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

I was wondering about that too, but Google might keep on financing them. They're starting to get more and more of the anti-monopoly type of attention, so killing off competition may not be in their best interests. Think about Microsoft bailing out Apple a few years ago. They didn't do that out of brotherly love, but rather to keep a competitor alive. If Apple had died, there would have been even more monopoly accusations.

Another thing comes to mind. If Google decides to wean Mozilla, there might be someone else waiting in the wings to take over, for example Microsoft with Bing. I'm sure Google doesn't want that and let's face it, the 50 or 60 million they pay Mozilla probably comes out of petty cash. There's also most certainly a ROI otherwise they wouldn't have supported them as long as they have.

 

Fair points but I would think that Google would prefer a straight fight between Chrome and IE. Pulling the plug on Firefox (and hence 80%(?) of their revenue) would still leave the market with the dominant player (IE) and a significant second player (Chrome). Who knows, maybe nothing will change. After all $100m a year is nothing for Google.

 

Someone said, Google is in the search business, advertisements, and so on. Google Chrome was/is just a vehicle to further their interests.
One primary reason was to speed up js, so their online applications work faster and comparatively to desktop applications.

I think it makes sense.

It's in their interest to continue funding Mozilla, for as long as Firefox is relevant.
It's peanuts for them, and it only brings in more revenue.

 

But that would be .... evil!

 

Yes. It's always nice to have links to back up statements. Both those links clearly indicate that the users of ad blockers are in a insignificant minority.

On the other hand ...

How much things can change in a few years can be sensed from Palant himself who some time ago started a gedanken process which seems to indicate that the effect of ad blockers is not insignificant. It was mentioned a while back here:
https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=1869024&postcount=566

Being aware of that and the reaction it evoked from people closely involved in compiling lists, I think something has changed and changed enough for Palant to take this tack.

If folks want direct links ...
https://adblockplus.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=7630
https://adblockplus.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=7551

 

Though I didn't thoroughly scan every word of those links, I'm not certain why he'd even try to come up with such a measure. A "good ad" to me may be an abhorrent ad to you. I'm not big on white-listed items already being there the moment I install an add-on. NoScript does this too, and it's annoying. If I want to white-list a page, I'll do so, you know?

 

removed ot posts

 

Well, I have a speculation of my own as to motives but the point is that someone like Palant is now concerned enough about ad blocking. So it can't be as insignificant as is being made out to be for whatever reason.

 

This is probably the best time there has ever been to have an ad blocker really. They've gone from annoying to, often times, dangerous. In the times of super-cookies, malicious hosts and so on, it's rather silly not to have one. Anyway, so more of my posts don't get deleted..how about that news that version numbers are here to stay? Cool beans, right?!

 

I've used it before, I follow it. The creator of the Chrome adblock is the first to say the things that I've said.

John Bull, 99% of Mozilla's income is from Google. And it is in their best interests to continue funding Firefox.

 

Have you just decided that ads aren't that big of a bother, or do you prefer filtering through a different method (host files, proximitron-type filtering)?

Edit: Here is something else to consider: http://www.extremetech.com/internet/92558-how-browsers-make-money-or-why-google-needs-firefox Mozilla could easily work a deal with Bing and leave Google out in the cold. The article linked seems to think losing Mozilla would absolutely suck for Google, and, the reasons outlined make the claim sensible.

 

C'mon Hungry... why would AdBlock's dev refer to his app as "the not-so-amazing adblock" and say that it is, "certainly not as fully capable as Firefox's adblocking"?
That doesn't make sense.

 

He's said before that it's not as capable as Firefox's. Check out the adblock plus forums. There's a list of "known issues" for Chrome and he's very open about adblocks shortcomings.

 

Mozzilla and Google have a friendly relationship, or at least I would imagine they do. Google has long funded them and most of the devs for Firefox were in fact Google employees. They hold a lot of love for Firefox since they did personally work on it.

I use a host file because I don't like not being able to block video ads. WebRequest will solve this and I'll possibly move back to adblock plus.

 

Interesting Chrome-Firefox comparison of AdBlock's warning...

(Excerpted from here.)

 

I'm not so certain that love is as strong now as it once was, now that Chrome has become a main player in the browser world. My guess is that, judging by the article I linked, as long as Mozilla keeps Google as default search, or as an option at all, Google will play a bit nicer.

 

I'll say this... I never even knew about the Google-Mozzilla connection/relationship until I heard about it in this thread.
Just one reason why I spend so many hours here.
Learning by leaps and bounds.

 

Google seems to have deals like that in place with all of the major browsers. As was said, Google relies on search/ad revenue to even exist.

 

Chrome and IE9 don't support blocking URL requests initiated by flash, this may change with Chrome 15 and IE10.

 

When the improved resource blocking API in Chrome comes along in about a month, I'm reading that AdBlock will then be able to block ads in videos across the web, instead of only on YouTube.

So does this mean it will have the capability to block the 30 second commercials that precede a news video like on CNN?

Man, that would be huge.

 

The deal is that people use Google search by default on Firefox/ the homepage is their special Firefox Google page. This means that by default the vast majority of Firefox users will be using Google's search.

I doubt they have any such contract with Opera or IE considering that Opera has virtually no effect on anything and IE is behind Bing and MSN.


EDIT: Yes Page. Though it might just make you wait 30 seconds while seeing a "Our ad was unable t o load blah blah blah" as Hulu does.

 

Ugh. That might be a whole new brand of torture. I was really hoping for a commercial that is skipped and go right to the desired vid. Do you personally think the to 30-second dead space might be the case?

 

He's also very open about saying it is simple, thorough and frequently updated.

Here's Michael Gundlach (AdBlock developer) excerpted from a Feb.2011 interview...

 

On news websites like that, you're likely to just sit there staring at a black screen. Hulu, Fox anything, places like that are much more restrictive about ads, or even 3rd party scripting. Some places you just can't win, be thankful it isn't as widespread of a problem as it could, and will likely end up being.

 

I wasn't trying to knock it at any point. It's a great extension. I only meant that it has shortcomings compared to the Firefox version.