Source please, NordVPN does not track you, is also located in Panama, I trust them much more than some shady American VPN service.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Mozilla Says Paid Version of Firefox With Premium Features Coming Later This Year
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Source please, NordVPN does not track you, is also located in Panama, I trust them much more than some shady American VPN service.
I don’t like paid browser models like Opera back in the day. That said everyone should want Firefox to succeed. There has to be some sort of counterbalance to Google.
Chrome started off as a cool and fresh alternative to Firefox like Gmail was to Hotmail. In those days Google still wasn’t the hegemon they are today. Today they are exactly what MS used to be but even worse since they control both search and advertising. If they had their way they would also have the dominant desktop OS, the dominant productivity suite and dominant everything.
The major mistake Mozilla made was to try to emulate Chrome. Adopting Google’s fast release schedule probably being the biggest blunder. This is when they really lost their way. Some genius over there suggested that somehow a bigger number is better. We just can’t have Firefox at 4 when Chrome is already at 15.
Chrome started off as a cool and fresh alternative to Firefox like Gmail was to Hotmail. In those days Google still wasn’t the hegemon they are today. Today they are exactly what MS used to be but even worse since they control both search and advertising. If they had their way they would also have the dominant desktop OS, the dominant productivity suite and dominant everything.
The major mistake Mozilla made was to try to emulate Chrome. Adopting Google’s fast release schedule probably being the biggest blunder. This is when they really lost their way. Some genius over there suggested that somehow a bigger number is better. We just can’t have Firefox at 4 when Chrome is already at 15.
It’s not really a 50/50 split is it? Apple gets 50% and the other 50% is divided among 300 publishers. I’d rather get a whole 30% than splitting 50% 300 ways. Or am I missing something?
Can someone name me the browsers that supports; Windows, Linux, Mac, Android, iOS (via WebKit) that does NOT spy on you? Oh, wait that’s Firefox! Opera but not sure if they are monitoring or not, who else? Chrome, clearly spy’s on you, so that’s OUT...
Additionally, Firefox can sync Tabs, Accounts/paswrds (no 3 party program/fees), etc. There is also a reason Tor uses Firefox, Security. Now, I’m not saying it’s the best but it’s not the worst.
As for memory, a lot of that is really depends on the actual website! (YES, This is a FACT!)
I know a lot of Enterprises that are using Firefox because of cross platform consistency and security.
Anyone reading this using Chrome, Google thanks you for being their product, (FACT: YOU ARE THEIR PRODUCT!).
You want porn, now only does Google know this but they actually know the style and actual videos you watch. Even worse, they keep those logs internal FOREVER! Try Firefox or Opera, Safari if on Mac, but considering everything that Google knows about YOU, everything!
Additionally, Firefox can sync Tabs, Accounts/paswrds (no 3 party program/fees), etc. There is also a reason Tor uses Firefox, Security. Now, I’m not saying it’s the best but it’s not the worst.
As for memory, a lot of that is really depends on the actual website! (YES, This is a FACT!)
I know a lot of Enterprises that are using Firefox because of cross platform consistency and security.
Anyone reading this using Chrome, Google thanks you for being their product, (FACT: YOU ARE THEIR PRODUCT!).
You want porn, now only does Google know this but they actually know the style and actual videos you watch. Even worse, they keep those logs internal FOREVER! Try Firefox or Opera, Safari if on Mac, but considering everything that Google knows about YOU, everything!
It sorta does now.
In reference to those annoying recommendations it shows you when you launch. I don't really care about the spying, just how bothersome they make it. Firefox seems even more invasive than Chrome nowadays and not worth using.
Just use Safari. Or Chrome if you're stuck on Windows.
[doublepost=1560380541][/doublepost]
But it sucks. It's slow and limited. Not bad for something that's free, though.
[doublepost=1560380726][/doublepost]
I refuse to believe that anything used by a majority of users is going to preserve privacy. Once enough people use something, someone will find a way to spy. VPNs make matters worse in some ways, IMO not even a net benefit.
It's fine. Let people compromise their privacy if they want to.
[doublepost=1560380919][/doublepost]
Chrome is undoubtedly the biggest memory hog of all time. It's also a lot less energy-efficient than Safari.
[doublepost=1560381139][/doublepost]
I'd like to see evidence that Chrome sends back browsing history to Google. Half the people on this forum complain about it, yet nobody has seen it happen.
Also, Tor uses Firefox because it's a very popular open-source browser. Chromium is too, but Tor was created in 2002, well before it existed.
[doublepost=1560381314][/doublepost]
Yep. I feel like the entire UI and the icon of Firefox changes every time I update it, and it wants to update all the time. And for some reason they copied Chrome's UI.
Last edited:
Firefox should not only offer ProtonVPN but Proton Email too and also integrate in Thunderbird.
I've switched over to Firefox, a few customisations which were easy, and its great, no problems. I agree it tends use a little more CPU, but that gotten much better with the latest releases now, its darn good now.
Also of people who seem to complain about Firefox use it for 25min and then assume they experts at it. You need to use it and configure it as your main browser for an extended period.
I've switched over to Firefox, a few customisations which were easy, and its great, no problems. I agree it tends use a little more CPU, but that gotten much better with the latest releases now, its darn good now.
Also of people who seem to complain about Firefox use it for 25min and then assume they experts at it. You need to use it and configure it as your main browser for an extended period.
I use the ESR releases because I hate the need to constantly update for new "features" I don't need or care about.
Surely it all depends on the offering. If it makes sense people will pay for it.
If it can be got with a free alternative, then no one will buy it.
[doublepost=1560416379][/doublepost]
I don't think people will be paying for the browser as such but for the additional services it provides. Bundled to make it more appealing.
[doublepost=1560416572][/doublepost]
Did you read the article? The title tells you too, a version, its not turning to a paid only model.
I think that's all spot on.
I also don't think those rolling releases were smart. It's just not possible any more for users to notice a significant improvement.
For instance, Firefox 54, 55, and 56 weren't really interesting releases. And neither was 58. (Maybe they were. Who knows. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯)
And if you weren't using Firefox as your primary browser and not following it closer, you'd assume the same about Firefox 57. But Firefox 57 was interesting — nicknamed Quantum, it came with significant performance enhancements.
If they had simply used traditional version numbering, they could have made that a lot clearer by jumping from, say, Firefox 4.7 to 5.0. Bam. That's clearly a significant release that justifies giving it another look.
I can't believe people are willing to pay with their private lives in exchange for the "snappier" Chrome, while FireFox is privacy respecting open-source software.
As is with all Google software, its pristine and works amazingly well from execution and design POV, but you pay with your life's data. Its like a genie that will grant you 3-wishes for the exchange of your soul. You get what you want but the price is high.
If you like Chrome, use Brave. There are solutions.
As is with all Google software, its pristine and works amazingly well from execution and design POV, but you pay with your life's data. Its like a genie that will grant you 3-wishes for the exchange of your soul. You get what you want but the price is high.
If you like Chrome, use Brave. There are solutions.
5 years from now, even browsers are a premium subscription. You don’t want your cookies to be tracked? That would be $9.99 a month ma’am. Atleast not on Safari on Apple Devices (I presume)
It is this kind of ill-informed, lazy attitude that is allowing Google to obtain near total domination of desktop browser share (and a massive chunk of mobile browsers).
We’ve clearly seen how bad things can get when one tech company dominates this space (anyone remember when almost the entire world used Internet Explorer 6 and the way it held back web standards for so long?).
Also, Google isn’t exactly a shining paragon of virtue when it comes to respecting user data.
That’s actually nice.
I already donate 300 or so every year, so this is a better proposition to me.
And the people claiming that chrome is better...oh boy, indeed ignorance is bliss.
I already donate 300 or so every year, so this is a better proposition to me.
And the people claiming that chrome is better...oh boy, indeed ignorance is bliss.
Lazy attitude? People want best usability and looks and that’s what Chrome delivers on.
I also never have issues with Chrome vs Safari where some websites might not load (not entirely relevant to the Firefox vs Chrome idea but still).
Someone else has said there’s no proper evidence of privacy “issues” within Chrome.
And sorry what? I’m pretty sure Chrome is one of the leaders in web standards
That does not really work for stuff like VPN or cloud-storage, there is infrastructure that needs to be maintained and does not run for free. "Pay once and be done" works for Software that you install and run on your own hardware but not for services that someone provides. The article only mentions services-stuff, if there are any purely local features in the premium-version it would certainly be nice to also have the option to get just that (without any services) as a one-time purchase.
Congratulations, today is the day you find out that: The world doesn't evolve around you, and other people have different opinions and needs.
Well, Netscape was a paid SW back in the old days.
But I seriously doubt anyone would pay for a browser nowadays.
Lots of people pay for vpn now... So if it's included in the browser subscription then they aren't really paying anything more.
[doublepost=1560612887][/doublepost]
That's looking at it very wrong.... Because you are talking about a much bigger pie being divided up. And your portion of that pie depends on the volume of people viewing your content.
I'm not sure why, but for me, it doesn't seem reliable for search engine to offer their vpn. What is more, there's nothing good for free, so it doesn't seem appealing to me, I'd rather stay with my nordvpn.
I like Chrome, but I use it like I used to use IE: only when I have to.
If Firefox allowed the classic/old-style plugins in the paid version, I would consider it. I miss Poster and Live HTTP Headers—simple, elegant and free plugins that didn’t require an account (like Postman, etc.—if I recall correctly).
If Firefox allowed the classic/old-style plugins in the paid version, I would consider it. I miss Poster and Live HTTP Headers—simple, elegant and free plugins that didn’t require an account (like Postman, etc.—if I recall correctly).
I will give IOS firefox a try, thanks to your mention of dark mode. I've ignored their promo emails for
their IOS version.
You can pretty much guarantee that Apple have a clause in their contracts that sites cannot sell subscriptions outside Apple for less than the cost through Apple; In the same way that games cannot be offered for sale anywhere, cheaper than their Apple Store price.