Mozilla Pretends New Firefox Ads Aren't Ads, Will Somehow Revolutionize Browsing

from the you'll-take-this-improved-user-experience-and-like-it dept

Mozilla has angered a significant chunk of the non-profit's userbase by announcing that they'll be implementing ads. More specifically, Mozilla says that the non-profit is developing something they're calling "Directory Tiles," which will present new Firefox users with sponsored thumbnails (aka ads) alongside of recommended or frequently-visited websites in the new tabs page of the browser. Visually the shift is minor; that page will go from something like this, to something more like this. It's also worth noting up front that it's a "feature" that users will be able to rather easily turn off with the push of one button.
A Mozilla blog post explains the new effort as such:

"Directory Tiles will...suggest pre-packaged content for first-time users. Some of these tile placements will be from the Mozilla ecosystem, some will be popular websites in a given geographic location, and some will be sponsored content from hand-picked partners to help support Mozilla’s pursuit of our mission. The sponsored tiles will be clearly labeled as such, while still leading to content we think users will enjoy."

The change isn't very exciting, it's not very major, and can be easily disabled. So why are a lot of Firefox users annoyed? It appears that a lot of the problems start with Mozilla being intent on refusing to call the ads what they are, while insisting the changes are somehow a great innovation in browsing. Mozilla's general counsel Denelle Dixon-Thayer, for example, tells CNET that the company is tired of being a "window into the web" -- insisting that these ads (without calling them ads) will bring more value to the end user:

"We wanted to get away from being this window into the web that doesn't bring value," to users, she said. "We looked at it from the perspective of how much value are we bringing to the user? We're not focused on bringing the most revenue into Mozilla," she said."

Mozilla VP Darren Herman takes things a step further by insisting that previously Firefox was a "dumb window," and the practice of throwing a few ads on a page will somehow make for a completely improved and smarter browsing experience:

"Late last year it made a big hire in former kbs+ Ventures chief Darren Herman, who joined as VP, content services, who will lead Mozilla's ad and content efforts. "Mozilla is moving from a dumb window to the internet to a smart agent on behalf of the user, putting the user first," Mr. Herman said."

Except you threw a few paid ads on a launch window, you didn't revolutionize recombinant gene technology. The kind of rhetoric Mozilla's using is the sort you'd expect from a cable company, which love to insist that the new $5 monthly fee on your bill isn't to make money, it's to "improve the customer experience." Mozilla is a nonprofit organization, and for more than seven years around 85% of their funding has come from Google for being the browser's default search engine. While most people wouldn't fault them for wanting to have a broader revenue stream, refusing to call a spade a spade clearly isn't helping the sales pitch.

Filed Under: advertising, browser, firefox
Companies: mozilla

Amazon's Silk Browser To Be A Data Mining Jackpot

from the is-there-an-encryption-app? dept

We've already discussed whether Amazon's Kindle Fire 'Silk' browser is a copyright lawsuit waiting to happen, for the way it apparently is going to cache and modify content from its own AWS servers. It seems that people are realizing some other potential issues with it as well. Keith Dawson points us to a couple of interesting stories looking at the data mining implications. The first, by Chris Espinosa, summarizes the issue succinctly:

The “split browser” notion is that Amazon will use its EC2 back end to pre-cache user web browsing, using its fat back-end pipes to grab all the web content at once so the lightweight Fire-based browser has to only download one simple stream from Amazon’s servers. But what this means is that Amazon will capture and control every Web transaction performed by Fire users. Every page they see, every link they follow, every click they make, every ad they see is going to be intermediated by one of the largest server farms on the planet. People who cringe at the data-mining implications of the Facebook Timeline ought to be just floored by the magnitude of Amazon’s opportunity here. Amazon now has what every storefront lusts for: the knowledge of what other stores your customers are shopping in and what prices they’re being offered there. What’s more, Amazon is getting this not by expensive, proactive scraping the Web, like Google has to do; they’re getting it passively by offering a simple caching service, and letting Fire users do the hard work of crawling the Web. In essence the Fire user base is Amazon’s Mechanical Turk, scraping the Web for free and providing Amazon with the most valuable cache of user behavior in existence.

So there's that. Of course, there are a few caveats here. In theory, your ISP could have much of the same info -- though you can get around it with encryption. Furthermore, your ISP isn't caching everything, so there are some limitations there. Of course, on the flip side, the Silk browser is only on the Kindle Fire, meaning Amazon is only getting such data based on what people surf over that particular tablet device and its 7-inch screen. It might be interesting to see some data here, but I'd bet the sort of browsing done on such a device is not representative of how people surf the wider web.

Of course, things could get more interesting if Amazon decides to enter the browser wars in a bigger way... such as by releasing Silk as a desktop browser as well. That theory is posited in another article highlighted by Dawson, this one by Joe Brockmeier, which delves deeply into the implications of the Silk browser on a variety of fronts. He's the first person I've seen bring up the idea of Amazon entering the larger desktop browser wars:

But does it seem likely that Amazon will put that much emphasis on Silk just for the Fire? I don't think that's likely. Amazon has several jobs posted for Silk engineers, and while mobile is mentioned, it's not exclusive. I strongly suspect that Amazon is going to be releasing a Silk desktop browser eventually. Probably not in the near future – Amazon needs to make sure that its infrastructure can handle the onslaught of all the Kindle users before trying to scale to an unknown number of desktop users.

Remember when people said the browser wars were over and Microsoft had won? Yeah. Anyway, Brockmeier's article also notes that Amazon won't just have all this aggregate info, but in theory can tie the info specifically to the Amazon account holder:

Each Kindle is tied to an Amazon ID, which gives Amazon a great deal of information about you already. Introducing Silk into the mix and Amazon is going to be in a position to know a great deal about your Web browsing habits along with your buying habits and media habits. Now Amazon is in a position to know what books you buy, what shows you watch, the Web sites you visit and much more.

Perhaps it's not just copyright lawsuits that Amazon will be facing with Silk.

Filed Under: browser, data mining, kindle, kindle fire, silk
Companies: amazon

Comcast Hijacks Mac Firefox Users' Homepage; Offers Blame Game And Faux Apology In Return

from the operators-are-standing-by-to-apologize dept

As an internet user, chances are you'd like to set your own home page. However, if you're using Comcast's internet service and Firefox, Comcast won't let you do it. Krebs on Security reports that Comcast's Xfinity software (installed by techs with new accounts) actively hijacks user preferences, redirecting them to Comcast's home page:

The software is unfriendly to Mac users running Firefox: It changes the browser's homepage to comcast.net, and blocks users from changing it to anything else.

I heard this from a friend who'd just signed up for Comcast's Xfinity high-speed Internet service and soon discovered some behavior on his Mac that is akin to Windows malware - something had hijacked his Internet settings. The technician who arrived to turn on the service said that a software package from Comcast was necessary to complete the installation. My friend later discovered that his homepage had been changed to comcast.net, and that Comcast software had modified his Firefox profile so that there was no way to change the homepage setting. 

Trust me, nothing makes your users happier than the feeling that they no longer control their interaction with the internet. It goes further than that, though. The Xfinity software has also been spotted redirecting searches. This gives new users a chance to enjoy that "new internet smell," while simultaneously worrying that they've picked up some malware right out of the box. Not only that, but this so-called "necessary" software isn't actually necessary.

While Comcast may be concerned about Xfinity's inability to play nice with Firefox, this just seems like a bad idea all around. When your software mimics the behavior of malware, you've failed. Of course, Comcast wants to make things right, which is why they first blamed it on Mozilla:

I contacted Comcast; they initially blamed the problem on a bug in Firefox. Mozilla denies this, and says it's Comcast's doing.

"This is NOT a Firefox bug or issue," a Mozilla spokesperson wrote in an email. "It is a Comcast method that applies preference changes to Firefox."

Oh. Snap. Come on, Comcast. Level with us:

Comcast spokesman Charlie Douglas acknowledged that the Xfinity software hijacks Firefox's settings. He said the problem is limited to Mac users, and that permanency of the change was unintentional. He added that the company is in the process of correcting the installation software.

"Customers absolutely should be able to change their preferred homepage anytime," Douglas said. "We're obviously apologizing for any inconvenience we've caused Mac users."

Cool story, bro. There are several things I find dubious about this statement ("unintentional?"), but nothing is more shady than the phrase "obviously apologizing." Either you apologize or you don't, but stop acting like it's a foregone conclusion. Unless you've got your customer service team calling up affected users and apologizing for the inconvenience and offering a fix, then you're not "obviously apologizing." Obvious apologies don't need to be pointed out, especially in the past tense and even more especially after first laying the blame at the feet of Mozilla. 

Not that anyone would expect anything more from Comcast. In fact, they still haven't offered an official fix, but other presumably pissed off users have already found a workaround. When you leave it to your customers to fix your purposely broken (and "necessary") software, you're just further damaging your already in-tatters reputation.

Filed Under: browser, hijack
Companies: comcast

FTC Wants Do-Not-Track Browser System... But Does The Government Need To Be Involved?

from the it's-called-no-script dept

So a lot of folks are talking about the FTC's new plan for a "Do Not Track" system, which would be a browser-based tool that would let people indicate that they do not want various marketing/advertising/tracking tools to track their internet surfing. While I appreciate the FTC's general concern about privacy, I'm sort of wondering why it needs to be involved at all, if the idea is to create a browser-based system for this. There are already technological tools out there to do much of what the FTC appears to want. You can disable cookies or use tools like No Script to block most tracking efforts already. So what does the FTC's push do that isn't already being done by the market?

Filed Under: browser, do not track, ftc, privacy, regulations

Facebook Threatens Greasemonkey Script Writer

from the but-it's-in-the-browser dept

Another day, another abusive bullying attempt. This time, it's Facebook, which is apparently trying to bully the maker of a Greasemonkey script that cleans up your Facebook live feed by removing annoying app notices (such as all the crap your friends are doing in Farmville and Mafia Wars). It sounds quite useful. Originally, the script was called Facebook Purity, and Facebook complained about the trademark issue (a stretch... but perhaps you could see the company's point). So the guy changed the name to Fluff Busting Purity. No trademark issue at all. But Facebook is still complaining. The thing is, this is a Greasemonkey user script -- meaning that everything happens in the user's browser -- which Facebook has no claim over. If you tell your browser to ignore certain things on a website, that should be your choice. This add-on is there to help people who want it, such that it makes Facebook more useful to them. It's too bad that as Facebook gets bigger, we're hearing more and more stories of this kind of bullying activity.

Filed Under: browser, facebook, fluff busting purity, greasemonkey

Why Is Google Turning Chrome Into An Operating System?

from the slow-down dept

There have been rumors for years that Google might someday release its own operating system, but the announcement that it's turning the Chrome browser into an operating system is an odd duck for a variety of reasons (amusingly, the "Google browser" was also rumored for years before Chrome showed up). Why is it odd?

• Google already has an operating system in Android. While that was initially focused on mobile devices, it's already being expanded to netbooks, so turning that into a more complete operating system seems like the way to go.
• Chrome itself still needs a ton of work. I've tried using it, and it's crazy buggy and so unstable -- I simply gave up and went back to Firefox. Jumping from just browser functionality to a full on OS before the browser code is really stable seems like a big leap.
• The idea of turning a browser into an operating system has been around since the days of Netscape (folks there used to talk about how it was making Windows obsolete), but reality has proven otherwise. In fact, it was partly Netscape's desire to take down Windows by making Netscape more OS-like that caused Netscape to get so bloated as to be nearly useless.
• Why now? Why an OS? Part of the appeal of the growth of the web itself (and Google with it) is the fact that it's made the whole operating system less and less integral to the computing experience. With the move towards more of a "cloud" based world (which Google has been a big part of driving) there just isn't as much value in the operating system as much as in the past. So why jump on that bandwagon now?
• Given all of the above, it just seems like a confused strategy. There will likely be conflicts between Android and Chrome and consumer confusion as well, not to mention worries from folks who just want Chrome to be a simple, competent browser.

Perhaps Google can route around all of these issues, but at a first pass... it just seems like a confusing direction for Google to go in.

Filed Under: android, browser, chrome, operating system, strategy
Companies: google

Google's Browser Is A Warning Shot At Windows, Not At Internet Explorer

from the browser-wars-get-a-new-entrant dept

About four years ago there were all sorts of rumors that Google was getting ready to enter the browser wars with its own offering, most likely built on Mozilla's code. However, after years of nothing (and an increasingly close relationship between Mozilla and Google), many had thought that idea was dead. Apparently not. After some leaks of a comic book (a comic book?!?) detailing the new Google browser found their way to the web, Google quickly admitted that it is, indeed, getting into the browser business, releasing a brand new open source browser, called Google Chrome.

Rather than being built on Mozilla, as many expected, it's been built on top of WebKit, which is also the core of Apple's Safari browser -- but which Google was also using for its own mobile browser. In the end, this isn't all that surprising. While many will interpret it as Google trying to take on Microsoft in the browser market, in reality, this is probably a lot more about Google trying to help everyone move beyond the operating system market. As we first suggested four years ago when rumors of a Google browser first came around, Google knows that the way to beat Microsoft is to become the operating system for the internet, and you do that by relegating the actual OS obsolete. And, these days, the path to doing that is through the browser.

So, yes, this is a shot at Microsoft -- but not at Internet Exporer. It's a shot at Windows.

That doesn't mean Google Chrome will be successful, but a quick look at the features itself show that the features it highlights (being able to run apps separately, better memory management, etc.) are the sorts of things that allow people to make browser-based apps much more useful, rather than feeling the need to rely on client-side applications. People have predicted for years that we're getting closer to a world where all computing can be done over the network, and it looks like Google is trying to push that process right along.

Filed Under: browser, chrome, open source, operating systems, webkit
Companies: google, microsoft

Wait... AOL Was Still Making A Netscape Browser?

from the those-7-users-must-be-upset dept

While AOL's purchase of Time Warner is often considered one of the biggest M&A blunders of all time (and I'd still argue that the problem was in the execution, not the concept), it's at least worth pointing out that prior to that acquisition, AOL made another huge blunder in purchasing Netscape for over $4 billion dollars in 1998, just as Microsoft's Internet Explorer was finally taking over Netscape's marketshare (AOL apparently believes in the buy high, sell low philosophy). This seemed odd, even at the time, as AOL had long been using a modified version of Microsoft's Internet Explorer as its browser of choice (even back when IE was awful compared to Netscape). Even after the acquisition, AOL continued to use IE as its browser choice, and about the only thing that Netscape was good for was allowing AOL to sue Microsoft for antitrust violations. Microsoft eventually paid $750 million to AOL to settle the charges, leading many to assume that AOL was then going to kill off Netscape. While Mozilla (which was effectively spun out of Netscape) continued to gain traction, it made little sense for AOL to keep offering a "Netscape" browser, even if built on Mozilla code. Yet, in 2004 we were surprised to hear that AOL was still releasing a new Netscape browser. Since then, we'd pretty much forgotten that AOL actually offered Netscape as a browser and had assumed that it had been killed off. While that may have been effectively true, the reality was that the company was still working on a Netscape browser... until now. AOL has officially announced that it will be ending support for the Netscape browser for the six or seven people who still use it. While it won't impact very many people, it certainly is an "end of an era" type moment. While there may be some post mortems to suggest that Microsoft "killed" Netscape, the reality is that bad strategic decisions at Netscape (wanting to charge for the browser, getting distracted with other projects, bloat, bloat, bloat) were more to blame for its real demise a decade ago.

Filed Under: browser, netscape
Companies: aol