Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Mozilla To Show Sponsored Links To First-Time Firefox Users

Posted by Soulskill on 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.

23 of 182 comments (clear)

  1. RIP by Anonymous Coward · · 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 · · 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 · · 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 unregistered.coward · · 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.

    4. Re:RIP by SpzToid · · 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.
    5. Re:RIP by Opportunist · · 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.
    6. Re:RIP by Raenex · · 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).

  2. About time! by Anonymous Coward · · 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! (!!)

  3. Re:Confusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Chrome

    Because you dislike advertisements, you want to use a browser made by an advertising company?

  4. Re:Time to switch to Pale Moon by Zanadou · · Score: 2

    There is a build of Pale Moon for Linux that I've been trying out for a while... it seems to work.

  5. Re:Confusion by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  6. Google reliance by Warbothong · · 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 · · 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?
  7. Re:Confusion by Mashiki · · 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...
  8. Who cares? by MikeRT · · 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 · · 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.
  9. Re:Time to switch to Pale Moon by The1stImmortal · · Score: 3, Informative

    SeaMonkey is still going strong too, with a slightly smoothed version of the old Communicator interface - http://www.seamonkey-project.o...

  10. Sponsored Firefox by rossdee · · Score: 2

    So the new version with this sponsorship should be cheaper then?

  11. Firefox Mobile by SeanDS · · 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.

  12. What about blocking third party cookiest first? by guacamole · · 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?

  13. Re:Human Tolerance by rjstanford · · 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!
  14. Re:Time to switch to Pale Moon by Nemyst · · 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.

  15. Totally don't care at all by neminem · · 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.