Weird title. I'd argue that browsers are closer together today than ever before (and that isn't necessarily a bad thing). They're much closer in standards work, implement the same extension APIs,...
Weird title. I'd argue that browsers are closer together today than ever before (and that isn't necessarily a bad thing). They're much closer in standards work, implement the same extension APIs, have similar UIs. Firefox spent years catching up to Chrome on its multi-process architecture, and Chrome spent years catching up to Firefox's extension library and power. They're both better browsers now as a result.
This article is purportedly about Mozilla's premium service but really doesn't add anything new.
I added it specifically because other press outlets have been sensationalizing the premium services angle with an implication that Firefox itself was going to be paid. This piece is much clearer...
This article is purportedly about Mozilla's premium service but really doesn't add anything new.
I added it specifically because other press outlets have been sensationalizing the premium services angle with an implication that Firefox itself was going to be paid. This piece is much clearer and more accurate.
I did notice that other articles did a poor job explaining that it was a premium service and not a premium browser. I do feel this article does an equally poor job of explaining it though. Most of...
I did notice that other articles did a poor job explaining that it was a premium service and not a premium browser. I do feel this article does an equally poor job of explaining it though. Most of the article (and even the title) seemed more interested in playing sides than explaining the technical aspects.
Except for the headline, which is insanely sensationalized. The previous post had a good article which made it clear that the Premium version wasn't going to override the free one.
Except for the headline, which is insanely sensationalized. The previous post had a good article which made it clear that the Premium version wasn't going to override the free one.
Are we to believe sensationalized headlines discount an entire article's worth of work? Seems like an easy way to discredit the hard work of a writer by way of criticizing marketing techniques...
Are we to believe sensationalized headlines discount an entire article's worth of work?
Seems like an easy way to discredit the hard work of a writer by way of criticizing marketing techniques without having to do any of the dirty work of proving the writer incorrect categorically.
No, they just rub up against statements like "This piece is much clearer and more accurate". If the headline is more sensationalized than ever, it's a big stain on the the article.
No, they just rub up against statements like "This piece is much clearer and more accurate". If the headline is more sensationalized than ever, it's a big stain on the the article.
Agree to disagree. A headline is typically 10 or fewer words on an article with hundreds and hundreds of them. Focusing on errant or misleading titles and blowing them up to flavor the entire...
a big stain
Agree to disagree. A headline is typically 10 or fewer words on an article with hundreds and hundreds of them. Focusing on errant or misleading titles and blowing them up to flavor the entire article's points seems a little presumptuous to me, but maybe I'm the weirdo here.
Well, I wasn't really commenting on the quality or content of the article, just the headline, and all in comparison to an earlier posted article that seems to present all the same information but...
Well, I wasn't really commenting on the quality or content of the article, just the headline, and all in comparison to an earlier posted article that seems to present all the same information but in a better package.
The article was just as bad as the title in this case. Needlessly political and with no actual information pertaining to the news being announced. The post that @TheJorro linked was indeed better.
The article was just as bad as the title in this case. Needlessly political and with no actual information pertaining to the news being announced. The post that @TheJorro linked was indeed better.
I don't think this article adds enough new or different information to be worth a separate submission. I'm going to remove it, but I'll edit the title of the previous one to make it more clear...
I don't think this article adds enough new or different information to be worth a separate submission. I'm going to remove it, but I'll edit the title of the previous one to make it more clear that it's just premium features and not a paid browser.
Weird title. I'd argue that browsers are closer together today than ever before (and that isn't necessarily a bad thing). They're much closer in standards work, implement the same extension APIs, have similar UIs. Firefox spent years catching up to Chrome on its multi-process architecture, and Chrome spent years catching up to Firefox's extension library and power. They're both better browsers now as a result.
This article is purportedly about Mozilla's premium service but really doesn't add anything new.
I added it specifically because other press outlets have been sensationalizing the premium services angle with an implication that Firefox itself was going to be paid. This piece is much clearer and more accurate.
I did notice that other articles did a poor job explaining that it was a premium service and not a premium browser. I do feel this article does an equally poor job of explaining it though. Most of the article (and even the title) seemed more interested in playing sides than explaining the technical aspects.
Except for the headline, which is insanely sensationalized. The previous post had a good article which made it clear that the Premium version wasn't going to override the free one.
Are we to believe sensationalized headlines discount an entire article's worth of work?
Seems like an easy way to discredit the hard work of a writer by way of criticizing marketing techniques without having to do any of the dirty work of proving the writer incorrect categorically.
No, they just rub up against statements like "This piece is much clearer and more accurate". If the headline is more sensationalized than ever, it's a big stain on the the article.
Agree to disagree. A headline is typically 10 or fewer words on an article with hundreds and hundreds of them. Focusing on errant or misleading titles and blowing them up to flavor the entire article's points seems a little presumptuous to me, but maybe I'm the weirdo here.
Well, I wasn't really commenting on the quality or content of the article, just the headline, and all in comparison to an earlier posted article that seems to present all the same information but in a better package.
The article was just as bad as the title in this case. Needlessly political and with no actual information pertaining to the news being announced. The post that @TheJorro linked was indeed better.
I don't think this article adds enough new or different information to be worth a separate submission. I'm going to remove it, but I'll edit the title of the previous one to make it more clear that it's just premium features and not a paid browser.
(Pinging other people that were involved in this thread: @Wes @TheJorro @The_Fad)
Fair enough.