No Surprises (2009)
blog.mozilla.org
blog.mozilla.org
"All changes must be ‘opt-in’, meaning the user must take non-default action to enact the change."
Right, just like I "opt-ed" in to Firefox Hello.
I can't even "opt out" of Firefox Hello!
"Uninstalling the add-on restores the user’s original settings if they were changed.
I wish. Just goes to show that they're pushing an uneven playing field where Firefox Extensions are auto-installed, can't be removed, and can break all the rules. But hey, at least everyone ELSE can't break all the rules.
Funny that they won't even apply this philosophy to their own products and services that they are forcing into user installations without an opt-in or opt-out.
As a bonus: You can make video calls without ever having to create an account.
Are you being serious right now?
Ok, how about this, We auto-install the Ask Toolbar on every single Firefox installation, 100%, everyone gets the Toolbar.
But don't worry!
If you don't click on the Toolbar which automatically installs and appears in your browser, you won't use it!
It's "Opt in"!
The funny part is, can you tell me how to uninstall Firefox Hello completely?
Mozilla's NO SURPRISES policy says I should be able to uninstall unwanted extensions with no loss to my browser.
So, can you help me achieve NO SURPRISES by removing the surprising and unwanted third party Hello feature?
"Click INSTALL to install this third party software"
I did not realize that this community had become so adverse to traditional software that asking a user before installing new software was now considered "revising definitions" and weird.
That's all I want: To be asked before third party software is automatically installed.
We used to call that adware/malware when a company bundled third party software without permission.
Now I guess we call it normal.
The fact that Safari has 3rd party cookies disabled by default whereas Firefox hasn't... is both telling and sad.
Get over Pocket. There's no closed source code included. The open source code that integrates with Pocket is never executed due to lazy loading if you don't specifically use Pocket. No money changed hands. It was implemented because users had been asking for the functionality for years and Mozilla determined that it made more sense to partner with the best in breed provider of the service rather than reinvent the service and support it on an ongoing basis themselves. You can right-click and remove it if you don't want it.
Money changing hands would have been better. That would've been a valid reason.
>> "best in breed provider of the service"
Or providers could have just created extensions. Now that Mozilla picked a winner competition suffers.
1. https://hackademix.net/2009/05/04/dear-adblock-plus-and-nosc...
I just sat through an hour of shit like that. My eyelids were so heavy they nearly became a singularity.
Not all that long ago there was a thread here about 'why those bloody end users don't keep their systems up-to-date'. Well, there you have it: because they never just get the fixes, they also get all kinds of other junk rammed down their throats, if such an upgrade does not break their systems entirely. And so the end-users get wise and stop updating their systems, resulting in systems that are then wide open to malicious parties.
I feel that I'm pretty tech savvy and in spite of that I've got a hard time clicking the 'upgrade' button next to my browser for that exact reason, it's a toss-up if it will actually do something useful for me or if it will cause me no end of misery to try to restore the situation back to working after a failed update.
I'd need a couple of extra hands to count the number of times where an update to an otherwise perfectly functioning system caused it to break and in some cases that in turn led to a complete re-install.
In tech we even have a meme for that: "If it isn't obviously broken, don't fix it!".
How do HN folks manage the inevitable change in and monetization of popular and useful products?
I'm having serious heartburn consuming updated products (e.g. Win 10 and FireFox). It seems that the forced dichotomy is Control, Ease of use, Features within 3 years: Pick two. I had been really happy with my customized FireFox and locked down Windows 7 from the control and usefulness standpoint but FF has been taking liberties that parent notes and Windows has a "new direction" than the standalone value they provided with Win 7. Now it feels like they're yanking the rug out, and constantly evaluating the large amount of technology I rely on is tiring.
This is a really hard and uncomfortable thing after years of convenience along the same lines of going back to CDs after using mp3s but it's worth it.
The UI is essentially put in CD, wait, have music, and sync phones occasionally.
What is your current setup that you're happy with?
As for everything else, browser is Firefox still (ick) and the only services I use are an IMAP box and domain.
I gave up music on my phone, contact sync, email on my phone, navigation, everything. A simpler life seems to be better for me.
If any search engine should be the default, at least pick the best or the most privacy friendly. Yahoo is neither. On top of that it is just a relay to Microsoft Bing.
How hard is it to just ask the user which search engine they would like to use on install?
All else being the same, I don't see how supporting a global search monoculture controlled by a direct competitor would have been in the best interests of the Web or of Mozilla.
And I'm not exactly a google fanboy, to put it mildly.
At the time we landed this change, we also tweaked the search box to increase the visibility of alternative engines and make it easier to switch your default. Hopefully that mitigated some of the pain for you.
We're in a weird place. We have to make enough money to fund the engineering that keeps Firefox competitive, but we also have to stay true to our non-profit mission and ownership. Balancing those two interests is difficult, and we're not always going to get it right. For when we don't, I'm sorry.
That I completely acknowledge and there is absolutely no need for you to apologise, where work is being done mistakes are automatically being made. The people I'm most scared of are those that claim they never make mistakes.
Is there an easy way for users like me to simply pay Mozilla for the product?
I'd much prefer that than being made the subject of a tug-of-war between internet giants.
You can always donate to the non-profit Mozilla Foundation at https://donate.mozilla.org. They do really important work, and there are legal limits on how much revenue the corporation can send upstream to the foundation.
As far as I know, Firefox only has two points of monetization: the default search engine and sponsored tiles on the new tab page. It takes roughly ~4 clicks to switch to DuckDuckGo and disable the tiles. I don't think just changing those is enough to satisfy folks, but I'm not sure how to draw that line. Basing it strictly on monetization wouldn't exclude things like Pocket, which frustrates a bunch of folks on HN.
Can I ask you to elaborate more (perhaps we should switch to email, or, ironically, Firefox Hello?) on what sorts of decisions bother you, and which are non-issues? It seems like the hot buttons for folks tend to be: Yahoo, Pocket, Hello, Tiles, H.264, and Australis. Am I missing any? What would your paid-for Firefox look like?
> What would your paid-for Firefox look like?
As free from corporate silos as possible.
I'd happily pay $50 for a clean-by-default (no 3rd party cookies) version of FF.
https://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/f...
I suppose not, but it's not the feature I find surprising, it's that it's a Google service in a browser I picked because it's not a Google product. Yeah, I know, the SSL revoking is a service provided by each of the certificate providers, so it's sort of the same thing.
Google search is in Firefox as well, but it's not surprising, it's kinda obvious really. They could do so similar with the anti-phishing/malware thing. On the phising site warning just write "This is a Google provided service, click to opt-out".
For me the Sync surprise was much more disappointing. They broke the feature to the extent it became unusable for me any more (unless I spend some more weekends trying to understand their poorly-documented proprietary protocol mess, which is not how I'd like to spend time).
It will be removed if you remove the Pocket icon using the (right-click) contextual menu on the icon. The entry is not removed if you remove manually using the `about:config` way.
Related bugzilla entry[1]:
> The normal/supported way to remove Pocket works fine: Right click the button, select "Remove from toolbar".
It makes you wonder what other liberties they'll take to make a couple bucks and when the other shoe will drop. It has made me start actively evaluating alternatives, when previously I considered it to be the best.