Louis Rossmann criticizes Mozilla's handling of the Firefox browser, arguing they've prioritized telemetry and user tracking over performance and essential features. He points to the declining market share as evidence of their mismanagement and expresses frustration with the browser's increasing bloat and sluggishness. Rossmann believes Mozilla has lost sight of its original mission of providing a fast, open-source alternative to dominant browsers and is instead chasing trends that don't benefit users. He contrasts this with the Pale Moon browser, highlighting its focus on performance and customization as a better embodiment of Firefox's original values.
Newsweek reports that Google Calendar has stopped automatically displaying certain US cultural events like Pride Month, Black History Month, and Holocaust Remembrance Day in the main calendar view for some users. While these events are still accessible within other calendar layers, like the "Interesting Calendars" section, the change has sparked concern and frustration among users who relied on the prominent reminders. Google has not officially commented on the reason for the removal or whether it is a temporary glitch or a permanent change.
HN commenters were largely skeptical of the Newsweek article, pointing out that the events still appeared on their calendars and suggesting user error or a temporary glitch as more likely explanations than intentional removal. Several suggested checking calendar settings, specifically "Browse interesting calendars" under "Other calendars," to ensure the specialized calendars are enabled. Some questioned Newsweek's journalistic integrity and the sensationalist framing of the headline. A few commenters expressed general frustration with Google's frequent, unannounced changes to their products and services. There was also discussion about the effectiveness and potential annoyance of these awareness calendars, with some finding them useful reminders while others viewing them as intrusive or performative.
German consumers are reporting that Seagate hard drives advertised and sold as new were actually refurbished drives with heavy prior usage. Some drives reportedly logged tens of thousands of power-on hours and possessed SMART data indicating significant wear, including reallocated sectors and high spin-retry counts. This affects several models, including IronWolf and Exos enterprise-grade drives purchased through various retailers. While Seagate has initiated replacements for some affected customers, the extent of the issue and the company's official response remain unclear. Concerns persist regarding the potential for widespread resale of used drives as new, raising questions about Seagate's quality control and refurbishment practices.
Hacker News commenters express skepticism and concern over the report of Seagate allegedly selling used hard drives as new in Germany. Several users doubt the veracity of the claims, suggesting the reported drive hours could be a SMART reporting error or a misunderstanding. Others point out the potential for refurbished drives to be sold unknowingly, highlighting the difficulty in distinguishing between genuinely new and refurbished drives. Some commenters call for more evidence, suggesting analysis of the drive's physical condition or firmware versions. A few users share anecdotes of similar experiences with Seagate drives failing prematurely. The overall sentiment is one of caution towards Seagate, with some users recommending alternative brands.
ZDNet argues that the Microsoft 365 Copilot launch was a "disaster" due to its extremely limited availability. While showcasing impressive potential, the exorbitant pricing ($30 per user/month on top of existing Microsoft 365 subscriptions) and restriction to just 600 enterprise customers renders it inaccessible to the vast majority of users. This limited rollout prevents widespread testing and feedback crucial for refining a product still in its early stages, ultimately hindering its development and broader adoption. The author concludes that Microsoft missed an opportunity to gather valuable user data and generate broader excitement by opting for an exclusive, high-priced preview instead of a wider, even if less feature-complete, beta release.
HN commenters generally agree that the launch was poorly executed, citing the limited availability (only to 600 enterprise customers), high price ($30/user/month), and lack of clear value proposition beyond existing AI tools. Several suggest Microsoft rushed the launch to capitalize on the AI hype, prioritizing marketing over a polished product. Some argue the "disaster" label is overblown, pointing out that this is a controlled rollout to large customers who can provide valuable feedback. Others discuss the potential for Copilot to eventually improve productivity, but remain skeptical given the current limitations and integration challenges. A few commenters criticize the article's reliance on anecdotal evidence and suggest a more nuanced perspective is needed.
TikTok reports that service is being restored for U.S. users after a widespread outage on Tuesday evening prevented many from accessing the app, logging in, or refreshing their feeds. The company acknowledged the issue on its social media channels and stated they are working to fully resolve the remaining problems. While the cause of the outage is still unclear, TikTok assures users their data was not compromised during the disruption.
Hacker News users reacted to TikTok's service restoration announcement with skepticism and concern about data security. Several commenters questioned the veracity of TikTok's claim that no user data was compromised, highlighting the company's ties to the Chinese government and expressing distrust. Others discussed the technical aspects of the outage, speculating about the cause and the potential for future disruptions. The overall sentiment leaned toward cautious pessimism, with many users predicting further issues for TikTok in the US. Some expressed indifference or even support for a ban, citing privacy concerns and the potential for misinformation spread through the platform. There was also discussion around the broader implications for internet freedom and the potential for further government intervention in online services.
Summary of Comments ( 52 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43231096
The Hacker News comments discuss Louis Rossmann's video about Firefox's declining market share. Several commenters agree with Rossmann's assessment that Mozilla has lost focus on its core user base by prioritizing features that don't resonate with power users and developers. Some point to specific examples like the removal of XUL extensions and the perceived bloat of the browser. Others argue that Firefox's decline is inevitable due to the dominance of Chrome and the network effects of Google's ecosystem. A few commenters defend Mozilla's decisions, suggesting they're trying to appeal to a broader audience. The discussion also touches on the difficulty of competing with a resource-rich giant like Google and the importance of open-source alternatives. Several users express nostalgia for Firefox's past dominance and lament its current state.
The Hacker News post titled "Louis Rossmann opines on the Firefox debacle [video]" with the ID 43231096 contains a number of comments discussing Louis Rossmann's video on the recent controversies surrounding Firefox. Several commenters express agreement with Rossmann's critique of Mozilla's perceived shift away from its core user base and towards a more mainstream, arguably less privacy-focused approach.
One commenter argues that Mozilla's decline began with the removal of XUL extensions, claiming that it alienated power users and significantly diminished Firefox's customizability, a key differentiator from other browsers. This commenter contends that Mozilla failed to provide adequate alternatives for the functionality lost with XUL extensions, leading users to migrate to other browsers or resort to cumbersome workarounds.
Another commenter expresses frustration with Mozilla's apparent prioritization of superficial features and aesthetic changes over core functionality and performance improvements. They suggest that this focus on less essential aspects has neglected the needs of users who value Firefox for its speed, customizability, and privacy features.
Several comments also discuss the perceived influence of Google on Mozilla's decision-making, referencing Mozilla's dependence on Google as its primary search engine partner. Some speculate that this financial relationship may have incentivized Mozilla to adopt policies more aligned with Google's interests, potentially at the expense of user privacy.
Some commenters express skepticism about Rossmann's perspective, suggesting that his views are overly dramatic or misinformed. One commenter points out that Firefox still retains a dedicated user base who appreciate its commitment to privacy and open-source principles. Another challenges Rossmann's criticism of specific features, arguing that they are either beneficial or inconsequential to the overall user experience.
A recurring theme throughout the comments is the sense of disappointment and frustration with Mozilla's direction. Many long-time Firefox users lament the perceived decline of the browser and express a desire for Mozilla to return to its roots as a champion of user choice and privacy. Some suggest that the recent controversies represent a turning point for Firefox, potentially leading to further user attrition if Mozilla fails to address the concerns raised by its community.