

Dell UK is charging £16.25 to Install Firefox, Mozilla denied for any such Deal - rocky5
http://www.techcomunication.com/dell-uk-is-charging-16-25-to-install-firefox-mozilla-denied-for-any-such-deal/

======
anon1385
I can see why people might choose to pick this option when ordering a computer
for a less computer savvy friend or relative. Finding and downloading Firefox
safely is not trivial if you aren't very tech literate. I just did a search
for "firefox" on Google a few moments ago and these are the top 'results':
[http://i.imgur.com/FZDn4rB.png](http://i.imgur.com/FZDn4rB.png) Obviously
most HN users will notice that those ads don't point to the official Mozilla
site, but to dodgy third party sites where the software is bundled with
spyware and toolbars.

It's all well and good for Mozilla to be questioning Dell over charging for
this, but perhaps they should also spend some time trying to make it so that
users can find Firefox safely from the biggest search engine in the world.
Mozilla have plenty of experience at public relations. When they want to they
can get their press releases and stories in just about every tech news sites
in the world (this story being an apparent example of that, this is the second
submission to HN because it is being so widely reported). If Google are
refusing to sort out the problem[1] then Mozilla need to put up some fight and
get the public on their side. Put together stories with screenshots and
explain the security and privacy risks of the spyware and rogue browser
extensions that those sites bundle.

[1] which seems to be the situation; I've been noticing these malware ads for
the last year or so (and they've probably been around a lot longer) and
apparently repeated complains have been raised

~~~
daleharvey
I expect people do raise the issue with malware ads with Google, but as stated
its a Google problem and not much Mozilla can do about it.

Why in the hell would mozilla be pushing this as PR?

~~~
anon1385
>its a Google problem and not much Mozilla can do about it.

What they can do about it is complain loudly and publicly to try and force
Google to stop their shitty behaviour. The same way they engaged in PR
campaigns about Firefox not being allowed on iOS or H264 requiring patent
licences, or dozens of other topics.

>Why in the hell would mozilla be pushing this as PR?

Because that seems to be the only solution left open to them to try and stop
millions of users of their software being infected with malware. Are you
saying that Mozilla should only talk to the media when it is about ideological
political things like software patents, and not about real world threats to
their users?

~~~
daleharvey
'this' meant the story about Dell 'selling' Firefox, which will probably end
up as a bit of a shitty thing to do but likely within their rights. You seem
to have reached a confusing conclusion that this is out the the Mozilla PR
machine.

------
vixen99
What is the problem? Someone has to be paid for the time they spend on the
installation. Bearing in mind it takes a minute or so max. for this job,
hourly rates (or profits) at Dell must be mouth-watering.

~~~
eCa
The problem is Mozilla's trademark policy [1]:

"If you are using the Mozilla Mark(s) for the unaltered binaries you are
distributing, you may not charge for that product. By not charging, we mean
the Mozilla product must be without cost and its distribution [...] may not be
[...] tied to purchasing a service"

IANAL, but Dell is free to charge for the installation, but then they need to
call it the Arctic Bear Browser.

[1]: [http://www.mozilla.org/en-
US/foundation/trademarks/policy/](http://www.mozilla.org/en-
US/foundation/trademarks/policy/)

~~~
jiggy2011
They're not charging to "distribute" firefox as a product in this instance,
they are simply charging for the service/time to install it so I don't think
this applies, it wouldn't be any different from geek squad etc charging to
install firefox on a PC (IANAL).

~~~
markild
That sounds like semantics.

Couldn't you say the same for any service where you _actually_ distribute it
as well? "I'm not distributing it, I'm simple charging for the service of easy
installation".

(I'm also not AL, though...)

~~~
peterpostle
I've never understood the complaint that something is "just semantics", or
"you're arguing semantics".

If someone can't argue based on the meaning of the words in a piece of text,
what else can they argue about? The grammar? The spelling? Surely we _only_
want arguments based on semantics!

~~~
MatthewWilkes
The meaning of the sentence as a whole. "Just semantics" is used when you
hinge your argument on the subtleties of meaning of one word.

------
omgmog
A couple of thoughts:

1 - Windows comes with a 'Browser Choice' icon on the desktop out of the box,
it can't be that difficult to install Firefox, even if you're a novice user.

2 - I doubt that they have a single person going through and running the
Firefox installer each time somebody checks that box. It's more likely that
they use a different image for the computer, one with Firefox preinstalled.

3 - I'd be dubious to accept a preinstalled version of a browser. Let alone
from Dell. The first thing I'd do with a new computer from an OEM is remove
all of the preinstalled crap. Who is this geared towards?

4 - I feel like I'm missing a trick here. £16.25 for one version of Firefox!?
I should get on to Apple and see about bundling my "Install all Firefoxes"
shell script, and charge per version installed from there... £455 for every
new Mac would be nice! [https://github.com/omgmog/install-all-
firefox](https://github.com/omgmog/install-all-firefox)

~~~
alkonaut
1\. It can be surprisingly hard to install free software without getting
crapware bundled installers. Look at java...

2\. If only 1 order of 1000 has the option checked, then that order alone
would have to cover the cost of setting up that image. Automation isn't free.

------
spiznnx
So... I can pay more so I can check a box on Dell's site now instead of on
Ninite's site later?

------
alkonaut
I don't see the point, they are charging to install software, is that
upsetting? Is it the fact that it is free software they are charging for that
is upsetting?

I can't see the standpoint of mozilla either, surely you can't be required to
have permission to use a "brand name" just because you mention that you can
install some software for a fee? EDIT: I _did_ read mozillas terms, but still
think it makes no sense.

If I set up a store selling computers, surely I can, without permission of
software manufacturers, allow customers a choice of software and offer to
purchase a license & preinstall the software for the customer?

~~~
CaptainZapp
The point is that they're monetizing Mozilla property by using their
trademarks and their name recognition without permission.

    
    
      If I set up a store selling computers, surely I can, without permission of software manufacturers, allow customers a choice of software and offer to purchase a license & preinstall the software for the customer?
    

Not if you use their trademarks to push your products and services.

~~~
alkonaut
Is the issue that there is a cost directly attributed to the trademarked
software? If Dell lets users choose from a list of products to preinstall
without cost would that then make it acceptable? What if the system has a
fixed fee for build/setup? What if that fee is dependent on the number of
different products chosen? At what point are they really "charging" for
trademarked software?

I can see how it is a bad thing for Mozilla if dell charges and uses their
trademark, but shouldn't it be easy to circumvent by just moving the charges
around on the order page?

~~~
CaptainZapp
It would be extremely easy to circumvent.

Sell it as the Dell Software Power Bundle for 50 quid, or so. My take of the
problem that there's a direct cost involved as soon as you add Firefox to your
order and that's clearly against Mozilla's guidelines.

------
yhlasx
I don't see anything wrong with this. If the option is selected, probably
someone at the shipping out location (or retail location) manually will
install firefox, or windows image with firefox on it. It is perfectly fine.
Even if automated, automation is not free. Are they overcharging? Probably.

I disagree that it does not follow mozilla's terms, they are selling the
service, as stated, not the browser.

------
bananas
Not particularly bothered about that. I charge a minimum of £30+VAT to do
exactly the same if someone asks me.

------
anigbrowl
Please read the HN guidelines and submit the original source. This blog is
written by someone who is not even fluent in English.

~~~
bausson
For the 'not fluent' part, you are being harsh (and kind of rude). Not
everybody can be fluent on Californian tech-community english. The post is in
english, easy to understand and there is no ambiguity.

Yes, post from foreigner for who english is not their first language can have
mistakes, but tolerance and constructive criticism is the way.

Sorry for the rant, your point about the "original source" still stand. Even
more in this case where the original source is a major newspaper, and
supposedly more trustworthy.

~~~
onuryavuz
I could not agree more.

