Slashdot Mirror
Firefox Seeks Full Page Ad in New York Times
blakeross writes "Join us over at Spread Firefox as we raise funds for the most ambitious launch campaign in open source history. A portion of each donation will go towards taking out a full-page ad in the New York Times celebrating the release. All donors will be listed in the ad, the signatories of a declaration of independence from a monopolized and stagnant web."
For a webpage with a lot of members who hate advertising, it sure is interesting to see how many stories about advertising we have and how many slashvertisements we get.
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
Because everyone on Slashdot already KNOWS about Firefox. They're targeting average Joe who thinks Internet Explorer is "The Internet".
How abt other papers?
Why does yahoo do this
This will prove to be unnecessary. Firefox's market share is growing and will continue to grow due to word of mouth and techs like myself who are taking the time to install it and show people the benefits of it. Anyone who doesnt know what it is already will not be intrigued by an advertisement but will instead ignore it. These are the same people that find nothing wrong with internet explorer and enjoy the "benefits" of malware without having any clue of what information about their browsing it is phoning home to the developers of the software.
If I lived in NY I would definatly go for this. Instead of getting a $15 t-shirt this kind of endorsemnt is more unique, and seems like a great way to send the message that Firefox has arrived.
This ad won't be run until Firefox 1.0 is complete, I hope.
"And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
1 John 4:14
Free Mac Mini
If they download Firefox and have any problems with it at all they will go back to IE and never consider Firefox again.
why? Almost ALL people have problems with windows constantly, yet they do not switch to a Mac and never consider Microsoft again...
you overestimate people.
What's the big deal about Firefox? It uses just as much RAM as the Mozilla browser does.
Debian (which I use) has shown that the Mozilla browser, mail, chat & composer can be broken into separate packages. That's what the big deal about FF is supposed to be.
The things that I really like about Mozilla are:
If FF used significantly less RAM than Mozilla, I'd put up with it's deficiencies, though.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
Hmmm, one of the main reasons I switched TO Firefox is because IE crashes every time I try to close it. It then pops up its "I've crashed" window, with a click OK to restart IE button. Means closing IE is a multi-stage process for me.
Yes, I have all the latest service packs/updates etc.
For now, I've got our IT guy's blessing on running FireFox on my computer, but if they find out that it bypasses their fancy card-based security system...
This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
Take for example Yahoo mail itself.Although it doesnt do a bad job of it like opera,its not near the perfect rendering of yahoo mail by IE.
As for overlap of text over each other , I have seen it happen over dozens of pages..
It also does a bad job in some sites where forms have to be filled - the form spaces go haywire,wont submit etc...but works well in IE.
Infact one of Firefox's own page had overlapping problems..I dont remember the link,but i had posted that link in one of my earlier comments [ If you can see my entire comment history:"Firefox messes up its own page" is the subject i think ]
For sites I am sure are secure, its better to stick with IE,because the webpage seems to render so prefectly in IE than in FF.You might have noticed this difference in many sites.May be because most sites are developed with IE in mind,but then thats the way it displayed in FF.
Many a time,I have filled forms with all details and hit submit,but wont work.then i switch to IE fill it again , it works flawless.Thats real iritation for me.
And you say " Apart from Slashdot, I can't find a page that doesn't render just fine in Firefox "......
huh
Why does yahoo do this
Talk about facts. My website which is mostly hit from slashdot referrers throughout the day has stats that look like this:
1 12576 38.70% MSIE 6.0
2 12435 38.27% Mozilla/5.0
Now, I realize that browsers can fake this information but let's assume that it's basically correct. Just about any hit that comes from a referrer outside of slashdot is not Firefox/Moz.
If I were to donate, I don't think I'd want the money to go toward a full page ad. That seems to me like it wouldn't have much effect. What might work better is to follow the AOL approach and send out individual CDs with the software on it. That way, Joe Dialup doesn't have to worry about download times for it or anything. Print on the back some of the problems with IE, list the benefits of Firefox, state that Firefox is and always will be completely free, and that installation only takes minutes.
Converting them one a time is sure to work a lot better. Plus, I'm sure some percentage of people will install it believing that they'll now get the internet for free. Although those people will be disappointed that they still have to pay for their internet connection, at that point the software will already be installed, and they've run it at least once to see what happens. If they check an option to "always use this program to connect to the internet", some people may never figure out how to get IE back.
On the downside, for that small percentage of people, Firefox would seem to have the properties of Spyware, but chances are those people are already full to the brim with real spyware, so they've learned to live with it.
For the rest of the population...people will just keep the CDs lying around, using them as a coaster until their curiosity gets the better of them, at which point, they take the leap.
Come to think of it, you might as well throw OpenOffice on there too, along with anything else that will fit...
Sounds like a good idea - but putting peoples names on the ad sounds a bit silly. How much room would 2500+ names take up on a page if they are even a slightly legible?
* Firefox can't render custom scrollbars or formfields
* Having to ditch extensions entirely everytime there's an upgrade
* Having to restart the browser everytime you install an extension
* Adblock doesn't block ads nearly as well as IE with Admuncher installed (it even blocks text ads!)
* The TalkBack agent appears way too often for my tastes.
The only reason I switched in the first place was tabbed browsing. The way I have IE configured it already blocks popups (Google Toolbar) and Ads (Admuncher or custom hosts file.) But you can get SlimBrowser or Avant Browser now and they'll add tabbed functionality to IE. But what I do is just have multiple instances of IE open on the taskbar. Who cares when you have a gig of RAM? And I'm sure IE7 will add tabs.
Chess_the_cat. Banned. Again.
I hope they've got someone who understands direct response marketing helping out.
- they should have a unique firefox URL listed in the ad, so they can track downloads from the ad to determine the effectiveness. This should be a unique DOMAIN, not just a path, because many people strip off the path when its used in print advertising.
- they should consider running 3-4 different versions of the ad in the NYTimes (the NYTimes should be able to offer this), each to a different URL, and compare downloads per ad.
- the pages need to be optimized so its clear, quick and easy for users to get to a download
- why start with the NYtimes? Why not try some cheaper media first (like local newspapers), to see how the responses are.. and if it works, to scale up to more expensive papers like the NY times.
When you have actual metrics, you know the usefulness of the campaign. You can say "our $20k spent resulted in 50k downloads, want to contribute to our next campaign?"
All the Ad needs is a "Take back the web" picture and some writing underneath saying "Safer and faster than Internet Explorer" then the URL.
Nah. Needs to be a bit more imaginative. how about...
Thousands of razor-sharp, spring-loaded mini-adverts for various dubious services which ping out across the room, closely followed by a blast of various virus-laden particles ranging from the common cold to herpes and smallpox. Oh, and a leaking colostomy bag too, for good measure.
Then, as the reader curses and tries clearing up the mess, a glowing Firefox logo proclaims (in full quadraphonic audio if available) that your internet experience doesn't have to be like that as well...
Tedious Bloggy Stuff - hooray?
Well, actually, the first step was to put out a great product which is free to anyone who wants to use it.
my father-in-law is pushing 70 and started using computer just a few months ago. I just rebuilt his PC and put Firefox in (under nice INTERNET icon). Yesterday he mentioned to me how fast and junk-free "Internet" became on his comp. And then I showed him the tabs...
Nothing is ever completely ready. If you want to wait for absolute perfection, you'll never make it in to the world.
Furthermore, technology doesn't have to be 100% to become widely adopted. If you look through the relatively short history of IT alone, you'll find plenty of examples where something not quite perfected became widely adopted and examples of elegant technologies never gaining a foothold.
The questions Firefox advocates have to ponder is if Firefox is Good Enough and is IE (not to MS bash, but that's the competition) market / mind share showing cracks. I believe the answer to both is 'yes'. YMMV.
Experience is subjective. But I'm seeing Firefox more often these days. My household uses Firefox when they would refuse to fire up the old Mozilla even after I installed it. I see Firefox on more and more desktops... even those who are fairly strong Microsoft fans. And I've over-heard conversations among non-techies where Firefox was recommended several times.
None of this is earth-shattering. And it doesn't eliminate the bugs and issues facing Firefox. But it does show an adoption rate that I just didn't see with the old Mozilla. And that implies that Firefox is getting something right that neither Mozilla or IE did or does.
Firefox has a chance to take it's shot right now. It might be a risk. But there are indications that the time is right. And if it doesn't take its shot now, when it has its chance and standards are still mostly open and adhered to, it may not have that chance in the future.
I have been a fan of Firefox since before 0.1 and just bought $80 of stuff from the Mozilla Store, but I do not like the way the Mozilla Foundation is going.
5 6302&action=view> by the powers that be is that Firefox 1.0 be distrubuted under what they call an "end user license agreement" that disallows modification or distribution, and that restricts what you can use Firefox for--similar to the terms of Microsoft's software. If this happens, I will not be using Firefox in the future. It might even be argued that developers of Mozilla's software should have taken head of warnings about the NPL and MPL by FSF et al. This is an example of why copyleft is superior to less-restrictive licenses (especially ones that put less restrictions on certain organisations as special cases).
Personally, I think if they better integrated themselves with the FOSS community and started using traditional FOSS methods (as well as enocuranging the FOSS community to spread the word), this would help their marketing a lot better than an ad in the NYT. I do not object to the ad of itself--it may be a good idea--but it is an example of the way MF are thinking--specifically thinking ("monopoly"..."stagnant"...) about abusing their power over what is a brilliant piece of software.
>>in open source history<< (from story)
The *real* *question* is whether Firefox is free or open-source? My real objection is the attempts of people at MF to make Firefox neither (i.e.: proprietary). The whole thing about making the name and artwork proprietary a while back was not so bad (although it certainly led people to question MF's morality), as it was easy to remove references to "Firefox" or "Mozilla" and all the relevant artwork (but it still means that official builds are not free and do not follow DFSG).
The latest proposal <https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=1
Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley
[This post is in the public domain (copyright-free) unless otherwise stated]
That way, when the user sees a broken page, he can (correctly) blame his troubles on MS... ;-)
Cheers, Ulli
Simple things should be simple, complex things should be possible.
Those "Dell's of the world" are under legal contract(covered in secrecy by trade secret laws) to use IE, an Windows Media, etc. as the default programs.
This information was leaked over the years, most notably during Be Inc's campiagn to GIVE AWAY any major OEM that wished to ship BeOS... None did, soley for the reason that they would be penalized heavily by Microsoft in the form of losing bulk sale deals, driving costs up in a very thin margin market.
Only small and MAYBE medium OEMs could even consider it.
I downloaded the latest Firefox version for OS X but it just doesn't cut it for me. I use Safari and I love the minimalist interface. Even the way Tabs are presented in Safari is perfectly thought out. Firefox is slowing gaining ground in the interface department but it's still too 1997. It has a few extra features but I don't have a pressing need for any of them. I also don't see any speed advantages. I wish them luck against IE for Windows world, but Safari already won that battle on OS X.
With this line of thinking, we should instead be taking out ads on KFC buckets.
Your grandma won't change from IE for the same reason that my dad keeps using that stupid Compuserve browser. You have to get them going with it from the outset, or present them with conclusive preoof that Firefox is better along with a totally bombproof means of getting it installed.
Okay, well, Firefox is better than IE already (for starters, I'm using Firefox right now but somehow IE just doesn't work on my Mandrake Linux system), but three hours ago we learn of Firefox crapping out on bogus HTML code where MS IE was demonstrably more robust.
I would like to see these errors fixed in Firefox before it is launched (as v1.0) and before the NYTimes ad, and not only because we want Firefox to be ready to make a good first impression. Fixing these errors also shows me that the Mozilla Dev team is willing to take a realistic view of how good their product is, acknowledge problems, and fix it. Until they do that, I'm not prepared to spend money promoting the product.
I recognize that fixing these HTML parsing errors will take an ungodly amount of time. It will probably mean pushing the release date into December or 2005. But if they don't, MozDev (I mean the Mozilla Development Team) would then be acting like a large corporation: plan the budget two years ahead of time, plan the schedule one year ahead of time, and stick to it no matter what happens "or else senior management will have our heads!" Well, one advantage of non-corporate F/OSS is the agility in revising schedules and the large clout of the technical staff rather than marketing.
Please, MozDev, recognize the problem: Firefox crashes, and MS IE doesn't. Fix it. You are the shining example of F/OSS, the #1 application usable on Windows and F/OSS OS's alike. Don't let the hype and the need to "save face" push you into launching Firefox before it's ready. Microsoft pushed back Longhorn; you can push back FF v1.0.
And lest I sound like an ingrate, Firefox has been an absolutely astounding piece of software that is key to refuting Microsoft's claim that "F/OSS doesn't work". It's exactly for this reason that I don't want it all ruined because Mozilla puts out a full-page ad before it robustly parses improper HTML.
404555974007725459910684486621289147856453481154 in hex is "You sank my Battleship?"
[GPG key in journal]
Windows XP SP2 / FF 1.0PR
I get so tired of having to copy, tab, paste, didnt work, tab back, copy, copy, copy, copy, tab, paste. Dammit. tab, copy, copy, tab, paste. FUCKING COME ON. tab, copy, copy, tab, paste. There, finally.
Apparently I'm not the only one with the issue.
Results 1 - 10 of about 13,200 for copy paste bug firefox.
I'm Rick James with mod points biatch!
I visited a site of a major car dealership, and I didn't even get a "this site designed for Internet Explorer". It just flat refused to let me in.
:)" message and redirects you to Disney.
I hate shit like that - Just changing the browser identifier lets you right through, there is *no reason* for these sites to stop you getting in, no reason you must use IE, they've just decided to be a bastard. Plenty of amateur sites do it too, just a bit of Javascript that pops up a smug "You must be using Microsoft Internet Explorer to use this page
Maybe the big car dealership took a backhander from MS or something, but what makes the amateur sites do it? Can someone with more psychological savvy than me give me an insight into the mind of these sort of people?
Dealing with lawyers would be a lot less tedious if they all looked like Casey Novak.
most people are perfectly happy with IE.
But most people are not aware of the link between IE and [spy|ad|mal]ware. Heck, most users are not aware of said wares. The Firefox ad should put emphasis on that.
Roses are #FF0000, violets are #0000FF, all my base are belong to you