Mozilla to deliver ads in its Firefox browser
zdnet.com
zdnet.com
currently the default new tab page on a NEW installation is mostly empty: http://i.imgur.com/z71I89i.jpg
What will happen is that it will be pre-filled with sites that are popular in your locale, organizations that Mozilla likes, and sponsored sites: http://cl.ly/image/3I172o2f202k
The pre-filled sites disappear and are replaced by your own top sites as you start using the browser.
On the other hand, if you saw this - http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/files/2009/09/yahoo-ad-campa... then ya, it's an ad.
/unfortunately no, I am not getting paid by yahoo.
I like the look of this new feature—I think it will be more useful to beginning users, it produces a nicer first-run user experience, and it gets out of the way very quickly.
I'm not sure if people think that Google Chrome has ads like this or not—to my view, the whole product is laced with ads for Google products, far more intrusive, obnoxious and anticompetitive than anything Firefox has been able to produce.
(You might guess that I'm a Mozilla fan. That perception would be accurate.)
I also won't argue your point about calling the pre-installed search engines as ads--but they have a utility to them. The upcoming ads are going to have a hit or miss utility. Either I frequent that sponsored site, or I don't and find it to be a waste of space on my new tab page until it gets filled out by another site.
I think if anything, I'd just be worried that this is a slippery slope for Mozilla. These new sponsored site listings seem completely un-intrusive for now... but could it go further in the future?
That being said, I think the proposed ads are very tasteful, and it won't affect my browser use.
I personally take objection to ads when they take away from the usability of the product, when they are of a form that could be used to infect my computer, and/or when they are of a form that can be used to pass on data to third parties. (Un?)fortunately, this covers the majority of advertisements on websites: a large chunk of ads are pop-up, pop-over, are flash (both for battery life and exploits), redirect to untrusted websites (exploits), and/or use content hosted by third parties.
As such, my worry for this is: what happens if someone buys a spot that takes you to a page that exploits your computer then redirects to (for example) facebook? I hope that the bar (price for a spot) will be high enough to discourage this, but I don't know...
I'm probably one of the rare person to think it's a pretty well designed idea that will bring money to Mozilla without compromising their users' privacy or computers well being, so a welcoming change.
I'm going to my happy place again.
[1] Incidentally, the process to get some is probably gruesome.
ETA: I do think that just saying "Mozilla to deliver ads in its Firefox browser" per zdnet is a bit misleading.
If it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck...
I think you're picking the wrong fight here. There is nothing inherently wrong with advertising, if it's done with due respect for those who will see the ads and, in this case, who are using the software. It sounds like that will be the case here, just as it was when they made Google the default search engine.
But by claiming this isn't an advertising scheme, all you're doing is putting yourself the wrong side of an argument you can't possibly win. It obviously is an advertising scheme, and you immediately lose all credibility by pretending otherwise.
That's fair, but there is also a pretty big gulf between what Mozilla is actually doing and what most people think of when they hear the headline "Mozilla to deliver ads in Firefox."
As proposed, this is basically a set of preloaded bookmarks that automatically disappear after you've visited nine sites.
So yes, it is advertising, but every indication I've seen is that it's being done responsibly, which is a degree of nuance lost in the headline. Then again, I am a Mozilla paid contributor, so I might have a more charitable bias.
I don't want my browser launches to be "leaked" to sponsors.
A first reaction. I need to read about this, more.
I can of course pin sites so that they stay after clearing history, but what if I don't have 9 pinned? Will a handful of sites I don't care about constantly appear?
If Mozilla did not intend for this to be ad related, they picked a horrible way to deliver the message IMO.
Mozilla would also be fully aware that there would be concerns about this "ad-like" product but did not nip it in the bud with any clarifications - yet.
The community is concerned for a very valid reason.
(maybe a Wikipedia-style pledge drive on the new tab page? Of course, I bet people would be far more annoyed by that)
I remember seeing a "if everyone paid $3" ad at one point.
Then again, "first they came to add ads to thumbnail tiles, I didn't speak up because I don't use thumbnail tiles..."
Mozilla is one brand I really trust for various reason. I am willing to rely more on Mozilla than on say Google for all my online existence.
One good business model for Mozilla could be to provide a subscription version of browser which is tightly integrated with more services of Mozilla including Webmail, Calendar, Photo and File Storage. Mozilla could charge me a monthly sum + show me ads on these services. Currently I use Zoho for many such services.
I don't see anything wrong with it, its just setting defaults, not exactly ads, most browser companies get paid some money for adding in default bookmarks
The price of freedom from surveillance isn't free.
I had an angry knee-jerk reaction to this, and while in practice it probably won't be annoying, it's a step in the complete wrong direction.
EDIT: guess I shouldn't be surprised that proposing a browser that actually cares about privacy and security would be downvoted
"We don't want you to ever have to see ads in your browser -- except our ads!"
(1) http://adage.com/article/digital/iab-fight-mozilla-privacy-m...
Is there evidence they are actually in financial trouble and need this help?