4 ms·

> A lot of our community found the language hard to decipher There is something rotten in the Mozilla stewardship. First they come with an idea that clearly g

> A lot of our community found the language hard to decipher There is something rotten in the Mozilla stewardship. First they come with an idea that clearly goes against their users best interests. Then they actively try to disguise it and sell it as something that people really truly want, but are just dumb enough not to realize and appreciate. They still get an earful. And now they don't have chops to simply say that the idea was bad and it was written off. Instead there's this masterpiece of weasel wording that effectively puts blame on the users for killing a perfectly good idea. What the f#ck.

Sir_Cmpwn 13y ago
Their plan seemed fine to me. In fact, it was for the benefit of their users - everyone wins if Mozilla is funded and decoupled from Google. The ads were unintrusive, and made sense in context. It was just populating something that was replaced over time with info from your own browsing habits.
- huhtenberg 13y ago
  It's not the idea to put the ads in. It's the fake pretense of doing that for the sake of users. Just re-read the original announcement [0]. It is so disingenuous, it hurts. Then see the line I quoted above. It got the exact same problem - it's disingenuous. The issues with the announcement were not with the language. [0] https://blog.mozilla.org/advancingcontent/2014/02/11/publisher-transformation-with-users-at-the-center/ https://blog.mozilla.org/advancingcontent/2014/02/11/publish...
  - kolme 13y ago
    They can be really useful to new users with no or little experience. From what I've seen, when people use the web for the first times, they "don't know where to go". They don't have surfing habits yet and they're completely overwhelmed by so much to choose from. If you offer people a handful of useful/informative/fun sites, it'll be much easier for them to pick something and get going. If this is implemented carefully (and I think Mozilla is putting a lot of though into it) this could really be a win-win-win situation for Mozilla, the users and the advertisers. Also note that chances are that you never see those ads because Firefox will continue showing you the sites you visit often.
  - JohnTHaller 13y ago
    It is for the users. You have to make money somehow. And Mozilla is trying to do so while still maintaining respect for the user. If Mozilla didn't care about the user, they could throw in an Ask toolbar. Or add a PPI offer to the installer (which can pay $1 and up per install). Google makes a ton of money off their ad network to fund Chrome and then tracks all user typing in the URL/search bar by default. [This is proven and factual, but Chrome fanboys will downvote you on HN every time you state it.] Mozilla doesn't have that luxury.
  - zanny 13y ago
    It is for the sake of users, like the parent said. We want Mozilla to make money. As it is right now, they produce all this free software and don't make a cent from any of it. That can only continue as long as they stay in Google's good graces to fund them, and as anyone with a popular youtube channel or dependence on adsense or as a user of any of the dozens of products they have shut down (like Google Voice third party apps in the next week) they are a fickle company to work with.
    - magicalist 13y ago
      To be accurate though, Mozilla has a lot more leverage there any of the analogs you mention. Mozilla isn't getting handouts from Google. They probably deliver more revenue to Google by setting it as the default search than any other partner Google has. iOS/mobile Safari is probably the only other contender. Finding ways to diversify is good, though.
- shadowmint 13y ago
  I personally don't mind particularly either. They do it, Ill start building firefox myself without it. no big deal. ...but I think its pretty clear not everyone agreed it was a good idea, to put it mildly.
- sliverstorm 13y ago
  People seem to prefer if the money changes hands quietly. They don't want to know that someone is slowly turning up the heat under their little pot of water.

Sir_Cmpwn 13y ago

Their plan seemed fine to me. In fact, it was for the benefit of their users - everyone wins if Mozilla is funded and decoupled from Google. The ads were unintrusive, and made sense in context. It was just populating something that was replaced over time with info from your own browsing habits.

huhtenberg 13y ago
It's not the idea to put the ads in. It's the fake pretense of doing that for the sake of users. Just re-read the original announcement [0]. It is so disingenuous, it hurts. Then see the line I quoted above. It got the exact same problem - it's disingenuous. The issues with the announcement were not with the language. [0] https://blog.mozilla.org/advancingcontent/2014/02/11/publisher-transformation-with-users-at-the-center/ https://blog.mozilla.org/advancingcontent/2014/02/11/publish...
- kolme 13y ago
  They can be really useful to new users with no or little experience. From what I've seen, when people use the web for the first times, they "don't know where to go". They don't have surfing habits yet and they're completely overwhelmed by so much to choose from. If you offer people a handful of useful/informative/fun sites, it'll be much easier for them to pick something and get going. If this is implemented carefully (and I think Mozilla is putting a lot of though into it) this could really be a win-win-win situation for Mozilla, the users and the advertisers. Also note that chances are that you never see those ads because Firefox will continue showing you the sites you visit often.
- JohnTHaller 13y ago
  It is for the users. You have to make money somehow. And Mozilla is trying to do so while still maintaining respect for the user. If Mozilla didn't care about the user, they could throw in an Ask toolbar. Or add a PPI offer to the installer (which can pay $1 and up per install). Google makes a ton of money off their ad network to fund Chrome and then tracks all user typing in the URL/search bar by default. [This is proven and factual, but Chrome fanboys will downvote you on HN every time you state it.] Mozilla doesn't have that luxury.
- zanny 13y ago
  It is for the sake of users, like the parent said. We want Mozilla to make money. As it is right now, they produce all this free software and don't make a cent from any of it. That can only continue as long as they stay in Google's good graces to fund them, and as anyone with a popular youtube channel or dependence on adsense or as a user of any of the dozens of products they have shut down (like Google Voice third party apps in the next week) they are a fickle company to work with.
  - magicalist 13y ago
    To be accurate though, Mozilla has a lot more leverage there any of the analogs you mention. Mozilla isn't getting handouts from Google. They probably deliver more revenue to Google by setting it as the default search than any other partner Google has. iOS/mobile Safari is probably the only other contender. Finding ways to diversify is good, though.
shadowmint 13y ago
I personally don't mind particularly either. They do it, Ill start building firefox myself without it. no big deal. ...but I think its pretty clear not everyone agreed it was a good idea, to put it mildly.
sliverstorm 13y ago
People seem to prefer if the money changes hands quietly. They don't want to know that someone is slowly turning up the heat under their little pot of water.