Mozilla To Show Sponsored Links To First-Time Firefox Users

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Mozilla To Show Sponsored Links To First-Time Firefox Users

Posted by Soulskill on Tuesday February 11, 2014 @10:13PM from the trying-not-to-say-the-word-'ad' dept.

Mozilla has announced a new initiative to show sponsored content within the Firefox browser. Currently, opening a new tab in Firefox will display a set of nine tiles showing your most commonly visited websites. When a user installs Firefox and opens it for the first time, they see these tiles, but eight of them are blank (one links to a Firefox tutorial). As the user browses the web, those tiles gradually fill in with visited sites. But Mozilla is going to fill out those blank eight tiles for new users. They say, "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. The sponsored tiles will be clearly labeled as such, while still leading to content we think users will enjoy." Existing users shouldn't see any difference, and the tiles will be replaced with commonly-visited sites like they do now.

88 of 182 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

RIP by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-11 22:21 · Score: 2, Insightful

RIP you were fun while you lasted but now you have sponsored ad browsing based on like's/visits Do not want.
1. Re:RIP by Opportunist · 2014-02-11 22:40 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Hold the knee-jerk reaction to the perceived spam and realize what it really means.
  If they are true to their promise, all it really means is that the 9 slots that hold the "most visited" pages in your browser are now, when you do a clean install, not empty as they are now but filled with ad pics. If they keep that promise and don't "secretly" or "accidentally" replace your pages with their ads, I fail to see the harm. As soon as you have "frequently visited" pages, the ad pages are rotated out of existence.
  If that's all it takes them to keep going, well, why'd I complain? It's one more browser to choose from and competition is by definition a good thing. If it becomes actually invasive and if it replaces my frequent pages with their spam pages... NEXT!
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
2. Re: RIP by deuce4208 · 2014-02-11 22:49 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  RIP? If it's just going to fill spots that were blank anyway I don't see what the big deal is. I don't have a problem with that at all. Let them make a little bit of money on new users who will click on those ads. You would have never even known about it had it not been for this article or you did a fresh install of Firefox anyway.
3. Re:RIP by aliquis · 2014-02-11 22:51 · Score: 1
  
  Worked just fine for Opera! .. or didn't it?
4. Re:RIP by unregistered.coward · 2014-02-11 22:56 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  That's a pretty intense over-reaction to Mozilla filling in some previously blank tiles with some temporary filler. That filler disappears as you accumulate visited site and only appears when you actually use the "new" tab.
5. Re:RIP by SpzToid · 2014-02-11 23:06 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  FireFox has done a really good job of keeping itself relevant, along with Chrome. Specifically I am referring to the developer tools. I use FireFox myself, although Adobe mobile developers also have a cool tool to render mobile devices inside the Chrome browser, where they can work using Chrome dev tools. But I still like the new FireFox dev tools better, along with the older FireBug and a few of its odd plugins.
  
  --
  You can't be ahead of the curve, if you're stuck in a loop.
6. Re: RIP by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-11 23:15 · Score: 1
  
  The blankness was a feature.
7. Re:RIP by Opportunist · 2014-02-11 23:31 · Score: 2
  
  Well, let's be honest. This change doesn't bother me. If another one will, it's trivial to dump FF and use a different browser.
  I have no reason to believe they can "hold against it". But I don't need to. If they bend over, I'll toss them the lube on my way out.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
8. Re:RIP by rvw · 2014-02-12 00:56 · Score: 1
  
  If that's all it takes them to keep going, well, why'd I complain? It's one more browser to choose from and competition is by definition a good thing. If it becomes actually invasive and if it replaces my frequent pages with their spam pages... NEXT!
  Next?
  Next what? IE? Chrome? Opera???
  I hope Firefox doesn't become adware. But I don't mind them using those tiles for ads, as long as they don't track what I browse.
9. Re:RIP by durin · 2014-02-12 01:09 · Score: 1
  
  Those ads have to come from somewhere not local to the workstation FF is running on. That means that they eat bandwidth. What if you have a bandwith cap? What if you have to pay for each MB of traffic?
  If they do this, its bye-bye FF for me :(
  
  --
  Why, yes! I AM new here.
10. Re: RIP by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-12 01:25 · Score: 1
  
  The first thing you do with a new OS installation is removing all the bloatware, right? That was just using blank space too.
  Besides, it's a matter of principle, i.e. having a principle and sticking with it. "Users first" is one such principle that Mozilla should have stuck to. Once the user has been turned into a product, the path is chosen. Accepting money from search engines may have seemed benign as long as the choice of search engine was apolitical. Almost everybody would have chosen Google anyway. But it showed that Mozilla had a price, and now it's just another step in the chosen direction. Users' trust isn't cheap. I have a feeling that Mozilla isn't aware of the true value of what they're selling.
11. Re:RIP by gerald.edward.butler · 2014-02-12 01:30 · Score: 1
  
  Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out!
12. Re:RIP by ganjadude · 2014-02-12 01:50 · Score: 1
  
  With chrome around their concern is that google wont stick around forever
  
  --
  have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
13. Re:RIP by segin · 2014-02-12 02:10 · Score: 1
  
  You can always use Iceweasel.
14. Re:RIP by Raenex · 2014-02-12 02:51 · Score: 2
  
  That's a pretty intense over-reaction to Mozilla filling in some previously blank tiles with some temporary filler.
  By "temporary filler", you mean advertising. If I want an ad-supported browser, why don't I just use Chrome? At least then I can do away with the phony veneer of a "non-profit" that's concerned about users and not making profit (the truth is Mozilla formed a for-profit corporation years ago to handle the Google mega-millions, so they have no accountability on that end).
15. Re:RIP by Raenex · 2014-02-12 02:56 · Score: 1
  
  Oh Christ, I just clicked the article. Look at this Ministry of Information, self-serving bullshit:
  
  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.
  That's right, just what the user was missing from their life. More advertisements!
16. Re:RIP by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-12 03:49 · Score: 1
  
  If I even smell ads I am gone, forever. Previously donated $20 bucks, more than I have ever paid for any browser. So suck it if they want to blow out their base of users.
17. Re:RIP by nospam007 · 2014-02-12 03:56 · Score: 1
  
  "Well, let's be honest. This change doesn't bother me."
  Me neither. Any new installation also invades you with umpteen trackers and ads and selfplaying crap before you install the necessary blockers. I also delete my cookies/history etc. on closure, so my 'preferred' sites are always empty.
18. Re:RIP by Luckyo · 2014-02-12 04:43 · Score: 1
  
  It's not trivial for those locked into the browser because of add-on functionality not available elsewhere.
  Luckily however, there are people who forked FF while still getting the security updates and such.
  Besides my new tab is about:blank.
19. Re:RIP by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-12 04:47 · Score: 1
  
  It's actually a bit less harmless than it sounds.
  This will primarily affect new installations of Firefox. So if I have just installed my operating system, and I just installed Firefox to be able to use a sane browser to get my anti-virus software, and I open up Firefox, then advertisements show up? Being that people distribute malware through advertising, this seems unpromising.
  Also, how do I make the ads go away? I have the start page, but need to visit 8 other websites, to fill a 3x3 grid? That seems harmless, really. But, come to think about it, why 8? Why not 3 (for a 2x2 grid) or 15 (4x4 grid) or 63? I'm guessing it is only a 3x3 grid because some web layout expert, probably an expert on marketing and user experiences, decided on that layout. Is that what I want to be guiding the decisions about whether I see ads? I'm a bit unsettled by thinking that my web surfing may be intruded on less, but only after I accomplish some specific task that someone decided on.
  I'm actually happy if Mozilla gains a bit less reliance on Google funding, and end users would be greatly dis-served by Mozilla disappearing due to financial ruin. Still, this particular change doesn't necessarily seem like it was planned out with a focus on what is best for end users.
20. Re:RIP by SumDog · 2014-02-12 05:13 · Score: 1
  
  Iceweasel is a direct port I believe due to the Mozilla binary/branding issue (that Gentoo avoids interestingly enough, with a disclaimer).
  Firefox fork in the future?
21. Re:RIP by Gavagai80 · 2014-02-12 05:48 · Score: 1
  
  This isn't some random javascript to load unknown ads. This is directly selling the speed dial page slots. There's no way that can be used for malware.
  
  --
  This space intentionally left blank
22. Re:RIP by Opportunist · 2014-02-12 06:31 · Score: 1
  
  Well, if they're half way sensible, they won't rely on Google alone. If you only have one sponsor, you're sink or swim tied to them, not only to their own survival but also to their whims. I'd rather have FF turn for other sources of income rather than being in the pockets of Google where they'd have to bend over every time Google wants something "bundled".
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
23. Re:RIP by Opportunist · 2014-02-12 06:33 · Score: 1
  
  I'd agree if they loaded the pages, but this is more akin to putting some favorites into your fav list. Don't click on them and you're good.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
24. Re:RIP by Raenex · 2014-02-12 10:15 · Score: 1
  
  This must surely be the first in a wave of repression meant to lull us into a false sense of security so that we'll get ads like Opera used to serve, or like Android/iOS spills everywhere!
  Why not? First it started with sponsored search. Because that isn't somehow enough, they're now going with direct ads.
  
  Seriously, if you're going to invoke 1984, at least try to not sound juvenile.
  If the shoe fits, wear it. You've got to be a real asshole to start talking about putting the user "front and center" right before you soft sell how you're going to start putting ads into the browser.
  
  You don't even seem to understand or care about this
  Enlighten me. What am I missing?
25. Re:RIP by Raenex · 2014-02-12 11:59 · Score: 1
  
  Clearly it isn't [enough money].
  How is it clear? Because they want more? People always want more money.
  
  They're an NPO
  Already addressed upthread by me: "the truth is Mozilla formed a for-profit corporation years ago to handle the Google mega-millions, so they have no accountability on that end"
  In other words, all the money pouring into the for-profit corporation does not have to be publicly accounted for. They could be giving themselves million dollar salaries or bonuses and you wouldn't know about it.
  
  If you have something useful to contribute then do so.
  I did. I called them out on their propaganda. If you want to put your blind trust in people in charge of whopping piles of money, do so, but I'm not going to follow your lead.
26. Re:RIP by Raenex · 2014-02-13 00:33 · Score: 1
  
  You can believe what you wish, but don't expect me to blindly follow your ideas any more than I follow the next person's.
  I didn't expect you to blindly follow them. You claimed they were an NPO and parroted their claim that they need more money -- without any evidence. I correctly pointed out the for-profit arm that reaps in millions of dollars. If you still have faith in them, fine, but it's despite evidence to the contrary and a lack of transparency.
  
  Even if they're the ones doing all of the work, and you're just some guy telling them they can't monetize their product because... reasons.
  Actually, I'm not the only one. There were many people, their users which they claim to be holding front and center, who were upset with this move.
  And yes, reasons. If Google wants to monetize their product, fine. Mozilla has roots in open source and benefited greatly from community involvement. If they are now treating their users as cash cows to be advertised to and feeding us bullshit propaganda while doing it, they deserve any backlash they get.
27. Re:RIP by Raenex · 2014-02-13 09:07 · Score: 1
  
  If you'll forgive others for doing the same because they profited on the backs of other's hard work, like Apple did with Webkit, and your only beef is that they aren't being as transparent as you'd like, then who am I to argue?
  What does this have anything to do with Apple? First off, they are a for-profit company. That's never been in dispute. Second, when did I "forgive" Apple? I've said nothing about them. This is about Mozilla and the issues that have been brought up in this thread. You can't deflect away from that by pointing to for-profit companies and other cases.
  
  I still think you're being childish as hell about it.
  That's ok, because I think you're being childish in your naive defense and faith in some pretty awful corporate behavior under the guise of still being about users and not profits.
  
  Nobody cares about Mozilla, they just care that Mozilla isn't exactly what they want it to be. I can understand that. There's nothing more fun than a good witch-hunt, especially where money is involved.
  Right, nothing childish about these statements, huh? If people didn't care about Mozilla the browser, as based in open source and non-profit roots, then why are we here speaking up? It has nothing to do with a witch hunt. It's been about the specifics, which you want to just give them a free pass on.
About time! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-11 22:24 · Score: 5, Funny

Just today I said to myself, I said, self, how can I possibly get more of those advertisements I get bombarded with everywhere I go? It's as if Mozillia has been inside my head and giving me exactly what I have always wanted my browser to do - GIVE ME MORE ADS! (!!)
1. Re:About time! by StripedCow · 2014-02-11 22:40 · Score: 1
  
  http://www.forbes.com/sites/er...
  
  --
  If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
I see no problem by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-11 22:31 · Score: 1

I hope all the advertisement is so non intrusive as Mozilla is trying to do, and for all the negative reactions to this, you should realize that that free beer was paid by someone.
1. Re:I see no problem by ChunderDownunder · 2014-02-11 23:57 · Score: 1
  
  There's always debian IceWeasel; Firefox minus Mozilla branding.
2. Re:I see no problem by rjstanford · 2014-02-12 03:49 · Score: 1
  
  Yup - I had my company buy Netscape licenses for everyone at ~$22 a pop IIRC too. Most people didn't, of course, which is how we ended up with the conundrum that everyone wants browsers to be free even though they're phenomenally complicated pieces of software that form the center of the modern PC's user interface. Since fewer companies are willing to donate employees to work on a browser than they are for, say, the Linux kernel, and the developers like to eat and enjoy housing, they have to figure out some other ways to make money.
  
  --
  You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
Re:Confusion by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-11 22:33 · Score: 5, Insightful

Chrome

Because you dislike advertisements, you want to use a browser made by an advertising company?
Re:Time to switch to Pale Moon by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-11 22:33 · Score: 1

It's windows-centric and therefore useless.
Re:Time to switch to Pale Moon by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-11 22:38 · Score: 1

Right, because no one is using Windows.
Re:Time to switch to Pale Moon by Zanadou · 2014-02-11 22:40 · Score: 2

There is a build of Pale Moon for Linux that I've been trying out for a while... it seems to work.
Re:Confusion by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-11 23:09 · Score: 2, Insightful

Chrome
Because you dislike advertisements, you want to use a browser made by an advertising company?
At this point asking wether to use Firefix or Chrome is like choosing between Democrats or Republicans.
Makes no fucking difference at all. They both shit on their users.
Google reliance by Warbothong · 2014-02-11 23:17 · Score: 5, Insightful

If this reduces Mozilla's reliance on Google's money then that can only be a good thing. Especially since Mozilla's main sponsor is now also a competitor :/
1. Re:Google reliance by Sockatume · 2014-02-12 01:40 · Score: 2
  
  Think of it as a way to support Mozilla without making a donation. People who don't like ads will, presumably, grab a plugin that disables them and just cut Mozilla a cheque instead.
  
  --
  No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
2. Re:Google reliance by TheGratefulNet · 2014-02-12 05:02 · Score: 1
  
  cut mozilla a check??
  google already bankrolls them!
  fuck that shit. seriously, fuck that. mozilla has jumped the shark and they are basically controlled by google now. 'ads' are yet another money grab and I'm sick of this crap. first time user or not, it does NOT belong.
  how greedy do you have to be in order to both take google's AND insist on extra money from ads?
  sheesh. just goes to prove: projects grow until they finally end up sucking. mozilla has not shown this to be a falsehood, sadly ;(
  
  --
  
  --
  "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
3. Re:Google reliance by tlhIngan · 2014-02-12 05:11 · Score: 1
  
  If this reduces Mozilla's reliance on Google's money then that can only be a good thing. Especially since Mozilla's main sponsor is now also a competitor :/
  And where do you think the sponsored links come from? Google is a virtual monopoly on online advertising, has the vast majority of mobile, and is branching out to other forms of advertising.
  Sure Mozilla may be doing it with someone who's "Not Google", but who really knows if they're not some "A Google Company" through many layers of acquisitions (yes, those popups and popunders that you think Google would never do? Most likely gone by a Google-owned ad company. Ditto malware filled ads).
  Then again, perhaps Google might be in talks to acquire them, too.
Re:Confusion by Mashiki · 2014-02-11 23:19 · Score: 4, Insightful

Because you dislike advertisements, you want to use a browser made by an advertising company?
Pretty sure you meant "because you dislike advertisements, you want to to use a browser made by an advertising company which will also pillage and rape your personal information."

--
Om, nomnomnom...
Who cares? by MikeRT · 2014-02-11 23:22 · Score: 5, Insightful

At the end of the day, I still trust Mozilla far more than Google, Microsoft or Apple to respect my privacy.
1. Re:Who cares? by squiggleslash · 2014-02-12 00:13 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  There's always a knee-jerk reaction to anything related to advertising simply because as a medium it's been abused so much throughout its history.
  Try as I might, I can't really fault Mozilla for the way they're handling this, and yeah, I would like to see them get another source of revenue.
  
  --
  You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
2. Re:Who cares? by Hillgiant · 2014-02-12 01:49 · Score: 1
  
  Remember when you trusted Google more than Microsoft or Apple?
  Remember when you trusted Apple more than Microsoft?
  Remember when you trusted Microsoft? (I kid, I kid (perhaps))
  Being worthy of trust in the recent past does not grant anyone a blank check for current or future actions.
  
  --
  -
3. Re:Who cares? by Raenex · 2014-02-12 02:39 · Score: 1
  
  Remember when you trusted Microsoft? (I kid, I kid (perhaps))
  They were actually more trustworthy when it came to privacy than Google because they made so much money on their OS and other software that they played by old standards that software should not spy on what you do. They wouldn't want to jeopardize that by being sleazy. Times have changed and old standards have eroded. It's pretty much expected now that software is reporting back on you for advertising.
Re:Time to switch to Pale Moon by The1stImmortal · 2014-02-11 23:28 · Score: 3, Informative

SeaMonkey is still going strong too, with a slightly smoothed version of the old Communicator interface - http://www.seamonkey-project.o...
Re:Time to switch to Pale Moon by Barefoot+Monkey · 2014-02-11 23:45 · Score: 1

To be honest, with [Personal Titlebar](https://addons.mozilla.org/addon/personal-titlebar/) and [Status-4-Evar](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/status-4-evar/) installed I like the interface more than older Firefox or any of the other browsers. But that's just my personal preference; thank you for sharing a link to Pale Moon - it's good to know about what's available.
"sponsored links" by mythix · 2014-02-12 00:05 · Score: 1

you know they are doing things that aren't beneficial for the user when they start making up pretty names... just call it what it is... SPAM
Sponsored Firefox by rossdee · 2014-02-12 00:24 · Score: 2

So the new version with this sponsorship should be cheaper then?
1. Re:Sponsored Firefox by coolsnowmen · 2014-02-12 04:13 · Score: 1
  
  They give the software away for free. Do you want to be paid to use it?
2. Re:Sponsored Firefox by David_W · 2014-02-12 04:53 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, they will reduce the current price by 50%. They may even do a 75% for early adopters.
Current status of Custom FF builds?? by RobertLTux · 2014-02-12 00:24 · Score: 1

and btw what the quickest way of turning those tiles OFF?? (cover windows and Android please)

--
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
1. Re:Current status of Custom FF builds?? by Luckyo · 2014-02-12 04:53 · Score: 1
  
  Tools > Options
  In general tab "home page" should be set to "about:blank" (without quote marks).
  In tabs tab, "when opening a new tab show" option should be set to "blank page".
Re:Confusion by rossdee · 2014-02-12 00:41 · Score: 1

"At this point asking wether to use Firefix or Chrome"
I am sure that wether, along with the rest of the sheep, are using IE if they are running windows.
" like choosing between Democrats or Republicans"
At least Democrats recognize that the Earth is more than 6013 years old, and that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas...
$300M by tgv · 2014-02-12 00:46 · Score: 1

I read that Mozilla received $300M from Google, and that that money stops, so they're looking for other sources of income. But that makes me think: $300M? What on earth did they spend it on? Certainly not on a 2000 programmer years.
1. Re:$300M by rjstanford · 2014-02-12 03:53 · Score: 1
  
  I read that Mozilla received $300M from Google, and that that money stops, so they're looking for other sources of income. But that makes me think: $300M? What on earth did they spend it on? Certainly not on a 2000 programmer years.
  What do you mean, "certainly not"? Their codebase is currently sitting north of 10 million LOC. Depending on their goals, 2000 man-years (design, development, testing, documentation, outreach, etc which could all be done by "developer" types) might not take all that long to go through.
  
  --
  You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
2. Re:$300M by tgv · 2014-02-12 04:03 · Score: 1
  
  Ok. I had estimated the code base more than an order of magnitude lower. Even 1 million lines seems quite a lot for a browser; 10 million hurts the brain. But you're right, that takes a long time to write.
3. Re:$300M by Nemyst · 2014-02-12 04:10 · Score: 1
  
  What did you base your estimate on? A browser these days is such a complex beast. The amount of work done to run on multiple platforms, with platform-specific optimizations (including graphics acceleration), with a JIT Javascript compiler and so much more, is just staggering. Just implementing all the specs (remember, you can't just drop HTML4 or XHTML) would probably gobble up 1 million lines without even starting to think about performance which is absolutely paramount these days.
4. Re:$300M by tgv · 2014-02-12 06:37 · Score: 1
  
  TBH, Firefox is pretty slow compared to Safari and Chrome.
5. Re:$300M by Reziac · 2014-02-13 05:52 · Score: 1
  
  For comparison, Win95 was reportedly 16M lines of code.
  Since when does it take a whole operating system worth of code just to be a browser? No wonder it's so damned slow... and uses more RAM than WinXP.
  Not to mention the memory leaks that get worse and worse (and which appear to be largely due to bad coding Zen wrt caching).
  
  --
  ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Firefox Mobile by SeanDS · 2014-02-12 00:50 · Score: 3, Interesting

Although I don't so much mind this new addition if it brings in revenue to Mozilla, who are a nice company seemingly with the good of the web at heart, they have been playing one underhanded tactic recently with Firefox Mobile. On the mobile version, there is no way to remove the search providers pre-installed in the software (Bing, Amazon, Google, etc.). There used to be a way, but this feature was silently removed. I know I can just avoid using the search features (and untick the setting to automatically suggest search terms based on my input), but I should be able to uninstall search providers rather than give them free advertisement space on my browser.
Re:Time to switch to Pale Moon by StoneyMahoney · 2014-02-12 01:08 · Score: 1

Mozilla based with plugin support? SOLD!
Oh, an IRC client. How quaint!
Jumped the shark by Dwedit · 2014-02-12 01:10 · Score: 1

Firefox has jumped the shark.
Will ad-blockers work on this? by matbury · 2014-02-12 01:16 · Score: 1

It'd be nice for people who value their privacy not to have their location/IP address sent to advertisers before they've had a chance to deny permission. Should privacy conscious people now disconnect their computers from the internet while installing Firefox? I wonder what the folks at TOR Project will make of this?
Re:good by Lehk228 · 2014-02-12 01:25 · Score: 1

I've tried chrome a few times but firefox always won me back in the end. then again I've been using firefox since it was firebird so by now chrome's main sin is not being just like firefox.

--
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
What about blocking third party cookiest first? by guacamole · 2014-02-12 01:25 · Score: 4, Insightful

Considering that Mozilla promised to block third-party cookies by default in Firefox years ago, surely the sponsored links feature is going to take the backseat until they sort out the handling of third-party cookies first?
Re:Confusion by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-12 01:41 · Score: 1

At least Republicans don't rub their thumbs around on crystals hoping to improve their karma and believe that men are the source of all evil...
See, I can point to a minority and act as if they're representative of the whole as well. All sides have their Pajama Boys. Try not to shatter your teeth when you jerk your knee.
Minority? Many of the core tenets of the republican party are hostile to science, technology, the environment, and even people. When it's the official stance of your party, you can't exactly dismiss it as just a few crazies casting a bad shadow on the party as a whole.
Re:Confusion by jbmartin6 · 2014-02-12 01:46 · Score: 1

A significant majority of Republicans don't believe in evolution.

--
This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
It depends on what "sponsored content" means by LihTox · 2014-02-12 02:47 · Score: 1

If it's just a link to a website the way tiles normally work? And if the links go to reputable websites? I don't have a problem with Firefox asking Amazon for some money to put them on the front page.
On the other hand, the tiles could be more like banner ads, flashy spammy things, controlled by a 3rd-party network where Mozilla doesn't have much control over what shows up there. That would suck.
About those "nine tiles" ... by jc42 · 2014-02-12 03:10 · Score: 1

I've installed (or helped others install) firefox on a few new machines lately, and noticed that they always fill new windows/tabs with that google search page. Nothing wrong with that, of course, but it's a bit redundant, what with the search widget at the upper right. So we've tried to get it to produce that "tiling" of favorite/frequently-visited sites like you see in Opera, Safari, and some other browsers. And we've failed.
I just tried in this firefox that I'm typing this to, installed about a week ago on a new Macbook Pro. I can't find it. The "General" settings page lists "Use Current Page", "Use Bookmark" and "Restore to Default" (which gives the google search page). The "Tabs" settings page doesn't deal with the topic. Under "Content" there's nothing about initial content for new windows/tabs.
So what are we missing? Where is this particular setting now hidden? I expect that it is there somewhere, but I can't guess what they call it or how it's classified in the Preferences/Settings tree of little windows.
You'd think they'd make this the default in a new install, but that doesn't seem to happen. One of the first things I did on this Macbook was fire up Safari and download Firefox, Opera, Chrome, and a few more browsers. Firefox's first window after the initial "greeting" window showed the google search page.
(Yeah, I did try googling it. That doesn't work too well if you don't know what it's now called, and every browser that has this feature seems to call it something different. This is, of course, a well-known problem with many topics. ;-)

--
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
Re:Human Tolerance by rjstanford · 2014-02-12 03:45 · Score: 2

And if you see a pothole then the entire system of roads is finished, because they could all crumble and fail and never be patched! OMG!
Noting that there's a mild concern to watch for is one thing. Declaring that the sky is falling because of a way that something might be added to a product (which could have been added to the product just as easily a month ago, I might add, since these tiles have nothing to do with ads elsewhere) is just silly.

--
You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
This Is A Problem... How? by Jane+Q.+Public · 2014-02-12 03:50 · Score: 1

This is about the most benign form of advertising I can imagine.

It's on a page users don't have to see more than once, if they don't want to.

Even if they don't change their startup page, the ads go away pretty quickly, and permanently.
Re:Time to switch to Pale Moon by Nemyst · 2014-02-12 04:07 · Score: 2

Let's be frank, all those Gecko-based offshoots would wither and die without Mozilla's backing, which is what this is all about: Mozilla is a non-profit with very few sources of revenue. This is a new one they found which can help them keep going. If you don't agree with that, don't complain when Mozilla shuts down and all those nice open source projects start trailing behind hard.
Re:Time to switch to Pale Moon by gl4ss · 2014-02-12 04:10 · Score: 1

A minority of people use Windows. Both Android and iOS have overtaken it.
that's like saying that majority of people don't use cars since walking is more popular.
how about this: majority of android users use windows.

--
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Re:Confusion by fast+turtle · 2014-02-12 04:38 · Score: 1

and this is why I refuse to upgrade FF beyond 10 - that's high enough as I sure as hell don't need it to go to 11. What's interesting is that the one and only security hole in 10 is still open in the latest fucking version. Makes me wonder what the fucking devs are doing that they can't/haven't patched the first hole yet they're now up to 24 and trying to keep up with Googles insane numbering.
FF10 with Noscript solves the fucking security hole (Jscript based) so I see little advantage to using the latest and so called greatest when they're continually taking features away from the user. Hell from what I'm seeing on the latest version (couple of family members using it) I'm not impressed as they're looking more inrelevent each and every upgrade with stripped UI features. Fuck that crap. I want my status bar, home button, download manager and everything else that was useable when I started using FF.

--
Mod me up/Mod me down: I wont frown as I've no crown
Re:Confusion by Luckyo · 2014-02-12 04:49 · Score: 1

Then get pale moon. It's basically FF's new features but without the fucked up UI. It still has all those things you mentioned. And they are actually improved on, like the status bar is significantly more customizable.
Re:Will Mozilla give these 'sponsors' my IP addres by jc42 · 2014-02-12 04:55 · Score: 1

Well, Mozilla probably won't give your IP address to anyone, but your browser will. It's in the header of every IP packet sent to anyone, because without it, they can't reply to your request. Note that the "tiles" usually contain a small image of each site's main page, and to display that, the browser must send a request to each site, and each request contains the site's IP address and your IP address. That's how the IP (Internet Protocol) works. So every time you open a blank window or tab, no matter what browser you use, that sort of display of your "favorite" sites informs every site on the page that they're on your favorites list.
(It's possible that some browsers may not refresh those little tiles for every new page. That would make sense, to save time and network bandwidth. But if you see any of the images change, that implies that they are being requested each time a tile is drawn.)

--
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
Totally don't care at all by neminem · 2014-02-12 05:01 · Score: 2

I already thought the "show pages it thinks you might want to open in a new tab" feature was sort of annoying right when they first released it, ages ago. You can turn the feature off. My new tabs have always been one blank white tile; I can open my own urls, thank you very much. I really couldn't care less what they pre-fill that screen with for people who don't turn the feature off, as long as you can still turn the feature off.
Re: Just 1 Anonymous Coward by SumDog · 2014-02-12 05:10 · Score: 1

How childish
IE did it first by Hsien-Ko · 2014-02-12 05:40 · Score: 1

Channel Bar.

Never forget
Re:Confusion by Ksevio · 2014-02-12 05:47 · Score: 1

Google is a search company that get revenue from advertising, not an advertising company. Similar to how newspapers gain revenue from ads, but are in the news business, not advertising.
Re:Will Mozilla give these 'sponsors' my IP addres by snooo53 · 2014-02-12 07:02 · Score: 1

Prett sure it shows cached images. One or the news sites in mine shows headlines over a day old

--
The sending of this message pretty much inconveniences everyone involved.
Re:Will Mozilla give these 'sponsors' my IP addres by jc42 · 2014-02-12 09:54 · Score: 1

Firefox generates those thumbnails when you visit the site, not when you open a new tab.
Well, that's good news. I use FF, Opera, Safari, and a few others on my Macbook (but no Safari on my linux box ;-). Both Opera and Safari sometimes update the images when I haven't visited the site, and sometimes keep the same image for several days. I don't know what their trigger for refreshing them might be.
For Firefox, I can't tell, because I can't get it to show me the array of little pictures for my "home page". Anyone know where they hid the setting to enable it? It'll let me pick a page, or show me the "default" google home page, but I can't find any other options in the Preference windows.
It used to be that Safari updated the array of images every time you opened a new window. I guess some people complained about this flooding their slow home Net connection, so they got a bit more subtle about it.

--
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
Why in the first place? by LinuxIsGarbage · 2014-02-12 11:42 · Score: 1

I never even liked the stupid tiles in the first place. What's the point in setting a "Home page" if you never see it (since opening a new tab happens a lot more than restarting the browser). The last thing I want is to open a new tab with other people there to see JustUsBoys, Gaytube, etc.
Am I the only who disables this? by hoolaparara · 2014-02-12 11:49 · Score: 1

That new tab page is so annoying and unnecessary, now they are going to make it even more so..
gotta make money but... by SkunkPussy · 2014-02-12 22:36 · Score: 1

Mozilla has to make money somehow and be independent from google. But I don't want to see amazon or whatever when I first load firefox. If mozilla gets strapped for cash its very likely that they will move to a model where some of these tabs are always reserved for sponsorship. Slippery slope.

--
SURELY NOT!!!!!