Slashdot Mirror
Mozilla Rolls Out Sponsored Tiles To Firefox Nightly's New Tab Page
An anonymous reader writes Mozilla has rolled out directory tiles, the company's advertising experiment for its browser's new tab page, to the Firefox Nightly channel. We installed the latest browser build to give the sponsored ads a test drive. When you first launch Firefox, a message on the new tab page informs you of the following: what tiles are (with a link to a support page about how sponsored tiles work), a promise that the feature abides by the Mozilla Privacy Policy, and a reminder that you can turn tiles off completely and choose to have a blank new tab page. It's quite a lot to take in all at once.
I atleast hope they use the money for something really good, like desktop Linux, instead of chasing mobile with Firefox OS.
With Google clamping down with Chrome, promoting on Google and Youtube and paying to bundle it everywhere like with Java, Flash and Acrobat updates, I am surprised Firefox hasn't lost even more marketshare, but I do think the clock is ticking.
This space for rent.
I find myself agreeing less and less with the things the Mozilla is doing as a company. I get what they want to do and where they want to go, just don't agree with the methods they are using.
tuck3r
If you don't like the redesign Mozilla has done with the new tab page and want to avoid the sponsored tiles, this extension reverts much of the new tab page appearance and allows a decent amount of customization.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-...
The Mozilla Foundation has sold out. Don't donate to them, either money or code.
A Top Sites page with ads and a blurb telling you it's occurred. Wow. The complexity. How could any mere human possibly take this all in?
has no place in a browser. Full stop. This is bollocks. The aggro this will cause with tracking and other invasiveness isn't worth a monkey's toss.
Software monetization is basically just like anal sex.
You keep on pushing until the person you're doing it to can't take it anymore
And then you keep pushing.
...a reminder that you can turn tiles off completely ...
How long will it be before Mozilla decides that the users no longer need the ability to turn off the sponsored tiles?
Started experimenting with the PM browser - it seems to have a lot of the +'s of Firefox without all the crap ...and australis.
I don't have a problem with an open source project trying to generate funds that will be used for development. I want the software I rely on to be stable and secure. I don't see how that can happen without some funds to pay for the development and testing. As long as they aren't trying to install an ask.com bar or something similar without my permissions, or trying to monetize my private info, I have no problem with something like this.
I can ignore ads on the "new tabs" page. I'm more concerned about the "share" garbage they want to add to the context menu: https://bug1000513.bugzilla.mo...
and doesn't suffer the bloat or other security woes FF and Chrome do. Sure, there are not a ton of add-ons, but how many do you need outstide of being able to block ads (a must), and disable HTTP/S referer (another must)?
use the Mozilla assets (intellectual property such as copyrights and trademarks, infrastructure, funds, and reputation) to keep the Internet an open platform;
How does mozilla expect sponsored advertisement to exist without a conflict of interest? It can't. Mozilla is now beholden to and will become ever increasingly dependent upon ad revenue, which in turn will ensure mozilla projects and opinions will be screened before release to meet the advertisers approval.
personally? im switching because i still want a free internet. check out icecat or midori.
Good people go to bed earlier.
I am so thankful for Pale Moon. I don't have to read Firefox news with dread anymore. Even at work here using Linux I can enjoy it.
http://www.palemoon.org/
Or use a stable build instead of a nightly.
Are you even using the reporting tool to let Mozilla know about these problems, or just waiting for them to get fixed?
No seriously, don't put up with this bullshit. Dump Firefox and come over to Pale Moon (www.palemoon.org). Your favorite plugins and add-ons will still work, you can customize the interface just how you're used to (that means no Australis excrement) and have the latest security updates too. It's fast, stable, standards compliant and doesn't force needless stuff on their users. They don't and won't sell your details, snoop on your browsing behavior and subject you to advertising. This whole process is painless thanks to their profile migration tool but just in case, back up your browser settings/bookmarks/add-on settings and get back to browsing the Internet on YOUR OWN TERMS.
It's incredible that people are still using Firefox at all honestly. Firefox is just a shell of what it once was and now it's just a name - one forever tarnished by corporate greed/influence and the lust for money. Firefox has become a cancer. It needs immediate removal - permanently.
... count. The uptake of new users is going to decline big time. Established users will learn to deal with the changes, but new users will be turned off before learning how to turn all this off.
Don't mistake me for a zealot, because I'm not. However, this move seems a lot like something the Microsoft of the early 2000s - when IE had near-100% marketshare and Firefox was still called Firebird - would do, and the kind of thing Mozilla should be fighting against.
IE got where it was at that time because of how it was forced upon everyone who bought a copy of Windows, and there was no easy way to opt-out. It won a monopoly by default, and this was one of the reasons that the Mozilla Foundation came along and developed Firefox. One of the senior Firefox devs said a year or so ago to one of his critics (it was on here somewhere) that what was important to him and to Mozilla was not that you use Firefox or that Firefox even be the dominant browser. What was important to him is that you have a choice of browsers so that another situation in which IE (or any other browser) gains near-100% market share never happens again.
This sounds like the same sort of thing. It's on by default, is obscure to disable (I personally can never remember the command to turn the new tab window off and have to look it up every time) and isn't something people are going to want. It's going to gain a monopoly by default, just like IE did. Using IE's tactics is not a good thing, and we can see why from IE itself. I might not hate it as much if there was a simple button in the preferences menu that reads "Turn off the New Tab Page" or "Disable Sponsored Links on the New Tab Page".. but there isn't. If anything, this should be opt-in "Would you like to support Firefox and the Mozilla Foundation by turning on sponsored links on the New Tab page?" instead of opt-out.
What saddens me is that most users won't notice or care. Clearly the Mozilla people need revenue somehow. But software should be on the user's side. Worry about the "open web" all you want, but if your own computer is out to get you then what's the point?
Google gives Firefox shit tons of funding.
"When you first launch Firefox, a message on the new tab page informs you of the following .. It's quite a lot to take in all at once"
..
It seems fairly straight forward to me: a) a promise that the feature abides by the Mozilla Privacy Policy, b) a reminder that you can turn tiles off completely
My FREE program for hosts files adds reliability, + anonymity & does more, more efficiently by FAR vs. addons + fixes DNS' security issues:
APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:
http://start64.com/index.php?o...
Summary:
---
A.) Hosts do more than:
1.) AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/... )
2.) Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...
3.) Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...
B.) Hosts add reliability vs. downed/redirected dns (& overcome site redirects, /. beta for example).
C.) Hosts secure vs. malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... w/ less "moving parts" complexity
D.) Hosts files yield more:
1.) Speed (adblock & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote dns)
2.) Security (vs. malicious domains serving malcontent + block spam/phish & trackers)
3.) Reliability (vs. downed or Kaminsky redirect vulnerable dns, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ isp level + weak vs Fastflux + dynamic dns botnets)
4.) Anonymity (vs. dns request logs + dnsbl's).
---
* Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ faster levels (ring 0) vs redundant inefficient addons (slowing slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ os, & 1st net resolver queried w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization).
* Addons = more complex + slow browsers in message passing (use a few concurrently & see) & are nullified by native browser methods - It's how Clarityray is destroying Adblock.
* Addons slowup slower usermode browsers layering on more - & bloat RAM consumption too + hugely excessive cpu use (4++gb extra in FireFox https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...)
Work w/ a native kernelmode part - hosts files (An integrated part of the ip stack)
APK
P.S.=> "The premise is quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work for the body rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen: "I am legend"
...apk
If every Firefox user donated $1 they would not need to do this.https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/
The only objection I'd have to this is if Mozilla's design is poor and fails to implement a totally privacy friendly design. While everybody gets tracked with cookies there really is no need for this or the revelation of what advertisements an individual user has seen. All that matters to an advertiser (or should matter) is that the advertisement hits relevant targeted users.
The solution should work like this:
1. Let the browser do the identification of users interests without sending that information to Mozilla or advertisers. No servers should ever receive this info. With this solution there is simply no need
The browser can do this by matching the sites in the users history against a database of known sites that have been categorized (these lists would be embedded in the browser itself so there is no need to reveal anything to Mozilla or the advertisers).
3. The software would then embed all advertisements in the browser itself. The browser would then be able to show the advertisements based on the categories advertisers selected.
So if an advertiser of an electronics store wants to target users who are interested in electronics they'd simply select the electronics category.
You can determine the number of users who viewed a given advertisement the same way TV broadcasters do. You can utilize feedback from a small percentage of voluntary participants. The only difference is Mozilla will get that data automatically instead of in the form of a phone call asking you about the shows you watch. Instead it'll ask you to reveal the categories of sites you've recently visited and the percentage of time you've remained on said sites. This data will have already been collected (via your history). If you agree to submit the categorization data they'd find out you were visiting: electronics sites (10% of the time), sex sites (5% of the time), social networking sites (50% of the time), and other sites 35% of the site. They'd then take that data and aggravate. They only need this data to determine the percentage of users who saw the given advertisement and not to actually target the advertisements themselves. You can do the targeting without this data the way the code is written. This is mostly useful for charging advertisers.
The Mozilla Foundation has won out. Please donate to them, either money or code.
There, I fixed that for you.
After seeing how Mozilla shit upon we longtime Firefox users after we very loudly said "NO!" to one stupid Firefox change after another, I will not consider giving them a single cent.
I was the kind of person who adopted Phoenix early on, and promoted it whenever I could. It was people like me who made Firefox successful in the first place. But then Mozilla went stupid with their UI changes, ultimately leading to the Australis debacle. We told them not to, but they did it anyway. They forced one log of shit down our throats after another. They treated us like we were maggots. And I do not stand for that!
I never directly donated money to Mozilla in the first place, and I sure as hell will never do it now. Even if they reverted back to the usable Firefox UI, and very publicly shamed each and every developer and designer who was responsible for Australis, I still don't know if I'd be willing to donate to them.
What they did to we Firefox users was evil. It was disrespectful. It was downright scummy.
I don't care how much "good" Mozilla could do. They've do so much bad and hurt us so much lately that they don't deserve our financial contributions. They will just waste them on something fucking idiotic like Firefox OS, or worse, paying shitty designers and developers to further fuck up and destroy the Firefox UI. I will not support atrocities like those.
You are witnessing the beginning of the end of Mozilla. Those of us around to watch companies drop like flies in the '90's can recognize the pattern. First you have a great product, then you get a marketing team to go after the mainstream market, you dumb the product down according to market research until you alienate the early adopters and advanced users, they stop evangelizing the product to their non-savvy friends and family, and the brand goes down the shitter. On the way there are numerous "brilliant" ideas that will rescue the company if only the users would give them a pass just this once.
Been there, done that. See ya' Mozilla. Maybe those of you who worked at Netscape, then Mozilla, will have learned something in the last 20 years about turning your product into a piece of shit by ignoring your base. I doubt it.
Hosts files add speed, security, reliability, & more for websurfers - does MyCleanPC? No.
APK
P.S.=> Spamware isn't possible with a file you already own (see my subject-line above)... apk
Mozilla communicates a lot about openness, privacy, etc...It wants to be the "good guy". Sponsored tiles (ads) are mostly considered evil.
IMHO, Chrome already has the technical advantage. Firefox tends to copy Chrome features rather than the opposite, and Chrome feels faster and more stable. It would be a shame to also lose the political advantage.
As for the comment "but the ads can be turned off". Sure, but look at ABP. They made their controversial whitelist feature completely optional, yet, it didn't stop people from raging and even create forks that just disable the option.
Most new things come out of Mozilla and it's community. As far as the tabs and the new look; I've seen mock ups back in the day that were a lot like chrome and which predated it. Sadly whatever kept those from going forward no longer exists.
Chrome's #1 goal was and probably still is to feel the fastest. Firefox didn't have that goal; it still does not. They may have fools (or MS agents) causing trouble... They do have the disadvantage of building upon an old mess instead of starting out fresh like KHTML did with webkit. Their large community advantage is undermined by that. That said, their XUL, CSS and javascript platform is really flexible and provides more freedom and access than the other browsers do (not everybody is cut out for C++ work.)
For me, here (& recommends it as the best of its kind) -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... @ the top of their page, right-hand side? Who's that?? Well, THIS (yes, the best in the business per current tests from a reputable source on that subject matter -> http://www.av-test.org/en/news... )
* You evidently FEAR one of the good benefits hosts allow users of them in added speed, security, reliability, & FAR more, better than ANY *single* browser addon by far in terms of cpu/ram/other types of I/O that they layer on increasing messagepassing overheads slowups too in slower usermode (vs. hosts in kernelmode via the ip stack itself) - you, evidently & by process of elimination, are 1 of the following:
1.) Malware-Maker/Botnet-Herder
2.) Inferior Competitor
3.) Advertiser
4.) Webmaster
* Which one? "Inquiring minds, want to know", lol!
Yes, I have narrowed it down to those & am right, aren't I?
(DISCLAIMER: If you people in the bottom 2 (3 & 4 above) wouldn't have been negligent, YOU wouldn't have a problem (dozens of times ads harbored malicious exploit code since 2004 onward especially))
Heck - I even held off releasing my app (was ready in late 2003 in tty/character mode-commandline/"DOS" mode parts & full gui in 2004), out of respect for webmasters, until 2012 & then because of the negligence I note above, I released it:
It works, better than anything else, with less moving parts/complexity-room for breakdown-error, yet doing more in hosts with less - beat that with a stick.
You can't. Nobody ever has - or, will. Fact.
... apk