I am very happy that the web has no more APIs. I'm already tired enough of telling my browser that I don't want any website to send me notifications, to access my location, to access my camera, my microphone. And God knows what goes behind my back. Enough is enough!
That is because of bad usability of the browsers, though.
Default should be for example some icon indicating that the website wants more permission ... and then if I feel like it, I grant more permission. Til the point of fully trusting and giving all access.
But a website is a website I just read and will never get more permissions from me.
But a pwa ... like a game, I would grant more permissions. This is something that should be made easy from the browser to choose, whithout getting annoyed by permission popups all the time.
For comparison, there's old-school Flash, where the permission box for camera/microphone would be overlaid on the bit asking for said permission instead of modally blocking the page, and if you didn't give permission, it would still work fine, just with blank camera/microphone feeds.
Isn't this usability issue on part of the website developer/ux designer too? What you point out is right, but it can also be implemented in a way where you're not outright just calling the function to pop up that little notification asking for [insert api] permission. It might be a better solution where the ux designer/developer has some sort of button the website that then calls that function for a slightly better experience.
" It might be a better solution where the ux designer/developer has some sort of button the website that then calls that function for a slightly better experience"
But this would be up to the websites then. They could do this now, but they aggressively push for all the permissions they can get in the hope at least some click (accidently) yes.
I do not want popups to click away all the time. I want to decide that I like notifications from site x if they offer that.
In economics needs aren't actual physical human needs. The homeless need shelter and the starving need sustenance, but they have none because they don't create economic demand for it because they have no money.
People would only build the homeless man a house or sell the starving mother a fish if they had something to give in return, at least in the naive purely free market economic sense, but that is how macroeconomic observations on supply and demand operate - irrespective of choices made outside of economic rationality.
First you are assuming that there really are needs to be filled. For example in the case of fishing there are limits to how much you can fish, set by the EU, which maybe we've hit already.
Second, jobs don't exist until they are created; saying that they could be created doesn't help unemployed people. Someone has to take the (sometimes very high) risk.
Yes, I am assuming that there are needs to be filled. Is this incorrect? Does not people want stuff, also in Spain?
The limits on how much can be fished is a good point (but I assume the limits is in place to avoid over-fishing, which would result in no fish at all).
Stating that jobs don't exist until they are created may not help unemployed people, but I still believe it to be true.
Of course, but in any case, someone who lives off welfare doesn't have the money to start a business. The only option is to ask a bank for money, and they won't give you shit if you're living off welfare.
Some business require money to start, some don't. Starting some kinds of business look pretty much like getting a job. (But then, there are also certainly laws in place that put a few barriers on starting those last one.)
My bet, based on what my heart says, is that if everybody could receive UBI, almost all people will do absolutely nothing; levels of depression and mental illness will go over the roof, which could very well end in violence.
Introducing UBI because of robots taking jobs reminds me of that quote, "For every complex problem, there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong"
It's so little money that I don't think people would do nothing. I agree with your concern about mental health. Sometimes well intentioned policy sets up an environment that encourages behaviors that lead to mental health issues (the opiod crisis for example).
okay so I can stop reading there, because whatever that is will be informed by the culture surrounding you, which if I had to guess would be center to right american
As an end user I am happy PayPal treats merchants like crap.
Just think about it: unless you drink the libertarian kool-aid, you know in any given business transaction there's a minimum of 1 (one) sucker. I'd rather the merchant be the sucker.
You should tell that to my friend who routinely tells me about sending 2000 dollars of equipment just to get scammed. It's happened so many times now he barely gets annoyed. Just a cost of doing business, getting scammed and PayPal is complicit.
I hate to burst your bubble but we've never lost a paypal dispute and they have treated us extremely well. Further, I can call them any time and talk with a senior rep relatively easily.
I think it's normal. We now live in a world were liberalism is being shoved down our throats at all levels (mass media, education, ...). Young people are rebels by nature, so now, young people are moving to the right, especially in Europe.
What I mean to say is that this is not the result of US puritanism moving to Europe. Instead, I think it's a natural, homegrown trend, unrelated to religious sentiments.
Left/right is a seating arrangement, literally as well as metaphorically.
Free-market/command-economy is different axis to dynamic/conservative is a different axis to populist/evidence-based is a different axis to moralist/libertarian.
If you just tried to transplant the UK’s Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat, SNP or Green parties to the USA, they not only would be unelectable “socialists” for supporting the NHS, but also all support policies the USA considers unconstitutional (variously: ‘guns are bad’, ‘censor more’, ‘the Queen should disolve the government every so often’).
Likewise, the UK’s Labour Party is currently wobbling on the left side of the UK’s Overton Window, despite being a moderate centerist by the standards of several EU nations.
It's just that I have seen projects delay making an important decision by rationalizing that there is not enough information and that the decision can be made later.
Then it turns out that the vital piece which fits the requirements does not exist at all (or does not exist for small time customer), or is incompatible with the architecture which has a lot of resources invested in.
Not saying that this will be what happens and most likely Librem team are already well aware of this risk, but it is certainly a possibility.
Based on playing with my little adafruit cell chip I have, I can talk to it pretty simply by sending it standard modem commands. I don't know how this exactly lines up with a more modern phone but it's pretty cool. You could theoretically talk to it with something like this too
That's actually not a big deal, as there are already multiple to choose from. FSO, oFono, ModemManager, and even more if you count ones from Openmoko times. Most of them should work with a module like PLS8 with minimal or no modifications.
I think you're both right.
On my Essential Phone (Snapdragon 835 running stock Android 9) pages tend to _render_ quicker in FF, but scrolling, pinch to zoom etc. is smoother in Chrome.
I also find that Firefox will bog down after a month and I have to manually delete out its cache in app settings. I haven't had to do this for Chrome since back in the Android 5.x era.
Heh, maybe it's the opposite then! Like an accumulation of shitty trackers, because you don't use uBlock or privacy badger or the like. That would be pretty ironic
Scrolling in Firefox on Android is smoother, ie. more consistent 60fps, than Chrome for me for a few months now. It used to be very bad but suddenly improved dramatically.
Huh, your right. Scrolling in Firefox on Android was awful for years, and was the main reason i stuck with chrome. I'll have to give it a proper go now...
In my experience the minimum hardware baseline for Firefox is higher than Chrome but the optimal hardware baseline is lower.
I switched to Firefox on Android a few years ago and it was unpleasant until I upgrade my phone. At the time I was running a Nexus 4 and moved to a Nextbit Robin.
My partner switched to Firefox on a Google Pixel and regularly complains about issues with it's performance which makes me wonder if Google has done some optimizations to Chrome on the Pixel.
Are these ads introduced with these updates, or does Firefox include a backdoor so the Mozilla Corporation can show whatever they want on your home page?
Firefox as an organization does not get branding at all. They claim to be the champions on privacy and user freedom yet they keep breaking that image over and over again with unwanted ads, telemetry, and services you can't disable. I still use Firefox as my main browser, but I can't fathom how they come up with such poor decisions every single time.
You can disable the ads in the preferences. The telemetry can be mostly disabled there too, more if you use about:config. Pocket, which I assume is the service you mention, can also be disabled in about:config.
If telemetry was off by default, Mozilla would be blind to what the users are doing, to common sources of crashes and to what features are not being used.
Mozilla needs that information to be able to make a decision on where to focus.
Same for ads, default off ads defeats the entire purpose.
Mozilla is a privacy-aware and even -focused corporation and I will assume that the defaults of the browser are good for the common end user. Everything else may be configured.
They need to ask if they collect personal data as per GDPR or the US Data Privacy laws. If the data collected is not of private nature they don't need to ask.
It doesn't send that granular enough of a usage pattern though, they have a group of people making sure that they data they collect cannot be used to identify someone.
Maybe if users were willing to pay for a browser, they wouldn't be so desperately scrambling around for non-Google revenue sources.
They could try to offer some kind of "pay us to forgo marketing partnerships" deal, but I somehow doubt even most of the well-paid privacy advocates on HN would sign up.
> They could try to offer some kind of "pay us to forgo marketing partnerships" deal, but I somehow doubt even most of the well-paid privacy advocates on HN would sign up.
I would pay for this, provided it was a one time payment! (I feel I need to add that caveat nowadays, since subscriptions are all the rage.)
> I would pay for this, provided it was a one time payment!
The problem is that web browsers require some of the most intensive software maintenance of any software, ever. They're one of the most exposed attack surfaces to external security threats; and piles of new features are unfortunately getting continuously added to web standards, which need to be supported for compatibility reasons.
I think a one time tip-jar payment makes sense for a lot of software, but not for web browsers. I think a subscription-type contribution makes the most sense for them.
Have they ever tried crowdfunding campaigns? I don't think so. Wikipedia seems to be doing fine with it. At least they should experiment with some ideas in that line and see what works.
And then people will complain that Mozilla is nagging them for money. I doubt anyone likes the nag screen that Wikipedia pops down about 15 seconds into reading a page and it covering almost half the screen.
Wikipedia has sufficient marketshare to survive despite that.
The ads that mozilla shows are fairly privacy-friendly, much more than any other ads you'd find on most websites. That's an improvement.
If you don't like them you can easily disable them.
>And then people will complain that Mozilla is nagging them for money. I doubt anyone likes the nag screen that Wikipedia pops down about 15 seconds into reading a page and it covering almost half the screen.
Users may not like nag screens, but I doubt they like the shitty ads Mozilla shows on the new tab page by default either. As long as the screen is easy to dismiss I don't see the problem.
I can't say that I like the wikipedia reminders, but I don't dislike them. They remind me to pay for a service I use daily. So I do and they don't remind for a while. It is fine.
Honestly that's a very poor rationale. People should be choosing Firefox because it's a better product or a more ethical one (sadly they are doing a poor job at convincing us of that), not because we need to keep a competitor alive forever no matter what.
Regardless of the reason why, we're now reaping the fruits of Google's unchecked rampage across the browser space, what with Chromium/WebKit all but taking over. Mozilla continues to be starved for cash. Most Firefox users despise one of its only monetization strategies (selling advertisements). FF would be dead tomorrow if Yahoo (or whoever the default search engine is) pulled their funding. Mozilla is surrounded by rocks and hard places on all sides, what else can they do?
Yes, you can do that. But if you want it to be sustainable, you can't use that kind of line to convince people at large. And note that until Firefox 57, Firefox was not "marginally" inferior, it was substantially inferior in a number of metrics. They have improved since then, but it took them a very long time - you can't expect users to wait forever for you.
If we can't expect educated, tech-savvy users on HN to take the long view and support Mozilla, then I guess you're saying the game is already lost.
We might as well just make our peace that the age of an open internet and general-purpose computing is coming to an end. In future, we'll enjoy AOL 2.0 access on our Google Home Terminal Appliances.
For the lack of better alternatives (I need some specific extensions, and I don't want to use Chrome). I also use alternative browsers like qutebrowser but it cannot replace everything I need to do.
I don't think it was him in particular, it was just that firing him gave them the opportunity to replace him and his people with people more attuned to their agendas. It's the agendas that should change, the people would follow. They installed a new culture at the top that was more interested in using Firefox as a transitional way to burnish their resumés, and any semblance of core values disappeared in a tangle of projects that were branded as innovation and that everybody could sign. Meanwhile they've been in consistent negative growth in users that is actually starting to look insignificant because their entire userbase is now insignificant. I mean: losing 1%/month of the number of the users they have now seems like a rounding error compared to 1%/month of the users they had 5 years ago.
Anyway, they'll always be guaranteed at least 3% of the market from diehard anti-Google/Microsoft/closed-source users like me, and users from outside the US who are concerned by unaccountable US tech behemoths who are intimately intertwined with the government. With that 3%, they'll be able to fulfill their primary function of being something that Google can claim in an antitrust hearing keeps them from being a monopoly.
Intel can't revert the market back 10 years, but the problem with Mozilla isn't its struggles with the market. If it is true that Mozilla's problem is compromised leadership, then it would make perfect sense to go back to independent leadership.
And Steve Jobs was running NeXT. And like NeXT, Brave doesn't really seem to be catching on...
From what I understand though, Eich has lost faith in Mozilla maintaining their own renderer, so if he came back to Mozilla it would probably coincide with Firefox becoming yet another chromium skin.
Mozilla is sticking with Gecko for now, and they do not need my faith to continue.
Brave is growing, has grown every month, not at over 5.5M MAU. I am not sure how to interpret "Brave doesn't seem to be catching on" as other than false. Firefox in 1H2004 was in a similar trendline. People then still said "IE for evar!"
I have no idea if Brave is going to succeed at their goals, but they are the only ones trying to comprehensively change the model...I wish them success!
Exactly. And they still don't advertise a lot of the Firefox features outside of release notes. I mean REALLY advertise. Google used to have regular commercials with celebrities to advertise Chrome, and people are still somehow baffled that they're number one now? FOSS devs build some good software, but we're terrible at marketing.
Even though the link claims that it is not a paid placement, it's still an advertisement. If Mozilla really wants to provide more value to me, they'll tell me how to permanently disable it. Its presence provides negative value to me.
How is an accusation of it being an ad at all a stretch? It’s a placement offering a deal for a company, whether or not it was paid for. That seems to fit the definition of an ad to me.
Furthermore, I’m not sure where you got the idea that I am telling you to move to chrome or indeed do anything at all, given the comment to which you replied says “me” 3 times in it. I was quite evidently purely asking about my own situation.
Their argument, per the GP’s link, is that they want to provide their users additional value. This does not achieve that for me, hence I want to remove it.
I have not yet had a chance to upgrade and try to disable it, as I am not near my computer right now to upgrade to the latest release. Hence why I asked for them to provide a means of removing it. If that already exists, fantastic! It achieves precisely the outcome I’m after.
It's not in the latest release it's from a release or two ago so you probably already have it disabled.
But its not only ads they serve up, it's closer to the Google Now feed you see on chrome new tabs in android or Google now.
The accusation was that they're not adding value or in fact negating it. My complaint was that Google or alternatives don't do nearly as much as they could to ad value - so to call out Firefox like this just makes no sense.
I will mention they're pushing pocket hard and I think this sis the route they're going for monetary gains. It's gross but it's pretty easy to remove it all from context menus via user chrome CSS anyway.
I would suggest you consider this: with Microsoft moving Edge to chromium, there are now only 3 engines standing: Chromium, webkit, and gecko. Therefore Firefox is important to deny Google enormous control over the browser and therefore the internet.
Firefox desperately needs a revenue stream that is independent from Google. Although Google has not done so yet -- it's imo very valuable to Google to preserve the illusion of not having a browser monopoly -- a huge amount of their revenues come from their Google search deal. Google can, for example, cut that deal at any time: Firefox is selling into a monopsony.
I don't love advertising, but we need Firefox to have a non-google revenue source.
I completely understand the need for the Mozilla org to diversify its funding sources. If that’s the case, they should be honest and upfront with it. Come out and say that you want to try ad revenue, rather than this “giving back” nonsense. If Mozilla are honest about it then we as the Firefox community can have a more realistic conversation about what this means and how it’s best implemented.
Does the Mozilla foundation accept private donations? Even if they do, they clearly don't push it enough.
I have no idea if it would bring in enough revenue, but it would presumably help? I'd much prefer a Wikipedia-esque donation request on the new tab page than any of Mozilla's other partnerships.
Just to clarify Chromium (browser) uses Blink, which is a fork of Webkit. IMO the consolidation demonstrates the complexity involved.
The alternative is subscription. That hasn't fared too well traditionally in browser space for a few decades. Maybe the Brave approach might work, where a fraction goes to the browser vendor akin to a transaction fee?
Of course they paid for it... Do you really think the Mozilla Corporation has sent an ad to millions of users for free? Whether that money went to the corporation or to the pocket of an executive, that's another matter.
Or it can be a deal to see what returns the ad gets. If Mozilla is serious about selling ad space there, they're going to need case studies. In the early stages, that is something you would give away for free. Particularly because the ad providers are going to get a lot less data than they are accustomed to, you will need some case studies that show someone getting great returns on their ad spend even without tracking data.
Then the statement "It was not a paid placement or advertisement." is blatantly false. they simply say whether it was paid, not whether it was paid to a specific entity.
> This snippet was an experiment to provide more value to Firefox users through offers provided by a partner. It was not a paid placement or advertisement. We are continually looking for more ways to say thanks for using Firefox. In a similar vein, earlier this month we offered Firefox users a free opportunity to enjoy a live concert from Phosphorescent.
It could be that they are knowingly making public statements which are untrue and will expose themselves to legal liability for that or it could be that the statement means exactly what it says and that Mozilla is experimenting with promotions for using Firefox which do not involve money changing hands, especially if they're just gauging interest to see whether people even click on those regions. The concert was definitely promoted as a “Thanks for using Firefox” deal so I would not be at all surprised to learn that Booking.com gave a modest discount as part of a deal where no money changed hands as per the statement.
> This snippet was an experiment to provide more value to Firefox users through offers provided by a partner. It was not a paid placement or advertisement.
I don't know about legal liability, but you don't really need to look further than this to know that Mozilla lied because these two statements are already inconsistent. "Offers provided by a partner" are advertisements. The quid pro quo in this case wasn't money, but rather a link on booking.com to download Firefox.
> Are these ads introduced with these updates, or does Firefox include a backdoor so the Mozilla Corporation can show whatever they want on your home page?
The snippets are just a web page fragment fetched over HTTPS, AFAIK.
I don't see this on mine, but I modified the defaults a long time ago.. My new tab page just has a list of 10 (out of 16) sites I added there manually. 6 of those are services I run on my local network.
Hit the gear at the top right of your new tab page. Uncheck boxes you don't want.
Optionally, disable Pocket completely by going to about:config in address bar. Search for 'extensions.pocket.enabled' and double click to change value from true to false.
I was so excited when Quantum was released. I used it exclusively and was happy with the performance.
Then Mozilla started back dooring ads and other promos and broke my trust.
I’ve since gone back to Chrome. At least there Google has the decency to make it obvious you’re being tracked, and with the new privacy controls I (hopefully correctly) feel like I can exercise some control.
Mozilla really needs to get right with their users.
