Techdirt. Stories filed under "firefox"

Old Habits Or New Envy? Microsoft Bans 3rd Party Browsers On Windows RT

Mike Masnick — Fri, 11 May 2012 06:56:00 PDT

The big antitrust case in the US against Microsoft about a decade ago focused on Microsoft's efforts in the browser war to lock out Netscape. While Microsoft lost that case, regime change at the DOJ meant that Microsoft got a slap on the wrist, rather than being broken up (as was originally proposed). In the long run, this may have been the best solution anyway. The market itself realized soon after that there was a pretty big opening for an innovative and effective web browser, and new competitors sprung up and took market share away from Microsoft: first Mozilla's Firefox, then Apple's Safari and finally Google's Chrome (and, yes, there have been a few smaller players as well, but they're all pretty small). Either way, given that Microsoft technically lost the antitrust case filed against it, and the key reason was its efforts to block the use of Netscape, you would think that the company would be a bit more sensitive about blocking competing browsers.

However, a war of words is brewing between Microsoft and Mozilla over the fact that Microsoft is effectively banning native third party browsers on Windows RT -- which will effectively become the "mobile device" version of Windows. On top of that, the company apparently is blocking the use of certain APIs that would be useful -- and which Microsoft's own browser will be able to use.

It's easy to assume nefarious intent on the part of Microsoft, but reading through the details, it feels more like a case where Microsoft is growing jealous of Apple's control over the iPhone platform, and is effectively looking to do some of the same with its next generation mobile offering. I think that's pretty short-sighted. Denying third party browsers may have worked for now, for Apple, but that's driven (in large part) by the larger than life infatuation with Apple products. I'm not sure any other company can pull it off -- especially Microsoft.

The way to compete with Apple is to attack where it's weakest -- and that's by being more open. Instead, it looks like (in typical Microsoft fashion) Microsoft has decided to try to attack Apple by copying where Apple is strongest -- in its walled garden. And, in the process, the company may end up setting off some antitrust alarm bells. Oh, and also, along the way, it will severely hurt its own platform by limiting the types of useful innovations that others might provide. That doesn't seem like a very smart business plan.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Homeland Security Demands Mozilla Remove Firefox Extension That Redirects Seized Domains

Mike Masnick — Thu, 5 May 2011 14:59:33 PDT

Apparently, the folks at Homeland Security are not at all pleased with the very, very simple Firefox extension, called MAFIAAfire, that negates ICE's domain seizures, by automatically rerouting users to alternate domains. Apparently, DHS demanded that Mozilla take the extension down from its listing of Firefox extensions claiming that the add-on "circumvented" DHS's seizure orders. Thankfully, Mozilla didn't just fold, but instead left it up and sent DHS a list of questions concerning the request. The list of questions is really fantastic, as it goes way beyond the direct request to really get to the heart of the questionable nature of ICE's activity with domain seizures:

To help us evaluate the Department of Homeland Security's request to take-down/remove the MAFIAAfire.com add-on from Mozilla's websites, can you please provide the following additional information:

1. Have any courts determined that MAFIAAfire.com is unlawful or illegal in any way? If so, on what basis? (Please provide any relevant rulings)

2. Have any courts determined that the seized domains related to MAFIAAfire.com are unlawful, illegal or liable for infringement in any way? (please provide relevant rulings)

3. Is Mozilla legally obligated to disable the add-on or is this request based on other reasons? If other reasons, can you please specify.

4. Has DHS, or any copyright owners involved in this matter, taken any legal action against MAFIAAfire.com or the seized domains, including DMCA requests?

5. What protections are in place for MAFIAAfire.com or the seized domain owners if eventually a court decides they were not unlawful?

6. Can you please provide copies of any briefs that accompanied the affidavit considered by the court that issued the relevant seizure orders?

7. Can you please provide a copy of the relevant seizure order upon which your request to Mozilla to take down MAFIAAfire.com is based?

8. Please identify exactly what the infringements by the owners of the domains consisted of, with reference to the substantive standards of Section 106 and to any case law establishing that the actions of the seized domain owners constituted civil or criminal copyright infringement.

9. Did any copyright owners furnish affidavits in connection with the domain seizures? Had any copyright owners served DMCA takedown notices on the seized domains or MAFIAAfire.com? (if so please provide us with a copy)

10. Has the Government furnished the domain owners with formal notice of the seizures, triggering the time period for a response by the owners? If so, when, and have there been any responses yet by owners?

11. Has the Government communicated its concerns directly with MAFIAAfire.com? If so, what response, if any, did MAFIAAfire.com make?

It's always nice to see some organizations not just roll over when the government comes calling. Kudos to Mozilla for not just refusing to takedown MAFIAAfire, but for also asking serious questions of DHS. Of course, DHS has refused to respond at all...

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

ISPs Hijacking Browser Functions, Continue Proud Tradition Of Value-Free Added Services

Karl Bode — Wed, 5 May 2010 16:21:24 PDT

ISPs over the last few years have quickly rushed to embrace DNS redirection advertising. Instead of users being directed to a traditional page not found message (or Google in some browsers) should they enter a nonexistent or mistyped URL, they're redirected to an ISP-run search portal laden with advertisements. The concept creates a revenue stream out of your clumsy typing, giving ISPs an extra few bucks per month, per user (of course on top of whatever they make supposedly not selling your clickstream data). While many users don't like the practice, most ISPs provide some kind of opt-out mechanism (though they often don't work well), and users can often choose alternative DNS servers. Slashdot directs our attention to the fact that users continue to be surprised when they find out their ISP is hijacking user location bar results:

"Today I noticed that this great feature of Firefox (combined with Google of course) has stopped working, and has instead been replaced with an add-laden (sic) search result from another website. I've confirmed that my keyword.URL setting is still pointed at Google, so this must be happening at the traffic level, I would imagine either by use of a web proxy or something to do with DNS lookup, which makes me wonder if this new 'feature' my ISP (Netvigator by PCCW in Hong Kong) has introduced is also affecting my privacy?"

Here in the States one ISP (Windstream Communications) was recently busted for taking this concept one step further, going so far as to actually hijack Firefox Google search toolbar results. Windstream quickly backed away from the practice once users started to complain, insisting it was a mistake. However, the ISP wouldn't offer technical specifics about what technology they were using that created this "bug," and employees were told not to elaborate. To be clear, in Windstream's case this went well beyond DNS redirection, worked no matter what DNS servers were being used, and involved manipulating actual traffic streams using a new flavor of deep packet inspection. Whether this new layer 7/DPI is being used for copyright enforcement, surveillance, data mining or search result hijacks isn't clear -- but whatever it's being used for, it's being implemented with absolutely no transparency to the end user.

It seems unlikely that any U.S. ISP would take things further by hijacking toolbar results, given ISPs are busily trying to argue to regulators that network neutrality rules aren't necessary. Still, as deep packet inspection technology gets more sophisticated, precisely how ISPs are meddling with your traffic is something to keep a close eye on. ISPs already have a bad habit of offering value added services that fail to provide any value to consumers, and DNS redirection ads are only the latest example. ISPs were in such a hurry to grab this additional revenue, they failed to bother to make sure opt-out mechanisms for these "services" even worked, much less consider adding any kind of enhanced DNS functionality (as seen by companies like OpenDNS) that would make these services worth something to the end user. While DPI itself isn't bad, it holds a lot of potential for abuse among ISPs eager to make an extra buck at any cost.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Firefox Guys Admit That Competition Is What Drives Innovation

Mike Masnick — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 07:28:00 PST

For years, we (and certainly plenty of other people) have pointed out that monopolies, like patents and copyrights, don't drive innovation -- competition does. In fact, having monopolies does the opposite of driving innovation, since the monopolists have fewer reasons to innovate and upgrade since they're not fighting against competitors. This point is made quite clear in an admission by Mike Beltzner, the director of Firefox at Mozilla, in an article at Slate discussing how much browsers have been innovating lately:

"Were there not other competitors who were just as interested in making Web browsers faster, I don't know if we'd be able to find the gains that we can find," he said. "Now it's a game of one-upping each other."

Imagine if instead of thinking that way, the concept of a browser had been patented way back when? Does anyone honestly think that we'd have as innovative a web world as we do today?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Once Again, Blocking Ads And Automating Clicks Isn't 'Stealing'

Mike Masnick — Fri, 9 Oct 2009 13:03:00 PDT

A couple years back, we wrote about some guy who kicked off a campaign to get sites to block all Firefox users, claiming that too many of them use extensions like "AdBlock" and those people are "stealing" from the site. This is silly for a whole bunch of reasons. You don't need to monetize every single person who visits your site, and it's their computer. If they don't want to see ads on their computer, that's their decision. If your business model is something they don't appreciate, that's your problem, not their's. This issue has suddenly come up again, as Rose M. Welch alerts us to a blog post from a guy who threatens to start blocking Firefox users, claiming that using AdBlock is "practically like you are stealing from me."

Amusingly, in that same post, he argues that he never expects people to actually click on the ads from his site, but he relies on the revenue those ads bring in. So... let me get this straight. If people use AdBlock, they're stealing from you. But... if, instead, people come to your site and totally ignore the ads, but those advertisers have to pay you anyway, that's okay? Based on this guy's own logic, isn't he "practically stealing" from the advertisers? After all, he's granting them a service and then telling his readers to ignore the ads. Those advertisers rely on people buying stuff after clicking the ads, right? So, it's okay if people don't help out those advertisers, but if your own readers don't help you out by allowing the ads, it's theft? Yeah... okay.

Taking this concept to an even greater extreme, the EFF has stepped in on a legal dispute, where file hosting provider MediaFire is demanding Mozilla remove a plug-in that lets people skip the ad that MediaFire tries to show people before they can access the file they're trying to download. As the EFF notes:

It's my browser, and I can ignore your ads if I want to.

MediaFire's claims are like the people who claim that anyone using AdBlock is "stealing" from them and breaking their user agreement -- but as the EFF notes, there's no stealing of anything going on here, and the user agreement is never actually agreed to, and thus not particularly enforceable or even relevant.

So, once again, with feeling, it's worth reminding people that your business model is not sacred. You have no right to a business model, and if some technology comes along that undermines your business model, that shouldn't be illegal. It just means the market has changed, and it's time you change along with it. And yes, for those who ask, please feel free to use AdBlock on this site if you want to. It's totally up to you, of course. You don't need my permission.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Disappointing: Mozilla Siding With Bogus EU Antitrust Action Against Microsoft

Mike Masnick — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 05:51:00 PST

Last month, it seemed silly that EU regulators were pursuing Microsoft for antitrust violations in the browser market for bundling IE. It was clear that some of the initial complaints had come from Opera -- an also-ran in the browser market. However, it seemed silly because there is vibrant and growing competition in the marketplace. Firefox has continued to grow its market share, and in the past few years we've seen new entrants in the browser market from Apple and Google -- both of whom have established small, but significant footholds.

So, it's especially disappointing to read that the Mozilla Foundation appears to be siding with the regulators, complaining about Microsoft's actions. Obviously, Mozilla is competing with Microsoft in this space, so at a first pass it may seem in their best interests to lobby the EU to punish Microsoft. But it's disingenuous to say the least. Mozilla got where it did because it competed effectively. It built a better, more secure browser that many people made the choice to support over IE. In fact, Firefox's chief architect, apparently unaware of what his "bosses" were cooking up, seems to have recently contradicted the Mozilla Foundation's new position, where he admitted that he couldn't see how anyone with a straight face could claim that Microsoft's ability to bundle created a monopoly, noting that Firefox's success in growing marketshare showed that making yourself "demonstrably better" worked. Oops.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Is Firefox Missing The Point In Its Response To Google Chrome?

Blaise Alleyne — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 02:19:54 PDT

Seth Godin thinks Firefox is missing the point by launching new features in response to Google Chrome. He says the problem now is that "when your friends switch to Firefox, your life doesn't get better." Firefox needs to provide people with an incentive to spread it, so that the more people use it, the better it gets for users (think of a social networking site -- you have a better experience if more of your friends join). He suggests new communication and collaboration features that only work if you have Firefox.

I think he's missing the point.

He ignores the Firefox community. The life of a Firefox user does improve as the user base grows. A more vibrant community means better add-ons, bug fixes, security patches, phishing reports, translations/dictionaries, etc. -- all members benefit. Mozilla is already providing the sort of incentive he describes. Sure, there may be ways to improve, but I don't think they're missing the point.

Plus, "only for Firefox users" isn't the Mozilla approach. Mozilla wants to improve the web for everyone -- not just Firefox users. Mozilla thinks your browser should be like your phone or your car; it shouldn't matter if your friends or co-workers are using the same product. You don't need to consider which phone carrier your friend uses before making a call, or which car your co-worker has before providing directions; you shouldn't have to think about what browser someone uses before communicating with them online. People don't need special browser-specific features in order to communicate browser-to-browser, that's what web services (or add-ons) are for. Those kinds of features would make life on the web more difficult for everyone if they were Firefox specific, and if they weren't, Google could just implement them in Chrome.

The community is one thing Firefox has that Chrome can't copy overnight.

If you read some responses to Chrome from people at Mozilla, it doesn't seem like they're missing the point. Competition in the browser market is validation of Mozilla's mission for Firefox, and Mozilla plans to compete by continuing to innovate and to involve the community. Seth Godin makes a great observation about giving people an incentive to spread your product -- "people will recommend something if adoption improves their lives" -- but he doesn't mention the ways in which Mozilla has already taken that to heart. How do you think Firefox became popular in the first place?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Are IE Users Really Jumping To Chrome?

Mike Masnick — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 15:44:47 PDT

On the day that Google's Chrome browser launched I saw a few reports claiming that it already had jumped to somewhere between 2 and 3% of the market. Those numbers seemed ridiculously high for a first day launch of a new piece of software -- especially in a market where the majority of people still use the browser that came included with their operating system, and have not chosen to download and use an alternative like Firefox. While some more recent stats suggest both lower penetration, and that Chrome got a first day bump that seems to now be going away, another study suggests that most of the Chrome marketshare actually came from Internet Explorer users, rather than Firefox or Opera. In fact, the report found that all of the market share difference came from IE. That seems hard to believe. I would imagine that the folks most likely to download and use Chrome are those who are already comfortable with downloading and using an alternative browser. So, can anyone explain these results?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Is The Google/Firefox Relationship A Conflict Of Interest?

Timothy Lee — Fri, 2 Nov 2007 06:28:00 PDT

CNET's Chris Soghoian raises some concerns about Google's close relationship with the Mozilla Foundation, the non-profit that owns the Firefox trademark. He points out that the vast majority of Mozilla's revenue comes from Google, and notes a number of ways that Firefox is configured to use Google as the default for various online services. Soghoian is right that close scrutiny of these sorts of relationships is healthy. However, it's pretty hard to get too worked up about the specific problems he cites. First, he notes that Mozilla has chosen not to include a couple of ad- and cookie-blocking plugins with the default Firefox package. Soghoian thinks that's a sign of something fishy going on, since those products would deprive Google of revenue. But there are thousands of plugins out there, and all sorts of reasons they might have chosen to exclude any given one. Soghoian offers no evidence it was at Google's behest. But more to the point, even if it were Google's doing, I don't understand why that would be a bad thing. Google makes a profit by selling advertising and shares a significant share of those revenues with Mozilla, which Mozilla then spends on making Firefox better. That sounds like a win-win-win proposition to us. Finally, given Google's excellent track record of making ads actually useful, relevant, and non-intrusive, it's not at all clear that users even want Firefox to block its ads. As long as Mozilla doesn't try to stop users from installing ad-blocking plugins themselves, I don't see the problem.

Soghoian also objects to the fact that Google controls Firefox's phishing blacklist. At least one prominent security researcher claims that one of Google's sites has a serious security flaw that they've refused to fix, and they've also refused to add themselves to the Mozilla phishing blacklist. Obviously, unfixed security flaws are a bad thing, but this doesn't seem to have all that much to do with the Google-Firefox relationship per se. Google is not a fly-by-night operation, and it's highly unlikely they're leaving unfixed security flaws on their site as a matter of corporate policy. More likely, any unfixed security problems are the result of honest oversights or bureaucratic incompetence. The solution, then is to put pressure on Google to fix the problem. Even if someone else controlled the blacklist, it's likely they'd be reluctant to take the drastic step of blacklisting a Google-owned site.

Free software projects like Firefox rely on contributions from a wide variety of individuals and organizations. Many of them participate for self-interested reasons, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Of course, it's important to scrutinize such relationships to ensure that they don't subvert the broader goals of the organization. But I see little reason to think that describes either of Soghoian's examples. And it would be a mistake to let a general distrust of for-profit companies undermine opportunities to make free software better.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

On The Stupidity Of Blocking Firefox Users

Mike Masnick — Fri, 17 Aug 2007 15:16:43 PDT

Ferin alerts us to a story at Slashdot about some new campaign among some websites to block Firefox users. To be honest, it's tough to know how real this is. The actual site is down from the Slashdot Effect, and it certainly hadn't received much attention before. Even if it is real, it seems unlikely that many sites would sign up and take part. Most people just aren't that stupid. However, assuming (big risk here) that the campaign is real and some sites actually are doing this, it's worth explaining why it makes no sense. The complaints are basically that Firefox users "spend less" and sometimes use extensions like ad block to block out ads. Even if true (and it's only a small percentage of people who use ad block), that makes no sense if you understand the bigger picture. First of all, they tell people to go use other browsers -- but if those people aren't going to click on ads anyway, then they're still not going to click on ads from other browsers.

Just like with the full vs. partial RSS debate, people need to get past the idea that every single visitor needs to be monetized. Instead, recognize the indirect benefits of having more users. Even if a Firefox user doesn't buy something or click on an ad, he or she may tell someone else about the site and they may click on an ad or buy something. Word of mouth is an ongoing process -- and even if someone doesn't directly contribute to the revenue of a site, the fact that they potentially could cause others to drive revenue is the key. For example, here at Techdirt, we make our money by connecting companies that need insightful analysis with the experts in the Techdirt Insight Community for collaborative analysis and by providing news and trend analysis to all sorts of companies, large and small. Techdirt, the blog, helps promote those services -- even if the vast majority of our readers never pay for either service. However, they've helped make Techdirt incredibly popular, driving additional brand recognition and helping us sell a lot more from the corporate side of the business. So even though only a tiny percentage of our readers provide revenue, there's tremendous benefit in getting as many others aware of us and reading the blog as possible.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story