Updated Firefox and the first thing I'm greeted with is an advert for their VPN. Not too happy about that.
Firefox is a decent product that you get for FREE, the output of all these groups' work is free and reproducible, but you don't like a once-in-six-weeks underwriting message when a new version comes out.
Meanwhile something has got to pay for the bills. I don't think advertising for their own VPN service is too bad.
i would have, even $50. but not after they've laid off most of their servo engineers to focus the company on more idiotic moneygrabs.
there was never a way to pay for firefox. only some black hole foundation contrib that probably went to their many failed, poorly-conceived initiatives.
If I were richer, I'd pay more, and I totally understand the millions of people who don't want to pay a penny.
From having read lots of posts over the years - here and elsewhere - I get the sense it would at least be worth their while opening up some kind of donate/subscription function, for people who feel they want to help.
If I paid for Firefox, I'd perhaps be a little irked, but given I've never given Firefox a penny, I'm happy for them to try and get me to spend money on their things (even though as a Euro, I can't yet - I think the VPN's US only?).
If anyone from Firefox is reading this - please hurry up and allow me to pay for your product. I'd dearly like to!
- ed: typos
That's one of the ridiculous parts of this: They're just reselling Swedish VPN provider Mullvad's [1] product. That product (which also supports Wireguard, yay!) is available worldwide for €5/month. You can even pay by "anonymized identifier string and cash in an envelope" if you are so inclined.
Come on, Mozilla – just keep on making the world's best browser (and the world's last free browser). Stop paying your CEO millions. Stop making bookmarking services. Stop reselling VPN services. Just act as a shovel for money to go into the pockets of talented browser developers!
People hate Mozilla for taking money from Google. People also seem to hate Mozilla for trying to earn money from somebody other than Google.
How do you recommend they pay for browser+engine development?
Current funding levels would go a lot further if the organization cut everything that isn't a mechanism to support the browser developers. Why does Mozilla need a CEO making millions? Why do they need a bay area HQ?
Said differently: I have no problem with how Mozilla raises money (although I do have some doubts about how much they'll make by reselling a €5 VPN service for $5, even taking into account discounts), I have a problem with how Mozilla spends money.
So you just need this sentence: "Come on, Mozilla – just keep on making the world's best browser (and the world's last free browser). Stop paying your CEO millions."
You don't need: "Stop making bookmarking services. Stop reselling VPN services."
So, I can finally give Firefox 50p a month! (Or whatever their share of the charge is - not a heck of a lot, I imagine).
Because people want to use their browser to browse. They don't want to be advertised to while they're trying to work or otherwise get on with their hectic lives.
They also don't want to hear about silly TV shows while they're browsing.
All things Mozilla needs to learn.
I just don't get the irritation here.
My web browser is my single-most used application and I've never paid Firefox a bean for it. If they want to promote an extension to their service that they presumably feel is relevant to a percentage of their userbase, then they should go for it - even if the likes of you or I don't really care for it.
The Mr. Robot promotion was a screw up, no denying it.
Considering that was nearly 3 years ago, I think they learned.
Mozilla: not everyone watches the same TV shows as you... not everyone wants a VPN like you. Is it a diversity problem? Do they need to hire people outside their bubble?
Lol and Coca-Cola is delicious and refreshing so it's arguably in line to put it on the side of a bus when it goes past people who are thirsty.
I don't want your product shoved in my face, no matter how awesome you think I should find it.
There is no markup, it's actually about 15% cheaper.
Because ads suck.
I'm still puzzled why Moz haven't tried a paid-for Firefox option. They've gone to the bother of creating entire new paid-for products - with all the budget and product/market fit uncertainty that involves. Surely a paid-for FF option would have been a less expensive experiment?
Perhaps the terms of the Google "donation" prevent/constrain that. I wouldn't be surprised if so. Which does lead to an interesting - if probably fanciful - scenario from the anti-trust investigation announced today...
...charactertise the browser as a "utility" and require G to (a) transfer it into Mozilla's stewardship and (b) force them to license from there.
(I know: unrealistic, unworkable, lots of other "just no"s. But a fun idea nonetheless).
And sometimes without being at fault really. I remember a key moment when firefox was bleeding users was when google decided that H264 would be the standard after switching for a while and mozilla having to run after it trying to get implementations going and then still having a laggy af experience on youtube and the like because the implementation google went with was proprietary.
>I'm still puzzled why Moz haven't tried a paid-for Firefox option.
and what functionality would the paid version of firefox have? Chances are it would cause an outrage and user-loss due to cries that functionality would be premium only tbh. It would also probably make not much of a dent in the budget.
Maybe it's what it _doesn't_ have. No ads for Pocket/VPN/whatever. Maybe it comes with DDG as the default search engine. Or maybe it's pre-configured with a set of tested privacy-focused extensions.
Pro-privacy advocates might be in the minority, but it's a growing and generally vociferous minority. Mozilla's VPN offering suggests they see privacy as a market. FF is still by far their most popular offering; so I'm simply wondering why there's been no effort I'm aware of to explore the intersection of FF, privacy and revenue.
Recognising Google would most likey challenge that.