What a poorly written article. The main gist of the guys argument is that since Mozilla doesn't include some Firefox ad block extensions (which he likes, and perceives to be popular), as default feature's in Firefox and those extensions might be frowned upon by Google, Mozilla must be in Google's back pocket.
His gauge of the ad blocker extension's popularity is that these extensions are "getting to be extremely popular. It has been featured in The New York Times,"
This article reads like a 9/11 conspiracy theory. Esp. when he goes on to contradict himself by pointing out that this add blocking software that he loves does a good job on banner ads but misses many of Google's text ads. If this really is the evil scheme he is hatching it out to be wouldn't Google want an extension included that easily blocked it competitors banner adds whilst letting it's text adverts sneak through?
Maybe next week he can write a follow up about how Firefox3 doesn't include the DOM Inspector by default and hypothesize that Google strong armed Mozilla into removing it so folk wouldn't be able to get at all those juicy Google HTML secrets.
And it doesn't seem much with 8+ million firefox users and considering the fact that there are people who download just to try once + People who might have formatted their system or re-installed Firefox etc
Personally, I agree with you. The following statement you made is totally right.
"His gauge of the ad blocker extension's popularity is that these extensions are "getting to be extremely popular. It has been featured in The New York Times," "
Counting the number of loyal users for any software isn't easy with the download numbers itself. And the post's author seems to rely on the fact that the addons were featured on New York Times :)
I too read about handy freeware every week in my favorite tech magazine every week. And just because I read about them doesn't mean I am going to use them. Its just like the fact that your website gets featured on TechCrunch or Mashable isn't going to get you all their readers as users.
"Maybe next week he can write a follow up about how Firefox3 doesn't include the DOM Inspector by default and hypothesize that Google strong armed Mozilla into removing it so folk wouldn't be able to get at all those juicy Google HTML secrets."
The above statement had me laughing for a long time. I am just going to wait for an article like that on Firefox-3. I just want to see on what grounds someone is going write another anti-firefox post.
And if anyone is going to do any anti-firefox protest, then its not about convincing a group of friends around you for a successful result. Its about convincing approximately 8+ million users not to use firefox. :)
The post's author seems to be having a bad blogging ettique. He seemed to have edited his posts after receiving comments/feeback. And he has included the 'update' section in his post only after a reader noticed the editing and told him to do so.
@pmorici: agree with you
If G and Mozillia really wanted to get rid of the ad blocking software, they would have released a patch to somehow make the extentension unworkable.
Now for the question as to why Mozilla Firefox doesn't come with ad blocking extensions pre-installed, the answer is easy and straight. It is because Firefox base system has always been kept to the bare minimals else they could have included all the usually used plugins & extensions like Flash player, Real Player, Java Runtime Environment, etc
As for shipping with Google Toolbar, the author shouldn't be bothered about this fact since the are two versions: with google toolbar pre-installed and without google toolbar. And you can choose what you want.
Yahoo! too shipped IE7 with Yahoo Toolbar. IE as fas as I know uses MSN's "page not found" (I have IE6 on XP and haven't bothered to update it since I use Firefox)
And for using Google as the default search engine, all my non-tech friends know is "internet is google". The moment they need something... Go to firefox address bar and type google.com
Even though other search engines are beginning to have clutter free pages homepages like Google. Its Google that made its mark first with the both - good results and clutter free pages - and quickly won users(most of them now being loyal followers of any 'good' and necessary G product).
Instead of using the small google search box, you can directly use the search phrase into the firefox address bar.
But I have noticed something: I typed "Hacker" in the address bar and I got a google search page. But when I typed "distrowatch", it took me to distrowatch.com
I think the behavior of this feature is like... it takes you to a website if the term entered is not a dictionary term. If the term entered is a dictonary term is takes you to a google search results page.
I have started using this frequently since I access the address bar with F6. I just enter my search terms. I am comfortable with this since most of my searches are with non-dictionary terms like "term vector tutorials" or "how to make pizza"
>Fact: Users who enter keywords or misspelled URLs into the Firefox 2.0 location bar will essentially be running a Google "I'm Feeling Lucky" search. That is, they will be taken to the first result for a Google search query for those terms.
I can't say I'm omfortable with the conflict of interest gray area for the two organizations. That being said, this article:
* Was written in November of last year, before FF3 release and some of Mozilla's latest initiatives.
* Is really stretching things a bit in terms of good reasoning.
* Has an "axe-to-grind" tone which I don't exactly understand.
I think there's some good points to be made about this relationship, but it doesn't feel like this author really has anything to show about where that Google influence is causing much in the way of problems.
Being a web designer/developer I need to see the web as my customers do, with means handy plugins like AdBlock are useless to me.
The idea that any company would include ad blocking tech in their web browser is insane. The web is built on advertising... talk about biting the hand that feeds you.
His gauge of the ad blocker extension's popularity is that these extensions are "getting to be extremely popular. It has been featured in The New York Times,"
This article reads like a 9/11 conspiracy theory. Esp. when he goes on to contradict himself by pointing out that this add blocking software that he loves does a good job on banner ads but misses many of Google's text ads. If this really is the evil scheme he is hatching it out to be wouldn't Google want an extension included that easily blocked it competitors banner adds whilst letting it's text adverts sneak through?
Maybe next week he can write a follow up about how Firefox3 doesn't include the DOM Inspector by default and hypothesize that Google strong armed Mozilla into removing it so folk wouldn't be able to get at all those juicy Google HTML secrets.