Mozilla

Content, Ads, Caution

February 13th, 2014

I’m starting with content but please rest assured I’ll get to the topic of ads and revenue.

In the early days of Firefox we were very careful not to offer content to our users.  Firefox came out of a world in which both Netscape/AOL (the alma mater of many early Mozillians) and Microsoft had valued their content and revenue sources over the user experience.  Those of us from Netscape/AOL had seen features, bookmarks, tabs, and other irritants added to the product to generate revenue.   We’d seen Mozilla code subsequently “enhanced” with these features.

And so we have a very strong, very negative reaction to any activities that even remotely remind us of this approach to product.  That’s good.

This reaction somehow became synonymous with other approaches that are not necessarily so helpful.  For a number of  years we refused to have any relationship with our users beyond we provide software and they use it.  We resisted offering content unless it came directly from an explicit user action.  This made sense at first when the web was so young.  But over the years many people have come to expect and want their software to do things on their behalf, to take note of what one has done before and do something useful with it.

In the last few years we’ve begun to respond to this.  We’re careful about it because the DNA is based on products serving users.  Every time we offer something to our users we question ourselves rigorously about the motivations for that offer.  Are we sure it’s the most value we can provide to our users? Are we sure, doubly-sure, we’re not fooling ourselves?  Sometimes my commercial colleagues laugh at me for the amount of real estate we leave unmonitored or the revenue opportunities we decline.

So we look at the Tiles and wonder if we can do more for people.    We think we can.  I’ve heard some people say they still don’t want any content offered.  They want their experience to be new, to be the same as it was the day they installed the browser, the same as anyone else might experience.  I understand this view, and think it’s not the default most people are choosing.  We think we can offer people useful content in the Tiles.

When we have ideas about how content might be useful to people, we look at whether there is a revenue possibility, and if that would annoy people or bring something potentially useful.  Ads in search turn out to be useful.  The gist  of the Tiles idea is that we would include something like 9 Tiles on a page, and that 2 or 3 of them would be sponsored — aka “ads.”  So to explicitly address the question of whether sponsored tiles (aka “ads”) could be included as part of a content offering, the answer is yes.

These sponsored results/ ads would not have tracking features.

Why would we include any sponsored results?  If the Tiles are useful to people then we’ll generate value.  That generates revenue that supports the Mozilla project.   So to explicitly address the question of whether we care about generating revenue and sustaining Mozilla’s work, the answer is yes.  In fact, many of us feel responsible to do exactly this.

Pretty much anytime we talk about revenue at Mozilla people get suspicious.  Mozillians get suspicious, and our supporters get suspicious.  There’s some value in that, as it reinforces our commitment to user experience and providing value to our users.  There’s some drawbacks to this as well, however.  I’ll be talking with Mozillians tomorrow and in the coming days on these topics in more detail.

0

103 comments for “Content, Ads, Caution”

  1. 1

    Josh Triplett said on February 13th, 2014 at 1:11 am:

    (Mirror of a comment also posted to LWN.)

    I would suggest waiting to panic until we find out who the “hand-picked partners” are. Remember that Mozilla gets paid a huge amount of money to keep Google as the default search engine, and odds are if you asked most users, most of them who cared would say that’s what they want anyway. If the content filled in includes things like an appropriate regional Wikipedia, a few Mozilla sites similar to the default bookmarks, and a few popular sites that users want anyway who turn out to be willing to pay (e.g. Twitter, YouTube, WordPress, or Amazon), that doesn’t seem problematic.

    I think the key question is “does this show users content that they find unwanted, or does this actually give users something better than a blank page?”.

  2. 2

    Pingback from Revenue Diversification the Mozilla Way | The Mozilla Blog

    […] – we will respect our users, stay on mission, and still generate revenue.  Mitchell also provided context on how we approach this. Mozilla is about the world coming together to build a better Web.  We […]

  3. 3

    njn said on February 13th, 2014 at 1:54 am:

    The lack of details is a problem. AFAICT there are no patches written, and no detailed descriptions of how exactly this would work. (You saying “These sponsored results/ ads would not have tracking features” is a step in the right direction.)

    If this feature can be disabled easily, that would also help a lot — i.e. “we think you might be interested in this, but we’re not forcing it down your throat if you don’t want it”.

  4. 4

    Julien said on February 13th, 2014 at 2:44 am:

    What I don’t understand is the reason for this decision: does Mozilla need to make money?
    If so, why not offer a single optional freemium feature? Add value to your product and collect some of this value. Maybe that could be an improved version of sync, or a better “historical search”, or….?

  5. 5

    stef said on February 13th, 2014 at 2:46 am:

    instead of ads, how about reacting to the US/CAN/UK/NZ/etc spying actively on everyone? We need a more robust browser, that does proper compartmentalization of the processes, that does not scare away the users from https sites that actually do not succumb to the compromised CA system. Firefox is a piece of critical infrastructure, and you let it degrade and become a tool of the adversaries. Please stop this, and become a champion of the free internet again.

    sincerly, a long-time firefox user.

  6. 6

    Stomme poes said on February 13th, 2014 at 3:04 am:

    If it can be turned off, and is something offered maybe by default to new users/new installs, the annoyance level would go way down. People who find Stuff in Tiles useful wouldn’t turn it off.

  7. 7

    Dan Tobias said on February 13th, 2014 at 6:18 am:

    You’re perhaps entering onto a slippery slope where eventually “monetization” will be the primary goal in deciding elements of the browser’s design rather than user experience. Already there are rumors floating around about such extreme future actions as getting rid of the ability to have 3rd-party add-ons due to their potential to disrupt Mozilla’s revenue stream somehow.

  8. 8

    Sven Slootweg said on February 13th, 2014 at 6:38 am:

    Here’s the problem.

    For the past $many years, marketing departments of all sorts have developed one core goal: convincing people that they are necessary. The underlying message in this endeavour has been that “you are a consumer and not a person, you should have everything handed to you on a platter, and having to think or research for yourself is a bad thing, so just leave that to us”. The result of this is that people have become lazier and more demanding than ever before, and their demands are usually taught, not motivated.

    When you say the following:

    “But over the years many people have come to expect and want their software to do things on their behalf, to take note of what one has done before and do something useful with it.”

    … the phenomenon you are describing is a direct manifestation of what I just described. People expect “brands” to “deliver value” to them, and to “help them find interesting content” (which is really just a bunch of euphemisms, for the highest bidder telling them what to think or buy).

    By giving in to these (unmotivated, taught) demands, you are effectively giving in to “keeping people dumb”, to say it directly. This does not benefit an open internet (or society), which Mozilla claims as one of its ideals. Neutrality of those developing the “window into the internet”, is absolutely a requirement for such an open internet.

    User experience is important, but not if it’s at the cost of open-ness, privacy, or any of the other ideals that Mozilla (supposedly) has. If “user experience trumps all”, Mozilla is quickly on its way to becoming no better than Google.

    I think Mozilla needs to have a long hard think about what its true mission is; following their ideals to build a healthier and open internet (and society), or giving in to the short-term and often irrational and taught demands of their users.

  9. 9

    A Mozillian said on February 13th, 2014 at 7:39 am:

    For what it’s worth, I’m a long time Firefox user, and I owe a lot of who I am today personally and professionally to the way Mozilla operates. I follow many Mozilla employees via social media and RSS, and consider them coworkers and colleagues in spirit.

    I love a lot of what Mozilla has done for the web, especially in being a driving force for honoring net neutrality, web standards and preventing the fragmentation of the web, as well as educational outreach, and the core understanding that an unbiased portal to the internet, a modern necessity for living daily life.

    I understand and appreciate that there is a desire to diversify Mozilla’s income to enable the organization to continue to operate and flourish. Directory Tiles in of themselves isn’t the issue to me, rather the way in which they were brought about: If Mozilla is to be dabbling in advertising and alternate forms of revenue, I feel that the best way to go about it is not to surface incredibly vague language tucked away on a newly-created blog from newly-created department from a newly-created position from someone plucked from an industry a lot of loyal diehard users are incredibly skeptical of.

    People trust Mozilla to be open, transparent, and to put the user first, and, judging by the explosion of overhyped news posts from various tech sites yesterday and today, I don’t think I’m alone in this belief. I think an organizational shift of this kind should be coming loud and clear from the top—to be honest, I view this blog post to kind of be a symptom of that miscalculation.

    I find the way Darren Herman to be shockingly amateurish in his approach to all of this, especially considering his title and purported experience. A little light reading on his internet presence isn’t very reassuring, either. There is isn’t really any language about even paying the lightest of lip service to Mozilla’s principles, much less any real insight on the way he conducts business. Hopefully he’ll do better with future efforts.

  10. 10

    Pingback from Revenue Diversification the Mozilla Way Firefox Mobile OS Download

    […] – we will respect our users, stay on mission, and still generate revenue.  Mitchell also provided context on how we approach this. Mozilla is about the world coming together to build a better Web.  We […]

  11. 11

    Mitchell Baker said on February 13th, 2014 at 8:06 am:

    Njn — you’re right. Details are important and we would have done much better if we had gotten our steps ordered differently and discussed and vetted the details first. Hoping to rectify that asap. (well, not the order of course, that’s done , but getting details in discussion asap)/

    Julien: yes. building an entire mobile ecosystem is extremely expensive. Offering services is expensive. If we don’t do these things then we will not be able to offer people the tools for modern life. Other models could work too. Note that if we offer fremium services we might want to tell people about them, and maybe that would seem like advertising too …… lots of details involved in making any approach work.

  12. 12

    Mitchell Baker said on February 13th, 2014 at 8:13 am:

    Stef: working on all those things too.

    Dan: we recognize the slippery slope issue. We came out of that setting, where the product we built at Netscape was deeply damaged for this.

    Sven: this is a complicated and important topic. How much do we build the thing that we want, and how much do we want a general consumer product that the market adopts enough to help us push the industry toward a better place? By optimizing for the former some of us are much happier. By optimizing for the latter we have a less-perfect product, but the ability to push the industry. You are right that the latter is a part of how we are operating. I think it’s key. It does mean the market -ie consumers– pull us towards what they want to live online. And we’re taking steps to pull that desire towards the openness of our idealized world.

    A great topic. We may be in different places on the spectrum. A good topic to continue somewhere in a better forum that comments.

  13. 13

    Mitchell Baker said on February 13th, 2014 at 8:23 am:

    dear Mozillian of Comment 10.

    You are right that we handled this backwards. I’m working to sort this out too.

    Chris mister: first,please remember there’s a person at the other end of your words. I know him, he’s trying hard. On the substance of your comment, yes his language is different from Mozilla’s standard. That’s true everytime we bring something new into mozilla. We’re trying to learn to speak to many parts of society. So i think the problem is as Mozillian of comment 10 said — we didn’t have a discussion with mozilla participants and supporters in our own language first, we didn’t get the concerns raised, the kinks worked out, etc. If we had done that then the language that makes sense in the advertising world would be a useful addition, not a communication that didn’t make sense.

  14. 14

    VanillaMozilla said on February 13th, 2014 at 8:39 am:

    There is only one way that you can do this without engendering deep hostility and suspicion from people who have been your greatest supporters.

    You absolutely MUST ask the user first, before displaying any “content”. You must inform people exactly what you are doing, and you must honor their wishes. You must tell them that there will be no tracking, and you absolutely must ensure that that is the case. The explanation must be clear, and simple. Two sentences maximum, and not part of a “Terms and conditions” statement. It must not be opt-out. If you’re honest and straightforward, you will retain users’ trust, and many of them will opt in. If you don’t do that, you will surely lose their trust.

  15. 15

    Mike Taylor said on February 13th, 2014 at 9:23 am:

    So this is something Opera has been doing for years with its Speed Dial. New installation? You’ve got a few sponsored speed dial slots that lead to places (Amazon, Facebook, Booking.com) that some people consider useful. Personally I’m the type of guy to delete those immediately (and set my new tab page to about:blank), but I’ve noticed other people in my family using them on their own machines. So there is at least the possibility for some notion of value for the user based on my sample of like 3 people.

    Revenue for the Mozilla project is a good thing™. I’m also glad to hear that we’ll work on language and framing of these types of things going forward–another good thing.

  16. 16

    Fabricio Zuardi said on February 13th, 2014 at 9:44 am:

    In order to be an independent force, I understand that Mozilla needs money.

    In order to have money, Mozilla **will** chose less-than-great partners (Bing is now listed as a search option on Firefox– and I hope we’ve got a nice deal and a pretty big amount of money for that– while Duck Duck Go is still not).

    By choosing less-than-great partners, Mozilla becomes more relying on them (as we have been on Google) and more biased towards their views. Partner’s money makes us lie to ourselves and justify that some feature, content, ad or restriction (patent-encumbered formats, DRM, locked phones, etc) provides value to the users (as they certainly do, but at which cost?).

    Might even makes us forget that with free software a user is not just a consumer, but an empowered being that has total control and can improve the product without having to answer to some entity. When/if the “user” loses her ability to tweak the product, make changes to scratch her own itch that’s when having or not money will no longer make any difference, Mozilla would be just another company making pretty products.

    In other words: implement sponsored tiles, Up, whatever… but make it easy to remove them in the UI or at least in the code.

    I hope we proceed with caution, experimenting with different revenue models is fine, bringing in people from different and corporate backgrounds is fine, but we also need to stand firmly on the core principles and use the influence that being a big player with money to burn(even if not totally independent) provides us. The goal must always be more freedom (phones with root access and unlocked bootloaders, free-hardware, no binary blobs, access to all sources, transparency, more autonomy, less walled gardens in the cloud, more privacy, less patents, a healthier public domain), not less :)

    If there is a reason to seek money it should be because we have a good use for it, with society and individual freedoms in mind, not simply to survive, maintain the actual company’s departments, offices and structures as is or to grow the company. Shrinking is always an option.

  17. 17

    Pingback from Will Firefox Really Have Ads? | Benjamin Kerensa dot Com

    […] General Counsel’s) have both posted on this topic.  Please feel free to read their posts: https://blog.lizardwrangler.com/2014/02/13/content-ads-caution/ […]

  18. 18

    James said on February 13th, 2014 at 10:00 am:

    After the AOL fracas you mention, one of the ways Mozilla was responded was with the module owner system as a bulwark against the parent company imposing its will. This should be a comfort, but it doesn’t feel like one to me in this case. That’s because the Firefox module is overwhelmingly MoCo: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Modules/Firefox. I think there’s only one person in the peer list who isn’t an employee or contractor (and he hasn’t commented in bugzilla in 6 months, so I think that the wiki just hasn’t been updated). That doesn’t give me as much comfort as the Gecko modules, which are also mostly MoCo but have more folks with longer tenures.

    I know that it’s the same problem as always – people who are paid to do work are likely going to do it well and thus get peer status, while those who aren’t won’t have as much time – but it’s an important change to think about when comparing to the Aol era. It would be great to be able to say “Marketing people can come up with whatever idea they’d like, but it has to pass code review like everything else,” but I’m not at all sure that that’s enough.

  19. 19

    Benjamin Kerensa said on February 13th, 2014 at 10:04 am:

    I think there has been more than just suspicion but in some cases outrage over the idea and I think its totally unnecessary. I think the fact that Mozilla has championed privacy and served its users so well for so many years that our supporters and critics should give us the benefit of the doubt.

    I know that this feature will go through our processes (Development, Engineering, QA, Release Management) and get the oversight and quality it needs before it reaches our users and that’s all I care about.

  20. 20

    Omega said on February 13th, 2014 at 10:38 am:

    Benjamin,

    Trust is hard to gain but easy to lose. WE live in an age where any and every organization will gather your data and sell it to the highest bidder and the government. To have an organization champion user choice and privacy to suddenly take the choice and privacy out of the equation is damaging. Especially when a corporate mouthpiece presents it in a boilerplate corporate press announcement.

  21. 21

    mof said on February 13th, 2014 at 10:42 am:

    Unsolicited content pushed to user != questions about revenue. Also not a tracking issue.
    And yes, unsolicited content pushed to users means advertisement. Nobody likes that.

    Claiming that Mozilla can somehow be able to push for content that will add value to people, when it’s going to be paid stuff, seems like saying we can make ponies fly.

    What’s value to me? Content that I choose to see. That I choose to see. Me.

  22. 22

    A Mozillian said on February 13th, 2014 at 10:47 am:

    Just wanted to say thanks for hearing me out, Mitchell. You’re probably a very busy man at what sounds like a pretty hectic time in the organization, but taking the time to patiently address individual comments is really reassuring and exactly the kind of thing I’d want in a situation like this.

  23. 23

    Sam Tobin-Hochstadt said on February 13th, 2014 at 10:58 am:

    A Mozillian: in addition to having a rock-star hair style and a cool web browser, Mitchell is also a woman.

  24. 24

    Sven Slootweg said on February 13th, 2014 at 11:31 am:

    Mitchell, I understand your reasoning – however, I feel it’s critical to make a stand against certain kinds of demands from users in order to maintain that openness. This would be one of those demands.

    I’d love to continue this discussion in a more suitable venue, do you have any particular suggestions?

  25. 25

    kc said on February 13th, 2014 at 12:32 pm:

    What determines what ‘ad’ tiles are displayed?
    I’m not adverse to the idea – just want control over what’s displayed.
    For instance if you are interested in belgian beer – the tile could refresh occasionally with a new suggestion every few hours. Especially local/online offers.

  26. 26

    Mitchell Baker said on February 13th, 2014 at 1:26 pm:

    mof: here’s a question: do you find search suggestions to be content pushed at you? does the answer differ if the suggestions are from your browser based on only your activities, or from Google based on activities of many … Does it matter if you have control over it?

  27. 27

    Pingback from Mozilla's Nutrition Label Now Includes - Natural Flavors Added

    […] [Update]: There’s a nice discussion taking place right now at: Content, Ads, Caution | Mitchell’s Blog […]

  28. 28

    Paul Morris said on February 13th, 2014 at 3:16 pm:

    +1 for comment #16 by VanillaMozilla.

  29. 29

    Bob Moss said on February 13th, 2014 at 3:19 pm:

    Whichever way you swing it you’re putting ads in your browser, and how exactly do you plan to ascertain ‘relevance’ of ad tiles without some form of tracking?

    Firefox is held up as a great example of open source software and a force for good in the world that encourages open standards across the web and puts the user first – if this browser includes ads, what makes Firefox any better than any other ‘freemium’ application and what kind of example are you setting for others? Open source applications don’t lack advertising due to lack of imagination – it’s deeply unpopular, ruins the user experience & can be bypassed anyway through forking the original source.

    If you want to make money, there are alternatives. Open source projects either drive for more donations (i.e. Wikipedia) or they build & sell optional supporting services around their product.

    How about offering an optional secure cloud-services for a subscription as a great way of rewarding loyalty and enhance your mobile OS? or perhaps branching out into enterprise consultancy/support for developing intranet web apps? I’m sure if Mozilla can create (in my opinion) the best browser in the world they can come up with better ideas that don’t compromise their own principles for few extra pennies in the bank.

  30. 30

    Ivan Ičin said on February 13th, 2014 at 3:25 pm:

    As most people noted, this is a delicate issue that requires details.

    Generally speaking, non-targeting actually may lead to more annoying ads. I can think only of several mega sites like Facebook or Twitter or Gmail or Outlook that many people can think of as useful. If that is the case that those sites would be included, which I guess, it sounds reasonable. It might even give some edge over Chrome, as Google won’t ever include competing services (and surely you can consider links to its services as ads), though some are actually necessary for the most people.

  31. 31

    Rickkins said on February 13th, 2014 at 4:37 pm:

    First australis, and now this. Sad, but this group has truly lost it’s way.

  32. 32

    Pingback from Enlaces patrocinados en los navegadores. Futuribles en Firefox | Noctuido

    […] que ha creado en varios medios. Artículos como el de de Benjamin Kerensa, y otra ilustre como la CEO Mitchel Baker nos recuerda que históricamente Mozilla ha apostado por los intereses de los u…, frente a intereses puramente […]

  33. 33

    Pingback from Mozilla clarifies, defends Firefox ad position – ZDNet | Top Computers Outlet

    […] Mitchell Baker, chair of the Mozilla Foundation explained and defended the Foundation’s new ad…, but many supporters remain unconvinced. […]

  34. 34

    Charles Perry said on February 14th, 2014 at 10:12 am:

    Mitchell, you have the patience of a thousand suns. I can’t think of anything more important for Mozilla’s future than giving users the experience then want & need while keeping their trust and staying solvent. We’re on our way.

  35. 35

    David said on February 14th, 2014 at 11:04 am:

    From the Wall Street Journal story (http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2014/02/12/high-minded-firefox-dips-a-toe-into-advertising/):

    “Mozilla said the slots could feature content promoted by a company, such as “a news story about women who code in Syria.” But it declined to say what other types of ads might, or might not, appear. It said the ads could begin in the second quarter.”

    Presumably the WSJ has a legitimate source in Mozilla to get such quotes from. However the above is directly counter to a number of the statements made here about the nature of the ads that are going to be presented to users. A news story would indicate some sort of dynamic external source, not a fixed, baked-in list of tiles. It also implies, depending on where such news is sourced, direct behavior tracking that can be analyzed based on what things the browser has decided the user is interested in.

    From the Advertising Age article (http://adage.com/article/special-report-iab-annual-meeting/mozilla-sell-ads-firefox/291641/), quoting Darren Herman at the IAB conference:

    “Mozilla hasn’t made a final decision on how to treat third-party tracking technologies, but Mr. Herman said it is investigating solutions such as unique identifiers from Apple and Google as well as other third parties.”

    vs Mitchell Baker’s statement (https://blog.lizardwrangler.com/2014/02/13/content-ads-caution/):

    “These sponsored results/ads would not have tracking features.”

    Putting out two directly contradictory statements (depending on what they think their audience wants to hear?).

    (Aside: Mitchell Baker at least acknowledges that these are indeed ads, vs the weaselly semantics-dodging of Benjamin Kerensa.)

    And (back to the AA article):

    “The revenue opportunity is significant, as Mozilla sees 100 billion tile impressions in the U.S. alone each year, according to a company spokesperson. But the program is likely to start slow, as it will only reach first time users — only 31 million uniques per month, according to Mozilla principal, strategy Chris Tacy.”

    Implying that this will grow beyond merely first-time users. The AA article also notes who they are quoting (though the sentence is poorly formed at the end, and I’m not sure if Chris Tacy was the source of both figures) vs the anonymous WSJ quote.

    And David Rajchenbach-Teller (https://groups.google.com/d/msg/mozilla.dev.planning/k-kOnJ14lXE/7uqlRbIQ74MJ) says:

    “Not only this, but in several of the variants we discussed, sponsored
    tiles would eventually disappear in favor of websites actually visited
    by the user. ”

    So, not in all variants, meaning that in at least some of the variants, sponsored tiles would -not- disappear. Even in the variants where they do, ‘eventually’ isn’t defined here.

    Combined with the Advertising Age article’s indication that this program will “start slow”, and thus at some point encompass more than first-time users, that would seem to strongly imply an intent to eventually force these on most/all users, (necessarily) overriding at least part of their own specific tile entries.

    So, how much of the above is the truth, and how much is “misinformation”? A single statement (or poorly worded blog post) might be swept away as things are better understood, but these are statements from multiple people on multiple aspects of the issue, almost all of which are pointing in the same direction.

    As an aside, due to today’s followup article on ZDNet (which is basically just a re-composing of Mitchell’s blog post and several comments): One might also speculate some on the extent to which the “extremely expensive” (per Mitchell) Firefox OS’s resource consumption is pulling in not only programmer resources, but also budgetary resources from the desktop side, and to what degree there is any real expectation of some future benefit from this investment vs how much this is just a budgetary sinkhole that’s dragging the rest of Mozilla down with it.

    Such speculation would seem completely without basis (and not something I’d given any consideration to before the ZDNet reference; my only view of Firefox OS is the annoyance that the only times I ever hear about it are when yet another programmer is pulled from working on Firefox/Gecko to instead be put on the Firefox OS project), however it is now directly linked to the current discussion due to Mitchell’s statement. She did not mention “financial independence” (as David Rajchenbach-Teller mentioned in the .governance thread), but spoke only about expensive current projects.

  36. 36

    Andrew Whitfield said on February 14th, 2014 at 11:09 am:

    @Mitchell,

    I think there a number of other ways you can do what you’re looking to do. Where could I send a proposal for how to tackle the issues of transparency, privacy, relevant content, opt-in features and an advertising model that doesn’t dumb people down or take you away from your mission statement but does offer a way to empower the Firefox users above and beyond the other browser users by virtue of that advertising model.

    I’d like to discuss how to make Firefox a better tool for outreach and education, empowerment and privacy. With whom could I connect to discuss some thoughts?

    Long time Firefox advocate,
    AW

  37. 37

    Pingback from Mozilla erklärt Werbekacheln in Firefox | ZDNet.de

    […] Vorsitzende der Mozilla Foundation Mitchell Baker hat in einem Blogbeitrag die Entscheidung gerechtfertigt, Werbung auf der Seite “Neuer Tab” des Browsers Firefox […]

  38. 38

    Pingback from Mozilla clarifies, defends Firefox ad position – ZDNet | Right laptop mart

    […] Mitchell Baker, chair of the Mozilla Foundation explained and defended the Foundation’s new ad…, but many supporters remain unconvinced. […]

  39. 39

    Pingback from Mozilla clarifies, defends Firefox ad position – ZDNet | Top Computer Mart

    […] Mitchell Baker, chair of the Mozilla Foundation explained and defended the Foundation’s new ad…, but many supporters remain unconvinced. […]

  40. 40

    Pingback from Mozilla clarifies, defends Firefox ad position – ZDNet | You Buy Computers

    […] Mitchell Baker, chair of the Mozilla Foundation explained and defended the Foundation’s new ad…, but many supporters remain unconvinced. […]

  41. 41

    Tobias Markus said on February 14th, 2014 at 12:23 pm:

    My main problem with this is that we’re actively invading users freedom to choose their own favorite sites by displaying picks. That’s not “the user comes first” to me. That’s “we prefer money over users”. If I were to tell you “Here, this is what you will find useful”, you’d somewhat be offended, wouldn’t you? From a cultural standpoint, this is a fiasco. It’s even different from search providers because search providers offer similar functionality and features.

    Welcome to your Yahoo! Freedom (R), maybe you’d like some Google fries or a KFC club soda with that?

  42. 42

    Pingback from De la pub dans Firefox ? Vraiment ? » MozillaZine-fr

    […] Baker, présidente de la fondation Mozilla, précise que seules 2 ou 3 tuiles sur 9 par page seront sponsorisées (c’est-à-dire des […]

  43. 43

    Pingback from Mozilla clarifies, defends Firefox ad position – ZDNet | Computers Online Outlet

    […] Mitchell Baker, chair of the Mozilla Foundation explained and defended the Foundation’s new ad…, but many supporters remain unconvinced. […]

  44. 44

    Pingback from Mozilla clarifies, defends Firefox ad position – ZDNet | best laptop depot

    […] Mitchell Baker, chair of the Mozilla Foundation explained and defended the Foundation’s new ad…, but many supporters remain unconvinced. […]

  45. 45

    Frew said on February 14th, 2014 at 2:04 pm:

    My concern is whether I will be able to turn it off. If I can stop the ads I will fix it the first time they appear and go back to using Firefox how I always have. If I can’t get rid of them it is a different matter, it will damage my opinion of Firefox fundamentally.

    I can’t stand advertising. If it is being pushed at me I will change behaviour (and possibly browser) to avoid it.

  46. 46

    Pingback from Firefox ads won't be tracking users - Muktware

    […] Mitchell Baker of the Mozilla Foundation clarifies doubts around Firefox ads. She says that this is not the first time Mozilla has tried to add adverts to Firefox. All such previous attempts were rejected by the community. […]

  47. 47

    Gary said on February 14th, 2014 at 4:58 pm:

    Do whatever you want. But if you add this “feature” you’ll be losing at least the four users in my household. I suspect you’ll be losing quite a few others as well.

  48. 48

    Pingback from La publicidad de Firefox no rastreará a los usuarios

    […] que refuerza nuestro compromiso con la experiencia de uso y el ofrecer valor a nuestros usuarios», sentencia Mitchell Baker, quien promete dar aún más detalles al respecto en las próximas […]

  49. 49

    tforge88 said on February 15th, 2014 at 3:20 am:

    Hell no. If you do this it will be the absolute death of Mozilla as any kind of respectable organisation.

  50. 50

    fotonix said on February 15th, 2014 at 5:10 am:

    So, I will stop working with Firefox Browser.

  51. 51

    T Harris said on February 15th, 2014 at 10:03 am:

    I made Firefox my default browser because of the belief that Mozilla had the users best interests at heart and I that was strengthened when the stand was taken against the advertisers.

    And while I fully understand sustainability concerns, I can’t help but feel this shift sounds an awful lot the familiar set up for user behavior data mining done by Facebook and so many others with the reasoning of delivering “useful content” (targeted ads). Something I am happy to be without (as much as possible) and again why I chose FF (along with Adblock+, NoScript, etc.).

    So, my big questions are:
    1) Will users be able to opt-out of the new feature when it goes live?
    2) If so, will it be easy to do for casual users or require an about:config tweak?

  52. 52

    David said on February 15th, 2014 at 1:43 pm:

    ~ Addition to my earlier post (which is still awaiting moderation after more than 24 hours): Reading more stories, and linking back to bits that I missed or glossed over:

    Mitchell’s statement:
    “The gist of the Tiles idea is that we would include something like 9 Tiles on a page, and that 2 or 3 of them would be sponsored — aka “ads.””

    Seems to verify the apparent intent that these will eventually not merely be fillers in blank areas for new users. Clearly this is intended as a permanent fixture of the new tab/tiles page (as hinted at by other statements noted earlier). It also ties in with the “eventually” that David Rajchenbach-Teller noted regarding removal of these ads in favor of the user’s own most visited sites (ie: what they currently get). Clearly that’s a long-term “eventually”, not a short-term “eventually”.

    From an article at SmartCompany (http://www.smartcompany.com.au/technology/35611-mozilla-founder-mitchell-baker-defends-controversial-decision-to-put-paid-ads-in-firefox-following-user-backlash.html):

    “In a second statement, [legal council] Dixon-Thayer says the advertisements will “add value” to the user experience and help to open up the web.”

    The question of whether the ads will “add value” is certainly a very debatable topic, but I can’t for the life of me figure out how one could propose that these ads would “open up the web”. These aren’t web standards, unencumbered codecs, or other such things where they clearly provide greater access and interoperability for less restricted use of the web. They’re ads. Under what possible definition of “open up the web” can you consider this a valid assertion?

    Further comments from Dixon-Thayer end with:
    “Our initiatives are always aimed at maximizing our mission of making the Web open and accessible.”

    Once again, under what twisted reading of that mission statement can you assert that adding ads does that?

    Note: This has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of using advertising as a revenue source. This is solely about the assertion that adding advertisements specifically fulfills that mission statement.

  53. 53

    El-D said on February 15th, 2014 at 9:17 pm:

    There seems to be two camps of people who are most vocally against this: selfish people who don’t care about Mozilla, just Mozilla’s “mission” (which to them is to serve their needs for free somehow), and people who are genuinely concerned that this is a slippery slope type of thing and don’t realize that it’s too late – Google already has its claws in Firefox’s revenue.

    It’s too late, guys. Firefox needs revenue. If you don’t like it being from Google, it will have to come from elsewhere. If you think a freemium model would work to support them, you’re dreaming. Ditto if you think a donation drive would be able to raise the funds necessary to keep it going. Mozilla isn’t a small company, and the more we demand of it (FirefoxOS, Android versions, etc) the more revenue they need to keep it going. Unless, of course, you’re still one of those wonderfully naive people who think that FOSS products of this caliber can be sustained on the generous contributions of volunteers alone.

    Sometimes I think the most vocal detractors of these ideas think that just shouting loudly will solve things, not realizing that we live in a place called reality. Sometimes there will be marketing involved. Sometimes things like revenue are important. Pretending they’re unnecessary corruptions of ideals is a cute idea if you’re a teenager, but in the real world we have to balance our ideals with reality. Unless you’re able to conjure up a better idea that will work, all your negativity will do is keep you miserable no matter which browser you threaten to switch to.

  54. 54

    Claudia said on February 16th, 2014 at 6:04 am:

    I would much rather pay for Firefox than have ads in my browser. I would even pay a monthly subscription.

    If you go ahead with this and don’t give us an option to opt out, I will stop using Firefox and I will tell my friends and family to do the same.

  55. 55

    Anonymous said on February 16th, 2014 at 8:56 am:

    “But over the years many people have come to expect and want their software to do things on their behalf, to take note of what one has done before and do something useful with it.”

    Of course! I wish every software I have installed would transform into AdWare! Because it’s so useful!

  56. 56

    Anonymous said on February 16th, 2014 at 9:59 am:

    The day I see this in Firefox is the day I change my browser to something else, hell at this point even IE has proper HTML5/CSS3 support and pretty much everything Firefox does.

  57. 57

    Pingback from Mozilla’s top exec defends in-Firefox ads, revenue search | PRIMAL Test

    […] the subsidiary responsible for Firefox, and now the chair of the parent foundation, wrote on a blog Thursday. “In fact, many of us feel responsible to do exactly […]

  58. 58

    Pingback from Yebaa.com | Mozilla defends in-app Firefox ads as financial necessity

    […] the subsidiary responsible for Firefox, and now the chair of the parent foundation, wrote on a blog Thursday. “In fact, many of us feel responsible to do exactly […]

  59. 59

    Pingback from Mozilla’s top exec defends in-Firefox ads, revenue search – Computerworld | Home Gadget Deals

    […] the subsidiary responsible for Firefox, and now the chair of the parent foundation, wrote on a blog Thursday. “In fact, many of us feel responsible to do exactly […]

  60. 60

    Pingback from The Blow Magazine | Mozilla defends in-app Firefox ads as financial necessity

    […] the subsidiary responsible for Firefox, and now the chair of the parent foundation, wrote on a blog Thursday. “In fact, many of us feel responsible to do exactly […]

  61. 61

    m12345678 said on February 16th, 2014 at 12:13 pm:

    ” We think we can offer people useful content in the Tiles.”

    IMHO, ads are no “usefull” content – neither in the tiles nor on websites.

  62. 62

    John Fenderson said on February 16th, 2014 at 1:49 pm:

    @Mitchell Baker comment 28:

    Actually, I do consider search suggestions to be content pushed at me, and I turn them off.

    I don’t find the tiles stuff useful and don’t look at or use them myself, so it really doesn’t matter to me if there’s ads there or not.

    It does say something about Mozilla, though, that makes me a little nervous. It might not be fair, it might be pure guilt by association, but for me and a lot of people, the mere presence of ads implies two thing: that you’re being tracked for those ads, and that the outfit who is carrying the ads is a little less worthy of respect for it. You lie down with dogs, and all that. 100% of the time, I’d rather pay money than have ads.

    There is a lot of hyperbolic reaction about this, and I suspect the “guilt by association” thing has more to do with it than anything else. It would be truly terrible if Mozilla started acting like advertising agencies do, and although they aren’t yet, there is a lot of justifiable fear that this is the first step on that path.

  63. 63

    Pingback from Mozilla’s top exec defends in-Firefox ads, revenue search – Computerworld | Top Computer Mart

    […] the subsidiary responsible for Firefox, and now the chair of the parent foundation, wrote on a blog Thursday. “In fact, many of us feel responsible to do exactly […]

  64. 64

    Pingback from Mozilla’s top exec defends in-Firefox ads, revenue search – Computerworld | best laptop depot

    […] the subsidiary responsible for Firefox, and now the chair of the parent foundation, wrote on a blog Thursday. “In fact, many of us feel responsible to do exactly […]

  65. 65

    Pingback from Mozilla’s top exec defends in-Firefox ads, revenue search – Computerworld | You Buy Computers

    […] the subsidiary responsible for Firefox, and now the chair of the parent foundation, wrote on a blog Thursday. “In fact, many of us feel responsible to do exactly […]

  66. 66

    Pingback from Mozilla’s top exec defends in-Firefox ads, revenue search – Computerworld | Computers Online Outlet

    […] the subsidiary responsible for Firefox, and now the chair of the parent foundation, wrote on a blog Thursday. “In fact, many of us feel responsible to do exactly […]

  67. 67

    Pingback from Mozilla’s top exec defends in-Firefox ads, revenue search – Computerworld | Right laptop mart

    […] the subsidiary responsible for Firefox, and now the chair of the parent foundation, wrote on a blog Thursday. “In fact, many of us feel responsible to do exactly […]

  68. 68

    Pingback from Mozilla’s top exec defends in-Firefox ads, revenue search – Computerworld | Top Computers Outlet

    […] the subsidiary responsible for Firefox, and now the chair of the parent foundation, wrote on a blog Thursday. “In fact, many of us feel responsible to do exactly […]

  69. 69

    Pingback from Mozilla defends in-app Firefox ads as financial necessity

    […] Mozilla, a auxiliary obliged for Firefox, and now a chair of a primogenitor foundation, wrote on a blog Thursday. “In fact, many of us feel obliged to do accurately […]

  70. 70

    Pingback from Mozilla's top exec defends in-Firefox ads, revenue search | eSoftware

    […] the subsidiary responsible for Firefox, and now the chair of the parent foundation, wrote on a blog Thursday. “In fact, many of us feel responsible to do exactly […]

  71. 71

    Pingback from Mozilla verteidigt Webepläne in Firefox | Klaus Ahrens: News, Tipps, Tricks und Fotos

    […] Browser bleibt diese “Tiles” genannte Seite allerdings leer. In einem Blogbeitrag begründet die Chefin der Mozilla-Foundation, Mitchell Baker, die Pläne – im Wesentlichen mit […]

  72. 72

    Pingback from Information Technology Fars News

    […] the subsidiary responsible for Firefox, and now the chair of the parent foundation, wrote on a blog Thursday. “In fact, many of us feel responsible to do exactly […]

  73. 73

    Pingback from Connect IMS - Integrated Marketing Solutions || Mozilla defends in-app Firefox ads as financial necessity

    […] the subsidiary responsible for Firefox, and now the chair of the parent foundation, wrote on a blog Thursday. “In fact, many of us feel responsible to do exactly […]

  74. 74

    Dirk said on February 17th, 2014 at 12:25 am:

    “to take note of what one has done before and do something useful with it” – so the sponsored ads won’t have tracking code, but mozilla tracks my usage so that they can present these ads?

  75. 75

    OverStateObvious said on February 17th, 2014 at 12:44 am:

    People…please, you are failing to see what is realing going on here?? Remeber, Mozilla Firefox gets a large portion of there funding from, who??? Oh yes Gov-oogle, well of course it does. The nudges are already under way, then comes the pushes and then the shoves.

    Don’t you realize you are already supposed to be using Gov-oogle’s Chrome!? ;) My, my, my silly rabbits tricks are for kids. This is all being done on purpose, start disliking Firefox, then hate it, then jump to Chrome and then enjoy the advantage of being spied on more, than you already are. Wake up…wake up dead man.

    If there is a day, when you can only choose to use a Chrome type of browser, then my days of surfing or using the web are long done/over. For me it is ok, because I am NOT joined at the hip to the web. For some, it may be like trying to overcome some kind of addiction. For those, my advice is to start weening yourselves off now. Just my 2 bits. YMMV of course.

    **NOT FUD, just able to read the writing on the wall. Consider it a friendly awareness tip.

  76. 76

    Peter said on February 17th, 2014 at 12:58 am:

    I can’t really ad to the discussion, that’s going on here. But please consider that I as a quite typicall German Firefox user already have a hard time defending FF in front of my peers (programmers and everyday users alike). The moment that FF will start placing adds in new tabs or anywhere else I’m gone as a user and – considering I’m “the computer guy” to my family and many friends – a dozen other users as well.
    I understand Mozilla needs their funds, but what for, if you lose even more users than you do anyway?
    I think this would be a major strategic mistake and I would urge you to check, how many FF users actually would be okay with this, so I can keep my beloved and add-free FF and you keep yourself an important player in the browser market.

  77. 77

    Pingback from Mozilla spiega il perché della pubblicità in Firefox

    […] via […]

  78. 78

    Pingback from Firefox bald mit Werbung | Bentropie

    […] Barker schreibt in seinem Blog über die neuen Pläne für Firefox. Er sagt er hat die Aufgabe die Einnahmen bei Mozilla zu erhöhen, das will er tun indem er auf […]

  79. 79

    Andrew said on February 17th, 2014 at 4:04 am:

    Anyone needs to stop Mitchell Baker destroying Mozilla:

    First the idiotic rolling releases of Firefox, making it impossible to use in a bigger organisation.
    Second the death of Thunderbird, which needs to be improved with calendar functions and should get rid of tabs, which fits in a webbroser context, but not in an email client.
    Third including Spyware in Firefox – named “Health Report”
    Fourth starting an idiotic Firefox OS – nobody is interested in
    Fifth including advertisement in Firefox.

    Companies not hearing to their customers will vanish – as usual.

    Just get rid of her and Asa Dotzler. That would be the biggest step forward for Mozilla since they started to do weired stuff five years ago.

    Andrew

  80. 80

    Foxie said on February 17th, 2014 at 4:06 am:

    getfirefox.com -> “Proudly non-profit”

  81. 81

    J.S. said on February 17th, 2014 at 4:31 am:

    Thanks for making Firefox continually worse. Now with this latest brainchild, either it will be possible to disable those ads or I will definitely and simply stop using Firefox. Not that big loss in the meantime anyways.
    Probably time to go back to Seamonkey http://www.seamonkey-project.org/

  82. 82

    Moudy said on February 17th, 2014 at 5:16 am:

    Mrs. Baker is wrong. For me it is infinitely more importand that the Browser does what I want it to do and not that the Browser does something for me unbidden. Why do not make this feature optional, i.e. a switch on/off so that the unser can decide wether he wants it or not.

  83. 83

    Davebo said on February 17th, 2014 at 5:27 am:

    I look forward with great interest in seeing how far firefox falls in market share when the knowledgeable folks leave. It’s going to be quite a noticeable drop!

    I’m rigging up a Palemoon install now, as I do not like the totalitarian approach mozilla has taken the past few years. I think that’s the way ahead, to continue the original Mosaic browser experience.

  84. 84

    Mark said on February 17th, 2014 at 8:57 am:

    I don’t have any problem with Mozilla trying to raise product-sustaining revenue through advertising, provided the entire process is and remains above-board. Currently, and particularly in the tech industry, there is a revolting openness to allowing advertisers to co-opt and corrupt the mediums they use to connect with customers. From so-called “product placement” in movies and television to “sponsored content” on internet sites, advertisers are always seeking to present their ads as anything but ads — something that can only be accomplished with the willing participation and capitulation of those mediums.

    Mozilla has a good and deserved reputation for ethical behavior. If you want to raise money by selling advertising space on your products there’s nothing wrong with doing so as long as you refuse to allow advertisers to deceive or obscure their intent. In the past this end was accomplished by having separate advertising and editorial staffs, and I see no reason why that can’t still work today. Decide which spaces are available to advertisers, tell them what the rates are for those spaces, and sell the spaces blindly according to pre-established guidelines for the type of content/advertising you are willing to accept. (Clothing yes, political ads no, etc.)

    As to tracking individual users or allowing advertisers to access user data, you should be more aggressive and up front that you are never going to allow this under any circumstance, including the possible failure of Mozilla as an organization. That is the one aspect of your branding that you must never corrupt, and I think you can leverage that position to advantage — particularly when almost every other company is more than willing to exploit their own customers for profit. You will have some advertisers who will not agree to those terms, but those are advertisers you don’t want anyway. The ones you do want are simply interested in getting the word out about their products in an honest way, just as Mozilla has always tried to do.

    So: no more talk about “Directory Tiles” or “customer value”. Customers get more “value” jammed down their throats in a day than they can stand, and they know they’re being relentlessly and unfairly targeted by companies with products to sell. Be honest, open and up-front, and act in the best interests of your users. Over time, I think more people are becoming interested in companies that are willing to do that, and as a result Mozilla is well positioned to demonstrate that responsible technology can succeed in the marketplace.

  85. 85

    Flakfizer said on February 17th, 2014 at 10:13 am:

    The first time i see an advert in Firefox will be the last time i use Firefox.

  86. 86

    John Hesling (John99) said on February 17th, 2014 at 11:45 am:

    This comment can not get past moderation on our Mozilla blog
    https://blog.mozilla.org/advancingcontent/2014/02/13/more-details-on-directory-tiles/

    I am trying to ask about the statement in that blog:

    How long will a user see Directory Tiles after they start using Firefox
    Our frecency algorithm takes about 30 days of normal browsing behavior to update Tiles.
    At that point the user will start seeing content that reflects the sites they’ve recently and frequently visited.

    I suggest it may be more accurate to say instead:

    Our frecency algorithm will be deliberately hobbled so that users must wait 30 days before tile content reflects browsing habits instead of sponsored sites.

    I base that on a quick check of the current position:

    I have just tried with a recent nightly. fresh profile. open a few tabs, close and reopen and tiles are already loading my browsing content related results. That took a good few seconds not 30 days.

    I would be interested in clarification of the basis for the original statement. I did originally ask on Sumo where Mozilla staff confirmed asking in the blog may get an answer (see https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/forums/contributors/709999?last=57531&page=2#post-57531)

  87. 87

    Brian said on February 17th, 2014 at 7:23 pm:

    Hey Mitchell Baker, advertisement is not the way to generate revenue when you’re a web company. You should focus your efforts on creating freemium/paid services that actually enhances your products, not degrading it.

    Ideas:
    - 25 GB Mozilla Sync – Sync between all your local files on Firefox browsers get additional space for an annual fee
    - Firefox Web App Online Development – Allow web developers to develop apps that are stored in Mozilla’s servers for an annual or data per use rate
    - Firefox Remote Devices – Get access to all your Firefox enabled devices wherever you go

    Get competitive and study your competition better. Other wise, keep losing your grounds.

  88. 88

    Pingback from Mozilla risponde alla controversia sulla pubblicità nella pagina bianca | Mia mamma usa Linux!

    […] i 9 elementi più recenti della cronologia), Mitchell Baker, che di Mozilla è la fondatrice, ha postato un messaggio al fine di chiarire diversi aspetti della vicenda sul proprio […]

  89. 89

    zelok said on February 18th, 2014 at 4:33 am:

    Mitchell,
    As you can see these news are very worryingsome and alarming to many of your users. There are a lot of important projects, such as the freedom of speech in the age of computer networks, on which FF has greatly, though maybe indirectly influenced. I’m not as much worrying about your salary, you sure know your stuff, but I’m afraid your visions are in conflict with your environment, userbase views and with the projects that rely on FF. It’d be just another web browser, providing no unique value to its users. Is this an ultimate goal? Not only that, but it could have a shattering effect on the whole society and even democracy.

  90. 90

    Aldi said on February 18th, 2014 at 7:27 am:

    I don’t really mind having ads as long as they are not too disruptive and are relevant. I’m aware, though, that this may need some degrees of tracking. However, to state that one will leave Firefox because of the ads seem somewhat hypocritical as I’m sure most of us watch TV and TV shows mostly have ads. And this does not stop them from watching TV. So why stop using FF for this reason alone?

  91. 91

    spax said on February 18th, 2014 at 11:04 am:

    With all due respect, I hear Google talking.

    If you really want to help users, give them what they want – or what not.
    There’s a reason quite some still refuse to using Chrome or IE.
    So to best serve us, give us back control of what we get and not get us spammed with privacy issues and exploitation entry points against our will.
    Why not offering an installation menu, which lets people choose from pluggable modules, such as:

    - ads (I don’t want those for sure)
    - social API
    - sync API
    - observer API
    - media API, e.g. for peer-to-peer cons
    - geo localization
    - anti-phishing
    - google plugins and search engine

    Provide default settings that protect users’s privacy, not counterparts it:
    - deleting cookies on exit / expiring after 30 days
    - dom.storage = disabled
    - visited links history = disabled
    - geo localization = disabled
    - social api = disabled

    Provide means to effectively control and filter active and tracking content, as in NoScript.
    No to adding exceptions to filtering in the FF registry for companies.
    Block websites from extracting non-vital system information like installed fonts or add-ons.
    Implement latest encryption protocols and use it by default… get the picture?

    If we have learned anything from recent history, we react on that and preserve freedom of choice and fight to get back our privacy!

    Other from that, we can switch to Chrome right away, it won’t matter anymore.

  92. 92

    Preeti Raghunath said on February 18th, 2014 at 3:47 pm:

    This is a good plan to help with “stickiness” that our partners have been asking for. The phone users will be happy with this approach

  93. 93

    Pingback from Blog Advertising | Advertisingworld.co

    […] Content, Ads, Caution | Mitchell's Blog https://blog.lizardwrangler.com/Ads in search turn out to be useful. The gist of the Tiles idea is that we would include something like 9 Tiles on a page, and that 2 or 3 of them would be sponsored — aka “ads.” So to explicitly address the question of whether … […]

  94. 94

    spax said on February 19th, 2014 at 9:12 am:

    “I’m sure most of us watch TV and TV shows mostly have ads. And this does not stop them from watching TV. So why stop using FF for this reason alone?”

    Already we have to install additional plugins and wade through the FF registry to counter the most obvious evils of FF, regarding privacy, security and speed. By hardcoding commercial cruft it’s only gonna get worse and reduce the personal choice options even more.
    FF has a great add-on interface, and a huge repository, so developers and users should use it!

    If Mozilla wants higher revenues, they should sell merchandising stuff or place Ads on their website, not in the code! Google and Facebook fanboys should go for Chrome and everybody will be happy. Imo, if FF tries to beat Google Chrome on their field, it will get obsolete, just like Opera. FF is targetting at a different user base, too.

  95. 95

    Pingback from Which Browser Is Better for Privacy? | The New Peoples Almanac

    […] said Mozilla “sold its soul.” Mitchell Baker, Chair of the Mozilla Foundation, recently stepped up to defend the move on her blog. In any event, for a privacy-forward browser, it’s a bold […]

  96. 96

    OverStateObvious said on February 19th, 2014 at 3:47 pm:

    In reference to my previous comment, my bottom line is I desire other alternatives to Gov-oogle, as much as possible. That being said, my exception (personally) where IMO would find these ad/links in the tab/speed dial page, to be reasonable IF (big if) this was in response to Gov-oogle ending all contracts and ties with Mozilla.

    I then would almost be happy for these ads (if done proper, with privacy in mind), because I do understand Mozilla does needs and deserves funding, to continue with all there wonderful projects: Thunderbird, Gecko engine, Rust, etc.

    In conclusion, no ties to Gov-oogle=great, then other ways to fund projects is to be expected. FOSS all the way. I do respect all the work and efforts put into all the projects by the whole Mozilla Team. :)

    **For those interested in a Mozilla/Firefox fork, there is an excellent one at http://www.palemoon.org/

  97. 97

    Andrew Raisbeck said on February 19th, 2014 at 4:19 pm:

    How would ‘sponsored tiles’ affect those of us who use a Speed Dial add on?
    I’m guessing that the extension would overlay them.
    Not sure I’m totally ok with the idea of ‘sponsored’ or ‘suggested’ ads on my browser, but that’s how Opera browser worked when it was relevant, but Mozilla does need to raise funds to keep the browser going, and in many ways that overview is fairly good going.
    If any one follows the Pale Moon browser link, be aware that there are no add ons with the browser.
    I’m inerested though in the fact that a lot of people seem to have problems with Firefox 28 upwards opening as far as the task manager is concerned, but the browser window doesn’t open.
    Is anyone investigating?
    Overall though, Firefox is an absolute joy to use and the only real choice

  98. 98

    David said on February 19th, 2014 at 8:46 pm:

    5 days awaiting moderation on my first post. I guess no one really cares to deal with the post, or address the issues.

    Since my second post was posted immediately, I’ll assume the first post fell under some automatic restriction. As such I’ll just briefly cover the points I brought up in the original post, and not include links to the original sources that I referenced.

    1) The Wall Street Journal stated that news stories could be included in the ads. News stories seem significantly more targeted than simple site ads (eg: Facebook, Amazon, etc). That requires both more analysis of user habits, and more details that Mozilla has to know about its users.

    2) Darren Herman (the poster of the original blog that released this news) stated at the IAB conference that “Mozilla hasn’t made a final decision on how to treat third-party tracking technologies”, and that “it is investigating solutions such as unique identifiers from Apple and Google as well as other third parties.” This is in direct contradiction to what Mitchell stated in her blog: “These sponsored results/ads would not have tracking features.”

    3) Mozilla’s so-called “User Personalization” system that they started floating last year very specifically monitors and tracks user activity. As it appears to be a general program significantly associated with this new ad system (though they may be developed and implemented separately), it appears to fly in the face of Mitchell’s above statement regarding tracking features.

    Overall, the “no tracking” assurance feels slightly disingenuous.

    4) Mitchell Baker at least acknowledges that these are indeed ads, vs the weaselly semantics-dodging of Benjamin Kerensa.

    5) The initial announcement stated that these ads are only being provided to first-time users, however additional information since then counters that. It’s stated that it’s a revenue system that will “start slow”, thus implying that it will increase its targeted coverage. Additional descriptions also state that 2-3 panels will be used for ads, with only vague hints that they might go away after frequency tracking in the browser fills up the available slots (a process said to take at least 30 days).

    6) The follow-up comment #54 that I made already covers the details about the marketing-speak definition-twisting that somehow defines ads as something that makes the web more open and accessible.

    7) Mitchell’s statement regarding Firefox OS as being “extremely expensive” begs the question of the value that Firefox OS actually brings to the web. From my limited perspective, all that I can see in it is a resource drain that has near non-existent marketshare, and is the source of a “rob Peter to pay Paul” system draining from other Mozilla projects (and specifically, become an impetus for needing to add ads to existing products).

    Note that it still seems like a very ‘cool’ project to work on, but how much real value does it have relative to its costs? Every actual hands-on review of it that I’ve read (as opposed to just press releases and such) have been extremely negative about it, even considering its current developmental level.

    Also note that there was no mention of supposed “financial independence”, as mentioned by a poster in the .planning and .governance newsgroups, so all the public discussion is not being guided by that as any sort of fundamental reason. What -is- being said implies something else entirely.

  99. 99

    Fran said on February 19th, 2014 at 11:48 pm:

    If Mozilla is really concerned about giving value to users, why gut the interface? That is making a lot of people really unhappy. Many have refused to update, or have gone to other browsers because of that.
    I wonder how long it will be before the option to change the behaviour of new tabs is removed, like other options that have been chopped? Then those who clear the cache and the history at the end of a browsing session will have no choice but to see the ads on new tabs (unless they make a habit of loading 9 pages from bookmarks before opening a new tab).

  100. 100

    Thorsten said on February 20th, 2014 at 9:42 am:

    You put Ads into Firefox? I stop using it! Simple thing.

  101. 101

    RyyiderX7 said on February 22nd, 2014 at 7:58 am:

    First you make your browser more similiar to Chrome in Design and reduced customizability with Australis and now so called user personalization aka ads in the tiles?

    I DO NOT like google, i DO NOT like Chrome.

    Give me one good reason why i should use a browser which can only be customized over add-ons and features Ads?

    Firefox was always unique in look and never was that pestering like Chrome. With Australis and the User personalization you CHANGE that!

    Here my answer. I switch over to Midori today on my Windows and Linux machines. I already have changed few months ago to Pale Moon, but it is highly unlikely that this browser will be Australis free and User personalization free.

    You are no longer an open source project, you have decided to go the commercial company way. Fine, i wish you best luck, but do not think i will support you any longer.

    Enjoy your futre, i enjoy user personalization and being unique with Midori instead of looking and working like Chrome from now on.

    Utterly disappointed….. I never have been thinking that i will give up using a Gecko related browser because i am a member of Day 0!

  102. 102

    ransack said on February 26th, 2014 at 1:38 am:

    “it is good for each and every one who is enjoying #mozilla”

    Wll, I’m not every one. Anyway, this just a blog, no open discussion with open decisions.
    It’s just a Google fan’s platform who would switch to Chrome any day (maybe they should?).
    Anybody thinking about sueing Mozilla for claiming to be “non-profit” organization?
    Selling user behavior data like Google does is EVIL and IS commercial.
    We should start a crowd-funding campaign on that right away…

  103. 103

    mme said on March 4th, 2014 at 12:37 pm:

    I am disappointed about the plans to include commercials in Firefox and I am considering to use another browser.

    My suggestion is to do it like Wikipedia, start a donation-campaign from time to time. A call for donation and the progress of donations could be shown within the browser instead of commercials. Wikipedia gets about 50 million dollar per year this way.

Skip past the sidebar