
Mozilla will put ads directly into Firefox - kirab
https://blog.mozilla.org/advancingcontent/2014/02/11/publisher-transformation-with-users-at-the-center
======
quesera
On one level, this is No Big Deal -- it's comparable to the default bookmarks
that other browsers include for CNN, NYTimes, etc. Though it never occurred to
me before to wonder if those bookmarks were paid placement. How naive.

These tiles are even less persistent than default bookmarks. They get replaced
as a side effect of user activity, instead of requiring manual removal.
They're also visually inoffensive in their current sampled form.

I'm cool with revenue diversification and growth. I'll take it on faith that
options-to-Google are not as ready and assured as we often assume them to be.
I'm less convinced that Mozilla needs hundreds of million dollars to operate
in the first place, but on the assumption that our interests in the
expenditure of that money are vaguely aligned, I won't begrudge them their
fundraising success.

The part that really bothers me is the tone of delivery. "User enhancing"?? I
don't feel enhanced in the least, and I deeply worry about there being someone
with any influence at Mozilla who can use that phrase (in this context)
without being run out of town on a pike.

The entire messaging is terrible, and terrible in a way that suggests a huge
cultural dissonance between the Mozilla we knew and the Mozilla that is
presenting itself. The question is, which is more correct? And that's a
Problem.

Who is in charge over there these days? Did they really give some dude from
the ad business free reign over organizational messaging?

This feels like Mozilla's John Browett moment. Their next steps will say a
lot.

------
huhtenberg

      Excited to share the launch of @mozilla @firefox Tiles
      program, the first of our user-enhancing programs  
    

[https://twitter.com/dherman76/status/433320156496789504](https://twitter.com/dherman76/status/433320156496789504)

I don't know what I am concerned more about - the "first of" or the
disingenuous and sleazy attempt to masquerade paid content as something that
users need or want.

~~~
kirab
That’s exactly what bothered me so much about it. Of course now the ads are
still in a kind of unobtrusive placement. But once they’re started... Where
will this end?

~~~
MildlySerious
I'll just be positive here and say that it's Mozilla and not Facebook. They'll
likely think of a good solution.

------
gcb0
All the post say is Mozilla will sell initial placement on the new tab screen
for new users (space now given free of charge to a Google search box)

All browsers already put some sites in the favorites, specially mobile stock
browsers. What's so outrageous about that?

~~~
arocks
Usually those sites are related to the browser such as browser extensions page
or support resources. Directory Tiles will display "sponsored content." This
is clearly different from the browsers that I use.

~~~
Argorak
Yes? Reset my Safari gives the following stock tiles:

* Apple homepage

* iCloud homepage

* Facebook (third party, commercial)

* Twitter (third party, commercial)

* Wikipedia (third party, non-profit)

* Yahoo (third party, commercial)

So half of what a reset Safari gives me are pages of obvious commercial
interest and probably bought by those companies.

~~~
gcb0
comparing freedom from firefox to safari? really?

------
DrinkWater
Mozilla doing "ads" is not the same thing as Google doing "ads", yet no one
gives a flying fuck about Google's intentions.

Sometimes the tech world acts like a bunch of 4-year old children. I am sick
of it.

~~~
Eibx
Exactly. I understand why they might want to be less depended on Google. Last
year, having Google as their primary search engine, gave Mozilla $311M. If
Google backs out, they want to earn money some how else, this is a great non-
intrusive way to do so.

~~~
ZenoArrow
You missed the point of the backlash. It's not people rejecting the ads per
se, more rejecting the manner in which the changes are presented as being
'pro-user'. If the marketing guy had any sense of what the Mozilla fanbase is
like he'd understand why he should've just been honest about wanting to ensure
Mozilla can get funding from multiple sources.

------
WasimBhai
I use Firefox because I think it is good enough and second I want to have
certain control at the software I am using, being it open source. Now do I
expect Mozilla to keep running a company without generating revenue to only to
stay up? Remember 90 percent of Mozilla revenues come from Google. They must
diversify, and if Firefox is smart enough with ads placement, which
considering their stellar record at keeping the customers first is undeniable,
I am backing Mozilla up. Yes to competition, yes to open web.

~~~
flaxin
but WHY the masquerade, "user first", comeon' \--- are you kidding me!

why the hell didn't Mozilla say - "hey we need to diversify our source of
Benjamin's, so we're putting ads"

~~~
vdaniuk
Because more money to spend by Mozilla means more and better products for its
users. Minor inconvenience in UI will result in overall larger benefits for
the userbase. It is obvious if you put aside the ads-hating generators.

~~~
flaxin
you think ADS will have a BETTER experience for a NEW user?

what comes after "ADS", "BETTER ADS" then "TARGETED ADS" then...

so, they should say it to "their" [what's left of em'] users face, don't you
think so?

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXoNE14U_zM](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXoNE14U_zM)

~~~
WasimBhai
Do you have a model for revenue generation other than ads except for asking
users to pay some dollars? I will love to know.

~~~
flaxin
SURE you need money to do great things - but hey, what i have a problem with
is how they/he announced the NEWS

did you ever expected THIS kind of DOGGY release from MOZILLA?

~~~
vdaniuk
>> did you ever expected THIS kind of DOGGY release from MOZILLA?

I have NOT expected that Mozilla will release their canines into the wild
internetz. That definitely may contradict generally accepted paradigm that
internet is feline-dominated.

------
staticelf
This is only for new users, if you already use firefox the tile boxes won't be
empty and you won't probably see ads. If this helps Mozilla bring me a better
user experience, faster browser and a continued focus on the user I all down
with it.

However, if they should continue to deliver ads in more destructive ways I
think it's time for a new browser.

------
philo23
As far as I'm understanding this, it seems like these Directory Tiles would be
replaced over time with your own most visited websites just like they would
normally. They just pad out the new tab page for new installs temporarily. Is
this really so bad?

------
nicky0
As a general rule of thumb, any time a company is "really excited about"
something, it is probably a bad thing.

~~~
kendalk
Not always. Steve Jobs was an example. You can have a visionary CEO who really
cares about a product.

------
arocks
Filling whitespace with advertising is not helping the first time user, it is
adding clutter and confusion. Minimalism or chrome-lessness is what modern
browsers are aiming for. Let's not reverse the trend and fall-back to the days
of Internet Explorer with dozens of assorted bookmarks and desktop icons.

------
SchizoDuckie
Title misleading.

It's a landing page like browsers have had for years.

Based on the title I thought they would ad an advertisement somewhere into the
firefox chrome.

All the article says is that they're going to have a 'new tab' page that has
some default tiles that are sponsored by sponsors.

Wow. Big Deal.

------
spacefight
Mozilla sell-out to the media and advertising industry has started - why did
they get Darren Herman on board? Wasn't it clear that his work only be in
favour of the industry and not really the user?

~~~
gcb0
Yeah, my hard earned and then donated money being used to pay a fucking VP of
marketing under the newspeak title of content services VP is a joke.

Good bye to this year donation. Wikipedia will get double this tax season.

~~~
spacefight
The whole article is newspeak and double-speak at its best, I can't believe
it...

------
vdaniuk
The inability of most HN commenters to consider long term benefits of
including unobstrusive sponsored content in Firefox or opportunity cost of not
including such sponsored content is suprising to me.

~~~
spacefight
The inability to see a slippery slope is suprising to me.

~~~
vdaniuk
Yes, the slippery slope of a non-profit with great track record earning more
money to fund its activities that are beneficial to society at large by
inconveniencing some portion of its users by unobtrusive ads. The horror!

------
NPC82
If displaying sponsored tiles within Firefox is to make any impact beyond
sounding scandalous to it's user-base, it has already failed. Firefox is a
program for people who actively avoid these things and custom tailor their web
browsing experience.

Mozilla would be better off filling those blank tiles with donate links.

------
Ygg2
As a single step, it doesn't bother me really.

But as a part of an overall bad strategy, I definitely dislike it.

------
JamesBaxter
Doesn't (or didn't) Google pay to be the search engine by default? Is this
different?

I've donated to Firefox. I'd pay for an Ad free version but I don't have any
problem with them doing this if it funds them in a meaningful way.

~~~
mehwoot
Around 90% of mozilla's budget comes from the search deal with google.

------
NigelTufnel
What was wrong with the honest: "We'll show ads to the first-time Firefox
users, so we can make extra money with our free product. We'll show ads only
once"?

"User-first" bit is the textbook example of PRspeak.

~~~
kendalk
The PRspeak bothered me more than the ads. Did the writer really think anyone
will buy the "users at the center" bit?

------
username223
Thanks for the translation; some of us are not as fluent in Marketroid. It's
obvious that soulless automata like Darren are up to no good, but it's hard to
translate what they emit:

> As VP of Content Services, Darren Herman is responsible for diversifying
> revenue and sustaining Mozilla’s mission through innovation in content and
> personalization products and services.

------
imsosadnow
Seriously, what happend to the world. Mozilla was always my loved open source
Browser of choice. What they are doing now with arguments about Costa is such
a step in the wrong direction and cant even find suitable words. I will find a
replacement. Rip firefox

~~~
flaxin
if Mozilla goes to the "other side" so be it, but guess what

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvaaGhfjrgs](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvaaGhfjrgs)

------
awda
Linux distros will not ship ads that kick money to individual components. The
only way this will land in e.g. Fedora is if Firefox pulls the ad-laden page
from Mozillas servers during startup. And I don't see them being too happy
with even that.

------
shadowmint
On the other hand, there's a perfect opportunity here for someone to do the
Linux Mint thing and provide a ad-stripped alternate version of Firefox for
people.

------
chris_wot
"we think they’d agree that users’ interests should come first"

No, they don't. They care about making a buck.

~~~
vdaniuk
Yes, the non-profit cares about making a buck. Nice logic.

~~~
chris_wot
They are selling advertising. If they didn't care about money, they wouldn't
be doing that. Logical enough for you?

------
bluefreeze
So, Mozilla now changed from non-profit into ads-profit. Oh, great.

~~~
MildlySerious
Consider they're pretty much the only big non-profit in a market that's being
ruled by giant corporations. If they have to act to hold their stand against
them, that's still better than vanishing. I don't want a web without Mozilla,
to be honest.

------
spacefight
So how did this story vanish from the front page suddenly?

------
yiedyie
That should be nasty, hope they doesn't make it like the old shareware.

It brings a few other issues too, since it is opensource people will download
alternative builds without the ads.

~~~
mahouse
I am sure it will be easy to opt-out, either by going to the Preferences panel
or by an obscure about:config option.

~~~
spacefight
That's the point, it's 'easy' for those who care, but 99% won't be able to
change it easily...

~~~
MarkTee
If the only ones who don't know how to change it are the ones who don't care,
what does it matter?

~~~
spacefight
Only caring for yourself isn't helping your others in a global society, ever.

~~~
ollysb
Our world is full of adverts, most people aren't even going to blink if a
couple more appear somewhere.

------
flaxin
and this is announced after February 11

"really excited about..." \- it's inevitable :(

