Google Recommends Firefox, Mozilla Recommends Adblock Plus

First, I have a little trouble understanding how $53 million (not all of which comes from Google) suddenly became "few hundred millions every year" in your article.

Secondly, Mozilla has always stated that the user comes first for them and they have shown commitment to this statement. Adblock Plus is good for the users even though it might mean less money. Mozilla is not there for solving Google's problems or for earning money, they are there to help their users.

Wladimir - the $53 million figure was for the year 2005 and the Firefox usage was much higher in 2006. Hence it's easy to say that the 2006 figure was a few hundred millions.

You are absolutely right - the user comes first and Mozilla is not there to make money.

The only worrying thing is that Google (and the millions of Adsense publishers) out are generating revenue from online advertising. They might be hit hard.

Thanks for dropping. You have developed an awesome extension.

Something that I believe is that the people who use that plugin are the people who don't click on ads anyway. They are the people who would rather manually type in the URL than click on the ad to give the publisher credit. If that's the case I would rather them use an ad blocker because it will make their experience better on the site when we probably wouldn't have received any revenue from them anyways.

The problem is not Adblock, which blocks the most disturbing ads. The problem is that lot of website owner know that visitors use adblock tool, so the can put on lot of ad and earn a lot of money. Other Visitors will have to install ad-block-tools, too, because of the disturbing ads. So this is a vicous circle

The Problem is YOU. YOU don't want the visitors of your site to block your money-generating-irritating ads.

Wladimir wrote that "Mozilla is not there for solving Google's problems or for earning money, they are there to help their users." That is true, Mozilla can live without Google, but can user live without Gmail, Google Desktop, Calendar, etc? Your answer might be "Yes, he can!", but wouldn't life be much harder then?

The reason Google supports Mozilla is simply Ad block actually helps Google since Google's ads are so unobtrusive, and inoffensive to all but the most anti-ad folks.

The problem isn't Adblock. Adblock is the consumer's way of fighting the real problem. Abusive ad formats.

In the long and short run Google profits because it's ads aren't targeted by adblock which targets abusive forms of advertising.

As a site publisher you can fight Adblock, and by extension your potential customers, or you can stop being greedy bastards that trade ease and comfort of use for readers for the "potential" to make more money even in the face of the fact the people that make that money for you are rebelling from your bs ad tactics.

As a long time ad blocking software user, even before adblock, I refuse to buy by linking from offending sites, and I will, as someone suggested earlier, directly link to an advertised site rather than visit that same site by clicking on a link to an ad from a site that utilizes offensive ad campaigns.

For site publishers if you even for a moment think that what your site can't generally be lived without, or that some comparable content can't be found elsewhere you're generally sadly mistaken.

In fact I can't think of one site that objected to adblocking software that offered something I couldn't find elsewhere copiously, and generally in better quality.

I forgot to mention it first go around but it's completely ridiculous to assert a profit of hundreds of millions from a profit of 50 some million a year and a half earlier.

That's an inexcusable stretch.

WhyFirefoxIsBlocked.com

Here's a site that is seemingly hurt by the fact that Mozilla endorses the use of ad-blocking software. Two sides to every argument, I suppose.

However, even though so many of us techies are encouraging those NOT in the know to switch to alternate and safer browsers like Firefox / Opera, it's sites like these that in fact might garner a bit more attention to the Mozilla Foundation's attempt at making users' decisions for them.

Taking a look @ the blocking code, all it takes is changing the USER AGENT string to allow Firefox to view these "blocked" sites.

I dont understand, why google differently make referrals for Firefox. I mean it(firefox) can be downloaded from google pack also. Pack is also a referral product, then why need that single firefox referral?

Here I come so very late-- But I downloaded the adblocker plugin today. Untill now, I've been comfortable with my own "banner-blindness" and a fast enough internet connection and processor.

Why have I finally done it? Because some asshole advertisers have added sound to their flash banners. I DO NOT WANT to be barked at, I do NOT want to listen to some half-talented pop hopeful's warbling.

You can choose, if you like, to allow Google contextual ads. I've allowed them-- I often rely on them during google searches. I don't like flash banners, that's all.