  Most open source browsers are a reskin of actual open source browser development. E.g. Brave and Vivaldi are skins on top of the actual Chromium project, librewolf and others on Firefox's components, and Orion and others on Safari's components. Only a rare few browsers e.g. Dillo or Ladybird are actually independent and it shows in that those browsers are nearly unusably slow, compatibility limited, and insecure (that's not a diss on them, they are still awesome projects for their own reasons).
- mead5432 2y ago
  Sorry - was looking at an older version of the page and didn’t realize there were already a bunch of the same comment. My bad. ——— Will they though? Maybe some toy ones but the distribution of other browsers are largely built on chromium with a few on Firefox and one or two on WebKit. Beyond that, there’s Arc that’s made a splash with the HN crowd but IIRC, it’s VC funded so a whole different set of concerns. There will be other browsers but almost the entire browser market is essentially funded by Google.

BadHumans 2y ago

You want them to be Google's vassal state and wait for death instead of trying to become self-sustainable? Defeatist mentality if I've ever seen one.

Kuinox 2y ago
I want them to not replicate google. I use Firefox to fight ads, not to get ads in my searchbar.
- deprecative 2y ago
  Ironic that ads are what Google uses to pay Mozilla so you(we) can use Firefox.
  - immibis 2y ago
    You assume that Firefox can't exist without Mozilla. Thunderbird got a lot better after divorcing from Mozilla.
    - dralley 2y ago
      A) Firefox is vastly bigger and more complicated than Thunderbird B) Email protocols aren't a moving target to the degree that the web is C) Thunderbird has the benefit of being able to freeload off the base platform development that Firefox continues to do, although of course it's a lot of work even to adapt to those changes.
autoexec 2y ago
> You want them to be Google's vassal state and wait for death instead of trying to become self-sustainable? There's no shortage of privacy respecting open source software that somehow doesn't have to choose between depending on Google and selling out their users. Firefox knows that most people won't opt out. They're choosing to take Google's money and screw over their users at the same time.
mardifoufs 2y ago

ddalex 2y ago

> addressing ... organizational issues Obviously not. It's very difficult to make people understand something when their jobs depend on them not understanding it.

pquki4 2y ago

> Can't they just take Google's yearly $600,000,000 payment They can do that for as long as Google is willing to pay. Without additional revenue stream, the day Google decides to cut cost and stop sponsoring Mozilla, that's the day Firefox will run into big trouble. Any additional revenue stream is going to help. I am no CEO but that seems very clear to me.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
zamadatix 2y ago
It's not a sponsorship, it's a sale.It's also made such deals with Yandex, Baidu, and Yahoo before. The sale is for eyeballs on your search (ad) service. Firefox is getting in a precarious situation with it though as the number of users on Firefox has been decreasing (in absolute terms) despite the number of web users increasing.
- xnyan 2y ago
  It's also a part of their anti-trust defense strategy. Firefox staying alive as a marginal but existent alternative to chromium based browsers is currently good for google.

sunaookami 2y ago

Sadly Firefox already shows sponsored spammy & clickbaity "articles" on the default new tab page which always makes me cringe whenever I see it on other pcs.

aquova 2y ago

I constantly see this take and I'm afraid I don't agree with it. Firefox is continuing to lose market share, and I think it's less anything they're doing and due simply to the fact that Google is a household name while Mozilla is not. When the user is already using a Google phone, email, search, maps, drive, and document editor, it follows to also use their browser. Simply being a solid browser isn't enough to motivate people to switch away. So I think they should try out some new interesting ideas in the hope that some of them take off. Now, I don't think this is the feature to do that, but I won't criticize them for trying.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
JeremyNT 2y ago
I agree with this take. It's not like the power users who currently use Firefox and yet dislike this stuff are going to switch away from Firefox, since there's nothing to switch to other than Chrome, which is clearly worse. Personal anecdote, I didn't like Pocket being added to Firefox, but eventually I did start using it - only because it came from Mozilla. And I currently pay Mozilla money for Relay (along with VPN), which are examples of them expanding outside of their core browser features.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > not like the power users who currently use Firefox and yet dislike this stuff are going to switch away from Firefox Not a Firefox power user, but also not a fan of having to learn through HN that I need to disable some random opt-in to not have my browsing leaked by my browser. Was genuinely on the fence about deleting it and simplifying to Safari.
  - riedel 2y ago
    I am a happy user of LibreWolf: they do the opt out for me. On android I use mull. I have to say that I am quite happy and really do not understand everyone moving to chromium based browsers.

lxgr 2y ago

If you ever figure out a bulletproof solution to "just taking the money and building a good product/company without any technical debt and organizational cruft", please do share your results – this would be somewhat valuable for humanity!

causality0 2y ago
I dunno, the CEO getting a 400% pay rise in the same time period the browser lost 85% of its market share might be a good place to start.

immibis 2y ago

Capitalist organizations, even nonprofits, incentive moving money to the top. Mozilla has the same kind of cancer that Wikimedia has documented. Firefox is open-source, but Mozilla is not.

jasonlotito 2y ago

> Seems like this is in support of "Firefox Suggest", which seems to show sponsored links. Browsing history, bookmarks, clipboard, open tabs, shortcuts, search engines, suggestions from firefox, suggestions from sponsors. Each of those can be individually turned off and on. Why do you think Firefox Suggest using browsing history, bookmarks, clipboard, open tabs, shortcuts, search engines, suggestions from firefox isn't building the best browser "for the user"? Or were you just ignorant of what Firefox Suggest did and didn't bother to take a moment to look it up in Firefox?

int_19h 2y ago
They don't need my data to show me suggestions from my own browsing history, bookmarks etc. They only need it for "suggestions from sponsors", which is ad spam.