6 ms·

Mozilla rolls out sponsored tiles to Firefox Nightly’s new tab page

41 points by rukshn 12y ago

Sir_Cmpwn 12y ago
The sponsored tiles are defaults, and they're replaced by sites you actually use over time. This is a good, unobtrusive way for Firefox to get funding.
- Alupis 12y ago
  I find these even more bothersome than the standard "previously visited" tiles. At least in FF you can turn the tiles off -- Chrome... nope! The thumbnail can even be a security problem in some settings.
  - sp332 12y ago
    As noted in the bug report, there are plenty of extensions if you want to change the New Tab page. Here's one you might like: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/new-tab/adcpijkmbecohfalcbafjgadfnpchhlg https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/new-tab/adcpijkmbe...
    - Alupis 12y ago
      I'd prefer to not have to load some 3rd party of who-knows-what-quality-or-what-else-it's-doing extension or plugin. It serves google no purpose in Chrome -- why not just let me turn it off? Especially in an enterprise environment like at the office...
      - praneshp 12y ago
        I get around this by having a work profile on chrome (in case you didn't know that already). I know it's still bad when you do some lunchtime browsing, etc, but after about a year, my work profile cannot even auto-suggest facebook when i type 'fac'.
        Alupis 12y ago
        Good point - I usually just wipe all history regularly now (which is a pita) ... but, this doesn't save my other (less savvy) users at the office.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
scrollaway 12y ago
> Instead of seeing blank tiles when a new Firefox user opens a new tab, Mozilla thought it would be best that they see “content.” I don't care much about this sponsored tab fuss but that is some serious BS logic. Feels like UX goes in circles. The web of the 90s was "Show as much content as possible". Google came around and it became "show only the absolutely crucial stuff". Then facebook came around and we're back to shoving as much crap down the monitors as possible. Feels like we jump from one extreme to another all the time. And yet, the Google.com homepage remains clean and uncluttered (yes, there's more stuff than there used to, but its still 90% whitespace). Take it this way: When you create a new folder, a file manager won't show the contents of other folders you often access just because it's "best that you see content". Or when you empty your inbox, gmail won't show some random popular emails. So on. Showing popular sites is a good idea at its core but if you're on a fresh profile, well you're on a fresh profile. Make money off firefox of course, you need it, but "it's best you see content" is bullshit justification.
- mmastrac 12y ago
  How is that bullshit? You've got a page of your commonly-visited sites that would be empty if not pre-populated. Mozilla has offered up a balanced way to pre-populate it: put popular sites up for free and offer a handful of spots to other people who will pay for it. I've got a Samsung SMART TV that comes with something called "Smart Hub". In the same way as Mozilla they've pre-populated a number of applications that could be useful. This means that Netflix and Youtube are now a single click away for me and usable as soon as the TV is powered on. If they hadn't pre-populated something in the Smart Hub, I'd have to dig through the catalog for to find the apps I want to use, and I'd be staring at an empty screen trying to figure out what I need to do on that page, which is probably the same sort of experience that new users might feel trying to navigate the web. Defaults help you get started fast, and having "something" rather than "nothing" doesn't automatically mean "cluttered".
  - fidotron 12y ago
    It is bullshit. There is nothing wrong, at all, with it being empty. It's a burden on those of independent mind to have to delete extraneous crap. You might as well be Microsoft saying it's fine that IE is default and bundled with Windows, thus effectively pushing Netscape out of the market. This is also the exact mentality that leads to bloatware on PCs and phones. The person that put it there thinks it's helpful, even if it took a bit of financial persuasion.
Natriceus 12y ago
Good thing I have my own new tab page.
pera 12y ago
So Firefox is now Adware?
- TD-Linux 12y ago
  In a sense with its list of default search engines, it has always been adware.
  - pera 12y ago
    Maybe but a search engine provides a service for no cost (except sometimes your privacy), an ad is there to sell you a product.
    - cpeterso 12y ago
      Search engines show ads, too. They make money from ads, referral links, and paid placement.
- zz1 12y ago
  Firefox costs money. If it doesn't get it from the users (like it never was) or from Google (like it could soon be), it needs to find some way to fund anyway. This kind of advertising worries me a little but I find it acceptable. If you disagree, please do so by donating and saying it out loud and calling everyone to do like you.
  - Karunamon 12y ago
    Firefox chased me away a long time ago with the way their bug reports are (not) handled. While I won't deny they're still a net force for good on the web, if I had been donating to them even with that in mind, this action would have caused me to stop. With any possible objective definition, Firefox is now adware.
    - Karunamon 12y ago
      Apparently, people would rather downvote and run than deal with the truth. Ad-filled software = adware. Just because you dislike the definition doesn't mean it doesn't apply.
tetrep 12y ago
> For users with existing tiles (History Tiles) in their new tab page, Firefox replaces the default screenshot with a better image. The Enhanced Tile is displayed only for sites that would have appeared on a user's new tab page based on their browsing history. The improved image is supplied by the site or partner and can include a logo plus a rollover image.[1] This could very conceivably be used to display ads, e.g. Company X pays site Y to have an ad as part of site Y's tile. [1]https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/how-do-sponsored-tiles-work https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/how-do-sponsored-tiles-...
burgers 12y ago
When the tiles first rolled out with Facebook etc a little while back I thought it was going to feel cheap or annoying, but I haven't really noticed. Because of that, I'm not really sure how this is going to generate much revenue either. The go away so quickly after a few minutes of browsing that I almost feel like at some point they'll need to start mixing in a couple ad tiles on each view to generate any meaningful revenue.
whyenot 12y ago
Meh. Mozilla has to do this because they have become fat and bloated thanks to Google money. They should go back to their roots and shrink back down to the scrappy little organization that depended on its users for donations and promotion. That Mozilla would never have turned to adware.
- eponeponepon 12y ago
  Unfortunately, that Mozilla would, in all likelihood, have long since sunk without trace. Not that I like this development, but I think it basically is what it is, in the absence of a genuine alternative. (edit after 25 mins: actually, someone mentioned Iceweasel and Icecat up the page a way, neither of which I thought of - I guess there are genuine alternatives after all.)
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - TheLoneWolfling 12y ago
    I've given up and switched to Pale Moon. For me, Firefox reached its peak just before it switched from the classic download window and has been going downhill ever since. It's now rapidly going in the direction of too many formerly promising open-source projects - the core developers feeding back on each other until they go the way of the fashion industry - "This is what you need. Everything that came before is useless and must be discarded", repeating every so often.
- chimeracoder 12y ago
  If more users donated to Mozilla, Mozilla wouldn't need to find other sources of money (primarily Google). Honest question: have you donated to Mozilla? And do you use Firefox? (If the answer to both of those is not 'yes', it's hard to claim that they should abandon their primary source of funding and rely solely on user support.)
  - ngokevin 12y ago
    I don't think user donations could replace $300 million a year.
doe88 12y ago
As most people, I'm not a big fan of Ads, but in this case I'm making an exception, provided it helps Mozilla diversify its source of incomes (at least a bit), I'm all for it.
dbbolton 12y ago
I (hopefully) assume this will get removed in Iceweasel and Icecat.
3rd3 12y ago
I'd rather like to see a progress bar for donations (just like on Wikipedia, reddit and Kickstarter) and I wouldn't mind if it was boldly integrated into the user interface (for example next to the address bar). Advertisement does not feel right for a company like Mozilla.
- wodenokoto 12y ago
  Ads are currently their only real form of income. If you use the search bar to look for Amazon items and buy something, Mozilla receives money, if you search Google with it and click an ad, Mozilla receives money. Mozilla may be a non-profit, but they are in the advertisement business already.
phpnode 12y ago
it's really surprising to see how strongly people here oppose the idea of Mozilla making money. Mozilla is arguably one of the most important tech companies, committed to FOSS, transparency and providing a much needed counter balance to much larger tech giants that would steamroller all over the web without them. This is probably the least obtrusive change they could have made, how do you expect them to survive without revenue?
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- general_failure 12y ago
  Maybe they can sell firefox? Or try something innovative? crowd funding? What if wikipedia put ads?
- xorcist 12y ago
  Really? Because I can't count to even one post in this thread opposed to Mozilla making money. I can count to more than a dozen that even suggests methods of doing so.
mlinksva 12y ago
If I remove all the tiles on new tab page, I just have a bunch of empty tiles (using just updated Nightly). Is there a page showing all sponsored tiles that I can go to user/browser-independent?

41 points by rukshn 12y ago

The sponsored tiles are defaults, and they're replaced by sites you actually use over time. This is a good, unobtrusive way for Firefox to get funding.

Alupis 12y ago
I find these even more bothersome than the standard "previously visited" tiles. At least in FF you can turn the tiles off -- Chrome... nope! The thumbnail can even be a security problem in some settings.
- sp332 12y ago
  As noted in the bug report, there are plenty of extensions if you want to change the New Tab page. Here's one you might like: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/new-tab/adcpijkmbecohfalcbafjgadfnpchhlg https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/new-tab/adcpijkmbe...
  - Alupis 12y ago
    I'd prefer to not have to load some 3rd party of who-knows-what-quality-or-what-else-it's-doing extension or plugin. It serves google no purpose in Chrome -- why not just let me turn it off? Especially in an enterprise environment like at the office...
    - praneshp 12y ago
      I get around this by having a work profile on chrome (in case you didn't know that already). I know it's still bad when you do some lunchtime browsing, etc, but after about a year, my work profile cannot even auto-suggest facebook when i type 'fac'.
      - Alupis 12y ago
        Good point - I usually just wipe all history regularly now (which is a pita) ... but, this doesn't save my other (less savvy) users at the office.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]

scrollaway 12y ago

> Instead of seeing blank tiles when a new Firefox user opens a new tab, Mozilla thought it would be best that they see “content.” I don't care much about this sponsored tab fuss but that is some serious BS logic. Feels like UX goes in circles. The web of the 90s was "Show as much content as possible". Google came around and it became "show only the absolutely crucial stuff". Then facebook came around and we're back to shoving as much crap down the monitors as possible. Feels like we jump from one extreme to another all the time. And yet, the Google.com homepage remains clean and uncluttered (yes, there's more stuff than there used to, but its still 90% whitespace). Take it this way: When you create a new folder, a file manager won't show the contents of other folders you often access just because it's "best that you see content". Or when you empty your inbox, gmail won't show some random popular emails. So on. Showing popular sites is a good idea at its core but if you're on a fresh profile, well you're on a fresh profile. Make money off firefox of course, you need it, but "it's best you see content" is bullshit justification.

mmastrac 12y ago
How is that bullshit? You've got a page of your commonly-visited sites that would be empty if not pre-populated. Mozilla has offered up a balanced way to pre-populate it: put popular sites up for free and offer a handful of spots to other people who will pay for it. I've got a Samsung SMART TV that comes with something called "Smart Hub". In the same way as Mozilla they've pre-populated a number of applications that could be useful. This means that Netflix and Youtube are now a single click away for me and usable as soon as the TV is powered on. If they hadn't pre-populated something in the Smart Hub, I'd have to dig through the catalog for to find the apps I want to use, and I'd be staring at an empty screen trying to figure out what I need to do on that page, which is probably the same sort of experience that new users might feel trying to navigate the web. Defaults help you get started fast, and having "something" rather than "nothing" doesn't automatically mean "cluttered".
- fidotron 12y ago
  It is bullshit. There is nothing wrong, at all, with it being empty. It's a burden on those of independent mind to have to delete extraneous crap. You might as well be Microsoft saying it's fine that IE is default and bundled with Windows, thus effectively pushing Netscape out of the market. This is also the exact mentality that leads to bloatware on PCs and phones. The person that put it there thinks it's helpful, even if it took a bit of financial persuasion.

Natriceus 12y ago

Good thing I have my own new tab page.

pera 12y ago

So Firefox is now Adware?

TD-Linux 12y ago
In a sense with its list of default search engines, it has always been adware.
- pera 12y ago
  Maybe but a search engine provides a service for no cost (except sometimes your privacy), an ad is there to sell you a product.
  - cpeterso 12y ago
    Search engines show ads, too. They make money from ads, referral links, and paid placement.
zz1 12y ago
Firefox costs money. If it doesn't get it from the users (like it never was) or from Google (like it could soon be), it needs to find some way to fund anyway. This kind of advertising worries me a little but I find it acceptable. If you disagree, please do so by donating and saying it out loud and calling everyone to do like you.
- Karunamon 12y ago
  Firefox chased me away a long time ago with the way their bug reports are (not) handled. While I won't deny they're still a net force for good on the web, if I had been donating to them even with that in mind, this action would have caused me to stop. With any possible objective definition, Firefox is now adware.
  - Karunamon 12y ago
    Apparently, people would rather downvote and run than deal with the truth. Ad-filled software = adware. Just because you dislike the definition doesn't mean it doesn't apply.

tetrep 12y ago

> For users with existing tiles (History Tiles) in their new tab page, Firefox replaces the default screenshot with a better image. The Enhanced Tile is displayed only for sites that would have appeared on a user's new tab page based on their browsing history. The improved image is supplied by the site or partner and can include a logo plus a rollover image.[1] This could very conceivably be used to display ads, e.g. Company X pays site Y to have an ad as part of site Y's tile. [1]https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/how-do-sponsored-tiles-work https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/how-do-sponsored-tiles-...

burgers 12y ago

When the tiles first rolled out with Facebook etc a little while back I thought it was going to feel cheap or annoying, but I haven't really noticed. Because of that, I'm not really sure how this is going to generate much revenue either. The go away so quickly after a few minutes of browsing that I almost feel like at some point they'll need to start mixing in a couple ad tiles on each view to generate any meaningful revenue.

whyenot 12y ago

Meh. Mozilla has to do this because they have become fat and bloated thanks to Google money. They should go back to their roots and shrink back down to the scrappy little organization that depended on its users for donations and promotion. That Mozilla would never have turned to adware.

eponeponepon 12y ago
Unfortunately, that Mozilla would, in all likelihood, have long since sunk without trace. Not that I like this development, but I think it basically is what it is, in the absence of a genuine alternative. (edit after 25 mins: actually, someone mentioned Iceweasel and Icecat up the page a way, neither of which I thought of - I guess there are genuine alternatives after all.)
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- TheLoneWolfling 12y ago
  I've given up and switched to Pale Moon. For me, Firefox reached its peak just before it switched from the classic download window and has been going downhill ever since. It's now rapidly going in the direction of too many formerly promising open-source projects - the core developers feeding back on each other until they go the way of the fashion industry - "This is what you need. Everything that came before is useless and must be discarded", repeating every so often.
chimeracoder 12y ago
If more users donated to Mozilla, Mozilla wouldn't need to find other sources of money (primarily Google). Honest question: have you donated to Mozilla? And do you use Firefox? (If the answer to both of those is not 'yes', it's hard to claim that they should abandon their primary source of funding and rely solely on user support.)
- ngokevin 12y ago
  I don't think user donations could replace $300 million a year.

doe88 12y ago

As most people, I'm not a big fan of Ads, but in this case I'm making an exception, provided it helps Mozilla diversify its source of incomes (at least a bit), I'm all for it.

dbbolton 12y ago

I (hopefully) assume this will get removed in Iceweasel and Icecat.

3rd3 12y ago

I'd rather like to see a progress bar for donations (just like on Wikipedia, reddit and Kickstarter) and I wouldn't mind if it was boldly integrated into the user interface (for example next to the address bar). Advertisement does not feel right for a company like Mozilla.

wodenokoto 12y ago
Ads are currently their only real form of income. If you use the search bar to look for Amazon items and buy something, Mozilla receives money, if you search Google with it and click an ad, Mozilla receives money. Mozilla may be a non-profit, but they are in the advertisement business already.

phpnode 12y ago

it's really surprising to see how strongly people here oppose the idea of Mozilla making money. Mozilla is arguably one of the most important tech companies, committed to FOSS, transparency and providing a much needed counter balance to much larger tech giants that would steamroller all over the web without them. This is probably the least obtrusive change they could have made, how do you expect them to survive without revenue?

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
general_failure 12y ago
Maybe they can sell firefox? Or try something innovative? crowd funding? What if wikipedia put ads?
xorcist 12y ago
Really? Because I can't count to even one post in this thread opposed to Mozilla making money. I can count to more than a dozen that even suggests methods of doing so.

mlinksva 12y ago

If I remove all the tiles on new tab page, I just have a bunch of empty tiles (using just updated Nightly). Is there a page showing all sponsored tiles that I can go to user/browser-independent?