back to article Firefox to feature sponsored content as of next week

The Mozilla Foundation has revealed that links to sponsored posts have started to appear in its Firefox browser and pledged to deliver them without invading users' privacy. Mozilla flagged it would add sponsored links to its browser in January 2018, after the 2017 acquisition of web-clipping service Pocket brought with it the …

Page:

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Not buying it - This is a badly timed Slippery Slope

    It'll be interesting to see if Firefox stays bundled with Linux installs...

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Not buying it - This is a badly timed Slippery Slope

      The money has to come from somewhere. History shows that no one will pay for a Web browser (though given the decent state of Firefox at the moment, I probably would). Apparently money has to be raised some other way.

      Ever tried JRiver's Media Centre? It's so good at what it does I readily buy it. The price and licensing and functionality hit a good sweet spot in my opinion.

      1. Christian Berger

        The problem lies deeper

        "The money has to come from somewhere."

        The problem is that browsers now are so incredibly complex that you need a large corporation to support them. If Mozilla wanted to do something for a free and open web, they'd have done everything they could to prevent the bloat of web functionalities. Instead of making Javascript ever faster, they'd have provided, for example some "remote GUI" standard which is less insane than web applications.

        If Mozilla would just have said "no" to new web standards more often, those standards wouldn't have gotten off the ground and nobody would have had to implement them.

        1. Tac Eht Xilef

          Re: The problem lies deeper

          "The problem is that browsers now are so incredibly complex that you need a large corporation to support them."

          Is a corporation with $30+ million in net assets large enough?

          How about if its liabilities were only ~6% of gross assets?

          How about if it styled itself as "open souce", and perpetuated the belief that most of the development work on its flagshit product was done for free by volunteer contributors?

          (serendipitous typo left in ;))

          1. Christian Berger

            Re: The problem lies deeper

            "Is a corporation with $30+ million in net assets large enough?"

            The problem is that any browser will need such a large community to maintain it, that you will eventually end up with a large corporation mostly concerned with its own survival.

            The primary interest of Mozilla is not to provide a good browser, the primary interest is to keep on existing and grow. Providing a browser is just a means to this end. It's the same as with any big corporation, tax exempt or tax dodging.

            That's why Mozilla has no interest in a "better web". A "better web" would mean to say "no" to bad proposals like "WebAssembly", Bluetooth APIs or HTTP/2. However a "better web" would be simpler and lower the barrier of entry for new browsers. If writing a browser engine was as simple as writing a text editor, we'd have hundreds of engines, all competing to be the fastest and safest. Instead we have an oligopoly. We have a browser engine by Microsoft, one by Apple, one by Google and one by Mozilla. 4 browser engines, all with their own user group. Often they don't even care about fixing bugs, as the web will just develop around those bugs.

            1. Mike_in_Oz

              There IS a decent alternative browser!

              I have been using Brave for a few months now as my primary browser. So far it has handled everything thrown at it. And fast too.

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Meh

            Re: The problem lies deeper

            The problem is that browsers now are so incredibly complex that you need a large corporation to support them.

            Browsers don't have a life of their own with web browser development corporations running behind them desperately trying to catch up. In fact, these outfits keep adding loads of unnecessary bells and whistles so that browsers are now a prime example of massive code bloat and feature overload.

          3. Warm Braw

            Re: The problem lies deeper

            The problem is that browsers now are so incredibly complex that you need a large corporation to support them

            Large corporations are now in charge of the specifications. Without independent specifications, there's no point in Firefox simply being a "me too".

            1. JohnFen

              Re: The problem lies deeper

              "Large corporations are now in charge of the specifications."

              Since you linked to that article about WHATWG, I think it's important to point out that large corporation are in charge of the specifications regardless of whether they're coming from WHATWG or the W3C. The difference between the two is only how many large corporations have a say.

        2. steelpillow Silver badge

          Re: The problem lies deeper

          "If Mozilla would just have said "no" to new web standards more often, those standards wouldn't have gotten off the ground and nobody would have had to implement them."

          More likely, Mozilla would have fallen behind its commercially-driven competitors and faded away. Amazon is about the only shopping site left that I can use with javascript disabled, and one wonders how long that can last.

          1. Christian Berger

            Re: The problem lies deeper

            "More likely, Mozilla would have fallen behind its commercially-driven competitors and faded away."

            The question is, back when Mozilla had a large market share (it's still significant) would features they did not support be adapted by the web?

            When Apple decided to abandon Flash, they had no bigger market share than Mozilla has now. So what did fade, Apple or Flash?

            1. katrinab Silver badge

              Re: The problem lies deeper

              Could you get away with telling a Firefox user to install Chrome to use your website? Possibly.

              Could you get away with telling an iPhone user to use a different phone to access your website? Probably not.

              1. Stuart 22

                Re: The problem lies deeper

                "Could you get away with telling a Firefox user to install Chrome to use your website? Possibly."

                Well yes. My default and preferred browser is Vivaldi. But I have to Fire up Fox occasionally to complete transactions on a couple of websites.

                Surprisingly the main two culprits are the internet-savvy Nominet & Zen.

              2. Christian Berger

                Re: The problem lies deeper

                "Could you get away with telling a Firefox user to install Chrome to use your website? Possibly."

                Well we are already seeing that companies with bad websites abusing Javascript, tend to get less customers. Of course they blame that on Amazon, but then again, Amazon has a very decent website which largely works without Javascript. I think that at least part of the success of Amazon is caused by their website.

        3. JohnFen

          Re: The problem lies deeper

          A number of years back now, Mozilla decided that it would be a great thing if the web became a universal platform that could replace the operating system, and their support for various nastiness like Web Assembly, etc., comes from that philosophy.

          I disagree with that philosophy so strongly that it's the primary reason why my support for Mozilla has grown much less enthusiastic than it used to be.

      2. Mage Silver badge

        Re: History shows that no one will pay for a Web browser

        Since MS included one free in the OS.

        1. Stevie

          Re: History shows that no one will pay for a Web browser

          Too true, Mage. I remember what the downvoters don't; that Netscape Navigator, the most developed browser in the world, cost $40 to buy until Microsoft gave everyone IE 3 for free.

          I also remember the for all the froofaraw about MS contravening standards (that often were not in place fast enough to keep pace with what developers were demanding), NN had it's own set of non-standard features (like Layers), but was given a pass by the vocal majority.

          Free Browsers came directly out of that pissing match. Anyone who doesn't believe all the companies making them would charge for browsers if they could is living in a dream world of faries and magic and Eskimos.

          1. JohnFen

            Re: History shows that no one will pay for a Web browser

            "Anyone who doesn't believe all the companies making them would charge for browsers if they could"

            I don't believe that companies would charge for them if they could. Being able to use them to mine and monetize user data is not only more profitable, but it takes a lot less work.

      3. John Lilburne

        Re: Not buying it - This is a badly timed Slippery Slope

        Didn't they get $300 million a year from Google back in 2012 in order to be the default search engine?

        https://www.zdnet.com/article/google-paying-mozilla-300-million-per-year-for-search-deal/

        Then yahoo were paying them $300 million for the last three years, and now we are back with Google again.

        https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-14/google-pays-to-put-search-engine-back-on-firefox-browser-in-u-s

        Can someone explain how it is that they've blown through $1.5 billion?

        1. daldred

          Re: Really?

          > Can someone explain how it is that they've blown through $1.5 billion?

          Over five years? Well, you can see how much they spend and on what in their financial accounts, of course. Try https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2016/2016_Mozilla_Audited_Financial_Statement.pdf

          1. John Lilburne

            Re: Really?

            Quarter of a $billion a year in software development. WTF it is a browser its not as if the problem is unknown and its not as if they are starting from scratch each year, and they happen to have a bunch of freetards contributing to it. Then a another $60 million of typists.

        2. Rob D.

          Re: Not buying it - This is a badly timed Slippery Slope

          > Can someone explain how it is that they've blown through $1.5 billion?

          Currently declaring about $350m for 2016/17 expenditure on software development (lion's share), marketing and administration as the major outgoings. They've declared assets which equate to a bit more than the one year operating costs, but $1.5bn over six years is maybe not so far off.

          https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/documents/

        3. King Jack
          Coat

          Re: blown through $1.5 billion?

          I think it's more like suck through $1.5 billion, like through rolled up $100 bills.

      4. iRadiate

        Re: Not buying it - This is a badly timed Slippery Slope

        Money has to come from somewhere so why can't a tiny amount of the normal ad revenue be shared with Mozilla and any other developer of web browsers?

        E.g. I visit CNN. An ad is displayed. CNN get paid a small amount when someone clicks on that ad but a small percentage of that payment also goes to the company that developed the browser that allowed the user to visit CNN in the first place.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Not buying it - This is a badly timed Slippery Slope

      Trying to compete with Google.

    3. Carl D

      Re: Not buying it - This is a badly timed Slippery Slope

      "It'll be interesting to see if Firefox stays bundled with Linux installs..."

      One of the first things I do these days after a Linux Mint install is remove Firefox and install Pale Moon.

  2. Shadow Systems

    Kiss FF goodbye.

    You want to force ads down our throat? I'll counter by not downloading your products, not visiting your site, & not doing anything that rewards you financially for your actions.

    As long as FF has ads embedded in the platform is how long I'll avoid you like the plague.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Kiss FF goodbye.

      Wow, next people will be accusing Mozilla of cultural appropriation for dressing up in commercial ads.

    2. macjules

      Re: Kiss FF goodbye.

      As long as FF has ads embedded in the platform is how long I'll avoid you like the plague.

      Me too. No reason at all why Firefox can not build another product and charge for that - Bugzilla, Filezilla etc. Think what would have happened if Google decided to start putting ads on Chrome.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Kiss FF goodbye.

        Think what would have happened if Google decided to start putting ads on Chrome.

        But that's what Google does only instead of embedding them in the browser they put them on web pages. Chrome is merely a way to get those ads to and spy on punters. You can close the loop on the internet when you're the size of Google. Mozilla is somewhat smaller and hence stuck inside the browser but I wonder if this won't force an expansion on the back end or will these be third party hosted maladware.

      2. JohnFen

        Re: Kiss FF goodbye.

        "Think what would have happened if Google decided to start putting ads on Chrome."

        Google does something even worse than putting ads in Chrome -- it uses Chrome as a surveillance device to inform its ad business.

    3. Hans Neeson-Bumpsadese Silver badge

      Re: Kiss FF goodbye.

      You want to force ads down our throat? I'll counter by not downloading your products, not visiting your site, & not doing anything that rewards you financially for your actions.

      @Shadow Systems...I'm curious to know something - if you're currently getting benefit from Firefox by using it as a web browser, what are you doing now to reward Mozilla for providing you with that?

      1. dephormation.org.uk
        Meh

        Re: Kiss FF goodbye.

        Always bemused by arguments like this.

        Its not the end-user's fault if a developer can't find a sustainable, legal, business model.

        If the developer can't or won't charge for a product, and people don't value it enough to buy it, the product will fail... and no one will care.

        If the developer can & will charge for a product, and people value it enough to pay, they they succeed.

        That model of commerce served IT for decades, without secretly screwing over users, and without betraying them to adtech and organised crime.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Kiss FF goodbye.

          If the developer can't or won't charge for a product, and people don't value it enough to buy it, the product will fail... and no one will care.

          No, some, maybe many WILL care. Just in insufficient numbers to do something about it beforehand, having been conditioned by thirty years of various forms of "free" software. Fag packet maths suggest that if Mozilla's activities were funded directly by users they would need to charge about $2.50 a year to break even (some uncertainty around user numbers mind you).

          Is $2.50 a year too much for Firefox and other Mozilla software? It would seem so, given that annual contributions to Mozilla are around $5.5m a year, so on average about 2-3 cents per user per year. Its the same with Wikipedia (or the Guardian, or even niche sites like Gridwatch) - many people find these useful, few click on the links to help pay the costs. And many (like the Reg) don't even bother trying a subscription model.

          1. JohnFen

            Re: Kiss FF goodbye.

            "Is $2.50 a year too much for Firefox and other Mozilla software?"

            For the post-Quantum Firefox? Yes. For the pre-Australis FIrefox? I paid a whole lot more than that back then.

          2. doublelayer Silver badge

            Re: Kiss FF goodbye.

            I'd gladly pay $2.50 a year for this purpose; I pay more for many other projects I use. However, the problems remain, and they are many:

            There are those who would rather not identify themselves in order to make the payment at all, and even those who would not dislike this would probably not want to identify themselves to have the browser disable this for them, as they've just replaced one identifier with another. My payment in the year won't remove mozilla's problem, and they will keep going with this, so I have to ask whether they will actually care about my desire for privacy. If they are going to use my donation to create an ad tracking system, there are more deserving projects that respect me as a user, and the money would be better used paying them. Furthermore, there are users that should not be expected to pay for something that is, in fact, open source. I view the fact that firefox and related products can be used in less developed countries for free so that the people can use the internet to improve a situation I don't have to endure as a major advantage, and I would oppose any attempt to restrict that.

            In short, I will donate to mozilla if they show they will respect me as a user and all other users by not inserting this advertisement crap, that they respect their open source roots and will keep the product free and open to alterations, and that this will continue and not be based on a short-term financial report. They haven't been doing that.

          3. Alumoi Silver badge

            Re: Kiss FF goodbye.

            Is $2.50 a year too much for Firefox and other Mozilla software?

            It's waay too much. Did we ask for Australis? Pocket? New tab page? Opt-in telemetry? Killing extensions?

            Let them start listening and maybe users will support them.

          4. emullinsabq
            Linux

            Re: Kiss FF goodbye.

            No, some, maybe many WILL care. Just in insufficient numbers to do something

            Supply and demand in action.

            Is $2.50 a year too much for Firefox and other Mozilla software? It would seem so, given...many (like the Reg) don't even bother trying a subscription model.

            Supply and demand again.

            Content creators think their stuff is worth more than it is, that is the fundamental problem.

            Then you have Mozilla who have been fscking up FF for the last several years because they can't be bothered to listen to users. You want users to cough up for a browser? I don't know if it's even possible, but I assure you it is impossible in a competitive area like browsers when you constantly ignore users.

            You have to actually get something for your donation besides feels, you know. What I have gotten is a collection of browsers because FF went to crap. At this point I have no plans to even have it installed again. MS can sorta get away with this behavior because they aren't in a severely competitive situation, though slowly, consumers are bypassing the Wintel stranglehold with phones, and it gets moreso every year. You treat users like crap, and they want to leave. How long it takes depends largely on how competitive the field is.

  3. Neil Barnes Silver badge

    Which reminds me...

    I just installed a new Mint complete with FF - I need to work out all over again how to get rid of pocket.

    (In case you're worried, ublock origin and noscript are already on there; that's a reflex action).

    But on the subject of the subject - I'm not quite sure how FF are planning to show these adverts, but if they do, they won't be showing them to me.

    1. Notas Badoff

      Re: Which reminds me...

      On new browser windows, when Options / General / Home page is set to default of "Mozilla Firefox Start Page" then the content below the search text control is things like "Top Sites" (your recent most visited links) and "Recommended by Pocket" , links to charming articles like "Why the scientific finding that trees 'sleep' at night is beautiful" and "The Perks of a Play-in-the-Mud Educational Philosophy".

      (The above described as on FF59.0.2)

      If the mooted "horrors!" are as unobtrusive and ignorable as these suggested links on an otherwise blank startup page, then this is much ado about nothing.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: If the mooted "horrors!" are as unobtrusive and ignorable

        unfortunately it always starts gently, regardless of the field. Think what came out of originally inspired ideas, like google, think "social media" and "community-based sharing". Think terrorist legislation that came for the communists, sorry, terrorists, sorry, extremists, sorry, perverts, sorry, children.

    2. Peter Prof Fox

      Solution

      Use the New Tab Override extension.

      The fact you can't have a setting in config to have new tab => home page tells you how strongly Moz want to strong arm you into their sponsor's clutter.

      1. FrogsAndChips Silver badge

        Re: Solution

        I like my new tabs blank, so I've just unchecked everything from the New Tab preferences, but agree it's a pretty poor move if you now need an extension to customize this.

      2. JohnFen

        Re: Solution

        You don't need an extension to do this. Firefox already lets you disable it, along with any or all of the other stuff they want to put on the new pages.

    3. davidp231

      Re: Which reminds me...

      "how to get rid of pocket."

      about:config

      browser.pocket.enable false

      that should get rid of it.

      1. PeeKay

        Re: Which reminds me...

        "how to get rid of pocket."

        about:config

        browser.pocket.enable false

        As well as the above, I go as far as searching for pocket, and removing the URL's it visits too. Can't be too safe.

        As for inbuilt ads - adverts have never been a source of malware, ever, have they? /s

      2. Justin Clift

        Re: Which reminds me...

        "browser.pocket.enable" doesn't seem to exist in Firefox 52.x (ESR), on CentOS 7.x.

        "extensions.pocket.enabled" does though, and seems like the right one.

        1. davidp231

          Re: Which reminds me...

          "browser.pocket.enable" doesn't seem to exist in Firefox 52.x (ESR), on CentOS 7.x."

          Indeed. my about:config was based on FF43.0.4* (win32) so later ones will most likely be in a subtly different option.

          *I won't go beyond that as there is so much bloat in later versions to disable I can't be arsed trawling through about:config or finding out that I can no longer disable said bloat because the option has been removed in the newer version.

      3. This post has been deleted by its author

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "client_id": "26288a14-5cc4-d14f-ae0a-bb01ef45be9c"

    This is personal data that identifies whos using what browser. Like an ip address.

    Sorry but its a no-no under GDPR.

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like