| "Until and unless Google meaningfully commits to never neuter ad blockers, it's still critical and urgent that we switch to Firefox." Why would Google ever commit to keep ad blockers working, unconditionally. It makes no sense. I use Firefox in sometimes on mobile. I use Chrome for online banking and shopping. This usage is an extremely small portion of web use for me. (Does that make me an "actual user" under the Google employee's definition.) The majority of the time using the web I do not use a popular browser from a "tech" company. I use simpler software I can edit and compile myself, quickly and easily. I have all the "features" I need. As such, 99% of the time I never see any ads. Google can do whatever it wants with Chrome. I still see no ads. I am not using it. Unless and until one considers that there are other ways to access the web besides those dictated to us by "tech" companies, then one cannot seriously claim to be trying to avoid advertising. Firefox is funded by Google and other "search provider" profits from advertising services. Mozilla is against some forms of online tracking, but they are absolutely pro-advertising. I just watched their "Chief Security Officer" state this on video to the FTC earlier in the month. Are we supposed to believe there is some "standoff" between Mozilla and Google (or any other "tech" company, i.e., "search provider") over advertising. That would be pure fantasy. Mozilla (Corporation)^1 is like any other "tech" company. It has no business plan. It has nothing to sell that could sustain it as an employer of software developers. It only has its position as an intermediary, to assist with online advertising, in Mozilla's case to assist by sending search traffic to Google, and whatever else is required by their royalty agreements with "search providers".^2 1. https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2020/mozilla-fdn-202... 2. Mozilla even sells its own advertising services: Advertising revenues - Mozilla also offers advertising services in three formats. The first is the New Tab advertising service, which places links to sponsored content when a new tab is opened in the Firefox web browser. The second format is through Pockets email product, Pocket Hits. Pocket Hits may include paid advertisements, which are placed in email newsletters that get delivered to global Pocket users. Lastly, Mozilla also sells web advertisement spots on content that Mozilla licenses and syndicates from publisher partners across the web. Along with a "service" to remove advertising: Subscription revenues - Included in a Pocket Premium subscription are features like full text search on saved articles, removal of advertising from Pocket properties, the ability to create unlimited highlights and the ability to create a permanent library of everything a user has saved. For me, playing both side of the coin, charging for advertising services and charging for advertising removal services, does not rank high on the scale of company integrity. But this sort of "playbook" seems quite common for "tech" companies. For example, Google does it with YouTube ("YouTube Red", now "YouTube Premium"). |
We are the end users of this software and, while clearly a minority, we do expect things to work. If a useful feature is being neutered, it is considered bad for the users. Thankfully, Google is not, yet, in a position where it can just force its adoption. Thankfully, there are still other options ( including some recent moves creation of non-G and non-F browser; and interesting variants of Chrome ).
Those vocal end users ( and that includes me ) want things in one specific way. For two different reasons:
1. I recently was forced to browse net without adblockers and it was a horrid experience. I pity the poor souls that live without them. 2. I still basically do everything tech related around the house. If Google starts being annoying, I will drop it like a hot potato. Thankfully, I am not longer local tech guy for my extended family.
In other words, it still makes sense for Google to appease the people, who do the work of converting and then supporting their software, because people sure don't call Google, when it raining ads.
By the by, didn't we go through the exact period with infinite pop-up ads and agreed that it was a really bad idea? Why would anyone think users want it back?