[HN Gopher] Sponsored Top Sites
___________________________________________________________________
Sponsored Top Sites
Author : mmanfrin
Score : 101 points
Date : 2021-02-24 19:47 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (support.mozilla.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (support.mozilla.org)
| SturgeonsLaw wrote:
| Fair enough, Mozilla desperately needs to develop alternative
| income streams, their dependence on their biggest competitor
| seems to be an existential risk
| calvinmorrison wrote:
| > Revenue (per year)
|
| >2014 $420 million
|
| >2015 $420 million
|
| >2016 $520 million
|
| >2017 $562 million
|
| >2018 $436 million
|
| I'm sorry, it's just laughable that you need $500 million a
| year to create an 'open source' web browser.
|
| Pathetic
| CobrastanJorji wrote:
| While it's still a lot, software development is only about
| half of the Mozilla Foundation's expensive (and not all of
| that is the browser). They spend around $50 million/year on
| marketing, ~$75 million/year on administration, etc. They
| publish annual audits and reports (which ironically probably
| eats up a million bucks on its own).
| stefantalpalaru wrote:
| >2017 $562 million
|
| "On February24, 2017, Mozilla acquired 100% of the
| outstanding stock of Read It Later, Inc., known as Pocket,
| (RIL) for a total purchase price of $25 million in cash, and
| $5 million in deferred payments." -
| https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2018/mozilla-
| fdn-201...
| tomp wrote:
| Exactly. Sounds like a certain outsourced government
| website...
|
| If Mozilla was smart and didn't spend coin for useless stuff
| (Pocket?), they'd be able to set up a trust fund with all
| this money, that would sustain them indefinitely.
| ozim wrote:
| Well now they have 8% of the browser market. I think you need
| $500 million a year to barely keep at those 8%.
|
| If they drop those millions of revenue I believe their market
| share will sharply drop. Opera is operating on around $100
| million of revenue and they are in 1% range of market share.
|
| I bet Microsoft can spend $100 million or less just to be
| around 7% with Edge since they have Windows. I also don't
| think Google is spending much more to keep Chrome at around
| 70% when they own search and YouTube and Android.
|
| They need $500 million just to keep head above the water and
| remember they are swimming with sharks.
| gchamonlive wrote:
| How about 500 mil yearly to create an OS from scratch? Is
| that laughable too?
|
| The level of complexity to create a modern web browser,
| specially one that has in-house engines like Firefox, is
| comparable to a modern OS.
| calvinmorrison wrote:
| How much do you think the Debian non-profit makes per year?
| What about ArchLinux?
|
| How many full time developers are paid by the Linux
| Foundation?
|
| It's funny, their budget is much smaller than firefox
|
| https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/46
| 0...
|
| Maybe all this complexity and constant changes to the web
| comes from the fact that there are hundreds and hundreds of
| employees paid to tinker around.
|
| Mozilla is effectively a $500 Million dollar corporation,
| not a non-profit.
|
| Money corrupts absolutely.
| ylyn wrote:
| > How much do you think the Debian non-profit makes per
| year? What about ArchLinux?
|
| These are distributions. Their main role is to package
| upstream software. That is different from actually
| writing an entire OS.
|
| You should compare to however much Microsoft pays all of
| the developers that work on the different components of
| Windows.
|
| > How many full time developers are paid by the Linux
| Foundation? > > It's funny, their budget is much smaller
| than firefox
|
| That's because the vast majority of Linux development is
| not done by employees of the Linux Foundation. Only a few
| top-level maintainers, including Linus Torvalds and Greg
| K-H, are employed by the Linux Foundation.
|
| Most Linux code these days is written by people employed
| by companies like Intel, Huawei, Google, Red Hat, NXP,
| Facebook, etc. See https://lwn.net/Articles/839772/ for
| example.
|
| You would do good by reading a bit before saying things
| online.
| pwdisswordfish0 wrote:
| > Only a few top-level maintainers, including Linus
| Torvalds and Greg K-H, are employed by the Linux
| Foundation. Most Linux code these days is written by
| people employed by companies like Intel, Huawei, Google,
| Red Hat, NXP, Facebook, etc.
|
| This supposed to be a defense of Mozilla? There's a
| /r/selfawarewolves-style obliviousness to what you're
| saying.
| dangwu wrote:
| That complexity is mostly due to Gecko, right? What's
| stopping Mozilla from switching to Blink? Does using
| Google's engine conflict with their mission?
|
| Edit: Getting downvotes for this honest question. I didn't
| realize that browser rendering engines held that much
| control. Apologies for the silly thought.
| jasonpeacock wrote:
| Why stop there? Why doesn't Mozilla switch to using
| Chrome? :)
| dangwu wrote:
| Car manufacturers use parts (like engines) from other
| competitors all the time. I thought this could be similar
| with Mozilla, but I guess it was a silly thought.
| dave5104 wrote:
| The problem is that having most web browser options
| running on a rendering engine controlled by Google means
| that the web will simply end up looking and working like
| how Google wants it too.
| slig wrote:
| It'd be really hard to justify half billion dollars a
| year to just re-skin Chromium.
| dangwu wrote:
| Right. They wouldn't need that much money. That's my
| point.
| jasonpeacock wrote:
| To follow that analogy, it'd be like BMW using an engine
| from Ford. Their whole selling point is the engines, and
| how they are different from other manufacturers.
|
| I'm sure there are many backend libraries, parsers, etc.
| that are used by both Chrome and Firefox, but they're
| unlikely to replace significant components like that.
| jasonpeacock wrote:
| And to keep going...car manufacturers do use engines from
| other brands, but that's when they are owned by the same
| company. For example, you'll find Ford engines in Mazdas
| because Ford owned Mazda (or at least a chunk of it):
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazda#Partnership_with_Ford
| _Mo...
| stefs wrote:
| that would be a monoculture disaster. monocultures are
| not resilient.
| Spivak wrote:
| Not resilient to disease maybe but I'm sure webdevs will
| be overjoyed at having a much easier time porting sites.
| The power dynamic that matters is political not
| technical. Google doesn't really get to exert control
| over the web with their rendering engine or V8 it's the
| actual high-level browser policy that matters and Firefox
| doesn't actually have to follow any of it.
|
| Firefox gutted all of their internals with project Servo.
| If they had instead integrated Blink would it have been
| any different?
|
| I always think it's interesting what things people want
| to have diverse ecosystems with competing implementations
| (browsers) and what things people consider that an
| unnecessary duplication of effort (Wayland compositors).
| ylyn wrote:
| So you've seen the same person say both of that?
| Spivak wrote:
| We're on the internet. There's only one other human and
| the rest are bots.
|
| If you go into threads about Wayland the overwhelming
| public opinion is that having lots of compositors is
| silly. And then you go into threads about browsers the
| overwhelming public opinion is that having multiple
| browser implementations is sacred.
| duhi88 wrote:
| Google routinely implements, fails to implement, and
| fails to deprecate features that align with their company
| goals (i.e. namely collecting lots of data). AMP, Browser
| Extension Manifest v3, cookie privacy features, ad-
| blocking features, file formats, and many more that most
| people have never heard of.
|
| Happens all the time. Without Webkit and Gecko, the web
| would simply be "whatever Google wants to do". Having
| multiple browser implementations helps balance out
| whatever Google's agenda is at any given time.
| minikites wrote:
| >Google doesn't really get to exert control over the web
| with their rendering engine or V8
|
| Just because they're failing at it doesn't mean they're
| not trying (AMP, needless degradation of Google services
| in non-Chrome browsers, etc). They only have to succeed
| once.
| Spivak wrote:
| We're not disagreeing. Google is absolutely trying to
| exert control over the web but Blink and V8 aren't tools
| that can realistically help them with that. Especially in
| the hands of other teams that are free to carry patches.
|
| If Firefox became a Chrome skin then sure, v bad for the
| web. But if Firefox internally used Bink and V8 it's not
| really all that doom and gloom.
| wayneftw wrote:
| Plenty of monocultures exist in the real world and we
| almost already have a Chrome/WebKit based monoculture.
| Where's the actual, non-theoretical disaster?
|
| Safari is the only browser that has any significant
| uptake (~20%) and Chromium was forked from WebKit, so all
| Chromium browsers already share a good chunk of their
| foundation with WebKit. You could say that we really
| almost have a WebKit monoculture since Firefox, the only
| non-Chromium/WebKit browser only has 3.65% of the market.
| [0]
|
| _Heck, the vast majority of Internet servers and most of
| the clients are running on the Linux kernel_ but nobody
| is complaining about that.
|
| [0] https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share
| minikites wrote:
| If every browser uses the same engine, then what's the
| point of web standards? We can replace HTML with binary
| blobs and make the web so fast!
| TheRealSteel wrote:
| The whole point of Firefox existing is too be an
| alternative to Blink.
|
| This is like asking why Pepsi doesn't just copy Coke's
| recipe.
| Spivak wrote:
| This doesn't make any sense. Firefox is an alternative to
| Chrome, Edge, and Safari. Gecko is an alternative to
| Blink, Tident, and WebKit.
|
| It's cool to have multiple implementations but this
| analogy doesn't work since browser rendering engines are
| trying to produce identical results. You wouldn't say
| that PyPy exists as an alternative to Python, would you?
| madeofpalk wrote:
| This sounds very much like a distinction without a
| difference.
|
| The purpose of Firefox doesn't exist without Gecko, they
| both are to serve as an "independent" alternative force
| in the browser space.
| adkadskhj wrote:
| > You wouldn't say that PyPy exists as an alternative to
| Python, would you?
|
| I think you would if Python (proper) was controlled by an
| anti-competitive information stealing superpower which is
| becoming increasingly disliked.
|
| Alternative backends to Python would be very important.
| Ensuring that the language is still usable in the event
| that the primary contributor goes full-tilt evil.
|
| With that said, i don't think it matters (personally) if
| Mozilla has their own engine _or_ browser, in the most
| strict sense. What matters is that both of those things
| have invested parties capable of forking and/or
| maintaining free and open source versions of those things
| in the event that Chrome (ala Google) goes full evil.
|
| It does seem that maintaining your own browser and
| rendering engine seem effective ways to ensuring you're
| capable of carrying the torch should Chrome disappear
| tomorrow. _Hypothetically_ they could just maintain
| /develop directly into Blink and Chromium.
| senko wrote:
| > How about 500 mil yearly to create an OS from scratch?
|
| When was Mozilla trying to create an OS from scratch?
|
| The closest they came was FirefoxOS which was using Gecko
| browser engine (existing) on top of Linux kernel (existing)
| and a host of other existing open source projects, and
| FirefoxOS was (unfortunately) a dismal failure.
| pwdisswordfish0 wrote:
| You're leaving out the revenue from the Yahoo lawsuit. When
| you combine the revenue from actual royalties and the award
| from the lawsuit, Mozilla's income for the last year we have
| on record was just under _1 billion USD_ , and people
| continue pushing the narrative that Mozilla is more
| financially insecure than ever. Firefox is certainly at one
| of the lowest measures of success it has ever seen, but it's
| also bringing in more money per user than ever.
|
| The picture of Mozilla as frail organization just barely
| squeaking by has been very lucrative.
|
| The fact is, Mozilla has been in the current position for the
| last 10 years, which is one that is far _less_ precarious
| than it 's made out to be, hasn't done _anything_ that
| substantially ameliorates what precarity does exist, and
| instead continues making awful decisions that push away both
| people in its user base _and_ its potential set of
| contributors, with the kicker being that the purported
| looming threat of poverty is used as the justification for
| all decisions made. And they never budge on anything, except
| to move further down on all measures that they point to. So
| how smart and well-reasoned are those decisions again?
|
| Signed, a lifetime Firefox user (for lack of a better
| option).
| konjin wrote:
| They aren't using that for the browser, they are using it to
| push things like women in code. Which is a dark pattern since
| if people wanted to fund women in code they would give the
| money to that charity instead of giving it to a browser and
| have it diverted.
|
| But given what we're reading here it's no surprise that the
| corpse of Mozilla uses dark patters at every possible level
| to obfuscate what they are trying to do.
| endisneigh wrote:
| I think the lack of pressure on Mozilla has prevented them from
| innovating at the level necessary to sustain themselves if Google
| pulled the rug from under them. It might be good for them if they
| put 50% or so of their revenue in an endowment for sustaining
| Mozilla and forced themselves to exist on a fixed budget.
|
| There are excellent engineers working at Mozilla - the fact that
| there hasn't been a substantial new product from Mozilla in the
| past decade is really a shame.
| forgotmypw17 wrote:
| This thread seems like a good opportunity for everyone to share
| other browsers they're aware of which are at least somewhat
| usable.
|
| Setting a very low baseline of "works for browsing Hacker News",
| I'll get the ball rolling. Each of these browsers is already
| pretty good, and could be even better with your support.
|
| I use primarily GNU desktop and Android, others can fill in Mac,
| Windows, iOS, and other platforms.
|
| DESKTOP:
|
| Pale Moon
|
| Opera
|
| Vivaldi
|
| Waterfox
|
| qutebrowser
|
| Links
|
| lynx
|
| w3m
|
| Midori
|
| ANDROID:
|
| Bromite
|
| FOSS Browser
|
| Brave
|
| Smooz
|
| Ghostery
|
| Via
|
| These are all browsers I regularly test with and they work quite
| well. Heavy sites like Instagram, Reddit, Facebook, YouTube, and
| Gmail do not work with them, and I generally avoid those sites,
| resort to using alternative front-ends, or open Chromium for a
| minute or two.
| Miraste wrote:
| It's worth noting that Pale Moon, Waterfox, and Ghostery are
| variably outdated versions of Firefox, and Brave, Opera,
| Vivaldi, Bromite, and Smooz are just Chrome.
| forgotmypw17 wrote:
| I think your use of the word "outdated" is incorrect.
|
| They are more like "LTS" versions, which maintain a stable
| user interface while keeping up with security patches and
| continuously adding improvements and polish.
| Miraste wrote:
| I'm referring less to active maintenance and more to the
| tech involved. Pre-57 Firefox, which is what Pale Moon and
| Waterfox Classic fork, had several design choices which all
| major browsers, including Firefox, moved away from and are,
| IMO, inherently insecure (also slow). It used to be a
| playground for security researchers. I count building
| shinier versions of 2000's browser tech as outdated.
| forgotmypw17 wrote:
| I consider the point of view that only using bleeding
| edge browsers is valid as outdated.
|
| I also think that saying "several design choices" but not
| actually listing them is disingenuous.
| pwdisswordfish0 wrote:
| The only viable non-Mozilla alternative to Blink-based
| browsers are WebKit-based browsers (or the minimal ones with
| custom engines that are developed to run in the terminal, if
| you can stomach it).
| forgotmypw17 wrote:
| "Mozilla" is a large umbrella which spans several different
| rendering engines and a whole host of browsers.
| ibraheemdev wrote:
| Are there any browsers that are not tied to a large for-
| profit corporation (Google, Apple, MS) other than Firefox?
| Spivak wrote:
| I mean Firefox is inexorably tied to Google so that doesn't
| really work either.
| ibraheemdev wrote:
| True, but I meant on the technology side of things.
| Chromium based browsers like Brave have had issues in the
| past where they pulled in upstream code that, say,
| connected to Google servers. Firefox is the only browser
| I know of the doesn't have that problem.
| doc_gunthrop wrote:
| Bromite is _de-Googled_ Chrome. It 's the reason why
| notifications are not supported; push notifications rely on
| Firebase Cloud Messaging / Google Cloud Messaging.
|
| It's actually less tied to Google services than Firefox.
| jebronie wrote:
| Yeah, let's block ads on websites and put them in the browser UI
| instead. Only ours of course. - someone at mozilla corp
| albertgoeswoof wrote:
| They've now added these to the search bar, above everything else.
|
| If you already have top sites disabled on your start page, then
| you have to re-enable this and then disable the checkbox, before
| re-disabling it all. Terrible UX, arguably a dark pattern and
| user hostile.
|
| https://twitter.com/OhMySMTP/status/1364274675459764231
| gruez wrote:
| ...and that's why I use ESR. I get all the security patches but
| I only have to deal with browser drama every year rather than
| every month.
| ssss11 wrote:
| Sorry could you expand the acronym ESR? I'm unfamiliar and
| would like to look into it, thanks
| gruez wrote:
| https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/choosing-firefox-
| update...
| corobo wrote:
| I'm starting to regret switching back to Firefox with this move.
| Wisdom of the crowd: what's the next decent browser?
|
| My initial reaction was to search the Amazon tag and found
| reports of rogue plugins. I thought I'd been done security wise
| at first..
| slig wrote:
| I'd recommend you a Chromium fork but I'm not brave enough to
| do it here.
| [deleted]
| neolog wrote:
| That "anonymized technical data" link points to a github repo
| with no documentation. It's not clear what data you're actually
| sending. What do you consider personally identifying?
| merlinscholz wrote:
| That looks like a big red flag for me too. They somehow have to
| check for ad abuse after all.
| luplex wrote:
| There is a legal definition for personally identifying data,
| for example in GDPR
| neolog wrote:
| Maybe there are multiple legal definitions
| [deleted]
| Cynddl wrote:
| Mozilla: "When you click on a sponsored tile, Firefox sends
| anonymized technical data to our partner through a Mozilla-owned
| proxy service. This data does not include any personally
| identifying information."
|
| adMarketplace: "We may also receive technical information such as
| your approximate location, browser type, language settings, user
| agent, timestamp, cookie ID and IP addresses."
|
| There's a big discrepancy between Mozilla's statement and
| adMarketplace's privacy policy. Although there's very little
| information available, the fact that this technical information
| is anonymous doesn't appear straightforward. Cookie IDs and IP
| addresses alone can very easily identify some users uniquely
| across time and even devices.
| aendruk wrote:
| This happened to me yesterday. First thing I did after verifying
| that it wasn't a malware infection was Help - Submit Feedback,
| only to be met with:
|
| > We've paused submissions to this form so that we can improve
| how we collect feedback.
|
| Stonewalled a la Google; insult to injury. "Unfck" indeed.
| jebronie wrote:
| I'm glad I ditched Firefox half a year ago. Safari under Big Sur
| is actually not that bad as a daily driver, and with the upcoming
| webm support it will do everything I want it to. Firefox is just
| not the same anymore. It used to be tech focused. Now they
| pretend to sell you "privacy" and virtue signal every chance they
| get, but it's clear Mozilla Corp is just after more money and
| behind your back they use every chance to monetize you.
| Technology doesn't even come second. In hindsight I'm glad they
| failed at making a successful mobile browser, it's time for them
| to bite the dust.
| fl0wenol wrote:
| I really hope the Mozilla team sees this thread.
|
| I'm not opted-in, but if this goes forward to all users, you
| better believe I'm withdrawing my annual donation to the
| foundation, and I'm switching to a alternative.
|
| This is not acceptable.
| rlaabs wrote:
| Unfortunately it seems like I was one of "small percentage of
| Firefox users" this feature is being tested on.
|
| Contrary to what the article claims, there was no way to disable
| this feature from the menu: it wasn't possible to uncheck the
| 'Sponsored Top Sites' button.
|
| I had search for 'sponsor' settings in 'about:config' to disable
| it. Sadly, I don't think most users will be able to figure this
| out.
|
| I'm seriously reconsidering moving away from Firefox, or at the
| very least no longer recommending it to non-technical users
| Kinrany wrote:
| I had Yandex as a sponsored website when I installed Firefox.
| The process of removal did seem unnecessarily obfuscated, but I
| only had to spend like five minutes on it.
| cookie_monsta wrote:
| I found the setting by following FF's instructions and turned
| it off. Took about 5 seconds, I guess a minute total including
| searching for how to do it.
| thrwn_frthr_awy wrote:
| Do you know if your data was shared with advertisers before
| you were able to turn it off?
| cookie_monsta wrote:
| Of course I know that. What a strange question.
| ylyn wrote:
| GP is not literally asking if you know. They are asking
| you if your data was shared or not.
| cookie_monsta wrote:
| Well, that makes it an even stranger question. Why ask
| one thing if what you want to know is something else?
| thrwn_frthr_awy wrote:
| I'm sorry my question wasn't clear, but I was not trying
| to ask one thing and know something else. I will try and
| restate my question.
|
| Were you given an opportunity to disable the sponsored
| top sites before they were first loaded and your data
| sent to advertisers?
| ajkjk wrote:
| imo, for companies which are forced to compromise their product
| to monetize, the only way to maintain goodwill with your users to
| be candid about it. In this case looks like: "why are we doing
| this? Because we need the money", more or less.
| jebronie wrote:
| They will just point at others and pretend to "unfck the
| internet" as a diversion while slowly making the users the
| product. "Hey watch The social dilemma on Netflix guuuys".
| thrwn_frthr_awy wrote:
| It seems like you're not able to opt out until the feature has
| been installed and is running which is a bit frustrating. I had a
| similar issue recently with Heroku not allowing me to delete my
| account without accepting their new terms of service.
| ohazi wrote:
| We really need "corporate bullshit removed" forks of both Chrome
| and Firefox.
|
| IceWeasel and Chromium were effectively Firefox and Chrome
| without the (surface level) corporate _branding_. Chromium is
| soon having many of its Google tie-ins severed. Debian and
| Mozilla resolved their trademark dispute, so IceWeasel mostly
| went away.
|
| These browsers are open source, yet they both suffer an
| unpalatable amount of corporate control. Google can do whatever
| it wants, because it's the king. Mozilla is able to get away with
| this because they are the only real alternative for people who
| don't like the king.
| nyanpasu64 wrote:
| > We really need "corporate bullshit removed" forks of both
| Chrome and Firefox.
|
| And since Google's recent announcement, unofficial Chromium
| builds will be unable to sync passwords with Google's servers.
| ohazi wrote:
| Good! I hope that maintenance of a de-googlified Chromium
| continues, and I hope they strip out even more of the
| undocumented telemetry and forgotten whitelisting of
| miscellaneous Google-controlled endpoints.
|
| The result will be a better web browser.
| rglullis wrote:
| How do you expect these projects to afford its development?
| Free software does not come for free.
| ohazi wrote:
| Maybe stopping to live with the browsers that we have for a
| while wouldn't be the end of the world?
|
| You're right that free software development isn't free, but
| these browsers _already_ exist, and are _already_ free, and
| for the most part, they work. CVEs can be found and fixed
| without corporate backing.
|
| Instead, we're rushing to pour more and more stuff into the
| cesspool. WebUSB and WebBluetooth are not things that I
| particularly need or want. Part of this is Google's fault.
| They're currently on top, and if they unilaterally decide to
| add something, everyone else needs to either implement it or
| die. I mean, I still think they should fucking stop, but
| obviously they won't, and I don't have a good answer to this.
| rglullis wrote:
| _Old man yells at (internet) cloud_
|
| > for the most part, they work.
|
| What is stopping you to just keep using an older version?
| If you are a developer, what is stopping you to target only
| the subset of features that you seem necessary?
|
| > WebUSB and WebBluetooth are not things that I
| particularly need or want
|
| I assume you are thinking about the browser on your desktop
| OS. What about platforms like FirefoxOS - KaiOS?
| ohazi wrote:
| > What is stopping you to just keep using an older
| version?
|
| CVEs, CA issues.
|
| Firefox ESR kind of addresses this, but it's a band-aid.
| The new mis-features eventually show up in ESR as well.
|
| I want an actual fork, where dumb features like "ads
| baked into the browser" are kept out permanently.
|
| Look, I said that we should do this because I think it
| would be good for the community... I am well aware that
| maintaining a fork like this would be a ton of work. I
| was never trying to insinuate that it would be easy, just
| that corporate backing is both not required and an active
| hindrance.
| gruez wrote:
| firefox: user.js repos (eg.
| https://github.com/arkenfox/user.js/ or
| https://github.com/ghacksuserjs/ghacks-user.js/)
|
| chrome: ungoogled-chromium
| blakewatson wrote:
| I've never liked the built-in new tab pages in browsers. I made
| my own years ago never looked back. Since 2017 I've run my new
| tab page as a small SaaS.
| [deleted]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-02-24 23:01 UTC)