Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Mozilla Rolls Out Sponsored Tiles To Firefox Nightly's New Tab Page

timothy posted about 2 months ago | from the now-how-much-would-you-pay? dept.

Firefox 171

An anonymous reader writes Mozilla has rolled out directory tiles, the company's advertising experiment for its browser's new tab page, to the Firefox Nightly channel. We installed the latest browser build to give the sponsored ads a test drive. When you first launch Firefox, a message on the new tab page informs you of the following: what tiles are (with a link to a support page about how sponsored tiles work), a promise that the feature abides by the Mozilla Privacy Policy, and a reminder that you can turn tiles off completely and choose to have a blank new tab page. It's quite a lot to take in all at once.

cancel ×

171 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Well... (3, Interesting)

recoiledsnake (879048) | about 2 months ago | (#47776459)

I atleast hope they use the money for something really good, like desktop Linux, instead of chasing mobile with Firefox OS.

With Google clamping down with Chrome, promoting on Google and Youtube and paying to bundle it everywhere like with Java, Flash and Acrobat updates, I am surprised Firefox hasn't lost even more marketshare, but I do think the clock is ticking.

Re:Well... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47776581)

I atleast hope they use the money for something really good, like desktop Linux, instead of chasing mobile with Firefox OS.

Au contraire. I hope they continue with Firefox OS on mobile. After Win8 and GNOME3, I've had all the desktop UX innovations I can stand. If Mozilla's UX team can spend all its time destroying something harmless, like an OS/platform nobody will ever use, that leaves them with fewer resources to destroy the web browser.

Re:Well... (5, Interesting)

mystikkman (1487801) | about 2 months ago | (#47776585)

Mozilla is the only hope left in the browser market. The rest are controlled by mega corps. Witness the recent ramrodding of video DRM into W3C standards by Google, Microsoft and Apple, all of which have their own DRM implementations.

Not to mention Firefox being forced to support H.264 playback, after Google promised and backtracked on removing support from Chrome. Based on the above two cases, I guess it's already too late, corporate control has taken over the web.

Re:Well... (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | about 2 months ago | (#47776773)

I'm not really sure that Opera counts as a "mega" corp. Also, I believe that Chromium is still open source.

Re:Well... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47776843)

I'm not really sure that Opera counts... at all!

Re:Well... (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47777221)

Opera has been reduced to a reskinned Chrome.

Posting this on an Opera 12 holdout machine.

Re:Well... (2)

QuietLagoon (813062) | about 2 months ago | (#47776857)

Mozilla is the only hope left in the browser market. The rest are controlled by mega corps...

I am more concerned about attitude towards users than who controls the browser.

.
Mozilla,over the past year or so, has shown complete disdain for the desires of its users. And the result of that disdain is a declining marketshare.

How long will it be before Mozilla is little more than a Netscape-like footnote in the history of the web?

Re:Well... (1)

narcc (412956) | about 2 months ago | (#47777007)

I'm perfectly happy with Australis. I even switched from Chrome to FireFox as a result.

What, exactly, do you hate about it? That it looks a bit like Chrome? Lots of people like Chrome's UI.

Re: Well... (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47777303)

The problem is that it's a dumbed-down UI design. Maybe this works well for some users, buy it's extremely limiting and inefficient for others.

A lot of us specifically avoided Chrome or Chromium, and used Firefox instead, because it offered a much more usable UI. But Australis has taken away that advantage of Firefox, however.

Unfortunately, I had to switch to Chromium. If I'm going to get the same dumbed-down UI whether I'm using Firefox or Chromium, I might as well just use Chromium because it does feel a lot faster than Firefox does. And I'm not going to waste my time installing one extension after another just to undo the bad changes that the Firefox devs forced on us.

Mozilla has lost me as a user and as a supporter. I will no longer make donations to them, I will no longer earn them search revenue, and I will no longer recommend their products. It pains me to have to take such a stance, but they left me no choice with how they have destroyed Firefox and refused to listen to what their users actually want.

Re: Well... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47777433)

The problem is that it's a dumbed-down UI design. Maybe this works well for some users, buy it's extremely limiting and inefficient for others.

A lot of us specifically avoided Chrome or Chromium, and used Firefox instead, because it offered a much more usable UI. But Australis has taken away that advantage of Firefox, however.

Exactly: if we wanted something like Chrome we'd be using Chrome in the first place, just I wouldn't drive a Toyota while wishing that it was more like a Ford.

Fortunately we have Pale Moon, which gained a lot more users when they announced that they wouldn't be implementing the Australis UI. That should tell you something.

Re: Well... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47777519)

Install Classic Theme Restorer if you miss your overly complicated UI or square tabs that much. Who are you that having to install an addon is such a burden? Being upset about bugs I can understand, even if it's a trite sentiment to get mad about them. But if you're going to dump Mozilla for slight inconveniences, then who cares what you think? You'll be the same anywhere you go, and nothing will ever cater to you for longer than a few years anyhow before it inevitably changes and you feel offended enough to say it was "destroyed". Nobody will ever listen to you if the best you can contribute to their cause is this nonsense. Doubly so if you then switch to a third-party build of their own products (looking at all of you weirdos who think switching to Pale Moon or Seamonkey means you're no longer supporting or using Mozilla software).

Re: Well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47777783)

Angry flamebait troll is angry.

Re: Well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47778793)

If only it was just that single change...
I've already installed Status4Evar addon to get back the status bar that the mozilla devs decided that I don't need..

Seriously, fuck mozilla.

Re: Well... (1)

yuhong (1378501) | about 2 months ago | (#47778163)

Well, the difference between Firefox and Chrome is more than just the UI.

Re:Well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47778053)

If I liked the look of Chrome I would be using that. Firefox now seems like Chrome Junior. They started versioning releases just like Chrome and even copied the interface. I really dislike over simplified buttons and the lack of the traditional menu system.

Re:Well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47778321)

Well Mozilla didn't want any Christians in their organisation and immediately acted; wonder if they'll care enough to root out the capitalist whores who want to turn it in to yet another advertising platform [as if the web weren't already ad-soaked enough] ...?

Re:Well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47779319)

Sounds like utter rubbish to me...

Last time I checked folks like Gerv and roc were still very much part of the organization. And quite active at that.

Re:Well... (4, Interesting)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 2 months ago | (#47776859)

It bothers me a lot when I see people shouting "abandon all hope". It's not that bad.

Still, I would like to see Firefox getting more of its revenue from sources other than Google. Maybe the Firefox Phone will go a long way to realizing that.

On the other hand, I found tiles on the new page useful, if only marginally. I would prefer to be able to turn off the ads and still use the tiles. But if I must turn them all off to do away with the ads, I will.

I almost forgot: Chromium is hardly a major player in the browser market.

Firefox is important, and we should support it. But I don't think supporting it via ads is the best way to go.

Re:Well... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47777175)

H264 HARDWARE exists on all current computers, no matter what the ISA or OS. Using hardware video decode uses a tiny fraction of the power of CPU decode methods. H264 files are the smallest for a given quality, saving memory and storage resources- again saving money and power.

Anti-H264 nutcases clearly HATE the planet. Meanwhile, Google (now revealed in recent leaks as the R+D arm of the NSA, building shadow Google systems for the NSA to store and search all their full surveillance data) has simply paid the Patents holders so it can offer its PATENT-ENCUMBERED, non-free video codecs (VP8/VP8- vastly inferior to H264) for 'free' to end users.

The EXACT SAME patents apply to VP8/VP9 as apply to H264/H265. Not surprising since Google originally bought their Codec from a criminal enterprise who used 'closed-source' to disguise the fact that they had simply (and very badly) ripped off existing Codec designs.

Support H264 to support an OPEN-standard (with the world's best FREE and OPEN-SOURCE video encoder, X264). Support VP8/VP9 to support Google and the NSA.

Re:Well... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47777533)

Anyone with at least 2 functioning brain cells should support H.264. It really pisses me off that people like you want to push inferior bullshit on the masses. You want a "free and open" (Stallman Approved*) codec? It better deliver the same or better quality than anything else currently available. If not, go fuck yourself!

Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47778007)

Google gives Firefox shit tons of funding.

Re:Well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47779599)

Lynx is fast and stable.

Re:Well... (1)

jellomizer (103300) | about 2 months ago | (#47776667)

Its fine to be a sell out, just as long as some of the money goes to the cause that I like.

Re:Well... (1)

HermMunster (972336) | about 2 months ago | (#47777315)

Turning it off is work. I install firefox on a lot of computers that come into my shop. I do a tremendous amount of configuration on all sorts of products. This is more tedium to turn it off. I'm sure this is the (developer') logic -- add too much tedium to configure that people give up and don't configure or keep the configuration hidden so people get tired of looking.

If I have to look, and search, and keep looking and keep up on the fact that this shit is being configured on by default, then it become pure tedium. There are so many programs and so many settings that just knowing that it has to be done, then doing it, for every machine, is too much tedium.

Re:Well... (1)

HermMunster (972336) | about 2 months ago | (#47777327)

And to call this "enhanced" is disingenuous.

Re:Well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47778025)

What exactly is Mozilla doing that is pissing away so much money? They got at least a billion from Google searches, are still getting millions AFAIK. Can't they just start an investment fund and pay a few devs out of the interest? Or have they overextended themselves with shit ideas? Something is rotten at Mozilla.

Re:Well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47778241)

Good points. I find myself asking the same questions.

Re:Well... (1)

mysidia (191772) | about 2 months ago | (#47778853)

What exactly is Mozilla doing that is pissing away so much money?

Salaries. And remember, Firefox is a for-profit company now with shareholders.

They might not be a megacorp like Google, but they're still a pretty big company with over 500 employees.

Re:Well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47779237)

>Firefox is a for-profit company now with shareholders.

No, they're not. You should read up on what the for-profit subsidiary of Mozilla really is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M... [wikipedia.org]
It's not even close to the same thing as Google, size-wise or otherwise.

Re:Well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47779435)

Well, not quite.

Firefox is still a web browser (and a registered brand).

The Mozilla Foundation is still a non-profit organization.

And the Mozilla Corporation is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Mozilla Foundation. As such it counts as a taxable entity, reinvesting all of its profits back into the Mozilla projects.

Employee count may linger somewhere north of a thousand though...

Fork in the Road (4, Interesting)

tuck3r (987067) | about 2 months ago | (#47776471)

I find myself agreeing less and less with the things the Mozilla is doing as a company. I get what they want to do and where they want to go, just don't agree with the methods they are using.

Re:Fork in the Road (2)

marcello_dl (667940) | about 2 months ago | (#47777135)

yo dawg, I herd you'd like a fork of a fork of mozilla, so I recommend a fork of a fork of mozilla called seamonkey [seamonkey-project.org] , which is basically mozilla. You get to keep many firefox extensions with it too.

If people volunteered a couple more complete themes for it, that would be great.

Re:Fork in the Road (2)

MrL0G1C (867445) | about 2 months ago | (#47778647)

They really need to ditch those seriously fugly grippy things at the left of each toolbar, who wants a browser that looks like Netscape 4.7

http://www.seamonkey-project.o... [seamonkey-project.org]

Re:Fork in the Road (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47779483)

... who wants a browser that looks like Netscape 4.7?

me! me!

New tab tools (1)

normaldotcom (1521757) | about 2 months ago | (#47776497)

If you don't like the redesign Mozilla has done with the new tab page and want to avoid the sponsored tiles, this extension reverts much of the new tab page appearance and allows a decent amount of customization.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-... [mozilla.org]

Re:New tab tools (1)

Megane (129182) | about 2 months ago | (#47777455)

If you don't like the redesign Mozilla has done with the new tab page and want to avoid the sponsored tiles,

...then switch to SeaMonkey [seamonkey-project.org]

Work for the man, not for mankind (0, Flamebait)

Animats (122034) | about 2 months ago | (#47776509)

The Mozilla Foundation has sold out. Don't donate to them, either money or code.

Re:Work for the man, not for mankind (3, Informative)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | about 2 months ago | (#47776665)

That's how I feel too: they've turned Firefox into a cheap whore - albeit with an opt-out option.

Yet I realize they have to make money to keep bringing out new Firefox releases.

Yet... it sucks. Ads sucks. Ad-funded internet sucks.

Re:Work for the man, not for mankind (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47777117)

Yet I realize they have to make money to keep bringing out new Firefox releases.

The problem is that they don't need to bring out a new release every six weeks. The six-week release cycle is unnecessarily fast, and tends to just add bloat to Firefox, instead of doing anything substantive.

In fact, I suspect that Mozilla doesn't really need the money from "sponsored tiles"; they just want more money.

Re:Work for the man, not for mankind (3, Interesting)

psyclone (187154) | about 2 months ago | (#47777195)

To compete with Google [Chrome] they need to not rely on Google for 90% of their funding.

As long as the ads are clearly marked with no privacy implications (no pre-fetch of those sponsored tiles that sends cookies, exec's javascript, pings 40 trackers, etc.) then I support the move.

It's sad, but if Mozilla dies, will any free software group fill their void? The Net would never be the same...

Re:Work for the man, not for mankind (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47778233)

Really? I don't support the move at all.

Read any security whitepaper on drive by malware installation through ad-hijacking to understand why this is a horrible idea.

Here's one to get you started: http://blog.fox-it.com/2014/08... [fox-it.com]

Re:Work for the man, not for mankind (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47779371)

Um, these aren't the same kinds of ads you're thinking about. They're just static logos pre-vetted by Mozilla; they're effectively just hyperlinks. They don't run anyone else's code, and Firefox apparently only tracks the click-thrus anonymously (according to their discussion about this) for stats-purposes.

Equating that to what you're talking about is as alarmist as saying that the search bar integrated into Firefox for years is going to get your PC hijacked, and that Opera's actual ads back in the day were a security nightmare (which they were not). It's fine to be against this, but not for utterly fictitious reasons.

Re:Work for the man, not for mankind (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47778713)

No. Not "as long as the ads [...]". You don't get it. There can be no ads. Ads are not allowed on my computer. Ever. If I find an ad that I can't block on a page that I visit, I leave that page. I have stopped watching TV because of ads.

I'll disable this bug immediately. I hope someone starts building Firefox binaries without this enabled.

I fucking HATE ads.

Re:Work for the man, not for mankind (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47778781)

I do like how innocuous it is, personally. It's not like you spend any significant portion of your life staring at the new tab screen.

Re:Work for the man, not for mankind (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47777437)

Yet I realize they have to make money to keep bringing out new Firefox releases.

Google pays them a ridiculous amount of money. Maybe they should stop wasting it on all their other useless projects that ultimately go nowhere and focus on browser development. Everyone at Mozilla that's not directly involved with browser development should be fired.

Re: Work for the man, not for mankind (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47777721)

I think you're right. Their only successful products so far have been Bugzilla, Firefox, and maybe Thunderbird. All of those became successful years ago. I can't think of anything more recent than Thunderbird that has seen much use. There was that authentication system that failed to get any uptake. Their Android browser isn't used much. Firefox OS isn't very good from what I've heard. Rust and Servo got a lot of hype last year and early this year, but I think people have lost interest in them due to their slow progress. Maybe there are other products that I'm just overlooking? Either way, Mozilla isn't going in a good direction at this point in time. None of their latest efforts have been any good.

You *may* be interested in this then (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47778491)

My FREE program for hosts files adds reliability, + anonymity & does more, more efficiently by FAR vs. addons + fixes DNS' security issues:

APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:

http://start64.com/index.php?o... [start64.com]

Summary:

---

A.) Hosts do more than:

1.) AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/... [techcrunch.com] )
2.) Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G... [wikipedia.org]
3.) Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen... [slashdot.org]

B.) Hosts add reliability vs. downed/redirected dns (& overcome site redirects, /. beta for example).

C.) Hosts secure vs. malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... [slashdot.org] w/ less "moving parts" complexity

D.) Hosts files yield more:

1.) Speed (adblock & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote dns)
2.) Security (vs. malicious domains serving malcontent + block spam/phish & trackers)
3.) Reliability (vs. downed or Kaminsky redirect vulnerable dns, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ isp level + weak vs Fastflux + dynamic dns botnets)
4.) Anonymity (vs. dns request logs + dnsbl's).

---

* Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ faster levels (ring 0) vs redundant inefficient addons (slowing slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ os, & 1st net resolver queried w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization).

* Addons = more complex + slow browsers in message passing (use a few concurrently & see) & are nullified by native browser methods - It's how Clarityray is destroying Adblock.

* Addons slowup slower usermode browsers layering on more - & bloat RAM consumption too + hugely excessive cpu use (4++gb extra in FireFox https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... [mozilla.org] )

Work w/ a native kernelmode part - hosts files (An integrated part of the ip stack)

APK

P.S.=> "The premise is quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work for the body rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen: "I am legend"

...apk

Re:You *may* be interested in this then (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47779091)

Nice try mister anonymous coward, but I'm not falling for your spamware!

I'll stick to using MyCleanPC, thank you very much.

Re:Work for the man, not for mankind (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47777359)

If you can find some dirt on their CEO, it's easy enough to get Mozilla to force them to leave.

Work for the man, not for mankind (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47779551)

The Mozilla Foundation has won out. Please donate to them, either money or code.

There, I fixed that for you.

What Has Become of This Place (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47776525)

A Top Sites page with ads and a blurb telling you it's occurred. Wow. The complexity. How could any mere human possibly take this all in?

Advertising (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47776645)

has no place in a browser. Full stop. This is bollocks. The aggro this will cause with tracking and other invasiveness isn't worth a monkey's toss.

Re:Advertising (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47778305)

has no place in a browser. Full stop. This is bollocks. The aggro this will cause with tracking and other invasiveness isn't worth a monkey's toss.

Posted using Google (R) Chrome (TM)

Blah (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47776691)

Software monetization is basically just like anal sex.

You keep on pushing until the person you're doing it to can't take it anymore

And then you keep pushing.

Re:Blah (1, Funny)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | about 2 months ago | (#47776737)

Software monetization is basically just like anal sex. You keep on pushing until the person you're doing it to can't take it anymore. And then you keep pushing.

You seem to know a lot about monetizing anal sex...

Re:Blah (1)

liquid_schwartz (530085) | about 2 months ago | (#47778931)

To be fair Mozilla made it clear that they love this market segment more than their founder/former CEO.

Turn tiles off... but for how long? (3, Insightful)

QuietLagoon (813062) | about 2 months ago | (#47776817)

...a reminder that you can turn tiles off completely ...

How long will it be before Mozilla decides that the users no longer need the ability to turn off the sponsored tiles?

Re:Turn tiles off... but for how long? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47776925)

Yes. I haven't yet found a way to remove the search box from new pages now (implemented in a recent version).

Re:Turn tiles off... but for how long? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47777133)

set browser.newtab.url to about:blank
https://support.mozilla.org/de... [mozilla.org]

Re:Turn tiles off... but for how long? (3, Informative)

narcc (412956) | about 2 months ago | (#47777139)

1) about:config
2) search for newtab
3) double-click browser.newtab.url
4) Modify to your heart's desire.

If that doesn't satisfy you:

Open userContent.css, add the following:
@-moz-document url("about:newtab") { #newtab-search-container { display: none !important; } }

You're welcome.

Re:Turn tiles off... but for how long? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47777507)

Do you mean the same about:config where options like to put the tabs back in their proper place below the address bar and bookmarks no longer works despite still showing up in there?

Re:Turn tiles off... but for how long? (1)

QuietLagoon (813062) | about 2 months ago | (#47777637)

While that may work now, I do not expect it to work in the long term. Look what happened to the download window. The first step was to require the user to visit about:config in order to get it back. Then even that workaround was disabled.

.
Mozilla is in a war with its users, and the users are losing. Firefox's declining marketshare is evidence that the users are losing.

Re:Turn tiles off... but for how long? (1)

narcc (412956) | about 2 months ago | (#47778291)

Mozilla is in a war with its users

Seems to me that the complaints come from a tiny, but vocal, minority.

It doesn't matter what they change, someone like you will treat it like it's the end of the world.

Oh, and heaven help them if they don't make enough changes! The outcry from the same group of perpetually dissatisfied users would be deafening!

Re:Turn tiles off... but for how long? (1)

mysidia (191772) | about 2 months ago | (#47778921)

Seems to me that the evangelism and product referrals come from a tiny, but vocal minority.

There, fixed that for you. Never forget, that the same "minority" that take issue with changes to the product, also tend to be the same minority that espouse your product from the mountain tops and get people actually using your product. This small group also often includes consultants, IT admins, and other influencers, who if sufficiently dissatisfied have a great deal of power to persuade current users to switch to another product.

Yeah, because every change breaks someone's workflow [xkcd.com] .

Re:Turn tiles off... but for how long? (1)

fph il quozientatore (971015) | about 2 months ago | (#47778239)

How long will it be before Mozilla decides that the users no longer need the ability to turn off the sponsored tiles?

Uh, if only Firefox were open source, then we'd be able to override these decisions from above by simply patching them out. Oh, wait...

Re:Turn tiles off... but for how long? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47778447)

Just like we can't disable tabs in Firefox. Tabs just take up screen space and have no real value. Most Firefox users would happily turn tabs off if it was possible.

Re:Turn tiles off... but for how long? (1)

jenningsthecat (1525947) | about 2 months ago | (#47779425)

Way too obvious a troll - you're clearly an amateur. Come back after you've learned to bait a hook and cast a line without scaring off every fish in the lake.

Pale Moon? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47776897)

Started experimenting with the PM browser - it seems to have a lot of the +'s of Firefox without all the crap ...and australis.

Remember Heartbleed? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47776929)

I don't have a problem with an open source project trying to generate funds that will be used for development. I want the software I rely on to be stable and secure. I don't see how that can happen without some funds to pay for the development and testing. As long as they aren't trying to install an ask.com bar or something similar without my permissions, or trying to monetize my private info, I have no problem with something like this.

I can ignore tabs somehow (3)

NotInHere (3654617) | about 2 months ago | (#47777019)

I can ignore ads on the "new tabs" page. I'm more concerned about the "share" garbage they want to add to the context menu: https://bug1000513.bugzilla.mo... [mozilla.org]

Re:I can ignore tabs somehow (3)

psyclone (187154) | about 2 months ago | (#47777245)

Interesting, from the PDF you linked:

Potential for revenue; paying for top-tier placement for first-run

Midori is a great browser (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47777043)

and doesn't suffer the bloat or other security woes FF and Chrome do. Sure, there are not a ton of add-ons, but how many do you need outstide of being able to block ads (a must), and disable HTTP/S referer (another must)?

Re:Midori is a great browser (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47777551)

No, it doesn't suffer from Firefox and Chrome's problems, it suffers from the bloat and security problems that any other WebKit browser does.

R.I.P. Mozilla (5, Insightful)

nimbius (983462) | about 2 months ago | (#47777129)

one of the core values of the Mozilla manifesto is this:

use the Mozilla assets (intellectual property such as copyrights and trademarks, infrastructure, funds, and reputation) to keep the Internet an open platform;

How does mozilla expect sponsored advertisement to exist without a conflict of interest? It can't. Mozilla is now beholden to and will become ever increasingly dependent upon ad revenue, which in turn will ensure mozilla projects and opinions will be screened before release to meet the advertisers approval.

personally? im switching because i still want a free internet. check out icecat or midori.

Re:R.I.P. Mozilla (2)

future assassin (639396) | about 2 months ago | (#47777497)

Well they have full control and all they have to say is you want this spot, you can have for this much but you have no control over anything that happens to the browser.

Re:R.I.P. Mozilla (1)

Khyber (864651) | about 2 months ago | (#47778285)

"Well they have full control and all they have to say is you want this spot, you can have for this much but you have no control over anything that happens to the browser."

As if drive-by malware embedded in ads hasn't happened before. Yea, you might want to have a seat, I got some things to tell you.

Re:R.I.P. Mozilla (1)

mysidia (191772) | about 2 months ago | (#47778945)

You can have for this much but you have no control over anything that happens to the browser.

Before or after you accidentally click the tile?

I'm sure the advertisers will insist that their bit of javascript runs, as well; the tile's content will probably be a script src= tag pointing to the advertiser's webserver.

Re:R.I.P. Mozilla (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47777757)

Mozilla has been paid and supported for as long as Firefox has pretty much been around thanks to Google.
Your whole post: nope.

Mozilla hasn't changed at all. It is just whiny babies that cry because the instant they hear "ads", they cry like the entitled kiddies they all are.
You can disable the feature as well. It's not like they are forcing it on you period.
It is like you blame Mozilla for supporting images on websites that are adverts.

God damned Mozilla, trying to survive and expand! EVIL!
Never mind the fact they are trying to become independent from Google pressures, which would be a Good Thing.

Also, your internet has never been free. In both views.
Everyone has to pay at some point. You pay by having companies die off because they, and a typical view of ad-haters at that, "can't support it out of their own pockets".
Face facts, the web would never be possible as it is now without advertising. PERIOD. It isn't even an opinion.
Pretty much NOBODY is willing to pay for every website they visit. Large websites and companies NEED advertising.

Re:R.I.P. Mozilla (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47778115)

> Mozilla is now beholden to and will become ever increasingly dependent upon ad revenue,

Uh yeah. Perhaps you haven't noticed that they have been nearly entirely funded by google kickbacks from the search-bar for like a decade.
If anything this makes the relationship with advertisements more explicit so there is a reduced opportunity for a conflict interest to manifest.

Re:R.I.P. Mozilla (0)

liquid_schwartz (530085) | about 2 months ago | (#47778955)

I quit using Firefox / Mozilla when they went from a technology company to one focused on social issues and specifically targeting people who didn't tout the politically correct message. If the party doesn't approve we force you out comrad. Sad...

Latest Nightly build vs google. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47777217)

Every now and then there is an issue between latest builds and google. It is as if google plans for certain changes and makes things like checking gmail or docs difficult in order to get people to switch to chrome. This morning I woke up to find I couldn't access gmail because cookies werent turned on.. turns out cookies are turned on. Maybe I'll check my email tomorrow or get chrome...

Re: Latest Nightly build vs google. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47777427)

Or use a stable build instead of a nightly.

Are you even using the reporting tool to let Mozilla know about these problems, or just waiting for them to get fixed?

Pale Moon (3, Informative)

BenFenner (981342) | about 2 months ago | (#47777355)

I am so thankful for Pale Moon. I don't have to read Firefox news with dread anymore. Even at work here using Linux I can enjoy it.

http://www.palemoon.org/ [palemoon.org]

Pale Moon will release you. Seek thy savior! (2, Interesting)

chaosdivine69 (1456649) | about 2 months ago | (#47777451)

No seriously, don't put up with this bullshit. Dump Firefox and come over to Pale Moon (www.palemoon.org). Your favorite plugins and add-ons will still work, you can customize the interface just how you're used to (that means no Australis excrement) and have the latest security updates too. It's fast, stable, standards compliant and doesn't force needless stuff on their users. They don't and won't sell your details, snoop on your browsing behavior and subject you to advertising. This whole process is painless thanks to their profile migration tool but just in case, back up your browser settings/bookmarks/add-on settings and get back to browsing the Internet on YOUR OWN TERMS.

It's incredible that people are still using Firefox at all honestly. Firefox is just a shell of what it once was and now it's just a name - one forever tarnished by corporate greed/influence and the lust for money. Firefox has become a cancer. It needs immediate removal - permanently.

First impressions.... (1)

hAckz0r (989977) | about 2 months ago | (#47777503)

... count. The uptake of new users is going to decline big time. Established users will learn to deal with the changes, but new users will be turned off before learning how to turn all this off.

This seems like something MS would do. (2)

Joe Gillian (3683399) | about 2 months ago | (#47777541)

Don't mistake me for a zealot, because I'm not. However, this move seems a lot like something the Microsoft of the early 2000s - when IE had near-100% marketshare and Firefox was still called Firebird - would do, and the kind of thing Mozilla should be fighting against.

IE got where it was at that time because of how it was forced upon everyone who bought a copy of Windows, and there was no easy way to opt-out. It won a monopoly by default, and this was one of the reasons that the Mozilla Foundation came along and developed Firefox. One of the senior Firefox devs said a year or so ago to one of his critics (it was on here somewhere) that what was important to him and to Mozilla was not that you use Firefox or that Firefox even be the dominant browser. What was important to him is that you have a choice of browsers so that another situation in which IE (or any other browser) gains near-100% market share never happens again.

This sounds like the same sort of thing. It's on by default, is obscure to disable (I personally can never remember the command to turn the new tab window off and have to look it up every time) and isn't something people are going to want. It's going to gain a monopoly by default, just like IE did. Using IE's tactics is not a good thing, and we can see why from IE itself. I might not hate it as much if there was a simple button in the preferences menu that reads "Turn off the New Tab Page" or "Disable Sponsored Links on the New Tab Page".. but there isn't. If anything, this should be opt-in "Would you like to support Firefox and the Mozilla Foundation by turning on sponsored links on the New Tab page?" instead of opt-out.

Re:This seems like something MS would do. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47778171)

> It's going to gain a monopoly by default

Your post had some tortured logic, but that particular claim isn't even tortured, it is just made up.

You offer absolutely no reasoning as to why that would be true, Firefox is far from a monopoly now and putting ads on the start page isn't going to gain them new users - who starts using a browser because it has ads?

Re:This seems like something MS would do. (1)

Joe Gillian (3683399) | about 2 months ago | (#47778245)

Not the browser - the sponsored new tab page. A majority of Firefox users have automatic updates enabled, so when Firefox updates to add the Sponsored New Tab page, a majority of Firefox users will also have it because it's turned on by default.

Re:This seems like something MS would do. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47778357)

How is that in any way a "monopoly?"
If you are going to just make up your own definitions you can't expect any respect.

Re:This seems like something MS would do. (2)

danomac (1032160) | about 2 months ago | (#47779139)

That's not a monopoly. Microsoft was leveraging a huge installed base of Windows (completely separate app/OS space) for Internet Explorer installs - you're comparing apples and oranges.

Re:This seems like something MS would do. (2)

Champion3 (599877) | about 2 months ago | (#47779171)

Sponsored Tiles only show up for brand new users with no history. As an existing user, upgrading to a version with this feature changes nothing as far as your experience is concerned.

Re:This seems like something MS would do. (1)

Hsien-Ko (1090623) | about 2 months ago | (#47778315)

Well Microsoft did do something of that kind. Remember the channel bar IE4 came with in 1997? Booting up to suddenly see Taz and Mickey's dumb expressions at your face?

A sad thing (1)

oldmacdonald (80995) | about 2 months ago | (#47777989)

What saddens me is that most users won't notice or care. Clearly the Mozilla people need revenue somehow. But software should be on the user's side. Worry about the "open web" all you want, but if your own computer is out to get you then what's the point?

Re:A sad thing (1)

speps (1108625) | about 2 months ago | (#47778299)

My own hypothesis is that Google told them they would stop paying them (you know, millions of dollars) some years from now. Until then, they have to find ways to monetize the shit out Firefox and their other projects... It would explain a LOT of what happened in the last few years.

Mozilla tiles too complicated? (5, Informative)

lippydude (3635849) | about 2 months ago | (#47778161)

"When you first launch Firefox, a message on the new tab page informs you of the following .. It's quite a lot to take in all at once"

It seems fairly straight forward to me: a) a promise that the feature abides by the Mozilla Privacy Policy, b) a reminder that you can turn tiles off completely ..

Re:Mozilla tiles too complicated? (1)

Champion3 (599877) | about 2 months ago | (#47778329)

Not to mention that the code for displaying the tiles is open source, so you can audit it all you want.

donate (2, Insightful)

ssam (2723487) | about 2 months ago | (#47779161)

If every Firefox user donated $1 they would not need to do this.https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/

Supportive /w a privacy friendly design (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47779535)

The only objection I'd have to this is if Mozilla's design is poor and fails to implement a totally privacy friendly design. While everybody gets tracked with cookies there really is no need for this or the revelation of what advertisements an individual user has seen. All that matters to an advertiser (or should matter) is that the advertisement hits relevant targeted users.

The solution should work like this:

1. Let the browser do the identification of users interests without sending that information to Mozilla or advertisers. No servers should ever receive this info. With this solution there is simply no need

The browser can do this by matching the sites in the users history against a database of known sites that have been categorized (these lists would be embedded in the browser itself so there is no need to reveal anything to Mozilla or the advertisers).

3. The software would then embed all advertisements in the browser itself. The browser would then be able to show the advertisements based on the categories advertisers selected.

So if an advertiser of an electronics store wants to target users who are interested in electronics they'd simply select the electronics category.

You can determine the number of users who viewed a given advertisement the same way TV broadcasters do. You can utilize feedback from a small percentage of voluntary participants. The only difference is Mozilla will get that data automatically instead of in the form of a phone call asking you about the shows you watch. Instead it'll ask you to reveal the categories of sites you've recently visited and the percentage of time you've remained on said sites. This data will have already been collected (via your history). If you agree to submit the categorization data they'd find out you were visiting: electronics sites (10% of the time), sex sites (5% of the time), social networking sites (50% of the time), and other sites 35% of the site. They'd then take that data and aggravate. They only need this data to determine the percentage of users who saw the given advertisement and not to actually target the advertisements themselves. You can do the targeting without this data the way the code is written. This is mostly useful for charging advertisers.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?