On 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.
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.
That’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?
A 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.
Veering wildly off topic, but I haven't heard much from the jilted Google Reader crowd for a while. Have they found something new, or are we now living in a post-RSS world?
I'm using it too but still not able to find a Google Reader Play alternative that suggests new post based on your reading history. Sometimes suggested amazing posts.
Usually those sites are related to the browser such as browser extensions page or support resources. Directory Tiles will display "sponsored content." This is clearly different from the browsers that I use.
Not on the desktop, but in Opera Mini there have been product placements on both the home screen and speed dial screens for a while.
I'm somewhat OK with it, considering it is a free product. What sucks is that they don't respect my synced Opera Link settings when on a new OM installation. Have to remove items on the speed dial screen manually at that time. The home screen ones are not removable at all, from what I can see.
opera started being free with ads on top of every page.
why people here insists on comparing FF, which we all contributed code, donated money, helped users on forums, etc, to commercially developed offerings?
Exactly. 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.
You 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.
Perhaps 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.
I 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.
I 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.
Because 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.
>> did you ever expected THIS kind of DOGGY release from MOZILLA?
I have NOT expected that Mozilla will release their canines into the wild internetz. That definitely may contradict generally accepted paradigm that internet is feline-dominated.
This 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.
As 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?
Filling 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.
Mozilla 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?
The 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.
Yes, 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!
If 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.
What 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.
Thanks 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.
Seriously, 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
Linux 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.
On 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.
Consider 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.
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.