Mozilla often seem to forget that their entire business model is that they are not google. I don't know anyone who actually likes Mozilla as a company, they just detest them less than they detest the alternatives.
I think they understand it perfectly. Mozilla exists because Google supports them, so that they can say to regulators that they are not a monopoly. It does not matter whether their products are good or honest, only money from Google is important. Firefox isn't even their main expense.
Mozilla is Google's little puppy. They'll do whatever Google allows/wants. They even copy the UI/features from Chrome afterwards and barely innovate anymore.
I honestly don't mind these "features" as long as they are optional, and I have a choice up front. Burying them behind the curtain is very Google like behavior.
Love the coping for mozilla and data collection from that guy. Its pretty obvious that if they presented the option like brodie mentions that they would likely see fewer participants even if not all opted out. And that is obvious why they did it. Saying its poor comunication in their response is as charitable as possible. To me it seems like essentially lying about why they did it that way. It was such a non answer, and didn't even make sense in the context.
Mozilla often seem to forget that their entire business model is that they are not google. I don't know anyone who actually likes Mozilla as a company, they just detest them less than they detest the alternatives.
I think they understand it perfectly. Mozilla exists because Google supports them, so that they can say to regulators that they are not a monopoly. It does not matter whether their products are good or honest, only money from Google is important. Firefox isn't even their main expense.
Mozilla is Google's little puppy. They'll do whatever Google allows/wants. They even copy the UI/features from Chrome afterwards and barely innovate anymore.
Such progressive defeatism. "middle ground"... Looking forward to Ladybird and other projects that don't feel a need to compromise.
Ladybird will be glorious.
@@packetauditor I really hope they don't disappoint us...
I honestly don't mind these "features" as long as they are optional, and I have a choice up front. Burying them behind the curtain is very Google like behavior.
topics are enough to identify you. "Private identification" is an oxymoron.
yup, as the more topics known about, the less people share them, it could even possibly be unique
9:25 then why does it have a modal asking for what color would you like the interface then? i don't get it
Pathetic stuff from mozilla. Opt-out is not acceptable, users shouldn't be forced to track browser changelogs like distro maintainers
Love the coping for mozilla and data collection from that guy.
Its pretty obvious that if they presented the option like brodie mentions that they would likely see fewer participants even if not all opted out. And that is obvious why they did it.
Saying its poor comunication in their response is as charitable as possible. To me it seems like essentially lying about why they did it that way. It was such a non answer, and didn't even make sense in the context.
why is andrew's camera so much better than brodie's (a youtuber)
I had auto focus on and it decided to drop focus
at they very least mozilla allows me to turn off the options I don't want, that's more than most of the chromium forks out there (and chrome)