Mozilla is Introducing 'Terms of Use' to Firefox | Also about to go into effect is an updated privacy notice
-
I want to say thanks but also I hated reading that lol
-
Waterfox's creator, while not being HOSTILE to privacy, has said in the past that making the most private browser in the world is not the goal of the project. The goal is a more customizable browser for power users
-
Fair enough. Although, for those reading at home, I'll reiterate the distinction between nonprofit and charity; all charities are nonprofits, not all nonprofits are charities. Research universities are an example.
On that note, I guess I'm enough of an academic to not consider grants a "gift" ... It's not consumerism-driven revenue, but it's hard to call it a gift when you're on the hook to produce something (research papers & prototypes) that you then turn around and use to sell for more revenue (in the form of grants).
-
Get ready for ads as well
They removed this:
{ "@type": "Question", "name": "Does Firefox sell your personal data?", "acceptedAnswer": { "@type": "Answer", "text": "Nope. Never have, never will. And we protect you from many of the advertisers who do. Firefox products are designed to protect your privacy. That’s a promise. " } }, -
They are losing money and their business model is not breaking even. I want getting to make a governance point (though I agree with yours), merely saying they are desperate.
-
Turns out when you gotta choose between going defunct and selling ad space, selling ad space wins.
Also turns out that drying up donations for privacy protecting browsers means there is less demand for it, and less money to fund it.
The majority cost of Firefox is engineering salaries.
Eventually something has to give, and this is it.
-
Yeah but the line between them and google is not there anymore in that case
-
sometimes bound to give, if firefox isnt taking in money from having no ads, to having ads.
-
probably anti-detection browser that ban evaders are using on reddit. its a little more complicated to get to that point though.
-
i know, but companies still think AI is a replacement of : software engineers, programmers down the line, and outsourcing all thier CS. instead its just rehashing other AI content into its own. they have a place for answering simple questions, or pulling up complex programs
-
Well it's a sponsor, it's not their product.
-
Most consumer sites are optimized for chrome and even safari, firefox & Edge (Obviously) face issues with scripts and plug-ins.
This is why it's dangerous that Chrome has such a large amount of market share. Instead of using standard features, sites are using Chrome-specific features and even relying on Chrome bugs that don't exist in other browsers. It's exactly the same reason Internet Explorer was bad.
-
Building a browser from scratch is going to cost well over a million dollars in development costs. I don't think they'd be able to achieve it without sponsors.
-
I'm not saying they shouldn't seek funding, but maybe not from companies that hosted and sold literally Nazi tshirts.
-
What's that saying about sitting at a table with a Nazi?
-
Also turns out that drying up donations for privacy protecting browsers means there is less demand for it
Or, hear me out, that former donors don't trust them anymore!
But also that a lot of people don't want to donate, basically when they could only donate an immeasurably small amount, to a company whose CEO gets an unimaginably huge pay, that could be used for significantly boosting development.
Personally that's a big reason I rather want to support smaller projects, or even that of size like Bitwarden. -
they have to dip something for sure. THEY HAVE TO REDUCE THE CEO PAY BY MEASLY 20% AND FUND DEVELOPMENT FROM THAT!!!
or by even more.
-
and then, "uh, we are removing the URL bar in the next version because our statistics say nobody uses it!!"
-
and then, "uh, we are removing the URL bar in the next version because our statistics say nobody uses it!!"
