Mozilla under fire for Firefox AI "bloat" that blows up CPU and drains battery
-
You seem to be able to google "mozilla non profit" but unable to elucidate whether it is in fact a non-profit and why that is so.
Again, you're offering hand wavy vibe based explanations as to why mozilla is "bad". What exactly is the problem?
I have worked for non-profits.
They are completely allowed to make a profit.
You are mistakenly under the impression that I'm against Mozilla.
If you go back to my original comment, I merely explained what I explained here. Mozilla is a non-profit, not a not-for-profit.
You decided to take that as an attack on Mozilla, for some strange reason, and attacked me. I just turned that same energy back on you.
Did I ever attack Mozilla? Did you attack me?
-
then why the fuck is this newsworthy? ugh. Why is there such a huge hateboner for firefox lately?
I really don't get it either.
It's not like it's a paid product either.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Mozilla is no longer about making a great browser. Mozilla is about making sure their Google bucks come in each year without fail.
They don't work for consumers anymore -- they work for Google.Throughout the years, the market share of Firefox has shank and shank and their C-Suite has continued giving themselves raises.
Mozilla Inc. has been very sick for a long time. It's a shame that one of the last pieces of honest competition for web browsers belongs to them, because I'm not sure how much longer they will be able to shamble on like this.
-
@michaelmrose @swordgeek I 100% agree that Mozilla is important but it's also clear that currently their is not enough business to keep Mozilla going. I don't blame them for trying to make a Business , i blame them for not following their former values. You can make a business and still mostly follow values ( look for example to GOG ).
And for what i don't like is the change from opt in to opt out. Every new feature most users don't want and they know this and make it harder and harder to turn off. The last time it was hidden in a sub menu in the settings ( switching off sending data to their ad service ) now it's hidden in config:about.
I guess next time you need 3rd party patches and compile the browser yourself to switch a "feature" off.I would argue that it's a bit easier to still follow your values if your business consists of mostly selling games.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Demon tech
-
It's not a new updated it's been that way for years.
No my s23 has no bixby buttons. Just power and 2 volume. Samsung DELIBERATELY updated so the POWER BUTTON activated their shitty agent. Only software shutdown was avilable until I changed.
Getting a linux phone when this dies. Fuck samsung.
-
Like how samsung updated and BLATANTLY made their peice of shit AI button TAKE OVER THR POWER BUTTON
Was that part of OneUI 7? I'm so glad I never installed that downgrade.
Yes, it was forced on me. I have updates disabled too. Pieces of shit.
-
then why the fuck is this newsworthy? ugh. Why is there such a huge hateboner for firefox lately?
A lot of people would rather sit around and tear down the progress being made around them for being imperfect, than pitch in to help change things for the better.
-
Mozilla is no longer about making a great browser. Mozilla is about making sure their Google bucks come in each year without fail.
They don't work for consumers anymore -- they work for Google.Throughout the years, the market share of Firefox has shank and shank and their C-Suite has continued giving themselves raises.
Mozilla Inc. has been very sick for a long time. It's a shame that one of the last pieces of honest competition for web browsers belongs to them, because I'm not sure how much longer they will be able to shamble on like this.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Instead of trying to get Google money, I actually wish they would offer a monthly/annual/lifetime membership as the cost of not enshittifying to stay in business. And then severing ties with Google as a company.
A lot of tech companies are holding onto unsustainable business models from 10 years ago to make their products at a loss or "free," and it's forcing them into AI, oligarchy, or being beholden to oligarchs. End users paying a fair price to own the products they use is a better alternative than this because it puts the power back in our hands as opposed to tech bros and shareholders.
-
Bixby was not llm based, originally, and sometimes updates will rewrite a user's custom settings. For instance, I had a galaxy on which I made pushing the power button three times turn on the flashlight. An update occurred that overrode that setting by deleting it and turned on five presses to call 911. I ended up accidently calling 911 at 3am (accompanied by a blasting alarm sound) trying not to wake someone by turning on the light.
Bixby was not llm based
I'm not really sure how that really makes any difference though. I'm not defending their decision I'm just saying that it's been around for a while now.
I've just pressed my power button five times and it does call, what I'm assuming is, emergency number. It's the wrong one for my country (genius Samsung) so God knows what that would actually do, but it doesn't auto call I have to actually press the call button. Maybe they received some user feedback?
Seems a bit pointless given the fact that I have to press the button five times to call the emergency services but their phone number is only three digits long.
-
Instead of trying to get Google money, I actually wish they would offer a monthly/annual/lifetime membership as the cost of not enshittifying to stay in business. And then severing ties with Google as a company.
A lot of tech companies are holding onto unsustainable business models from 10 years ago to make their products at a loss or "free," and it's forcing them into AI, oligarchy, or being beholden to oligarchs. End users paying a fair price to own the products they use is a better alternative than this because it puts the power back in our hands as opposed to tech bros and shareholders.
Much like electricity, lazy boards seek the path of least resistence. What's easier, building a world-class browser and properly marketing it and maintaining profitability, or just setting your default search engine to "Google.com" and cashing the massive check?
At this point, there's very few people even left at Mozilla that could even reverse the trend. Go back and look at their past few years. Other than some minor activity to Firefox, almost all their initiatives are little side missions that last for a few years and then are sunset.
Stuck like Pocket, Mozilla Social, Firefox Send, Firefox OS, etc. The list goes on and on. They invest heavily in some flash in the pan initiative and then ax it off a few years later.
-
The aqueducts?
Oh. Aqueducts? Shut up!
-
Bro, several users have taken to the Firefox subreddit, this is definitely worthy of being the most upvoted post on Lemmy rn
This is sarcastic right lol
-
Instead of trying to get Google money, I actually wish they would offer a monthly/annual/lifetime membership as the cost of not enshittifying to stay in business. And then severing ties with Google as a company.
A lot of tech companies are holding onto unsustainable business models from 10 years ago to make their products at a loss or "free," and it's forcing them into AI, oligarchy, or being beholden to oligarchs. End users paying a fair price to own the products they use is a better alternative than this because it puts the power back in our hands as opposed to tech bros and shareholders.
wrote last edited by [email protected]People won't pay for that. Or, at least, not enough people.
We literally saw this play out with media. Everyone hated cable tv. Suddenly we had netflix (2.0) where we can "pay for what I want". Except... then everyone got in on that because apparently we want things beyond Netflix Original Pictures and whatever they could get cheap out of Korea.
And now? "Ugh, there are juts so many services. I need like twelve. I wish there was one big bundle of everything".
Not exactly the same but a premium browser (that, again, isn't going to make anywhere near enough money to fund development) would be dropped even faster than the guy whose patreon is still "pay one dollar per episode"
-
Sorry boss it's kinda laughable to suggest they choose their own salaries.
Obviously it would be negotiated, with a panel overseeing the procurement and hiring process.
That panel has no interest in overpaying executives. Obviously they would pay just enough to secure someone with the right network and skills. Just because they earn more than you does not mean they're overpaid.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Oh, so they and their friends are part of a panel that chooses each others salaries? I wonder how that ends up with everyone getting bloated salaries. Such a mystery.
It doesn't take a genious to figure this out. Look at executive salaries from other companies. They are clearly over-compensated on average.
Just because they earn more than you does not mean they're overpaid.
I don't care that they make more than me. I care that their salary keeps going up, while Firefox's market-share keeps going down, and the product keeps getting worse.
-
People won't pay for that. Or, at least, not enough people.
We literally saw this play out with media. Everyone hated cable tv. Suddenly we had netflix (2.0) where we can "pay for what I want". Except... then everyone got in on that because apparently we want things beyond Netflix Original Pictures and whatever they could get cheap out of Korea.
And now? "Ugh, there are juts so many services. I need like twelve. I wish there was one big bundle of everything".
Not exactly the same but a premium browser (that, again, isn't going to make anywhere near enough money to fund development) would be dropped even faster than the guy whose patreon is still "pay one dollar per episode"
wrote last edited by [email protected]A huge problem with America's and many other economic systems is that companies are incentivized to undercut the competition, use a monopoly growth model, acquire or push out competitors, and then screw the customer when the competitors are either gone or irrelevant.
Without guardrails, the bubble will burst and some other "affordable solution" will just show up to replace streaming, and then we'll start all over again before it enshittifies too. But there won't be guardrails anytime soon, and most refuse or are unable to vote with their wallets, so we're just screwed.
I don't know what the solution is, but as a consumer, I'm exhausted. I wish there were options to just buy products, sometimes more expensive ones to keep a steady, sustainable business model, for piece of mind that the company won't stab me in the back someday.
-
A huge problem with America's and many other economic systems is that companies are incentivized to undercut the competition, use a monopoly growth model, acquire or push out competitors, and then screw the customer when the competitors are either gone or irrelevant.
Without guardrails, the bubble will burst and some other "affordable solution" will just show up to replace streaming, and then we'll start all over again before it enshittifies too. But there won't be guardrails anytime soon, and most refuse or are unable to vote with their wallets, so we're just screwed.
I don't know what the solution is, but as a consumer, I'm exhausted. I wish there were options to just buy products, sometimes more expensive ones to keep a steady, sustainable business model, for piece of mind that the company won't stab me in the back someday.
wrote last edited by [email protected]In a perfect world? Yeah, I would love to just spend money and get what I want forever.
The problem is that most of these products would never exist without external funding. We all remember Microsoft getting slapped hard for bundling internet explorer and the like in the 90s. What people don't remember is just how GOOD IE was... because it was largely subsidized by the OS et al that everyone bought because it was that damned good. Netscape was very much A Thing and anything else was more or less trash.
Same thing with the idea of "use a monopoly growth model". What is the alternative? Actively making a product worse because everyone else is? Because that is collusion. Hell, if anything, browsers for the past few years have been exactly what we would theoretically want. Google are the de facto monopoly. They literally pumped insane amounts of cash into Mozilla et al to fund their competition so there would actually BE competition.
-
Mozilla is no longer about making a great browser. Mozilla is about making sure their Google bucks come in each year without fail.
They don't work for consumers anymore -- they work for Google.Throughout the years, the market share of Firefox has shank and shank and their C-Suite has continued giving themselves raises.
Mozilla Inc. has been very sick for a long time. It's a shame that one of the last pieces of honest competition for web browsers belongs to them, because I'm not sure how much longer they will be able to shamble on like this.
As somebody who is out of the loop a bit here, how is Morzilla making money through Googhe?
-
In a perfect world? Yeah, I would love to just spend money and get what I want forever.
The problem is that most of these products would never exist without external funding. We all remember Microsoft getting slapped hard for bundling internet explorer and the like in the 90s. What people don't remember is just how GOOD IE was... because it was largely subsidized by the OS et al that everyone bought because it was that damned good. Netscape was very much A Thing and anything else was more or less trash.
Same thing with the idea of "use a monopoly growth model". What is the alternative? Actively making a product worse because everyone else is? Because that is collusion. Hell, if anything, browsers for the past few years have been exactly what we would theoretically want. Google are the de facto monopoly. They literally pumped insane amounts of cash into Mozilla et al to fund their competition so there would actually BE competition.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Same thing with the idea of “use a monopoly growth model”. What is the alternative? Actively making a product worse because everyone else is? Because that is collusion.
This question really highlights the danger of the growth-at-all-costs model in forcing every company to race to the bottom when one company does. The future of the human race may one day depend on killing technological progress and emphasizing stability over profits.
-
Because people seem to have a special hate boner for Firefox on here.
And please don't call me bro.
Edit: hate not hat
There's a lot of negativity from certain users/communities on software/services that are mostly good but have imperfections. I rarely if ever see any recommendations for alternatives that actually make sense when this happens.
Firefox and Proton are two very common targets. Sure, they are both not perfect, but they are both offering a solution that does not enrich the current oppressive market leader and they do a pretty solid job at it.
Yes, flaws deserve to be criticized, but there's such a thing as too much.
It's tiring.
