8 ms·

It's all so strange. I would happily buy Firefox, either as a one off, or as an annual license, and be done with all the weird license nonsense - presumably the

It's all so strange. I would happily buy Firefox, either as a one off, or as an annual license, and be done with all the weird license nonsense - presumably they want to sell data to pay the bills. But instead the choice, realistically, seems to be between giving all my browsing data to Google and to Mozilla. And Chrome works marginally better... :/

createaccount99 2y ago
Sigh. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of Mozilla's situation. The "weird license nonsense" you're vaguely gesturing at doesn't even make sense in context. Firefox is open source under MPL 2.0. Your framing that "the choice is between giving all my browsing data to Google and to Mozilla" creates a false equivalence. Even with their recent privacy policy changes, Mozilla's approach is structurally different from Google's core business model. And "Chrome works marginally better"? By what metric? Firefox has better memory usage, stronger privacy protections, and doesn't exist primarily as a data collection tool for the world's largest advertising company. The idea that you'd "happily buy Firefox" misses the point of Mozilla's mission for an open web. This kind of uninformed take that ignores the nuances of browser economics is exactly why we can't have nice things on the open web.
- scheeseman486 2y ago
  > "Chrome works marginally better" Performance, compatibility, security. Chromium runs faster, it works with more websites, it's sandbox is better, particularly on Android. I don't care much about memory usage as I don't need a billion tabs open at once (does anyone). There's options available beyond Chrome that offer most of the same privacy benefits as Firefox does. I think marginal is an understatement. As for Mozilla's business model, what business model? They're throwing everything at the wall to see if it sticks and virtually nothing has, all the while their browser has languished. Going full cynic, at this point the only reason it is allowed to exist is because Google deem it useful to have it around as a counterpoint to accusations that they have a monopoly.
  - Sharlin 2y ago
    > (does anyone) Oh yes. And you don't even need that many tabs open for Chrome to eat half of your RAM.
    - vntok 2y ago
      RAM is supposed to be used. "Saving" it doesn't bring any value, it's actually just waste.
      - unaindz 2y ago
        That's true, until another program needs ram and crashes because chrome is hoarding it all
        chillingeffect 2y ago
        Ive run chromium and firefox side by side for years to isolate personal from work. The only noticeable difference is Chromium crashes when it uses all the memory. People's overwhelming fascination with Chrome escapes me. Some subtle detail seems to make it stick out. Everyone remembers that one time ff crashed on 2005, but gives berth to Chrome crashimg every few days and selling their personal data to google. I dont care if ddg and ff sell aggregate data.
    - dredmorbius 2y ago
      Fewer than 100 will massively pig out memory, on Android, Linux, and MacOS, for Chrome, IME. My main FF instance has ~1,500 tabs FWIW, though I'll often bypass those for a given session by running incognito only. Even then I'll easily hit 100+ tabs in only a few minutes.
    - scheeseman486 2y ago
      There's a cool feature web browsers have called "bookmarks"
- tucnak 2y ago
  > Firefox has better memory usage At the cost of a subpar cache; it's not like Chromium is leaking memory, & its memory pressure effects are both well-studied and well-understood. Yet, Firefox stans keep touting lack of comprehensive caching as some kind of advantage. I'm sorry, this is not 2005. It took Mozilla two years to implement some kind of JIT pipelining, and guess what, Chromium had V8 all along: an engine that can benefit from "open web" cooperation courtesy of Nodejs and the vast ecosystem around it. SpiderMonkey? Please. This is the crux of the issue. > The idea that you'd "happily buy Firefox" misses the point of Mozilla's mission for an open web. The idea that the web—chaperoned by the likes of Mozilla, can be "open"—is the crazy, unsustainable one. OP is being pragmatic, and considering their privacy carefully. Mozilla's track record is that of a gravely mismanaged, disoriented, and subservient (Google) organisation. Firefox codebase is arcane, was already showing age even ten years ago, & now there's a whole ecosystem of Chromium-based browsers that can benefit from "open web" cooperation. Firefox has zero moral high-ground, & pretending like it possesses some kind of virtue is a crime against semantics.
  - t43562 2y ago
    I think it's just as well not to have a monoculture (i.e. chomium-based-browsers). Just being different and capable of rendering websites makes the web a place where standards matter. It doesn't have to be noble to make this happen. Firefox is just standing in there like a marker - as long as there's AN alternative, there's a chance for ANOTHER alternative.
    - tucnak 2y ago
      Everything is a monoculture if you squint hard enough.
- dogleash 2y ago
  Even with their recent privacy policy changes, Mozilla's approach is structurally different from Google's core business model. >This wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't that the entire brand identity of Firefox is Privacy. >It's like discovering there's ham in a vegetarian sandwich. When you ask them they look puzzled and say their focus group was clear it tastes a lot better that way, besides it's just a little bit and the bread is vegetarian and there's way more meat in a Big Mac. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30715947 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30715947
  - alt227 2y ago
    If only people cared as much about privacy as vegetarians do about not eating meat...
    - aleph_minus_one 2y ago
      > If only people cared as much about privacy as vegetarians do about not eating meat... In Germany, a lot of people do (in particular in hacker and IT-affine circles), and I do claim privacy discussions there often do become as heated as discussions with vegans about meat. This is the reason why in Germany Firefox has a significant market share (according to > https://www.statista.com/statistics/462158/browsers-most-used-versions-germany/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/462158/browsers-most-use... 13.65%).
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
nonrandomstring 2y ago
Firefox is open source. You can take the source code and strip out all of the malware, spying, telemetry and corporate harm leaving a safe and private browser (to the extent any modern browser can be). There are multiple forks that do that. Download one of them instead. Mozilla Corporation has no control over those, so if you don't like what Mozilla make, exercise your software freedom. The problem with Mozilla, as far as I can see, is not the the compromises they make for obtaining money (everyone suffers that), its that they're deceptive and underhand about it. That makes them unethical. I wrote plenty regarding that here [0] [0] https://cybershow.uk/blog/posts/you-are-too-dumb-for-tech/ https://cybershow.uk/blog/posts/you-are-too-dumb-for-tech/
- baobun 2y ago
  Rather than downloading random binaries from random forks (or clamour for governance at the sidelines), you can take back more control by building your own fork. Librewolf and Waterfox are two fine choices to use for upstream sincr they have saner defaults and make the forking and building easier to wire up. Ive been running my own FF fork for a few years like this now.
- KingMob 2y ago
  The problem with these privacy-first Firefox forks is none have the resources to match FF. If Firefox dies, eventually so will they, as the code stagnates relative to better-funded browsers. Saying "switch to a privacy-first fork" is not a long-term solution.
  - nonrandomstring 2y ago
    > Saying "switch to a privacy-first fork" is not a long-term solution. You're 100% right while operating in an environment that is hostile to privacy. In these conditions security/privacy remains mostly tactical, not strategic. In fact, against a predominant tyranny it is insurrectional. Free Software will have to learn to adapt with more intelligence-sharing and opportunistic manoeuvres. As an aside though, one might generalise to say there are no long term solutions in tech, period. And therefore advocates of freedom and privacy are at no particular disadvantage relative to any opponents.
drusepth 2y ago
I would wager most people that offer to buy software "one off" typically underestimate their lifetime worth earned through other means like ads and data sales. Would you pay a one-time $10 for a lifetime Firefox license? $100? $1,000? $10,000?
- rich_sasha 2y ago
  Without thinking much about it, $60 / yr seems reasonable to me. I never click on any ads, so while I'm sure I contribute to Firefox's revenue as another pair of eyeballs, I don't deliver any end value to their ad-biz end customers.
  - bluGill 2y ago
    > I never click on any ads [snip] I don't deliver any end value to their ad-biz end customers This is a complete misunderstanding of the value of ads. Clicks are of course the most valuable signal, but any ad seen is valuable. If clicks were all that mattered TV would never had ads, nor would newspapers. Many ads are about awareness not buy now. Ford/Toyota... doesn't expect you to buy a car the day/week you see an ad, they just want you to think of them when you buy a car. They also want to slowly drive discomfort with whatever car you already drive so that eventually you do buy a new one despite having on that works. (or if you don't have a car they want to be sure you are reminded how much freedom to go places you are giving up - without concern for the costs of having a car)
- closewith 2y ago
  Last time I checked, Mozilla's ARPU was less than $5 pa. I think many of us would pay a multiple of that per annum _iff_ it went towards Firefox and not whatever project/cause of the week that Mozilla has undertaken.
  - bad_user 2y ago
    You're overestimating people's willingness to pay for software when free and arguably better alternatives are available. Preferring Firefox to free Chromium alternatives requires a level of nuance and tech literacy that most people will never have, and even with that tech literacy, people may still prefer Chromium. You're basically talking about asking for donations from people that prefer to ad-block YouTube instead of paying for Premium.
amelius 2y ago
> presumably they want to sell data to pay the bills. Can't the EU just sponsor Firefox?
- Andrew_nenakhov 2y ago
  That's the surest way to kill it, and that is before taking their recent anti-privacy policies into consideration.
  - socksy 2y ago
    That feels like a witty thing to say without much basis in reality. If the EU got their act together and gave Firefox funding, it would be more of a pain in the neck for them to stop doing that than it would for them to threaten Mozilla over e.g. anti privacy policies. Even Germany, a single nation with a lot less difficulty in passing laws, hasn't used their Sovereign Tech Fund (https://sovereign.tech https://sovereign.tech) in such a manner. And even if they did, it would have to be a world in which they've lost all funding from Google and becoming dependent only on the EU. Perhaps such a thing might happen, but it wouldn't happen overnight — in the meantime it would be more money, from more diversified sources.
    - Andrew_nenakhov 2y ago
      Ok, let’s dive into the details: 1) The European Commission has proposed Chat Control, pressuring platforms like WhatsApp and Telegram to scan encrypted messages with AI, including client-side scanning, which critics say breaks encryption and enables mass surveillance. 2) The EU has adopted the eID (European Digital Identity), a centralized digital ID system via a “wallet” app, tied to biometric and personal data for service access. 3) The EU’s Data Retention Directive forced telecoms to store metadata until it was struck down in 2014; debates still persist. 4) The EU’s Digital Services Act mandates platforms share data with authorities to fight illegal content, raising profiling concerns. 5) The EU’s Data Act requires businesses to share data with governments, threatening personal info control. 6) The EU supports the UN Cybercrime Treaty, boosting global surveillance and data-sharing powers. That’s just off the top of my head; I’m sure there are more examples of how the EU abuses its power and infringes on users’ privacy. So yes, of all possible stewards for Firefox, the EU is maybe the third-worst, behind only China and Putin’s Russia.
err4nt 2y ago
Personally I don't think it's about the money, I think it's about what they actually want to do. I think they like their plan and are happy with it.

createaccount99 2y ago

Sigh. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of Mozilla's situation. The "weird license nonsense" you're vaguely gesturing at doesn't even make sense in context. Firefox is open source under MPL 2.0. Your framing that "the choice is between giving all my browsing data to Google and to Mozilla" creates a false equivalence. Even with their recent privacy policy changes, Mozilla's approach is structurally different from Google's core business model. And "Chrome works marginally better"? By what metric? Firefox has better memory usage, stronger privacy protections, and doesn't exist primarily as a data collection tool for the world's largest advertising company. The idea that you'd "happily buy Firefox" misses the point of Mozilla's mission for an open web. This kind of uninformed take that ignores the nuances of browser economics is exactly why we can't have nice things on the open web.

scheeseman486 2y ago
> "Chrome works marginally better" Performance, compatibility, security. Chromium runs faster, it works with more websites, it's sandbox is better, particularly on Android. I don't care much about memory usage as I don't need a billion tabs open at once (does anyone). There's options available beyond Chrome that offer most of the same privacy benefits as Firefox does. I think marginal is an understatement. As for Mozilla's business model, what business model? They're throwing everything at the wall to see if it sticks and virtually nothing has, all the while their browser has languished. Going full cynic, at this point the only reason it is allowed to exist is because Google deem it useful to have it around as a counterpoint to accusations that they have a monopoly.
- Sharlin 2y ago
  > (does anyone) Oh yes. And you don't even need that many tabs open for Chrome to eat half of your RAM.
  - vntok 2y ago
    RAM is supposed to be used. "Saving" it doesn't bring any value, it's actually just waste.
    - unaindz 2y ago
      That's true, until another program needs ram and crashes because chrome is hoarding it all
      - chillingeffect 2y ago
        Ive run chromium and firefox side by side for years to isolate personal from work. The only noticeable difference is Chromium crashes when it uses all the memory. People's overwhelming fascination with Chrome escapes me. Some subtle detail seems to make it stick out. Everyone remembers that one time ff crashed on 2005, but gives berth to Chrome crashimg every few days and selling their personal data to google. I dont care if ddg and ff sell aggregate data.
  - dredmorbius 2y ago
    Fewer than 100 will massively pig out memory, on Android, Linux, and MacOS, for Chrome, IME. My main FF instance has ~1,500 tabs FWIW, though I'll often bypass those for a given session by running incognito only. Even then I'll easily hit 100+ tabs in only a few minutes.
  - scheeseman486 2y ago
    There's a cool feature web browsers have called "bookmarks"
tucnak 2y ago
> Firefox has better memory usage At the cost of a subpar cache; it's not like Chromium is leaking memory, & its memory pressure effects are both well-studied and well-understood. Yet, Firefox stans keep touting lack of comprehensive caching as some kind of advantage. I'm sorry, this is not 2005. It took Mozilla two years to implement some kind of JIT pipelining, and guess what, Chromium had V8 all along: an engine that can benefit from "open web" cooperation courtesy of Nodejs and the vast ecosystem around it. SpiderMonkey? Please. This is the crux of the issue. > The idea that you'd "happily buy Firefox" misses the point of Mozilla's mission for an open web. The idea that the web—chaperoned by the likes of Mozilla, can be "open"—is the crazy, unsustainable one. OP is being pragmatic, and considering their privacy carefully. Mozilla's track record is that of a gravely mismanaged, disoriented, and subservient (Google) organisation. Firefox codebase is arcane, was already showing age even ten years ago, & now there's a whole ecosystem of Chromium-based browsers that can benefit from "open web" cooperation. Firefox has zero moral high-ground, & pretending like it possesses some kind of virtue is a crime against semantics.
- t43562 2y ago
  I think it's just as well not to have a monoculture (i.e. chomium-based-browsers). Just being different and capable of rendering websites makes the web a place where standards matter. It doesn't have to be noble to make this happen. Firefox is just standing in there like a marker - as long as there's AN alternative, there's a chance for ANOTHER alternative.
  - tucnak 2y ago
    Everything is a monoculture if you squint hard enough.
dogleash 2y ago
Even with their recent privacy policy changes, Mozilla's approach is structurally different from Google's core business model. >This wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't that the entire brand identity of Firefox is Privacy. >It's like discovering there's ham in a vegetarian sandwich. When you ask them they look puzzled and say their focus group was clear it tastes a lot better that way, besides it's just a little bit and the bread is vegetarian and there's way more meat in a Big Mac. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30715947 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30715947
- alt227 2y ago
  If only people cared as much about privacy as vegetarians do about not eating meat...
  - aleph_minus_one 2y ago
    > If only people cared as much about privacy as vegetarians do about not eating meat... In Germany, a lot of people do (in particular in hacker and IT-affine circles), and I do claim privacy discussions there often do become as heated as discussions with vegans about meat. This is the reason why in Germany Firefox has a significant market share (according to > https://www.statista.com/statistics/462158/browsers-most-used-versions-germany/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/462158/browsers-most-use... 13.65%).
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

nonrandomstring 2y ago

Firefox is open source. You can take the source code and strip out all of the malware, spying, telemetry and corporate harm leaving a safe and private browser (to the extent any modern browser can be). There are multiple forks that do that. Download one of them instead. Mozilla Corporation has no control over those, so if you don't like what Mozilla make, exercise your software freedom. The problem with Mozilla, as far as I can see, is not the the compromises they make for obtaining money (everyone suffers that), its that they're deceptive and underhand about it. That makes them unethical. I wrote plenty regarding that here [0] [0] https://cybershow.uk/blog/posts/you-are-too-dumb-for-tech/ https://cybershow.uk/blog/posts/you-are-too-dumb-for-tech/

baobun 2y ago
Rather than downloading random binaries from random forks (or clamour for governance at the sidelines), you can take back more control by building your own fork. Librewolf and Waterfox are two fine choices to use for upstream sincr they have saner defaults and make the forking and building easier to wire up. Ive been running my own FF fork for a few years like this now.
KingMob 2y ago
The problem with these privacy-first Firefox forks is none have the resources to match FF. If Firefox dies, eventually so will they, as the code stagnates relative to better-funded browsers. Saying "switch to a privacy-first fork" is not a long-term solution.
- nonrandomstring 2y ago
  > Saying "switch to a privacy-first fork" is not a long-term solution. You're 100% right while operating in an environment that is hostile to privacy. In these conditions security/privacy remains mostly tactical, not strategic. In fact, against a predominant tyranny it is insurrectional. Free Software will have to learn to adapt with more intelligence-sharing and opportunistic manoeuvres. As an aside though, one might generalise to say there are no long term solutions in tech, period. And therefore advocates of freedom and privacy are at no particular disadvantage relative to any opponents.

drusepth 2y ago

I would wager most people that offer to buy software "one off" typically underestimate their lifetime worth earned through other means like ads and data sales. Would you pay a one-time $10 for a lifetime Firefox license? $100? $1,000? $10,000?

rich_sasha 2y ago
Without thinking much about it, $60 / yr seems reasonable to me. I never click on any ads, so while I'm sure I contribute to Firefox's revenue as another pair of eyeballs, I don't deliver any end value to their ad-biz end customers.
- bluGill 2y ago
  > I never click on any ads [snip] I don't deliver any end value to their ad-biz end customers This is a complete misunderstanding of the value of ads. Clicks are of course the most valuable signal, but any ad seen is valuable. If clicks were all that mattered TV would never had ads, nor would newspapers. Many ads are about awareness not buy now. Ford/Toyota... doesn't expect you to buy a car the day/week you see an ad, they just want you to think of them when you buy a car. They also want to slowly drive discomfort with whatever car you already drive so that eventually you do buy a new one despite having on that works. (or if you don't have a car they want to be sure you are reminded how much freedom to go places you are giving up - without concern for the costs of having a car)
closewith 2y ago
Last time I checked, Mozilla's ARPU was less than $5 pa. I think many of us would pay a multiple of that per annum _iff_ it went towards Firefox and not whatever project/cause of the week that Mozilla has undertaken.
- bad_user 2y ago
  You're overestimating people's willingness to pay for software when free and arguably better alternatives are available. Preferring Firefox to free Chromium alternatives requires a level of nuance and tech literacy that most people will never have, and even with that tech literacy, people may still prefer Chromium. You're basically talking about asking for donations from people that prefer to ad-block YouTube instead of paying for Premium.

amelius 2y ago

> presumably they want to sell data to pay the bills. Can't the EU just sponsor Firefox?

Andrew_nenakhov 2y ago
That's the surest way to kill it, and that is before taking their recent anti-privacy policies into consideration.
- socksy 2y ago
  That feels like a witty thing to say without much basis in reality. If the EU got their act together and gave Firefox funding, it would be more of a pain in the neck for them to stop doing that than it would for them to threaten Mozilla over e.g. anti privacy policies. Even Germany, a single nation with a lot less difficulty in passing laws, hasn't used their Sovereign Tech Fund (https://sovereign.tech https://sovereign.tech) in such a manner. And even if they did, it would have to be a world in which they've lost all funding from Google and becoming dependent only on the EU. Perhaps such a thing might happen, but it wouldn't happen overnight — in the meantime it would be more money, from more diversified sources.
  - Andrew_nenakhov 2y ago
    Ok, let’s dive into the details: 1) The European Commission has proposed Chat Control, pressuring platforms like WhatsApp and Telegram to scan encrypted messages with AI, including client-side scanning, which critics say breaks encryption and enables mass surveillance. 2) The EU has adopted the eID (European Digital Identity), a centralized digital ID system via a “wallet” app, tied to biometric and personal data for service access. 3) The EU’s Data Retention Directive forced telecoms to store metadata until it was struck down in 2014; debates still persist. 4) The EU’s Digital Services Act mandates platforms share data with authorities to fight illegal content, raising profiling concerns. 5) The EU’s Data Act requires businesses to share data with governments, threatening personal info control. 6) The EU supports the UN Cybercrime Treaty, boosting global surveillance and data-sharing powers. That’s just off the top of my head; I’m sure there are more examples of how the EU abuses its power and infringes on users’ privacy. So yes, of all possible stewards for Firefox, the EU is maybe the third-worst, behind only China and Putin’s Russia.

err4nt 2y ago

Personally I don't think it's about the money, I think it's about what they actually want to do. I think they like their plan and are happy with it.