Mozilla takes Firefox version numbers to the next level… by removing them

All the best.

 

Oh no! LOL!

 

This just gets better and better. Why are these statements being made? Has there been some sort of survey carried out? By whom? Fact? Factoid?

 

We'll see how this API ends up working out. The more I've thought it over, the less I believe in it actually working as well as it supposedly will..and the less I believe Google will put up with it without major changes to either the API again or extensions. By the way, if "most people", didn't know anything about ad-blocking, AdBlock Plus wouldn't have the likely millions of people running it in Firefox. And, if "most people" didn't know about ad-blocking, Chrome wouldn't have ever seen a port of ABP or any other ad blocker.

Let's not go too wild with our statements, Hungry.

 

Most people don't know anything about ad-blocking. He was thinking about the total number of internet browser users and he is right.

 

As to it actually working, as I said, we have "proof of concept" adblocking based on it already.

I'm quite sure that most people don't even go so far as to install more than a theme in their browser.

Well... "sure" is the wrong word. But I'd really bet on the vast majority of users not adblocking/ using many extensions.

 

Where are we going with this?

 

He is? So there's a poll out there I can Google up, or studies have been done to show this as fact then, right? Out of millions upon millions of IE, Opera, Firefox (which "most people" only use because of extensions, let's be real here) and Chrome, most of them don't know a thing about ad-blockers? The only fact here is that no one can prove most don't, nor prove most do. Why do I believe that most do? Simply because when addons are created for these browsers, inevitably one of the first questions asked is "Can we get an adblocker?".

 

Oh I know the POC is there, and that it's a planned thing for Chrome. I'm not doubting that, as it's all in writing. What I doubt is it being as robust as it is on Firefox, and, if it is, staying that way indefinitely. Remember, Google exists because of ads. Too much blocking and something will be done, trust me. They can't do a thing about other browsers, but they sure can with their own.

 

I think most people use Firefox because someone told them to/ they just know that "IE sucks."

Hell, my exgf ran Chrome but the most she'd done is add some heart theme to it. Why did she run Chrome? No idea - but it wasn't for extensions.

Seriously, I'd bet money that most people don't run an adblocker.

 

It's already as full-functioned as Firefox...

 

Likely a circle of back and forth if I continue to repeat my belief and they theirs. In the end, unless someone shows a poll or something, it doesn't really matter.

 

Most people are incapable of doing so much as installing an antivirus without being explicitly told to.

I'll see if I can dig up statistics for chrome extensions.

 

http://cybernetnews.com/less-than-3-of-firefox-users-block-ads/

A sadly outdated statistic... three years ago. Do you think this has increased 20x?

 

http://www.webpronews.com/are-googles-ads-so-relevant-that-people-wont-block-them-2010-01

Here's the dev of adblock saying:

Edit: Sorry for the triple posting. Anyways, I think it's fairly clear that maybe... MAYBE 10% of the population blocks ads... that is being ridiculously generous based on the links I've posted.

 

Well I think adblocking is just such a simple measure it's sometimes hard to believe that everyone isn't doing it.

But the fact is that most people have no idea what they're doing with a computer.

 

I don't see your point.

The fact is that almost no one uses adblocking so Google is perfectly safe in allowing this new API continue.

Consider this:
Google only makes money when people click on the ads. Almost everyone who is going to block ads "properly" int he future is likely already blocking ads right now with the not-so-amazing adblock that's available. They've already lost those people, giving them the WebRequest API does very little to their market. Even if 10% of the Chrome userbase (Again, generous) adopted the new add-on they were likely using the old one anyways so it's not a loss.

 

Taking exception to your reference to "the not-so-amazing adblock".
It's probably besides the point you are trying to make, but nevertheless, I have never been more satisfied with an ad blocker than I am with this Chrome extension. So it doesn't block YouTube ads. I'm managing to live with that.

 

Actually it does block youtube ads. It's the other video ads it doesn't block.

It's certainly not as fully capable as Firefox's adblocking though that will be fixed very soon (about a month now.)

Yes, the point I was trying to make is that the vast majority of users who will make use of the WebRequest API are already not clicking on ads.

 

Oh. I saw some YouTube ads tonight. I didn't try custom blocking them. I will next time.

 

I think it may be broken at the moment.

I don't use adblock so idk. I'll be happy to use it when WebRequest is completed sufficiently. At that point I'll probably remove the host file so that I can get a bit more control.

For example, I don't plan on blocking Google or Facebook ads since they are noninvasive and not a big security risk.

 

Wow. You don't use AdBlock.
Then let me ask you a question, HungryMan...
How is it that you say things like
"the not-so-amazing adblock"
and
"It's certainly not as fully capable as Firefox's adblocking"
if you don't use it?
Where are these pronouncements coming from?

 

The other point is that we should be a bit more specific. Adblock could refer to one of at least different add-ons in the Chrome web store. One adblock is known as AdBlock Plus in both Chrome and Fx. Never used the other one so can't remember its name properly.

 

The miracle of money.

Pressure on Mozilla ? What pressure ?
I do not see any pressure at all.

All these browsers offer their services free to private users like every one of you on Wilder's to select and enjoy.
They get NOTHING in return. So how do these companies who offer free browser services survive ?

None of us have a barrage of ads or pop-ups when using any of the browsers. So the income from all the world`s freebie browser users is NIL.

So what pressure makes a reputable company like Mozilla, who have made astronomic progress in the market place to become a major user, embark on a path of self induced trouble and result in possible wreckage of their entire miraculous progress so far ?

Answer ? I do not know and none of you have voiced any better ideas, but if it is money, then they are not getting it from any one of us, We are not inundated by irritating ads or pop-ups when using their browsers and the number of clicks we make does not generate cash. So what is it all about ?

Well, the only way a company can recover it`s costs is to sell it`s products or engage sponsors and advertisers to ensure that revenue exceeds costs and makes an operating profit. Without profit - you go BUST ! Even charities rely on donations to survive.

Since all browsers we talk about are FREE and have NO ads or pop-ups, then that is not the area of supplier concern. They get nothing from freebie users like us.

The only possibility of financial pressure on Mozilla and any other browser supplier is that they sell their search engines to Industry, Commerce or general business concerns. THEN it does matter what "speed" the browser achieves.

In private use speed means nothing, it is a practical nonsense but in business use speed does count and means efficiency and money. The fastest browser means that in a given day, more transactions can be made than using a slower browser. So with business paid services, the priority will be to use the fastest browser.

Whilst I personally could not give a monkey`s toss about browser speed, paying industrial customers do.

Hence if Chrome with it`s mediocre, pathetic and almost non-existent user facilities is faster than Firefox then when it comes to paying industrial users, they will choose Chrome since they are not interested in all the luxuries of browsing that private users love to have, which Chrome simply has not got.

Good luck Firefox - wreck your program as much as you like in the hell bent race to achieve the dubious ingredients of Chrome and when it gets to a big NO-NO, I will simply go to IE or somewhere else, even Dogpile - http://www.dogpile.com/info.dogpl.t2.3/search/home. Then - have a nice day.

My attitude to speed in excess of the superb performance of Mozilla Firefox is ~ Snipped as per TOS ~.

John

 

You think they do this just for fun? Google "Mozilla Revenue Model" and start reading. Most of their income comes from Google. It makes much more sense for Google to spend $100m a year on their own browser than pay Mozilla to develop theirs. I suspect that once Google Chrome reaches critical mass they'll gradually cut off the supply of funds to Mozilla, strangling the life out of Firefox.