16 ms·

Is Mozilla trying hard to kill itself?

• pomian 10mo ago
  Obviously, we die hard fans and users agree.
• elAhmo 10mo ago
  Has anything positive came out from or about Mozilla in the past few months or years?
  • TavsiE9s 10mo ago
    I'd say Rust.
    • swiftcoder 10mo ago
      Rust is already a teenager...
• Croftengea 10mo ago
  You don't have to be very bright to figure killing adblockers in FF is a suicide.
• phito 10mo ago
  150M seems like such a small number for something that would have so much impact
• jfrifkfnfofifmk 10mo ago
  Mozilla rebranded itself as a "crew of activists". Browser is just a side business to generate revenue!
  • major505 10mo ago
    They are probably a money laundy scheme this days. I used to donate every year to Mozilla. Of course, small ammounts because Im not rich. Today they would have to beat this money from my hands.
  • erk__ 10mo ago
    Is the whole issue not that they are less of a band of activists than they used to be. Now it is suddenly no longer about free and open source software, but more of means to run the whole machine, which is why they probably have profit oriented CEO as bad as that is. IMO they need to be more a crew of activists than they are now. Fight against stuff like intrusion of AI in every single part of our lives and such.
  • micromacrofoot 10mo ago
    They're not going to be able to make a case to Google that they need $500M annually to only spend on a browser. They're barely in charge of their own company.
• dom96 10mo ago
  Genuinely can someone with knowledge of the business explain why they aren't simply doubling down on making Firefox better? Is there an existential problem facing them that they are trying to solve by adding AI into the browser?
  • K0nserv 10mo ago
    No knowledge of the business. But I think it's because of the underlying question that plagues Mozilla: How will that make money?
    • 4gotunameagain 10mo ago
      They don't really need money. Look at Mozilla's CEO compensation for example. It was 7 million USD in 2022. Seven. Million. For ruining a bastion of the open internet. The problem is the MBAs.
      • RobotToaster 10mo ago
        It still seems obscene to me that anyone at a non-profit, that begs for donations and volunteers, makes 7 figures. (Yes it's technically a company, but it's a company owned by a non profit.)
        • pas 10mo ago
          did people ask the supervisors of the foundation what do they think about this?
      • pas 10mo ago
        multiple things can be true at once. is that too much money for one person? well, apparently it depends on who do you ask. and even if the board members who approved it might thought it's too much, it still could have been cheaper than to fire the CEO and find a new one and keep Mozilla on track. CEO compensation is usually a hedge against risks that are seen as even more costly, even if the performance of the CEO is objectively bad. https://www.ecgi.global/sites/default/files/working_papers/documents/ceocompensation_0.pdf https://www.ecgi.global/sites/default/files/working_papers/d... framing Mozilla/Firefox as some kind of bastion is simply silly - especially if it's supplied by the gigantic fortress kingdom of G, and makes more money on dividends and interest than on selling any actual products or services. it's a ship at sea with a sail that's too big and a rudder that's unfortunately insignificant. but whatever metaphor we pick it needs to transform into a sustainable ecosystem, be that donation or sales based.
• boobsbr 10mo ago
  The Mozilla Corporation has earned around USD ~500 million in 2023. The Mozilla Foundation has received around USD ~26 million in 2023 in donation from the Mozilla Corporation (~70%) and other sources (~30%).
  • earthnail 10mo ago
    For someone not in the loop, can you explain the difference between the two orgs and maybe even explain what each org uses the money for?
    • swiftcoder 10mo ago
      The Foundation owns the trademarks, and mostly does evangelism. The (subsiduary) Corporation actually develops the browser (and accepts a bunch of revenue from Google for Search placement)
    • deleted 10mo ago
      [deleted]
  • cardanome 10mo ago
    The Mozilla Foundation does lots of "spreading awareness" but does not contribute to Firefox development. That is the most vexing part. I want to donate for Firefox development. Not marketing, not side projects, let me just fund the devs. But no, that is not possible. Blender is a huge success story relying on sponsors and donations, Wikipedia is swimming in money but no we can't just have a free browser. No we need to have a Mozilla Corporation that lives on Google money for being the controlled opposition i.e. technically avoiding monopoly situation thing. After all CEOs can't get rich on donations, can they?
    • forgotpwd16 10mo ago
      Ironically Wikimedia is also throwing money around to side projects, outreach, etc. But luckily for them their products are essentially run by volunteers.
• jowea 10mo ago
  A decent chunk of the users who bothered installing an adblock would also be bothered enough to install a FF fork with adblock, so I doubt the revenue increase would be much. As for calling it "off-mission": yes, what's even the point of FF if that's the route it goes on?
  • theasisa 10mo ago
    Do any of these forks have the ability to sync, either with Firefox or something self hosted? Or are they all just basically reskins with a single toggle added or such?
    • shantara 10mo ago
      LibreWolf has a Firefox Sync option, though it's disabled by default
    • elashri 10mo ago
      Yes you can actually self-host both Firefox sync server [1] and use Firefox accounts (which also can be self-hosted [2] and someone put something simpler in docker image [3]). And those can be used even with Firefox itself not only the forks. [1] https://github.com/mozilla-services/syncstorage-rs https://github.com/mozilla-services/syncstorage-rs [2] https://mozilla.github.io/ecosystem-platform/tutorials/development-setup https://mozilla.github.io/ecosystem-platform/tutorials/devel... [3] https://github.com/jackyzy823/fxa-selfhosting https://github.com/jackyzy823/fxa-selfhosting
    • falcor84 10mo ago
      Good point. I'd actually be happy to pay a couple of bucks a month for a good syncing solution based on an open source protocol, to make it easier for me to use the same history and preferences across browsers, IDEs and other such tools. It's actually a similar need and setup to that of a password manager, so I wonder if this is something Bitwarden could take on.
    • master-lincoln 10mo ago
      I don't see how your 2 questions are related to each other. > Do any of these forks have the ability to sync, either with Firefox or something self hosted? The Firefox Sync web service is provided by Mozilla but can be self hosted: https://github.com/mozilla-services/syncstorage-rs https://github.com/mozilla-services/syncstorage-rs. That could also be used in forks. See e.g. https://librewolf.net/docs/faq/#can-i-use-firefox-sync-with-librewolf-is-it-safe-to-do-so https://librewolf.net/docs/faq/#can-i-use-firefox-sync-with-... . I don't understand what you mean by sync with Firefox. > Or are they all just basically reskins with a single toggle added or such? Hard to generalize, but definitely not all of them. see e.g. https://lwn.net/Articles/1012453/ https://lwn.net/Articles/1012453/
• major505 10mo ago
  Well, is no mistery that today the best versioins of Firefox are the non official versions like waterfox and zen. NObody trusts mozilla anymore, specially after they turned into an add company and started paying their CEOs exorbitating ammounts, considering what was being invested in their core business (supposedly making a better browser).
  • TurboSkyline 10mo ago
    I'm not familiar with Zen, but how do you reconcile that Waterfox frequently lags behind upstream Firefox in terms of security fixes? Yes, you get a perceived gain in privacy, but is that worth potentially exposing yourself to additional vulnerabilities?
    • MrAlex94 10mo ago
      > lags behind upstream Firefox in terms of security fixes I’m not sure why this has become a thing - usually I either release Waterfox the week before ESR releases (the week the code freeze happens and new version gets tagged) or, if I’m actively working on features and they need to coincide with the next update I push, I will release on the same Tuesday the ESR releases. You can check the GitHub tag history for Waterfox to see it’s been that way for a good while :)
    • einr 10mo ago
      Yes, you get a perceived gain in privacy, but is that worth potentially exposing yourself to additional vulnerabilities? Speaking only for myself, and regardless of whether this is actually true (see sibling comment): yes. Absolutely. A non-privacy focused browser like Firefox has vulnerabilities/data leaks by design that are worse than hypothetical ones that I probably will not be subject to browsing my usual benign set of websites. (Posted from Waterfox)
    • major505 10mo ago
      IT dosnet lag long, since both have pretty activity communities. There are other variations that are a little faster in issueing the updates, but they are maintained by small teams, so they have more change of being corrupted by bullshit, specially this day and age where people take politics too damn serious. Too be honest, except for niche uses, I just abandoned firefox. Their engine is behind, lags in sites that use too much javascript is visible, when even opening 3 or 4 tabs makes they browser lag behind. I just keep it in my system this days to access some sites in my work computer and test UI rendering in firefox. Other than that, I had to surrender to chrome and its variations.
• iLoveOncall 10mo ago
  Unfortunately Firefox is basically already dead, it has an incredibly small market share and it will never grow again because their leadership is affected by the corporate mind virus. I know most HN users are on Firefox, but they should get used to an alternative now, not when its inevitable death happens.
  • phito 10mo ago
    What's a good, non-chromium alternative?
    • notenlish 10mo ago
      Zen browser is quite nice. I've heard waterfox was good too.
      • mrweasel 10mo ago
        Zen is Chromium based, Waterfox is dead without Mozilla working on Firefox.
        • seismix 10mo ago
          Zen is a Firefox fork, not Chromium based
    • HanClinto 10mo ago
      I've been hearing good things about Orion browser. My wife has switched to it, but I'm still on Firefox. Our family is already super happy with Kagi as a web search engine, and it sounds like they're doing good things on the browser side too.
  • Idiot211 10mo ago
    My key problem is not knowing what the real good alternatives are? I've trusted Mozilla for so long that I've fallen out of touch with a market that never really changed as much as it has in the last few years.
• some_furry 10mo ago
  This Mozilla fiasco has convinced me that being a nonprofit isn't enough. We need a web browser that is actively hostile towards corporations and surveillance capitalism.
  • eviks 10mo ago
    Why hasn't the anti-corporate fiasco (not a single successful example) convinced you that it's not enough?
    • some_furry 10mo ago
      Corporations, private equity, the ever encroaching monopolies and centralization of economic power, the steady march towards authoritarianism... all of these things are connected and are making our lives shittier. We should oppose them.
  • swiftcoder 10mo ago
    > This Mozilla fiasco has convinced me that being a nonprofit isn't enough I'm not sure to what extent Mozilla actually functions as a nonprofit. All the bits one cares about (i.e. FireFox) are developed by the for-profit subsidiary, which is at least somewhat beholden to Google/Microsoft for revenue...
  • nrhrjrjrjtntbt 10mo ago
    man curl
    • Phelinofist 10mo ago
      > hostile towards corporations and surveillance capitalism ... they said. Not against users.
  • cardanome 10mo ago
    Starting with a strong copyleft license helps a lot. See Blender being GPL.
• bluehex 10mo ago
  I just noticed last week that Chrome was putting multiple versions of some 4GB AI model [1] on my hard disk that I'd never asked for, so when I upgraded my laptop I took the opportunity to switch to Firefox, and now this. My image of Mozilla as a bastion for user first software just shattered. [1]: https://developer.chrome.com/docs/ai/get-started https://developer.chrome.com/docs/ai/get-started
  • bjord 10mo ago
    last I checked, firefox doesn't download AI models unless you try to use a (clearly-labeled) feature that requires them. you can also manage/uninstall them at about:addons https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/on-device-models https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/on-device-models totally uncharitable interpretation of the quote linked here aside, how is providing an interface for using fully local models not user first software?
    • chillfox 10mo ago
      If the users don't want the feature, then pushing it on them is not user first. It's that simple.
      • jajuuka 10mo ago
        That's an impossible bar to clear though. Because there are ALWAYS features that some users doesn't want.
• herobird 10mo ago
  It's kinda frustrating that Mozilla's CEO thinks that axing ad-blockers would be financially beneficial for them. Quite the opposite is true (I believe) since a ton of users would leave Firefox for alternatives.
  • hu3 10mo ago
    Mozilla has pressure from their sugar daddy, Google, to weaken ad-blockers.
    • buran77 10mo ago
      The only reason Mozilla matters in the eyes of Google is because it gives the impression there's competition in the browser market. But Firefox's users are the kind who choose the browser, not use whatever is there. And that choice is driven in part by having solid ad-blockers. People stick with Firefox despite the issues for the ad-blocker. Take that away and Firefox's userbase dwindles to even lower numbers to the point where nobody can pretend they are "competition". That's when they lose any value for Google. Without the best-of-the-best ad-blocking I will drop Firefox like a rock and move to the next best thing, which will have to be a Chromium based browser. I'll even have a better overall experience on the web when it comes to the engine itself, to give me consolation for not having the best ad-blocker.
  • agumonkey 10mo ago
    i left chrome to avoid ads.. i'd rather use dillo than ads infested firefox
  • mrtksn 10mo ago
    The whole web ecosystem was first run by VC money and everything was great until every corner was taken, the land grab was complete and the time to recoup the investment has come. Once the users were trapped for exploitation, it doesn’t make sense to have a browser that blocks ads. How are they supposed to pay software salaries and keep the lights on? People don’t like paying for software, demand constant updates and hate subscriptions. They all end up doing one of those since the incentives are perverse, that’s why Google didn’t just ride the Firefox till the end and instead created the Chrome. It doesn’t make sense to have trillion dollars companies and everything to be free. The free part is until monopolies are created and walled gardens are full with people. Then comes the monetization and those companies don’t have some moral compass etc, they have KPI stock values and analytics and it’s very obvious that blocking ads isn’t good financially.
• dhruv3006 10mo ago
  Correction : It has already killed itself.
• 9209561826 10mo ago
  Ok win
• akimbostrawman 10mo ago
  They have been since a decade. After tripping down on unrelated political activism they do the same with AI. Firefox is only good for getting forked into better browser like Mullvad Browser, LibreWolf and Tor Browser.
  • ACCount37 10mo ago
    I think AI in the browser could be useful. It just isn't that useful now. So far, the most useful "AI feature" Firefox has ever shipped is the page translation system, which uses a local AI to work. I wouldn't mind seeing more of things like that. Eventually, "browser use" skill in AIs is going to get better too. And I'd trust Firefox with an official vendor agnostic "AI integration" interface, one that allows an AI of user's choice to drive it, over something like OpenAI's browser - made solely by one AI company for its own product.
    • ThatPlayer 10mo ago
      Yeah I use a plugin for similar translation functionality, but with a local llama.cpp instance instead. Definitely useful and has increased my usage. Also works nicely on the Android version of the app.
  • colesantiago 10mo ago
    How are they funded? Especially LibreWolf? Curious if LibreWolf can survive the next 25 years or even longer than Firefox.
    • OvervCW 10mo ago
      Mullvad at least is funded by their VPN subscriptions.
• Grikbdl 10mo ago
  >> He says he could begin to block ad blockers in Firefox and estimates that’d bring in another $150 million, but he doesn’t want to do that. It feels off-mission. > I read this as “I don't want to but I'll kill AdBlockers in Firefox for buckerinos ”. I completely disagree. First of all the original quote is paraphrasing, so we don't know in which tone it was delivered, but calling something "off-mission" doesn't at all sound like "we'd do it for money" to me.
  • Krssst 10mo ago
    This is how I read it too, feels like a misinterpreted quote taken out of context. Everyone at Mozilla is probably well aware that removing adblockers would make them lose probably the majority of their users.
• wtcactus 10mo ago
  Sincerely, I'm just using Firefox ATM because of Sidebery. If I could use something similar on Brave, I would go back in an instant. My main issues with FF are that it is a battery hog on MacOS, doesn't have AV1 playing capabilities (or it has, but I would need to go through some configuring that I don't need to do in other browsers) and sometimes it stalls in certain pages (that's probably not FF fault, but that the web developers don't optimize for it... but still, it's not a problem on Brave, so, I don't really care for apologising for it).
  • aitchnyu 10mo ago
    I used Sidebery which had niggles. I switched to native vertical tabs with collapsible groups, which Brave also has.
    • wtcactus 10mo ago
      But it still doesn’t have work spaces, right?
• onli 10mo ago
  We are missing the context how the statement was said in the interview. The CEO is new and not used to the scrutiny that position brings, especially for Mozillas CEO given their purported ideals. It is quite possible he said this as something absurd -> "If making money was our only goal we would have some other options. We could for example disable all adblockers, to get more money from our advertising sponsor Google, at least 150 million USD. But we can not and won't do that, as it would feel completely off-mission for everyone and harm us long-term. So we always keep our mission in mind." Then the journalists shortens it to the blip in the verge article and the reaction twists it around a bit more, assuming disabling adblockers was on the table as a serious suggestion. Or it could be it really was on the table since they just entered the advertising business and think AI is the future of Mozilla, a "fuck those freeloaders", heartfelt from the Porsche driving MBAs in Mozilla's management. Who knows. But it's a choice which interpretation one assumes.
• twelvechess 10mo ago
  At least there are projects like ladybird coming up to fill their shows
  • tgv 10mo ago
    Don't count on it. Have you ever seen how much time and effort has been put in making Firefox, Safari and Chrome compliant and performant? It'll take Ladybird ages to get anywhere near. Someone could try to merge e,g, V8 and Servo, once that's in decent shape. But even then it'll be time consuming to build an acceptable UI, cookie and history management, plugin interface, etc.
    • potwinkle 10mo ago
      Ladybird is pretty good today. A lot of web apps, even complex ones, just work. It's reached high compliance scores for web standards in a shockingly quick period. See here: https://youtu.be/VqzbqsIlaNI?si=YPdwbApq4nVYlPMQ&t=209 https://youtu.be/VqzbqsIlaNI?si=YPdwbApq4nVYlPMQ&t=209
    • kjkjadksj 10mo ago
      Seems like its easier to crack an existing browser and take away stupid features than to build one. Against TOS but I really don’t care.
  • jemmyw 10mo ago
    And servo: I wish that one would get more mention as it's quite far along. Having multiple competing browsers again that are not controlled by megacorps would be great. Ladybird for browsing, Servo for embedding.
• andai 10mo ago
  Oh no! There goes Google's antitrust insurance...
• ekjhgkejhgk 10mo ago
  CEO > He says he could begin to block ad blockers in Firefox and estimates that’d bring in another $150 million, but he doesn’t want to do that. It feels off-mission. LOL the day that Firefox stops me from running what I want is the day I'll get rid of it.
  • Silhouette 10mo ago
    I still think it was a mistake for Firefox to dump its old plugin model. The customisation was a USP for Firefox and many useful tweaks and minor features have never been replaced. Today the ability to run proper content blockers is still a selling point for Firefox but obviously wouldn't be if they started to meddle with that as well. (Has there ever been a more obvious case of anticompetitive behaviour than the biggest browser nerfing ad blocking because it's owned by one of the biggest ad companies?) Other than customisation the only real advantage I see for Firefox today is the privacy angle. But again that would obviously be compromised if they started breaking tools like content blockers that help to provide that protection.
    • guywhocodes 10mo ago
      It made me stop using FF on android.
      • scruple 10mo ago
        What are you using as an alternative?
      • treyd 10mo ago
        They readded support a while ago.
      • deleted 10mo ago
        [deleted]
  • SilasX 10mo ago
    They...already do that? They stopped allowing unsigned addons, even if you allow them in about:config (a power-user feature). Even Chrome allows you to toggle the option to do that -- in a more user-friendly way! -- and actually honors it, so I don't think it's the massive security hole everyone claims. Edit: My Hitler parody of when Firefox introduced this (almost 10 years ago now!): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taGARf8K5J8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taGARf8K5J8
• colesantiago 10mo ago
  The state of Mozilla's current 'products': Firefox Mozilla VPN Mozilla Monitor Firefox Relay MDN Plus Thunderbird - Some of these products are just repackaged partnerships. - Firefox - Funded by Google with the search partnership bringing in $500M in revenue. (free) Mozilla VPN - Repackaged Mullvad VPN and using Mullvad servers. Mozilla Monitor - Repackaged HaveIBeenPwned. (free) Firefox Relay - No different to Simplelogin and not open source. (free) MDN Plus - Be honest, you wouldn't pay for this since this was offered for a long time for free, MDN is already free. Thunderbird - Most likely funded by Google (free) (using Firefox Search Revenue) - Be honest, would you pay for any of Mozilla's products when most of these can be found for free or close to free? That is the problem.
  • homarp 10mo ago
    people do pay for Kagi. the question is more "how to replace the free money from google by real clients,and still get the same margin as google free money"
  • tgv 10mo ago
    Isn't Thunderbird (more or less) independent? "Thunderbird operates in a separate, for-profit subsidiary of the Mozilla Foundation."
    • forgotpwd16 10mo ago
      Yeap. It's mentioned in their financial reports that user donations represent more than 99.9% of our annual revenue[0]. Also seems their staff is mainly engineers/developers, and all the expenses are concentrated to their product*. Thunderbird doing what Firefox should. [0]: https://blog.thunderbird.net/2023/05/thunderbird-is-thriving-our-2022-financial-report/ https://blog.thunderbird.net/2023/05/thunderbird-is-thriving... *Though Thunderbird is Gecko-based so can be said in part, perhaps a significant one, they're depending on Firefox development.
    • colesantiago 10mo ago
      It doesn't matter if they are or not really. As of right now Thunderbird doesn't make any money, it relies on 'Donations' which isn't at all sustainable. I can see Thunderbird is planning to do a pro plan, but it is behind a waitlist so the total sum of revenue Thunderbird is making relative to Google's $500M deal is close to zero.
• ionwake 10mo ago
  I dont know how anyone could take mozilla seriously after they integrated google analytics into it about 10 years ago for no reason I can fathom. It immediately made me think somethings off, and I never used it again. Instead I thought screw it and just went nuts deep into chrome, atleast it was more functional. ps - ( apparently mozilla took it out sometime later , but to me the damage to its reputation was done)
  • gitaarik 10mo ago
    And so switching to a browser created by the world's biggest advertising company is your solution? Interesting
    • ionwake 10mo ago
      yes I explained the irony it’s clear you missed if you read my comment again you will understand that I decided to opt for full functionality albeit at the expense of loss of total privacy after being let down my Mozilla. If you’re still struggling you can use an llm to try and explain my comment to you. All the best buddy
• lxgr 10mo ago
  >> He says he could begin to block ad blockers in Firefox and estimates that’d bring in another $150 million, but he doesn’t want to do that. It feels off-mission. > It may be just me, but I read this as “I don't want to but I'll kill AdBlockers in Firefox for buckerinos ”. Yes, that does seem like a pretty uncharitable interpretation of that quote. I read it as "we won't do it, even though it would bring in $150M USD".
  • rchaud 10mo ago
    How would it bring in $150m? Is that some tranche of funding Google is witholding from them until they disable extensions?
  • chii 10mo ago
    > a pretty uncharitable interpretation like hoping for the best, but planning for the worst, you must interpret people's intentions using the same methodology. By quoting that axing adblock could be bringing $150mil, but also saying that he doesn't want to do it, it's advertising that a higher price would work - it's a way to deniably solicit an offer.
    • SiempreViernes 10mo ago
      So then we should interpret Bruno adopting this uncharitable interpretation as evidence they are intentionally trying to ruin Mozillas reputation rather than sincerely analysing an interview, right? And in turn my comment above is not a honest remark that your suggested interpretation strategy seems to be selectively applied, but rather an attempt to hurt your standing with your peers.
  • anothernewdude 10mo ago
    It wouldn't bring in their estimate, it'd kill the browser.
    • cryptonym 10mo ago
      Maybe they'd still get paid $150M for that, while only having to barely keep the browser alive, with no user request, for illusion of non-monopoly. Fewer devs, more bucks, big win for the execs on the short term.
• CamouflagedKiwi 10mo ago
  Amazing how they continue not to cater to their core audience. They literally have lost 90% of their market share from their peak, I guess I can see the temptation to try to regain it by reaching out to others, but doing that at the expense of your core is a terrible business strategy. It's not like those users are all that sticky, they're leaving as Mozilla pisses them off, and likely Mozilla are going to be left with what they stand for - which these days is nothing. It's sad, I'm sure there was a better path Mozilla could have taken, but they've had a decade or more of terrible management. I wonder if the non-profit / corp structure hasn't helped, or if it's just a later-stage company with a management layer who are disconnected from the original company's mission and strategy.
  • PurpleRamen 10mo ago
    > Amazing how they continue not to cater to their core audience. Who is Mozilla's core audience? From what I remember, it's not addon-users, as most users never have used even just a single addon. > They literally have lost 90% of their market share from their peak, To be fair, it's not entirely their own fault. Competition is strong, especially from Google and Apple. Even with perfect decisions, they likely would still have lost big since their peak. The market for alternative Browsers isn't as big any more as it used to be.
    • g947o 10mo ago
      > From what I remember, it's not addon-users, as most users never have used even just a single addon. Source?
      • clippyplz 10mo ago
        I looked up "firefox addon usage" and this was the second result https://data.firefox.com/dashboard/usage-behavior https://data.firefox.com/dashboard/usage-behavior > over 40% of Firefox users have at least 1 installed add-on
        • Yossarrian22 10mo ago
• tigranbs 10mo ago
  Firefox has been lagging in Web features for a long time. I have been a Zen browser user for about a year, and recently moved back to Arc just because almost all interactive websites look bad on the Firefox engine; somehow, they don't have the same level of JS API support as Chrome does, especially for WebRTC, Audio, or Video. And this is frustrating that they think the problem is the AdBlockers!
• bjord 10mo ago
  I didn't read it that way. I read it as him acknowledging that would be a poor choice and therefore that mozilla won't do it.
  • gitaarik 10mo ago
    Right, saying that something which is completely against the company's fundamental principles "feels off mission" gives us a very secure feeling of this CEO.
• nextlevelwizard 10mo ago
  Literally only reason to use Firefox is that it still blocks ads properly. If Mozzilla brings AI or removes ad blocks then they are every way just worse Chrome and there is zero reason to use them over Chrome. I guess I should already start porting my Firefox extensions over to Chrome since this ship is sinking stupid fast.
  • jwrallie 10mo ago
    Firefox may say they will not block anything and still end up adopting something like Manifest v3. Android blocking side loading is more or less in the same ballpark.
    • nextlevelwizard 10mo ago
      And the result will be the same i.e. no reason to use Firefox. I don't know why bring up Android when it is already Google product.
• WhereIsTheTruth 10mo ago
  Mozilla received $555 million from Google in 2023 Half a billion, they are both milking and lying to you
  • nephihaha 10mo ago
    I suspected it would be something like this.
• on_the_train 10mo ago
  The fact that they even have a CEO is mind boggling to me
  • nephihaha 10mo ago
    A lot of things are not what they pretend to be. Wikipedia is another example.
• globular-toast 10mo ago
  Wait, how could "blocking ad blockers" bring in money at all?
  • swiftcoder 10mo ago
    Certain advertising firms are likely to pay a nice big sum to make sure ads are being delivered
• 1GZ0 10mo ago
  Yes, and they've been at it for a while. its honestly hard to watch.
• throwaway81523 10mo ago
  "I think no one wants AI in Firefox, Mozilla" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45926779 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45926779
• exceptione 10mo ago
  What Firefox needs is a new steward and move out, literally. The unruly business practices aren't just normalized, they are an expectation. The blathering ceo wasn't even aware his job is to hide that. The fox will die in this toxic ecosystem.
• rado 10mo ago
  Just when I re-started using it because of the vertical tabs.
• gr4vityWall 10mo ago
  > Mozilla believes in the value of an open and free (and thus ad-supported) web. > and thus ad-supported What a sad view of the web. Advertisement is a net-negative for society.
  • saubeidl 10mo ago
    It's a business wankers view of the web. Only what makes money has any value in their view. That's also why MBA types are the wrong type of person to run something like Mozilla.
  • wafflemaker 10mo ago
    Nothing wrong with an unobtrusive, not tracking, banner on a side of a page. Related to what the page is about.
    • simiones 10mo ago
      While that would be miles better, there's still plenty wrong with it. Most advertising is designed to trick people into either buying something that they don't need at all (e.g. consuming more soda instead of drinking water, or getting some gadget, or more clothes than they need), or into buying the an objectively worse option (e.g. buying a more expensive fridge that will actually last less time). This is the goal of B2C advertising: tricking people to behave less rationally in their consumption behavior. The only way to avoid this is to just block ads - even unobtrusive content-relevant ads. You may think ads can't trick you, but that has been shown time and time again to be false.
    • rjdj377dhabsn 10mo ago
      That's an even more evil ad than the obnoxious and irrelevant variety because something related to my interests has a higher chance of successfully manipulating me.
    • treyd 10mo ago
      It's a distraction from the content that I actually want to see and I should not have to spend the bandwidth on loading it or the battery on rendering it.
• fijuv 10mo ago
  I think it's too late for Mozilla, since it seems they already squandered most of their good will, userbase and money. At any rate, I think their only good path of to get rid of Gecko. The best would be to replace it with a finished version of Servo, which would give them a technically superior browser, assuming Google doesn't also drop Blink for Servo. It may be too late for this, but AI agents may perhaps make finishing Servo realistic. The other path would be to switch to Chromium, which would free all the Gecko developers to work on differentiating a Chromium-based Firefox from Chrome, and guarantee that Firefox is always better than Chrome.
  • takluyver 10mo ago
    I doubt AI agents are going to greatly accelerate the development of something as big and complex as Servo. It seems more realistic that Firefox would be built around either Blink (from Chromium) or Webkit to lean on Google/Apple.
  • saubeidl 10mo ago
    If they switch to Chromium, they'll just become yet another Chrome rebrand. It'll kill what makes their browser special.
    • theandrewbailey 10mo ago
      They keep redesigning their UI to be more like Chrome, might as well go deeper.
      • vdfs 10mo ago
        What makes their browser special really? Just chasing profits and google handout and not caring about their user base
  • 0dayz 10mo ago
    >The other path would be to switch to Chromium, which would free all the Gecko developers to work on differentiating a Chromium-based Firefox from Chrome, and guarantee that Firefox is always better than Chrome No they would get fired, unless Firefox found a new big project to earn money from, which at the moment is not very likely.
• Iolaum 10mo ago
  The web without ublock origin is a hellscape. Whenever I try another browser, I immediately go back to firefox. Do these people even know their users? For example: Fedora Silverblue default Firefox install had an issue with some Youtube videos due to codecs. So I tried watching youtube on Chromium. Ads were so annoying I stopped watching by the second time I tried to watch a video. Stopped watching youtube until I uninstalled default firefox install and added Firefox from flathub. If the option to use a good adblocker gets taken away I 'll most likely dramatically reduce my web browsing. P.S. Maybe someone ports Vanadium to desktop Linux? If firefox goes away that 'd be my best case desktop browser. Using it on my mobile ;)
  • nephihaha 10mo ago
    I prefer Brave but already have suspicions about that too.
  • KurSix 10mo ago
    That's not a niche power-user concern anymore, it's basic UX and safety
  • nbf_1995 10mo ago
    > Maybe someone ports Vanadium to desktop linux https://github.com/secureblue/Trivalent https://github.com/secureblue/Trivalent
  • b112 10mo ago
    It's amusing how much ads hurt, once you're weaned off of them. Even with traditional TV, growing up, I didn't really mind ads. Then I setup MythTV years ago, and had commercial skip... and of course just downloaded things without commercials too. When I'd visit my parents back then, any commercial felt like intense agony. So this isn't just about the web, it's really about useless annoying juke being fed to you, when you're used to not having it. The closest I can compare it to, is once I rented an airb&b which was under a freeway, beside a bridge, and adjacent to another freeway. Yet after a while I just sort of got used to most of the noise. I wonder if the CEO of Mozilla doesn't use adblock, and just doesn't, literally, understand.
• littlecranky67 10mo ago
  You can't kill ad-blockers in a browser, unless you don't allow running AI models in browsers (which will become very soon an integral part of your browsing usage - for some of us it already is, mostly through extension). I will one day just add "Remove all ads on the page I am browsing" into my BROWSER_AI.md file.
  • fooker 10mo ago
    What could possibly go wrong?
• Zardoz84 10mo ago
  Time to migrate to a Firefox fork
• wzrr 10mo ago
  going to die anyway
• dizhn 10mo ago
  > I've been using Firefox before it was called that. Call me petty but I still can't let this one go. At the time they basically stole the Firebird name from the database project and did not hesitate to use AOL's lawyers to bully the established owners of the name. So they didn't actually become shady over night. It's in their DNA.
• deleted 10mo ago
  [deleted]
• tonyedgecombe 10mo ago
  > He says he could begin to block ad blockers in Firefox and estimates that’d bring in another $150 million, but he doesn’t want to do that. It feels off-mission. It would be amusing if the only browser left that could run ad-blockers was Safari.
• andyjohnson0 10mo ago
  Long-time Firefox user* here. If Mozilla weakens the ability to block ads or control content, and/or introduces intrusive AI features that I can't easily disable, then I'm done. I'll go to Waterfox or whatever. Tired of Mozilla's attitude. * Windows and Android. I even pay for their vpn because there is apparently no way to pay for the browser, which is what I actually use.
• jb1991 10mo ago
  So what browsers will be left if Firefox kills ad blockers. This seems to be happening to all the major browsers.
  • letmetweakit 10mo ago
    Brave has decent ad-blocking but has a shady history ...
    • jb1991 10mo ago
      What is shady about it?
      • letmetweakit 10mo ago
        When you try to visit https://lobste.rs https://lobste.rs using Brave on Linux (on macOS it somehow works) you are blocked and given the following links: https://github.com/lobsters/lobsters/issues/761 https://github.com/lobsters/lobsters/issues/761 https://web.archive.org/web/20250109000904/https://lobste.rs/s/iopw1d/what_s_up_with_lobste_rs_blocking_brave#c_xhmzzr https://web.archive.org/web/20250109000904/https://lobste.rs... edit: in the past you would always get blocked, now I don't get blocked anymore when visiting lobste.rs with Brave. Anyway, do with this information as you please.
• egorfine 10mo ago
  They're between a rock and a hard place. Introduce AI and alienate whatever users you have left. Do not introduce AI and alienate whatever investors you have left.
• shit_game 10mo ago
  It's so tiring how everything around us is being engineered to make us miserable for the sake of profit. That in itself creates misery, almost seemingly for the sake of misery. A just world would punish this behavior.
  • nephihaha 10mo ago
    It's about control, not profit. Many of these projects are unprofitable. Mozilla will lose business off this.
• saubeidl 10mo ago
  It feels like the only reasonable path forward would be for the EU to buy Mozilla and fund it as a public resource. Capital extraction is fundamentally opposed to user freedom. If we want an open web, we, the people need to be maintaining it and not rely on MBA types to do it for us.
  • breve 10mo ago
    > It feels like the only reasonable path forward would be for the EU to buy Mozilla Why would they need to buy Mozilla? Just fork Firefox and go from there.
    • saubeidl 10mo ago
      I suppose they could, but I'm assuming Mozilla has quite a few experts on the code base that could come in handy. Maybe just try to poach them?
  • EbNar 10mo ago
    No, thanks. I don't want my taxes to fund a(nother) failed Corp. If they aren't able to stay afloat (after 20 years of miliking billons from the evil Google), just let them sink.
• fedeb95 10mo ago
  It will bring 150 millions the first year, but the next one?
• vintermann 10mo ago
  Sorry to get on one of my political hobby horses but... We actually need to consider the possibility that yes, it is. More precisely, that the new CEO is trying to do that. It doesn't take a grand conspiracy to join an organisation on false premises. It's totally easy. You can, today, go join a political party without agreeing with them at all, with the intent to sabotage them. Or another organization, including a workplace. And just like some people just lie for amazingly little reason, I'm increasingly convinced some people do this. Maybe for a sense of control, maybe because they think they'll get rewarded. For every person who holds a crazy belief in public, there's probably one who holds the same belief but doesn't feel the need to let others in on it. As the world gets more paranoid, it'll get worse, open fears are the top of the iceberg. If Enzor-Demeo ends up tanking Mozilla, there are plenty of people who will be happy with that. It's not as if his career will be over, far from it. Ask Nick Clegg or Stephen Elop. We all need to wake up to the idea that maybe the people who are supposed to be on our side aren't actually guaranteed to be unless we have solid mechanisms in place to ensure it.
  • slig 10mo ago
    >ends up tanking Mozilla No, Mozilla has been tanking for a decade already. Less than 5% of market share, and zero mobile.
  • pessimizer 10mo ago
    I see you're familiar with Stephen Elop. Also, remember that the people who hired Elop probably hired him with the intention of making a fortune off of that destruction. It's not that he's some secret agent or some mentally ill person who wants to destroy the company while twirling his mustache, it's that he's a person carefully chosen by people who have made large fortunes from Firefox through indirect means. He would be chosen to destroy it in a way optimized for their gain, like Elop was chosen by the board to turn Nokia into a cheap, obvious Microsoft buy, Clegg was chosen to enable the Tory government, or Sturgeon to make sure that indyref2 never happened. Google is under no antitrust threat at all anymore. Obama judges don't believe in antitrust. Google wants to get out of paying that 500M/yr, and shitting up Firefox is a great way to do it. They'd be more than happy to throw a couple dozen of those Ms to Enzor-DeMeo or whoever will help them get that done. How much you willing to bet that he becomes Mozilla's highest paid CEO in history, ruins the product completely, then leaves and ends up an exec at Google or some 80% owned by Google offshoot founded by a Google alum?
• adornKey 10mo ago
  I think the writing for Mozilla was on the wall for a solid decade now. The time to look for alternatives and to switch to other (pretty unknown) niche browsers was at least 5 years ago. I don't even remember the time when I downloaded and used Firefox anymore.
• jillesvangurp 10mo ago
  I think blocking ad blockers (the whole FFing point of using Firefox is freedom to do use those) would be the shortest path for him out of the door as a CEO. It's so tone deaf that it is likely to probe the community into drastic action if he were to attempt to push that through. Including probably much of the developer community. I'm talking the kind of action that boils down to forking and taking a large part of the user base along. Which is why that would be very inadvisable. The problem with being a CEO of a for profit corporation, which is what he is, is that his loyalty is to shareholders, not to users. The Mozilla Foundation and the corporation are hopelessly inter dependent at this point. The foundation looks increasingly like a paper tiger given the decision making and apparent disconnect with its user base which it is supposed to serve. All the bloated budgets, mis-spending on offices, failed projects, fancy offices, juicy executive salaries at a time where revenue from Google continued to be substantial all while downsizing developer teams and actually laying some off isn't a great look. Stuff like this just adds to the impression that they are increasingly self serving hacks that don't care about the core product: Firefox. This new CEO isn't off to a great start here.
  • jwnin 10mo ago
    who are the shareholders?
    • globalnode 10mo ago
      yeah pretty sure its a private corp under the ownership of the parent foundation. no shareholders so not sure why they new guy said what he said.. theres no one to impress
• cr3cr3 10mo ago
  It's insane that this is right now on top of HN. Random and really childish interpretation is now worthy of top post?
• lcnmrn 10mo ago
  I use AdGuard DNS. AdBlockers are too CPU and memory intensive anyway.
  • adornKey 10mo ago
    With DNS over https Firefox has the answer against you already built in. And back then they were very keen on implementing it as soon as possible. They even sold it as helping against censorship. It's maybe just a question of time how long good old Firefox will allow you to censor ads...
• throwfaraway135 10mo ago
  Mozilla needs some of that Brave and Opera energy. They have their issues too, but at least they try not to be just a worse chrome.
  • tokai 10mo ago
    >that Brave and Opera energy Closed source adware and crypto scams?!
    • throwfaraway135 10mo ago
      “Absorb what is useful, discard what is useless, and add what is specifically your own,” Bruce Lee
    • EbNar 10mo ago
      Can you please tell me how a purely opt-in feature is a scam? I'm all ears.
• PunchyHamster 10mo ago
  They are but as with everything else in last 10 years they are insanely incompetent at it so it will take a while
• qwertox 10mo ago
  I would stop using Firefox if Enzor-DeMeo would block or cripple ad blockers. While it is not my main browser (Vivaldi is), I have 5 installs of Firefox Portable for different things, like one for YouTube, one for testing pages against Firefox and so on.
  • bruce511 10mo ago
    Mozilla/ Firefox is irrelevant and ultimately doomed to ever smaller numbers. That's because their users are driven by opinions and principles, and those are the worst, most disloyal kind of users. They're always threatening to leave, and will take the slightest offense to do so. Chrome wins because its user base doesn't care. The browser is just a tool, not a religion. It's installed, they use it, they're barely aware it exists and most of Joe Public doesn't even know Google makes it. So sure. For you it's ad blockers. For someone else it's their donation plan. Or Google funding. Or their corporate structure. Or their management. When your marketing is about something else, other than the product itself, you always end up with edge-case-customers. People use Chrome because it's the best browser. Less than 3% use Firefox. And all I read from Firefox users is how bad everything is (or will be). No, Firefox's market share isn't a foil to monopoly (Safari has 5 times more users. Crumbs Edge has twice the users.) I care about Firefox, but I really just wish all the whiners would just do what they threaten and use something else. But they won't because everything else is worse (for some or other principles reason.) Now I fully expect to be downvoted because the only people reading this article in the first place are Firefox whiners. Which is kinda my point. It's pretty hard to recommend Firefox to others when everything written by existing users is so negative.
    • globalnode 10mo ago
      i respect that you ate those downvotes standing up for what you believe
    • creata 10mo ago
      > The browser is just a tool, not a religion. An ad blocker is a very useful tool. Being able to block ads effectively makes the browser much better. I'm not sure how you can call that "religion". > People use Chrome because it's the best browser. No they don't. They use Chrome because every Google service nags the shit out of them to use Chrome. People aren't as rational as you make them out to be.
• throwfaraway135 10mo ago
  Mozilla CEO compensations 2018: $2,458,350 2020: Over $3 million 2021: $5,591,406. 2022: $6,903,089. 2023: ~$7m Mozilla declined to detail the CEO's salaries for 2024+
  • DesiLurker 10mo ago
    they are open source company, how can they decline to state? this is absurd, even regular companies do it.
  • vanviegen 10mo ago
    But that includes bonuses for outstanding performance! /s
  • gorjusborg 10mo ago
    ... and most of that money comes in the form of sponsored browser/search integration w/ their competitors. In that set of circumstances, the main qualification for CEO is likely 'plays nice with Google'. Given that, I'm not surprised that Mozilla underperforms. Beating Google in the browser market might be considered hostile to their sponsors.
• ajdude 10mo ago
  I'm going to repost/merge a few comments I made about this a while ago: I dropped firefox 9 months so after they updated their privacy policy and removed "we don't sell your data" from their FAQ: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43213612 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43213612 Mozilla has hired a lot of execs from Meta and bought an ad company, looking through a lot of their privacy policy at the time, a lot of it involves rewriting it to say that they can serve you sponsored suggestions when you're searching for things in their search bar and stuff and sharing out some of that data with third parties etc. Firefox was bringing in half a billion a year for the last decade, if they would've just invested that money in low risk money market accounts (instead of paying their csuite executives millions of dollars in salary and putting the rest on non-Firefox related related social causes), the company would be able to easily survive off the interest alone. I've been using Firefox since 2006 and have defended it for decades even when they've made questionable decisions that have gotten everybody upset with them. But this time it wasn't just making stupid decisions to try and fund the company, this time they actuality sold out their own customers. In public announcement in the above link explaining why they removed "we don't sell your data" from the FAQ, the rationality was that some jurisdictions define selling data weirdly, they cited California's definition as an example but California's definition is exactly what I would consider the definition of selling my personal data. They're justifying this by saying that they need it to stay alive since they're not going to be getting money from Google anymore, but I argue that you shouldn't sell out your customer base on the very specific reason anyone would choose you. I would rather pay a monthly fee to use Firefox to support them, but even if you gave them $500 million today they would just squander it away like they've done since forever so I really don't have any solution I can think of which frustrates me. I switched to Orion (and use Safari if a site doesn't work in Orion), which can be a little buggy at times but I'm happy that it's not based on chrome at least.
  • rjdj377dhabsn 10mo ago
    I'm deeply disappointed in Mozilla's management as well, but as long as LibreWolf and IronFox exist, I still see it as the lesser evil.
  • TiredOfLife 10mo ago
    The funny thing about removing "we don't sell your data" is that Mozilla before that was giving your data away for free. Now they just could be compensated.
• immibis 10mo ago
  It really seems like all large tech corporations are trying their hardest to kill themselves, and failing because the market is so rigged. Remember when Kodak ignored digital cameras and became irrelevant? That was bad because it decreased shareholder value. That will not be allowed to happen again.
• mlmonkey 10mo ago
  Mozilla gets what, a billion dollars a year from Google to be the default search engine for Firefox? What do they need more money for?
  • gethly 10mo ago
    [flagged]
• arcade79 10mo ago
  I've been using Firefox since it was called Phoenix. Going against the users like that would make me drop it like a hot potato.
• tempay 10mo ago
  > Is Mozilla trying hard to kill itself? I feel like this question has been valid for almost as long as I can remember (e.g. the Mr. Robot extension incident). I find myself struggling to tell if Mozilla is an inherently flawed company or if it's just inherent to trying to survive in such a space.
• Lapsa 10mo ago
  malvertising - liking the term
• squarefoot 10mo ago
  When someone working for A is doing something that would clearly harm A to the benefit of B, I usually start wondering if that someone really works for A or there's something fishy going on. Mozilla is wasting a huge load of money coming from the Google agreement (another conflict of interests) to pay huge salaries to their CEO over the years. If there's something they lack it's openness about goals, not money.
• jstummbillig 10mo ago
  Let's assume that Mozilla is not doing super hot and that's why their CEO is contemplating this topic. Obviously we are not happy about ads, but we all understand that having money is pretty neat (if only to pay ones salary). Help the CEO fella: What great, unused options is Mozilla missing to generate revenue through their browser?
  • Ylpertnodi 10mo ago
    Adblocker.
• arnaudsm 10mo ago
  There's an elephant in the room: why is maintaining a web browser costing $400M/y? The web standards are growing faster than non-profit engines can implement them. Google & Apple are bloating the web specs in what looks like regulatory capture. If Blink/Webkit dominate for long enough, they will lock everything down with DRMs & WEI. Maybe it's time to work on lighter protocols like Gopher & Gemini that don't need 20GB of RAM to open 20 tabs ?
  • tziki 10mo ago
    Having a "lighter standard" simply means people will have to write native apps, one per platform. I understand Apple wants this, but for Mozilla that should be the antithesis of what they're trying to achieve.
    • arnaudsm 10mo ago
      The standard can be forward compatible. A light website is always great, you're using one right now.
  • vanviegen 10mo ago
    > There's an elephant in the room: why is maintaining a web browser costing $400M/y? Is that actually the case though? I find it hard to believe that Mozilla has anywhere close to 1500 senior developers working on just Firefox. My guess is that the bulk of that money is spent on unrelated adventures and overhead.
    • arnaudsm 10mo ago
      Google Chrome is likely around $400M, while Mozilla's core browser team is around $200M but are technologically far behind. Hard to find precise numbers, it's just an order of magnitude estimate
      • lukeschlather 10mo ago
        In what sense is Mozilla behind? Chrome is an advertising delivery platform, they have fundamentally different goals and that $400M they spend on Chrome is not mostly going to technology that I want in my browser, that's the point. Just because Chrome builds telemetry features doesn't mean Mozilla needs them too.
• htk 10mo ago
  Every now and then we talk here about Mozilla needing more money to keep Firefox alive, meanwhile they spend money with other priorities in mind. This is an old article but has some good examples: https://lunduke.locals.com/post/4387539/firefox-money-investigating-the-bizarre-finances-of-mozilla https://lunduke.locals.com/post/4387539/firefox-money-invest...
• jchip303 10mo ago
  [dead]
• freeopinion 10mo ago
  You mean, Mozilla, the AI company? Where, "Our mission is to make it easy for people to build with, and collaborate on, open-source, trustworthy AI."?
• skizm 10mo ago
  What are good Firefox alternatives these days that will run a proper uBlock origin (not chrome’s watered down manifest v3 version)?
  • vanviegen 10mo ago
    I just run Brave and I don't even remember what ads look like.
• bambax 10mo ago
  > Killing one of its advantages over the Chromium engine, being able to have a fucking adblocker that's actually useful, and that nowadays is a fucking security feature due to malvertising, will be another nail in the coffin, IMHO. Well, it would be a shot in the head. What would be the point of using Firefox if it can't block ads better than Chrome, and on mobile as well??? Doing so would not "bring in an additional 150 millions, or 50 millions, or 1 million! It would kill the product instantly.
• ozgrakkurt 10mo ago
  You can donate to ladybird on donorbox https://donorbox.org/ladybird https://donorbox.org/ladybird
• Cort3z 10mo ago
  Does anyone have a link to the source of the statement without a paywall in front? I could not see any reference to this 150M$ anywhere.
• globalnode 10mo ago
  as soon as ublock goes, firefox goes.. more anonymity that way anyway since being a firefox user already makes me stand out from the crowd.
• gspr 10mo ago
  I realize that a FOSS browser is an absolutely enormous monstrosity of a project. An undertaking akin to a whole FOSS OS. But it's also comparably important, especially when no FOSS alternatives exist in the browser space. We (I mean that very loosely, not having contributed anything myself) have managed to produce _several_ FOSS OS-es. Why are we seemingly completely fucked if Mozilla does in fact kill itself/Firefox? I don't doubt that we are, I just don't understand.
• jmpeax 10mo ago
  How is blocking ad blockers going to make them $150m?
• cullumsmith 10mo ago
  Mozilla FireSlop.
• nathias 10mo ago
  "it feels off-mission" is a very chatgpt thing to say
• Kuyawa 10mo ago
  User since Phoenix 0.6, now moved to Brave and haven't seen an ad in years, and it comes with a handy AI response on every search
• KurSix 10mo ago
  Mozilla's problem has never been a lack of monetization ideas, it's been a lack of ideas that don't undermine why Firefox exists in the first place
• JohnBlakesDad 10mo ago
  Entire base is free s/w - every bit including both phones. Grow a pair - stop felating epstien trump and gang (including RMS). Be the gang all f'n ready
  • cindyllm 10mo ago
    [dead]
• JohnBlakesDad 10mo ago
  Every bit of the base is free s/w including both phones. Stop felating trump epstein and gang incoudingbrms. Grow a pair already. And stop calling normal average "typical"
• micromacrofoot 10mo ago
  I understand where people are coming from with these takes... but look at the details, Mozilla is practically dead already. They are almost solely funded by Google. Look at browser stats, what they're doing is not working and asking them to continue doing it will kill them. They have to change or they will die. Their core audience (people on this site) is shrinking constantly. You can not save them. I feel like this is a case where a bunch of smart people like something so much, or the idea of something, that they've completely blinded themselves to the facts.
• vvpan 10mo ago
  I will gladly pay for services that help me defeat ads.
• noirscape 10mo ago
  If Mozilla were to kill adblockers, there's basically no reason to not use Chromium. It's pretty much the only relevant difference between Chromium and Firefox these days. It's truly impressive how they've managed to do every user-hostile trick Google Chrome also did over the years, except for no real clear reason besides contempt for their users autonomy I suppose. Right now the sole hill Mozilla really has left is adblockers, and they've talked about wanting to sacrifice that? It truly boggles the mind to even consider this. That's not 150 million, that's the sound of losing all your users.
• miroljub 10mo ago
  The day Mozilla fired Brendan Eich for political reasons, Firefox died. It just took a while for everyone to realise that. That was when they collectively decided that other things are more important to them than the quality and usability of Firefox. The new CEO is just the final nail in their coffin.
  • izzylan 10mo ago
    Firing someone for being opposed to same-sex marriage is political in the same way firing someone for robbing a bank is.
    • snovymgodym 10mo ago
      Really? Having an opinion endorsed by the mainstream doctrine of several world religions with billions of adherents is the same as robbing a bank? That being said, I disagree with Eich and it probably made sense for the org to let him go given how his views might impact public perception of Mozilla.
      • mplewis 10mo ago
        Does it feel good to be on the side of millions of like-minded bigots?
        • snovymgodym 10mo ago
          Not sure where I said I was on their side.
    • diggyhole 10mo ago
      wat
    • HanClinto 10mo ago
      This is dangerous, faulty thinking. Equivocating speech and crime as both being "violence" (of similar class, deserving similar response) is a fallacy that lets people justify murder in response to disagreement as long as it's deemed serious enough.
• pjmlp 10mo ago
  Sadly we are way beyond that point, the moment it went below 5% that was it.
• notepad0x90 10mo ago
  I think people are wildly overreacting. There is a new CEO and he wants to make a splash so the throws around "AI" that's it. Of course there will be AI related features in firefox, there already are! Wait and see what the actual specifics are before reacting? Also, a small minor detail here: We're not paying for firefox! why are so many people feeling entitled? Mozilla has to do something other than beg Google to survive. Perhaps we need a fork of firefox that is sustained by donations and is backed by a non-profit explicilty chartered to make decisions based on community feedback? I don't see a problem with that wikipedia-like approach, I don't think any of the forks today have a good/viable org structure that is fully non-profit (as in it won't seek profit at all). Mozilla has bade some bad decisions recently, but they're a far cry from the world-ended outcry they're getting. If we don't donate to Mozilla and we don't pay them money, then we have to be the product at some point. Even if they don't it to be that way, they have to placate to some other business interests. I hope the EU also pays attention, perhaps some of their OSS funding can help setup an alternate org.
  • Lord-Jobo 10mo ago
    Because the AI implementations they’ve already done are shit? Buttons on by default, features that are annoying to remove for normal users (the context menu ‘search with chatbot’). It’s just garbage, get this shit out of here. Stop adding things to my window without permission and stop with the popups announcing them to me. Anyone who seriously wants this will seek it out. Leave the rest of us alone.
    • abustamam 10mo ago
      Yeah I dunno why they didn't just let it be an official add-on or whatever. I use AI a lot and even I don't want this shit everywhere.
  • mplewis 10mo ago
    Why do there have to be AI features in Firefox? No one wants them. They make the browser less secure. They distract from the mission.
• rchaud 10mo ago
  Disabling ad blocking goes hand in hand with an "AI Browser" strategy. Ad blocking relies on the ability to use filters to block network requests at the browser level, and visual elements at the DOM level. "AI Browsers" are designed to add bloat to the browsing experience, by offering to summarize something, or providing contextual information like say, a product recommendation that pulls data from a third party site. Network request and DOM element blocking would instantly negate that. I've moved to Librewolf myself.
  • zajio1am 10mo ago
    On the contrary, ad blockers and 'AI browsers' goes hand in hand. On one side is naive browser that displays pages as-is, on the other is user agent that shows what is relevant to the user. Ad blockers are just more static / more deterministic variants of that.
    • rchaud 10mo ago
      What centralized organization with a budget and a CEO is ever going to do that? They are all under pressure to not piss off the giant advertising octopus that has its tentacles in every part of the tech industry.
    • kjkjadksj 10mo ago
      Bold of you to assume ai browser will allow for subverting commercial monetization
• t23414321 10mo ago
  The profit model is being payed (as CEO) to dismantle Firefox into oblivion and no more.
• tsoukase 10mo ago
  Clearly Google have an iron hand over Mozilla. They want it to remain semi-alive for competitiveness purposes but also ad-block free in order to keep the last user's attention to ads. There might be an under the table agreement between G and the CEO that we will never find. After a while Firefox might become abandoned because nobody in power wants it any more.
• docmars 10mo ago
  I would pay for Firefox if it meant it could still block ads and well... survive.
• epolanski 10mo ago
  It was already dying and with no chances of making up share, most online usage comes from mobile, nobody cares about installing Firefox there but us nerds. So they need some kind of pivot.
• thibran 10mo ago
  Mozilla wasted probably hundreds of million dollars trying all those "features", but all we want is a stable browser.
• otabdeveloper4 10mo ago
  Yes. They're paid to do so by Google.
• giancarlostoro 10mo ago
  I'm a daily Firefox user, but its to the point where I'm waiting for someone to make a serious hard fork that only has a non-profit that funds the project and nothing else.
• BuckRogers 10mo ago
  I exclusively used Firefox for 20 years. I moved over to Edge and haven't looked back. Mozilla and the people still using it seem to think maintaining your own rendering engine with Gecko is somehow keeping the internet free. Wrong abstraction layer of freedom to worry about. It's the most bizarre thing I've ever seen. It should have moved to Webkit or Blink many years ago, and focused on user experience. Such as extensions to keep MV2 addons working, and even expanding on the capabilities, like the old XUL/XPCOM Firefox extensions. Those things are why people like me used Firefox, not because of all the money and work put into Gecko. Which is just redundant in the end. Moving to Blink or Webkit, keeping MV2 and XUL, was where the effort should have been placed. Also, I never understood Pocket or any of their other decisions. Now it's being floated to ban adblockers. Poorly run organization that given its direction and decisions, deserves to die.
• president_zippy 10mo ago
  I wonder where killing adblockers on Firefox will leave LibreWolf...
• unethical_ban 10mo ago
  Isn't it kind of telling how incredibly complicated modern web browsing is, that a web browser is seen as one of the most difficult general purpose projects a developer could imagine building, aside from an entire desktop environment or a kernel? You know what would be neat? If the Gemini protocol were slightly expanded for video/image embeds, and then having Firefox/Ladybird support it out of the box.
• QuiEgo 10mo ago
  I feel like some day, YouTube and all video streaming are likely to move to apps and just drop browser support (replace with redirect to app). It feels like the logical conclusion of the ad blocking arms race. This is just one step forward down that road.
• ggm 10mo ago
  I think the sentiment of the headline statement is off. What you expect a CEO to say is "OBVIOUSLY the one thing which is completely off the table, because of it's lack of alignment with our mission and vision..." Instead of which he inverts it "we'd get like $150m if we did this thing we won't do because well.. we haven't decided to." with the implicit "... yet" And I agree with comments below: he discounts risk side loss of income because of people walking away.
• rolph 10mo ago
  your spelling it wrong its not Mozilla, its MozillAI.
• caycep 10mo ago
  Would a Mozilla-like browser be sustainable via the "old" nonprofit model through government or academic grants/philanthropy?
• weare138 10mo ago
  For fuck sake, for-profit side of Mozilla, get a damn grip! Update, since this is getting traction on Reddit I'm not against Mozilla making money. Like a regular citizen needs to make money, companies and even nonprofits need it too. Don't second guess yourself OP. Firefox is not a product. It's an open-source project countless people have contributed their time and dime to over the years. The Mozilla corporation didn't create Firefox, the open-source community did. Mozilla was entrusted to be the stewards of the project and have repeatedly violated that trust. Mozilla is commoditizing other people's hard work while enriching themselves in the process at the expense of the community and abused the trust we placed in them to get away with it.
• aucisson_masque 10mo ago
  > He says he could begin to block ad blockers in Firefox and estimates that’d bring in another $150 million, but he doesn’t want to do that. It feels off-mission. That's just miss interpretation. The way he told that was probably badly reported by the journalist and now it's getting miss understood. Let's be honest and give this guy an honnest chance instead of witch hunting. I really didn't like his interview and his blog post but even then, judge on the facts and not the talk !
• Lvl999Noob 10mo ago
  I use firefox for three things. 1. The ad blocker. 2. The sense of superiority over the normies (because of the ad blocker) 3. Theming If adblockers are killed, that removed points 1 and 2. I am pretty sure I can do the same theming in Chrome (I have simple tastes) so that makes 3 a non-factor. And combined with the companies that refuse to make their sites work with firefox, there is no reason not to use chrome. Privacy is a non-factor since my identity is already wholly linked to my google account. I would have to first switch off off there and I am not putting in the effort for that.
• christkv 10mo ago
  Firefox feels like an organization where the leadership is more focused on enriching themselves than the mission.
• whywhywhywhy 10mo ago
  Story as old as free software, non-profit gets put in charge, original creators ousted, non-profit extracts max value while software rots.
• normalaccess 10mo ago
  Anyone in a position to short sell from the inside?
• est 10mo ago
  I might get heavily downvoted, but since official "extension stores" are handicapped, people should re-invent dll inject ad blockers.
• petrie-594753 10mo ago
  You can also block ads on the network level at the gateway on your router. If you run Linux you can run libre wolf instead of Firefox both still use gecko for rendering.
• petrie-594753 10mo ago
  You can block adverts on the network level at the gateway in your routers web app. You can also use libre wolf which also uses the gecko rendering engine if you run Linux.
• mmonaghan 10mo ago
  There's very little money in running a browser for users who want ad blocking, performance, and features but don't want to let the browser company make money the same way most of the internet does - advertising. Most people don't care about seeing ads. If killing ad blocker support is what keeps Firefox alive, I understand the move and would probably make the same call.
• huey77 10mo ago
  What are some good alternatives to Firefox? I have loved the browser for years, but the future isn’t looking bright. Waterfox is on my radar. Any others I should be aware/you guys are using?