
Mozilla to deliver ads in its Firefox browser - tanglesome
http://www.zdnet.com/mozilla-to-deliver-ads-in-its-firefox-browser-7000026216/
======
lasr21
Firefox will NOT include ads - Stop the misinformation!!

currently the default new tab page on a NEW installation is mostly empty:
[http://i.imgur.com/z71I89i.jpg](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](http://cl.ly/image/3I172o2f202k)

The pre-filled sites disappear and are replaced by your own top sites as you
start using the browser.

~~~
dave5104
To me, "sponsored sites" is just another word for "ads".

~~~
chrismorgan
By that token, the pre-installed search sites are ads. There's big money
associated with those things, yet I haven't heard anyone complaining about
them.

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.)

~~~
dave5104
I'm not implying I have a problem with Mozilla including these ads. If it
helps them out in the end to keep the browser field competitive, I'm all for
it.

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?

~~~
joveian
I think it is a really clever way to do advertising because it allows large
companies to give them a bunch of money and at least get something for it that
they can show investors while not annoying users much at all. This is most
likely aimed at companies like Facebook and Google and Yahoo that have no real
need for advertising as such but are willing to spend money to make their
services seem even more identical to the intenet itself (for less tech savy
users). The company would most likely already recognize that Firefox is
important for people being able to actually use their services but the extra
bonus of a link to their company could help convince anyone who is doubtful
that they should spend money on open source browsers (and gives them an extra
spot in the budget they could put such a contribution). Overall a good move on
Mozilla's part IMO.

------
avolcano
Honestly, if Mozilla wants to continue surviving, and wants to break their
scary dependence on Google, I don't know what non-advertising alternatives
they can explore.

(maybe a Wikipedia-style pledge drive on the new tab page? Of course, I bet
people would be far more annoyed by that)

~~~
KnightHawk3
They already have that right?

I remember seeing a "if everyone paid $3" ad at one point.

~~~
Aaronn
on Mozilla? I don't think so...

~~~
callahad
That was indeed one of the `about:home` snippets during Foundation's year-end
fundraising.

------
AaronMT
These will only be visible for empty history thumbnails on new profiles for
new users. There are example mockups here:
[https://twitter.com/clarkbw/status/433333066514198528](https://twitter.com/clarkbw/status/433333066514198528)

~~~
pferde
That thumbnails page is the first thing I disable in my Firefox, so I am
mostly unconcerned.

Then again, "first they came to add ads to thumbnail tiles, I didn't speak up
because I don't use thumbnail tiles..."

~~~
DanBC
I'm pretty sure that thumbnail ad tiles isn't going to lead to a Holocaust.

------
tn13
This is a very sensible thing on part of Mozilla. Community needs an open
source browser to exist and thrive for number of reasons and hence Mozilla
needs to figure out different ways to make money.

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.

------
s0me0ne
Google pays FF to have it in the list of search engines, not sure if they pay
to have the default spot anymore or if they ever did for that specifically

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

------
Apocryphon
Why not? If this is what it takes to break Mozilla free of Google, this is
worth it. If there is an alternative to directly donate to the Foundation in
order to have the ads disappear, that wouldn't be a bad idea, either.

The price of freedom from surveillance isn't free.

------
agapos
[https://twitter.com/dherman76/status/433320156496789504](https://twitter.com/dherman76/status/433320156496789504)
"the first of our user-enhancing programs" I repeat: first. There is more to
come.

------
rocky1138
I don't have a problem with this.

------
ivraatiems
This seems like a massive amount of hypocrisy on the part of Mozilla. "We
don't want you to ever have to see ads in your browser -- except our ads!"

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.

~~~
abrowne

        "We don't want you to ever have to see ads in your browser -- except our ads!"
    

When has Mozilla said/done anything like this? It's not like they ship Adblock
Plus, and supporting Do Not Track isn't anti-ad, it's just anti-tracking.

~~~
ivraatiems
If you're blocking third-party ad cookies by default, and at the same time
supplying your ads, that seems pretty clear to me. (1)

(1) [http://adage.com/article/digital/iab-fight-mozilla-
privacy-m...](http://adage.com/article/digital/iab-fight-mozilla-privacy-
move/240246/)

------
skimmas
Even know this title is an exageration I just would like to state to Mozilla
that: if you want to make money from me, just ask and I'll probably pay.

------
mverwijs
How about just asking me if I want to become a paying customer? Please accept
my money on the conditions that you keep the web open and provide an ad-free
service

~~~
kybernetikos
In particular, it'd be easy to add a 'firefox supporter' edition in the
android play market, perhaps a slightly different icon, and you pay $3 for it.
I'd be fine with that.

------
cromwellian
What is they say? If you're not the [paying] customer, you're the product? :)

------
adrianlmm
This is the kind of decisions that can kill a Project no matter how big it is.

~~~
Aaronn
What else can they do?

~~~
mverwijs
Ask for donations, same as wikipedia?

------
goldfeld
Wherein Mozilla starts to look like Canonical.

------
whoopdedo
But presumably not in Iceweasel.

------
robinhoodexe
Let's see how long it'll take for someone to fork it and revert the change.

~~~
fotbr
Hopefully iceweasel will not be so stupid as to follow this decision in the
first place.

