5 ms·
Mozilla will put ads directly into Firefox
- yiedyie 13y agoThat should be nasty, hope they doesn't make it like the old shareware. It brings a few other issues too, since it is opensource people will download alternative builds without the ads.
- mahouse 13y agoI am sure it will be easy to opt-out, either by going to the Preferences panel or by an obscure about:config option.
- spacefight 13y agoThat's the point, it's 'easy' for those who care, but 99% won't be able to change it easily...
- MarkTee 13y agoIf the only ones who don't know how to change it are the ones who don't care, what does it matter?
- spacefight 13y agoOnly caring for yourself isn't helping your others in a global society, ever.
- ollysb 13y agoOur world is full of adverts, most people aren't even going to blink if a couple more appear somewhere.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- spacefight 13y agoMozilla sell-out to the media and advertising industry has started - why did they get Darren Herman on board? Wasn't it clear that his work only be in favour of the industry and not really the user?
- gcb0 13y agoYeah, my hard earned and then donated money being used to pay a fucking VP of marketing under the newspeak title of content services VP is a joke. Good bye to this year donation. Wikipedia will get double this tax season.
- spacefight 13y agoThe whole article is newspeak and double-speak at its best, I can't believe it...
- gcb0 13y agoAll the post say is Mozilla will sell initial placement on the new tab screen for new users (space now given free of charge to a Google search box) All browsers already put some sites in the favorites, specially mobile stock browsers. What's so outrageous about that?
- spacefight 13y agoThe "everyone does it - we have to follow suit" argument isn't really viable, is it?
- gcb0 13y agoOf course not. But It does sound even less dramatic when the title here is so blatantly alarmist though... Notice i never said it should be done, just pointed it is not "putting ads in the browser" as the title cries
- spacefight 13y agoAll right, but it truly is putting ads in the browser. A new tab is "in the browser" - a "sponsored tile" is an ad.
- yiedyie 13y agoA journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. See Gooogle, they started with the user in mind, and now they became so business oriented that they killed even Reader.
- staticelf 13y agoThis is only for new users, if you already use firefox the tile boxes won't be empty and you won't probably see ads. If this helps Mozilla bring me a better user experience, faster browser and a continued focus on the user I all down with it. However, if they should continue to deliver ads in more destructive ways I think it's time for a new browser.
- arocks 13y agoFilling whitespace with advertising is not helping the first time user, it is adding clutter and confusion. Minimalism or chrome-lessness is what modern browsers are aiming for. Let's not reverse the trend and fall-back to the days of Internet Explorer with dozens of assorted bookmarks and desktop icons.
- philo23 13y agoAs far as I'm understanding this, it seems like these Directory Tiles would be replaced over time with your own most visited websites just like they would normally. They just pad out the new tab page for new installs temporarily. Is this really so bad?
- nicky0 13y agoAs a general rule of thumb, any time a company is "really excited about" something, it is probably a bad thing.
- kendalk 13y agoNot always. Steve Jobs was an example. You can have a visionary CEO who really cares about a product.
- NPC82 13y agoIf displaying sponsored tiles within Firefox is to make any impact beyond sounding scandalous to it's user-base, it has already failed. Firefox is a program for people who actively avoid these things and custom tailor their web browsing experience. Mozilla would be better off filling those blank tiles with donate links.
- huhtenberg 13y agoExcited to share the launch of @mozilla @firefox Tiles program, the first of our user-enhancing programs https://twitter.com/dherman76/status/433320156496789504 https://twitter.com/dherman76/status/433320156496789504 I don't know what I am concerned more about - the "first of" or the disingenuous and sleazy attempt to masquerade paid content as something that users need or want.
- Ygg2 13y agoI'd go for the sleazy, really.
- kirab 13y agoThat’s exactly what bothered me so much about it. Of course now the ads are still in a kind of unobtrusive placement. But once they’re started... Where will this end?
- MildlySerious 13y agoI'll just be positive here and say that it's Mozilla and not Facebook. They'll likely think of a good solution.
- jordibunster 13y agoIt takes a lot to say things like "user-enhancing programs" with a straight face.
- JamesBaxter 13y agoDoesn't (or didn't) Google pay to be the search engine by default? Is this different? I've donated to Firefox. I'd pay for an Ad free version but I don't have any problem with them doing this if it funds them in a meaningful way.
- mehwoot 13y agoAround 90% of mozilla's budget comes from the search deal with google.
- shadowmint 13y agoOn the other hand, there's a perfect opportunity here for someone to do the Linux Mint thing and provide a ad-stripped alternate version of Firefox for people.
- bluefreeze 13y agoSo, Mozilla now changed from non-profit into ads-profit. Oh, great.
- MildlySerious 13y agoConsider they're pretty much the only big non-profit in a market that's being ruled by giant corporations. If they have to act to hold their stand against them, that's still better than vanishing. I don't want a web without Mozilla, to be honest.
- Ygg2 13y agoAs a single step, it doesn't bother me really. But as a part of an overall bad strategy, I definitely dislike it.
- flaxin 13y agoand this is announced after February 11 "really excited about..." - it's inevitable :(
- vdaniuk 13y agoThe inability of most HN commenters to consider long term benefits of including unobstrusive sponsored content in Firefox or opportunity cost of not including such sponsored content is suprising to me.
- spacefight 13y agoThe inability to see a slippery slope is suprising to me.
- lclarkmichalek 13y agoWell the words `slippery slope` are usually followed by `fallacy` on this site, so I wouldn't be too shocked.
- vdaniuk 13y agoYes, the slippery slope of a non-profit with great track record earning more money to fund its activities that are beneficial to society at large by inconveniencing some portion of its users by unobtrusive ads. The horror!
- DrinkWater 13y agoMozilla doing "ads" is not the same thing as Google doing "ads", yet no one gives a flying fuck about Google's intentions. Sometimes the tech world acts like a bunch of 4-year old children. I am sick of it.
- vdaniuk 13y agoI share your sickness feeling however I think that this is a problem of loud minority influencing online discussions in a disproportionate way. The tech community at large may be or may be not more reasonable.
- Eibx 13y agoExactly. I understand why they might want to be less depended on Google. Last year, having Google as their primary search engine, gave Mozilla $311M. If Google backs out, they want to earn money some how else, this is a great non-intrusive way to do so.
- ZenoArrow 13y agoYou missed the point of the backlash. It's not people rejecting the ads per se, more rejecting the manner in which the changes are presented as being 'pro-user'. If the marketing guy had any sense of what the Mozilla fanbase is like he'd understand why he should've just been honest about wanting to ensure Mozilla can get funding from multiple sources.
- FireBeyond 13y agoPerhaps so. But on the flip side, I can't see how Mozilla would be burning through a third of a billion dollars a year. I'd hope/assume that some of that was being banked so they don't have to preemptively introduce advertising. But, y'know, the taste of money is addictive.
- imsosadnow 13y agoSeriously, what happend to the world. Mozilla was always my loved open source Browser of choice. What they are doing now with arguments about Costa is such a step in the wrong direction and cant even find suitable words. I will find a replacement. Rip firefox
- flaxin 13y agoif Mozilla goes to the "other side" so be it, but guess what http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvaaGhfjrgs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvaaGhfjrgs
- SchizoDuckie 13y agoTitle misleading. It's a landing page like browsers have had for years. Based on the title I thought they would ad an advertisement somewhere into the firefox chrome. All the article says is that they're going to have a 'new tab' page that has some default tiles that are sponsored by sponsors. Wow. Big Deal.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- WasimBhai 13y agoI use Firefox because I think it is good enough and second I want to have certain control at the software I am using, being it open source. Now do I expect Mozilla to keep running a company without generating revenue to only to stay up? Remember 90 percent of Mozilla revenues come from Google. They must diversify, and if Firefox is smart enough with ads placement, which considering their stellar record at keeping the customers first is undeniable, I am backing Mozilla up. Yes to competition, yes to open web.
- flaxin 13y agobut WHY the masquerade, "user first", comeon' --- are you kidding me! why the hell didn't Mozilla say - "hey we need to diversify our source of Benjamin's, so we're putting ads"
- vdaniuk 13y agoBecause more money to spend by Mozilla means more and better products for its users. Minor inconvenience in UI will result in overall larger benefits for the userbase. It is obvious if you put aside the ads-hating generators.
- flaxin 13y agoyou think ADS will have a BETTER experience for a NEW user? what comes after "ADS", "BETTER ADS" then "TARGETED ADS" then... so, they should say it to "their" [what's left of em'] users face, don't you think so? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXoNE14U_zM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXoNE14U_zM
- chris_wot 13y ago"we think they’d agree that users’ interests should come first" No, they don't. They care about making a buck.
- awda 13y agoLinux distros will not ship ads that kick money to individual components. The only way this will land in e.g. Fedora is if Firefox pulls the ad-laden page from Mozillas servers during startup. And I don't see them being too happy with even that.
- spacefight 13y agoSo how did this story vanish from the front page suddenly?
- NigelTufnel 13y agoWhat was wrong with the honest: "We'll show ads to the first-time Firefox users, so we can make extra money with our free product. We'll show ads only once"? "User-first" bit is the textbook example of PRspeak.
- kendalk 13y agoThe PRspeak bothered me more than the ads. Did the writer really think anyone will buy the "users at the center" bit?
- quesera 13y agoOn one level, this is No Big Deal -- it's comparable to the default bookmarks that other browsers include for CNN, NYTimes, etc. Though it never occurred to me before to wonder if those bookmarks were paid placement. How naive. These tiles are even less persistent than default bookmarks. They get replaced as a side effect of user activity, instead of requiring manual removal. They're also visually inoffensive in their current sampled form. I'm cool with revenue diversification and growth. I'll take it on faith that options-to-Google are not as ready and assured as we often assume them to be. I'm less convinced that Mozilla needs hundreds of million dollars to operate in the first place, but on the assumption that our interests in the expenditure of that money are vaguely aligned, I won't begrudge them their fundraising success. The part that really bothers me is the tone of delivery. "User enhancing"?? I don't feel enhanced in the least, and I deeply worry about there being someone with any influence at Mozilla who can use that phrase (in this context) without being run out of town on a pike. The entire messaging is terrible, and terrible in a way that suggests a huge cultural dissonance between the Mozilla we knew and the Mozilla that is presenting itself. The question is, which is more correct? And that's a Problem. Who is in charge over there these days? Did they really give some dude from the ad business free reign over organizational messaging? This feels like Mozilla's John Browett moment. Their next steps will say a lot.
- username223 13y agoThanks for the translation; some of us are not as fluent in Marketroid. It's obvious that soulless automata like Darren are up to no good, but it's hard to translate what they emit: > As VP of Content Services, Darren Herman is responsible for diversifying revenue and sustaining Mozilla’s mission through innovation in content and personalization products and services.