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.
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.