3 ms·

The problem with paid versions, is that I don't really trust them either. MBA creep will happen and suddenly the TOS changes and my paid tier is going to have d

The problem with paid versions, is that I don't really trust them either. MBA creep will happen and suddenly the TOS changes and my paid tier is going to have data collection and 'some' ads. I have to move to a high tier to avoid them. After a few cycles of that, one day all the tiers have data collection and ads.

ibejoeb 2y ago
Nothing is forever, but if you get a contract that prohibits their data play (collection, derivation, sale, all of it...) for a year or whatever, you're good for that long. That'd be enough for me.
bluGill 2y ago
Paid version have that problem somewhat less because they have a source of income that could dry up if they do. Paying someone means they are beholden to you as well, while free gives you nothing. There is a reason I get my email via fastmail: they differentiate themselves on privacy features. I also have my own domain, so if fastmail does turn evil they know I can easially move away. I can run my own email server, but having done that I know it is harder than I want. There are other services I'd pay for if I could find someone I could trust to take a small amount of money. (small is key - plenty would do this for thousands, but I don't have that much free cash) Don't get me wrong, the above is not very large, but it is still something.
tremon 2y ago
Yes, this. When Mozilla (or any other corporation) demonstrates positive cashflow, the odds of MBAs and other vulture capitalists descending on it increase massively. And I have never seen customer agreements like this survive a buy-out: the new owners are never constrained by the promises (or even contracts) of the previous company.
heresie-dabord 2y ago
> The problem with paid versions, is that I don't really trust them either. Yes, Trust is at the foundation of the whole problem with the Tech Industry: /1/ users (consumers) expect to be protected (not injured, not cheated, not surveilled) by the products that they use, and /2/ the WWW is a monstrosity, the only software that we can in fact trust is never connected to the Internet (in other words, we don't trust any software) Ergo... Given /2/, we cannot trust any software, full stop. Even paying $CORP for its products is no guarantee of care, safety, and security. and Given /1/, which software do we accept? For OS, I prefer Linux by far. Even where usability is a little rough, I can exclude components that I do not want. When obliged to use Windows, I hold my nose and try as much as possible to foil all the bloat, anti-user patterns, and telemetry. I resent it all the way! I prefer Firefox because I like the features and I insist on a small set of extensions: uBlock Origin, Multi-Account Containers, Privacy Badger. Google is a nasty surveillance ecosystem and Microsoft is a Spaghetti Western: by turns good, bad, and ugly. If it will fund further development and maintain the current commitment to respect for privacy, I am willing to allow Mozilla to do some aggregate analysis of my browsing habits, just as I am willing to provide survey answers for products that I buy. I don't love the aggregate analysis, but Mozilla needs to do browser business in the modern world.
- ryandrake 2y ago
  The tech industry is just one rug-pull after another, but still people line up to try standing on the rugs! 1. We won't show ads in our product -> We'll show skippable unobtrusive adds in our free product only -> We'll show bottom-of-the-barrel scum ads in our free product only -> Those skippable ads are now not skippable -> We'll add a few vetted ads to the paid product -> We're going to shove ads onto every surface of the product we can find! 2. We don't collect or sell data about you -> We will collect limited data for "telemetry." -> We'll also collect some demographic data "to improve the product." -> We're going to collect everything we can get our hands on, but we won't sell it. -> We share your data with only vetted, trusted "partners." -> We share your data with everyone we do business with -> We firehose your data to anyone willing to pay for it! It's the same progression every time, but users keep thinking this time it will be different.
throw10920 2y ago
You have to trust and/or monitor and apply active pressure to (something that virtually nobody does) the developers to some extent either way. The difference with a paid distribution is that there's at least some revenue that helps keep the project afloat, and with a free distribution there's not. e.g. if you have a CEO/lead developer that's initially acting responsibly, but has a "bankruptcy threshold" beyond which they'll start selling your data, a revenue stream will stave that point off.
winwang 2y ago
Semi-crazy idea: Add clauses which destroy half the company if they change the deal without a year of advance notice.
- vetrom 2y ago
  A modern equivalent to the 'usenet death penalty' is what's really needed. Without a grassroots method to censure and more or less permanently injunct and/or eject bad actors, you can't stop them from harvesting profit from the ecosystem to the exclusion of all other concerns.

ibejoeb 2y ago

Nothing is forever, but if you get a contract that prohibits their data play (collection, derivation, sale, all of it...) for a year or whatever, you're good for that long. That'd be enough for me.

bluGill 2y ago

Paid version have that problem somewhat less because they have a source of income that could dry up if they do. Paying someone means they are beholden to you as well, while free gives you nothing. There is a reason I get my email via fastmail: they differentiate themselves on privacy features. I also have my own domain, so if fastmail does turn evil they know I can easially move away. I can run my own email server, but having done that I know it is harder than I want. There are other services I'd pay for if I could find someone I could trust to take a small amount of money. (small is key - plenty would do this for thousands, but I don't have that much free cash) Don't get me wrong, the above is not very large, but it is still something.

tremon 2y ago

Yes, this. When Mozilla (or any other corporation) demonstrates positive cashflow, the odds of MBAs and other vulture capitalists descending on it increase massively. And I have never seen customer agreements like this survive a buy-out: the new owners are never constrained by the promises (or even contracts) of the previous company.

heresie-dabord 2y ago

> The problem with paid versions, is that I don't really trust them either. Yes, Trust is at the foundation of the whole problem with the Tech Industry: /1/ users (consumers) expect to be protected (not injured, not cheated, not surveilled) by the products that they use, and /2/ the WWW is a monstrosity, the only software that we can in fact trust is never connected to the Internet (in other words, we don't trust any software) Ergo... Given /2/, we cannot trust any software, full stop. Even paying $CORP for its products is no guarantee of care, safety, and security. and Given /1/, which software do we accept? For OS, I prefer Linux by far. Even where usability is a little rough, I can exclude components that I do not want. When obliged to use Windows, I hold my nose and try as much as possible to foil all the bloat, anti-user patterns, and telemetry. I resent it all the way! I prefer Firefox because I like the features and I insist on a small set of extensions: uBlock Origin, Multi-Account Containers, Privacy Badger. Google is a nasty surveillance ecosystem and Microsoft is a Spaghetti Western: by turns good, bad, and ugly. If it will fund further development and maintain the current commitment to respect for privacy, I am willing to allow Mozilla to do some aggregate analysis of my browsing habits, just as I am willing to provide survey answers for products that I buy. I don't love the aggregate analysis, but Mozilla needs to do browser business in the modern world.

ryandrake 2y ago
The tech industry is just one rug-pull after another, but still people line up to try standing on the rugs! 1. We won't show ads in our product -> We'll show skippable unobtrusive adds in our free product only -> We'll show bottom-of-the-barrel scum ads in our free product only -> Those skippable ads are now not skippable -> We'll add a few vetted ads to the paid product -> We're going to shove ads onto every surface of the product we can find! 2. We don't collect or sell data about you -> We will collect limited data for "telemetry." -> We'll also collect some demographic data "to improve the product." -> We're going to collect everything we can get our hands on, but we won't sell it. -> We share your data with only vetted, trusted "partners." -> We share your data with everyone we do business with -> We firehose your data to anyone willing to pay for it! It's the same progression every time, but users keep thinking this time it will be different.

throw10920 2y ago

You have to trust and/or monitor and apply active pressure to (something that virtually nobody does) the developers to some extent either way. The difference with a paid distribution is that there's at least some revenue that helps keep the project afloat, and with a free distribution there's not. e.g. if you have a CEO/lead developer that's initially acting responsibly, but has a "bankruptcy threshold" beyond which they'll start selling your data, a revenue stream will stave that point off.

winwang 2y ago

Semi-crazy idea: Add clauses which destroy half the company if they change the deal without a year of advance notice.

vetrom 2y ago
A modern equivalent to the 'usenet death penalty' is what's really needed. Without a grassroots method to censure and more or less permanently injunct and/or eject bad actors, you can't stop them from harvesting profit from the ecosystem to the exclusion of all other concerns.