

Mozilla to sell New Tab page ads in Firefox - msh
http://cnet.com/news/mozilla-to-sell-new-tab-page-ads-in-firefox/57618750?ds=1

======
chris_wot
The original blog post was on HN front page yesterday and it got voted down to
oblivion. Or hit some sort of threshold. Frankly, I find the original blog
post to be unbelievably weasily - especially this:

"We believe that if you put the user front and center, you can make every
experience for them richer and more meaningful. The Content Services team has
embraced this, and today I wanted to share some of our thinking and explain
our first steps for putting it into practice."

and then:

"While Mozilla hasn’t always seen eye-to-eye with all viewpoints in the
digital content community, particularly the IAB, we think they’d agree that
users’ interests should come first, and we want to help their members deliver
compelling content to strengthen the Web ecosystem."

This:

* beats around the bush

* starts with spin

* says that advertisers have the best interest of users in mind - and I assure you, they do not.

I am very, very unimpressed.

~~~
sheetjs
> it got voted down to oblivion.

It was flagged heavily, which shouldn't be a surprise given the heavy pro-
Mozilla bias here. (case in point: this post will be downvoted at least a few
times in the next few minutes)

But to be fair, the ads haven't been rolled out yet, and there's a nonzero
chance Mozilla will come to their senses and reverse course. And if not, use a
browser that actually values your privacy and safety (my current browser is
SRWare Iron
[https://www.srware.net/en/software_srware_iron.php](https://www.srware.net/en/software_srware_iron.php))

~~~
shrikant
See this:
[https://web.archive.org/web/20100614055220/http://chromium.h...](https://web.archive.org/web/20100614055220/http://chromium.hybridsource.org/the-
iron-scam)

I'm not sure what's changed since then, but it's worth considering.

------
fauigerzigerk
_" Mozilla said that the ads are part of an attempt to connect new browser
users to sites that they might find relevant."_

I understand that Mozilla is looking for ways to fund itself. But they should
not join those who use the word "relevant" in this disingenuous way.

This phrasing is an obvious attempt to sugarcoat the fact that we are being
inundated by so many schemes to grab a piece of our limited cognitive capacity
that we wouldn't even be able to notice something relevant if it were actually
there.

Mozilla's advantage over other browser makers is that users trust them not to
use the kind of deceptive chicanery that we're being subjected to left and
right. So they better not ruin that trust by using dishonest language.

------
lucb1e
I'm thinking about proposing something like "I'll run your bloody ads for 1
month. Then you tell me how much you earn off of me and I'll pay you twice
that."

I'm all for Mozilla getting income from more sources (instead of search engine
revenue), but I just don't like ads. There is a reason I donated in the past.

If I can't disable the ads this way, it's not that hard to install an add-on
that does it, edit about:config or just recompile from sources. No problem if
you want to play that game. But I'd much rather pay them.

~~~
zebra
The ads in fact are placeholders in the empty dial screen. They will disappear
after you visit 6 sites. I'm not 100% sure, but I think that you will not be
tracked if they are shown to you.

If Mozilla does not cross this border I'm fine with this very passive
advertisement.

~~~
fauigerzigerk
The point is that Firefox was supposed to be the browser where you can feel
safe. The way they are explaining this new monetization scheme makes me feel
that I have to get my guard up.

~~~
chris_wot
Darren Herman is from MDC Partners, a massive advertising company. Then he
founded a "media management" company. He's a "marketing innovator".

He writes ambiguous phrases that tend to contradict themselves like "Publisher
Transformation with Users at the Center" (what?) and "The new tab page isn’t
delivering any value for them." (double-what?)

Let's look at some of the wording from this guy [1], it's straight out of some
PR/advertising agency. It makes me so incredibly suspicious, and I worry it
will be counter to Mozilla's goals.

"Some of these tile placements will be from the Mozilla ecosystem, some will
be popular websites in a given geographic location, and some will be sponsored
content from hand-picked partners to help support Mozilla’s pursuit of our
mission."

A given geographic region? Who says that it's popular? Hand-picked partners?
Who picks them? What are the requirements for being "hand-picked"?

Let's look at some more language, filled with buzz-words and devalued
propositions:

 _We are excited about Directory Tiles because it has inherent value to our
users._

 _While Mozilla hasn’t always seen eye-to-eye with all viewpoints in the
digital content community, particularly the IAB, we think they’d agree that
users’ interests should come first, and we want to help their members deliver
compelling content to strengthen the Web ecosystem._

 _When the user is at the center everyone benefits_

 _We believe that if you put the user front and center, you can make every
experience for them richer and more meaningful._

I know many will find me harsh, but when I read these things I also
immediately have my guard up. I wonder what is being hidden behind these
frankly contradictory and ambiguous statements. There is, to my mind, a
falseness to them that is disturbing. This sort of language is what a
politician or PR agency would use to deliver unpalatable news. I feel very
strongly that it has no place being on an official Mozilla blog.

1\.
[https://blog.mozilla.org/advancingcontent/2014/02/11/publish...](https://blog.mozilla.org/advancingcontent/2014/02/11/publisher-
transformation-with-users-at-the-center/)

------
vanderZwan
> "We wanted to get away from being this window into the web that doesn't
> bring value," to users, she said.

Nice bit of doublespeak there. Not showing me ads _is_ valuable to me, you
jerks.

~~~
kevingadd
Non-profits still have to pay salaries. Or would you prefer FF effectively no
longer exist and have to use Chrome instead?

Honestly, explicit ads marked as ads in the UI are preferable to hidden
advertisement/deals - like defaulting to Google search without communicating
to users that money has changed hands for that preferential treatment.

~~~
rplnt
Don't they have enough money from Google? They must make at least one dollar a
year from each user through search. One would guess...

Or is Google finally cutting into that? Just another way to get rid of
competing browsers? Sadly Bing isn't an alternative outside of US (and I'm not
even sure about that).

~~~
sgk284
Mozilla has publicly stated that they make at least $300 million per year from
Google (as of 2011) [1]. Although there are reports that this is closer to $1
billion per year now (including all search-related revenues).

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Foundation#Financing](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Foundation#Financing)

~~~
nnethercote
Where are those $1 billion reports from? That's the first I've heard of a
number anything like that large. Firefox's market share hasn't tripled
recently, and the current deal with Google is the same one that started in
2011, so it sounds unlikely to me.

~~~
sgk284
Yep, you're right. I had read something about Google paying Mozilla $1B, but
upon trying to re-dig up the info all I'm getting is non-conclusive and/or
misleading articles.

$300MM is still a _giant_ number.

------
matthewbadeau
The link didn't work for me but I found the article here:
[http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-57618750-92/mozilla-to-
sell...](http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-57618750-92/mozilla-to-sell-new-tab-
page-ads-in-firefox/)

~~~
eXpl0it3r
Didn't work for me either, thanks for a working link!

~~~
chris_wot
Try the original blog post:

[https://blog.mozilla.org/advancingcontent/2014/02/11/publish...](https://blog.mozilla.org/advancingcontent/2014/02/11/publisher-
transformation-with-users-at-the-center/)

------
nodata
I don't mind Firefox earning money, but can't see how they will avoid the user
tracking problem. At some point they will be under pressure to increase
revenues, and the advertisers will want more information on who is viewing
their ads.

------
rubbingalcohol
I would be happy to see ads on the new tab page in Firefox if it means
supporting Mozilla. They're doing so much stuff to protect freedom on the
Internet, and I just don't see the big deal with helping talented people pay
their bills.

~~~
blueskin_
Fuck that, I'd rather pay a small donation. £5/year is going to be more than
they get from me for ads (as nobody wants to pay per impression, only click)
and I'd double that if necessary.

------
kule
Reading the original article [1] this doesn't look like such a big issue.

For new users that don't have any recently used sites rather than blank tiles
they will get some Mozilla suggested sites and some sponsored tiles.

I presume for existing users you'll never even see these and, for new users,
as soon as you've actually visited some sites these will disappear.

[1]
[https://blog.mozilla.org/advancingcontent/2014/02/11/publish...](https://blog.mozilla.org/advancingcontent/2014/02/11/publisher-
transformation-with-users-at-the-center/)

------
companerx
So they're going to have certain sponsors' sites on my default New Tab page
until I replace them with something else? The horror!!

You people and your slippery slopes.

------
jbrooksuk
And there was me enjoying the switch I made just last week.

------
auvrw
so just to double-check: no chance of this making it into iceweasel, right?

------
blueskin_
New tab thumbnails preemptively disabled.

Between this, making Sync _less_ secure and Australis, I start seriously
wondering if Mozilla are attempting to drive users away.

~~~
lucian1900
The more secure sync was apparently too hard to use for non-experts.

Australis is a matter of taste, I personally like it.

They're trying to _not_ drive users away, but you and I are a tiny minority.

~~~
blueskin_
So why not educate users instead? Especially with the NSA/GCHQ spying still so
recent.

Firefox is _already_ a power user's browser - the masses who just want a dumb
facebook/youtube/twitter/gmail terminal mostly use chrome and will continue to
do so, unaware and unconcerned with customisation and privacy issues (my
parents use chrome, and didn't have any addons installed at one point (they
now have adblock)). Firefox will never even catch up to where chrome is today
in market share, let alone pass it, and I'm fine with that, as it's a browser
for power users - customisable, privacy-respecting and more 'traditional' by
giving users actual control over their experience and options to customise
functionality and looks.

To use beer as an analogy, Chrome is {Budweiser/PBR/Coors/Miller/etc}; Firefox
is a craft beer. Yes, it's nicer, but not as accessible, and the majority of
people neither know nor care as it's not their market.

------
D9u
[https://opensource.conformal.com/wiki/xombrero](https://opensource.conformal.com/wiki/xombrero)

------
pratkar
I dont care as long as Ad Blocker works well on this!

