Posterous theme by Cory Watilo // customized by Ryan O'Shea
All original content Copyright © 2010-2011 Ryan O'Shea // Licensed under cc by-nc-sa.
All 3rd party content used under Fair Use // Copyrights belong to original owners.

Filed under: Google

Mozilla & Google Sign New Agreement for Default Search in Firefox

It's still a tad unsettling that Mozilla's main competitor controls their fate, but for the next three years, at least, Mozilla is financially safe. Definitely good news.

The press release from Mozilla:

We’re pleased to announce that we have negotiated a significant and mutually beneficial revenue agreement with Google. This new agreement extends our long term search relationship with Google for at least three additional years.

“Under this multi-year agreement, Google Search will continue to be the default search provider for hundreds of millions of Firefox users around the world,” said Gary Kovacs, CEO, Mozilla.

“Mozilla has been a valuable partner to Google over the years and we look forward to continuing this great partnership in the years to come,” said Alan Eustace, Senior Vice President of Search, Google.

The specific terms of this commercial agreement are subject to traditional confidentiality requirements, and we’re not at liberty to disclose them.

via Mozilla

Update: Some details of the new agreement have been released, and it seems Mozilla was able to secure a payment three times greater than the previous contract. Google will now pay Mozilla $300 million per year to remain the default search provider in Firefox. It seems the thought of Microsoft hijacking one quarter of the web's search traffic was enough to scare Google into paying more than ever. It's a win for both companies—Google has enough money that the price increase won't matter, and Mozilla will now have almost triple the annual budget. The new deal lasts, like the one before it, for three years.

Can Firefox Survive?

It’s becoming increasingly apparent that Mozilla is in trouble. According to their financial report, the vast majority of Mozilla’s revenue comes directly from Google, in a deal to keep Google as the default search provider in Firefox. In 2010, that contract constituted 84% of Mozilla’s revenue. This is no secret. This has been the case for a while, but only now are people starting to notice.

The thing is, that contract expired last month. As of right now, no plans have been announced to extend the deal. After all, why would Google choose to renew it? Firefox is their second biggest competitor in the browser market, and their biggest among more knowledgeable users. It doesn’t make sense for Google to continue supporting them. This, of course, puts Mozilla in a tight spot. Despite being non-profit, there is no way Mozilla can continue to operate without 84% of their revenue stream—approximately $100 million.

Mozilladangling

Read the rest of this post »

How Browsers Handle Text Rendering

There's a reason I still use Firefox instead of Chrome. Actually, there are a lot. But one sticks out. It's not a massive problem most of the time, but in some cases it is.

It's the way browsers render text.

This is incredibly important. Everything on a webpage—at least, all of the actual information on a webpage—is usually text. A browser's job is basically rendering and positioning text. They do it in different ways.

On Mac OS, we don't have this problem. All text is rendered the same way through the operating system, which literally blurs each letter a bit to make its edges look smooth. It's very easy on the eyes at large sizes, but has been shown to be less legible when read for long periods of time. Not to mention, it isn't exactly true to the font designer's intentions, since it makes the edges of each letter fuzzy. Safari on Windows overrides the system rendering and renders text like it would be on Mac OS.

Chrome uses Windows default rendering with ClearType always (unless the system doesn't have ClearType—e.g. unpatched XP). It's better than no anti-aliasing, which just looks horrible. But it begins to struggle in some areas.

Firefox 4+ and Internet Explorer 9+ use the latest tech, DirectWrite. This is a new technology in Windows 7 that uses the graphics card to accelerate drawing of text on the screen, and provides exceptionally smooth and crisp letterforms. It looks great at large and small sizes, and doesn't blur the text.

Here's what that "Stop Censorship" banner looks like in Firefox 11.0a (nightly build) with DirectWrite enabled. (note: It should look the same in IE 9, but since IE 9 doesn't support rotating objects with CSS, I can't test it).

Ff11
That's how it should look. Rotating the text should, ideally, not change how it looks. DirectWrite has found a way to accomplish this. ClearType, its predecessor, hadn't. Here's how the same text looks in Chrome 17.0 (dev build).

Chrome17

Look closely at the letters. It's obvious that something's messed up here. This isn't the only example (rotation), where Chrome's text rendering looks bad. If you look closely, Chrome's text just doesn't look as good as Firefox's. It forces the lines of each letter into a one-pixel wide line, despite the original shape. It just looks weird. Most people won't notice, but it drives me crazy. It also has serious trouble rendering eastern language characters.

There's a great gallery here showing some fonts (in Google's own font gallery, no less) displayed side-by-side in Firefox and Chrome. This Quora thread also addresses the problem, which has yet to be fixed by the Chrome team, which—it's worth mentioning—has vastly more people and resources than Mozilla's team.

What prompted me to post this was my friend's comment after he used the same code to put an anti-SOPA/PROTECTIP banner over his site. He said:

"I reduced the rotation to -5 [degrees]. -10 was just killing the font, at least on Chrome."

This just seems wrong to me. A browser shouldn't dictate a developer's actions. It should be the other way around. A browser that forces users to compensate for its deficiencies shouldn't exist. That was the point of Chrome in the first place. But Google's Mac-centric teams just don't seem to care about Windows anymore. That's a mistake, plain and simple. You don't ignore the needs of your largest user base. But, I guess Google can do whatever it wants. It is Google, after all.

Google Docs Gets Google’s New Look

Yesterday, Google Docs became the latest Google product to receive the major redesign that has so far affected Gmail, Google Calendar, and Google News (not to mention Google+, which started it all). This new style for Google products was designed by Andy Hertzfeld, one of the original designers of the Macintosh for Apple. It might be a bit too minimal, but at least they've ditched that horrible light blue.

Capture

Captur0e

Widespread Hijacking of Search Traffic in the United States | EFF

By ICSI researchers Christian Kreibich, Nicholas Weaver and Vern Paxson, with Peter Eckersley.

Earlier this year, two research papers reported the observation of strange phenomena in the Domain Name System (DNS) at several US ISPs. On these ISPs' networks, some or all traffic to major search engines, including Bing, Yahoo! and (sometimes) Google, is being directed to mysterious third party proxies.

A report in New Scientist today documents that the traffic is being rerouted through a company called Paxfire. This blog post, coauthored with one of the teams that discovered the phenomenon, will explain the situation in more detail.

Who is rerouting this search traffic?

The published research papers did not identify the controller of the proxy servers that were receiving the traffic, but parallel investigations by the ICSI Networking Group and EFF have since revealed a company called Paxfire as the main actor behind this interception. Paxfire's privacy policy says that it may retain copies of users' "queries", a vague term that could be construed to mean either the domain names that they look up or the searches they conduct, or both. The redirections mostly occur transparently to the user and few if any of the affected ISP customers are likely to have ever heard of Paxfire, let alone consented to this collection of their communications with search engines.

The proxies in question are operated either directly by Paxfire, or by the ISPs using web proxies provided by Paxfire. Major users of the Paxfire system include Cavalier, Cogent, Frontier, Fuse, DirecPC, RCN, and Wide Open West. Charter also used Paxfire in the past, but appears to have discontinued this practice.

Why do they do this?

In short, the purpose appears to be monetization of users' searches. ICSI Networking's investigation has revealed that Paxfire's HTTP proxies selectively siphon search requests out of the proxied traffic flows and redirect them through one or more affiliate marketing programs, presumably resulting in commission payments to Paxfire and the ISPs involved. The affiliate programs involved include Commission Junction, the Google Affiliate Network, LinkShare, and Ask.com. When looking up brand names such as "apple", "dell", "groupon", and "wsj", the affiliate programs direct the queries to the corresponding brands' websites or to search assistance pages instead of providing the intended search engine results page.

What can I do about it?

If you want to know if the network you're currently on is subject to this type of traffic redirection, you can run a Netalyzr test. And the best protection against the privacy and security risks created by this type of hijacking is to visit sites using HTTPS rather than HTTP, which can easily be achieved using EFF's HTTPS Everywhere Firefox extension.

More technical details below...

A detailed explanation

For most users of the World Wide Web, visiting a website equals clicking on a link to the site or entering the site's name into their browser, and receiving the corresponding page from the site. Users generally assume that the site's name is identical to the site itself, and essentially trust the site's authenticity if it looks as usual and the browser does not pop up phishing warnings or other signs of trouble. Paxfire's misdirection of search traffic undermines this trust.

The ICSI Networking group develops and operates the ICSI Netalyzr, a tool that tests the characteristics of users' Internet connections. Netalyzr's measurements show that approximately a dozen US Internet Service Providers (ISPs), including DirecPC, Frontier, Hughes, and Wide Open West, deliberately and with no visible indication route thousands of users' entire web search traffic via Paxfire's web proxies.

To explain these redirections further, we first need to delve into the workings of the Internet a bit. Since the Internet does not route traffic to names but to network addresses, contacting a website involves translating the site's name (say "www.google.com") to the IP address (say 74.125.224.49) of a computer that runs Google's web server. It is to this address that the browser actually sends its request. The Domain Name System (DNS) is in charge of facilitating this mapping of names to addresses. It is the Internet's equivalent of telephone books.

Usually, ISPs provide DNS servers (directory assistance, essentially) for their users. When a user's computer asks to map a name to an IP address, the user's system contacts the ISP's DNS server, which looks up the correct IP address for the name and returns it to the user. As currently implemented, this process does not provide any guaranteed correctness. In essence, users must trust their ISP's DNS servers to correctly return IP addresses that indeed belong to the site the user intends to visit. In some instances, however, this trust may not be warranted.

For a while now, a number of ISPs have worked in cooperation with Paxfire and similar businesses like Barefruit and Golog to profit from mistakes that users make when typing names into their browsers. Paxfire provides a product for ISPs that rewrites DNS errors (effectively conveying "the name you asked for doesn't exist") to responses sending users to search pages that host advertisements, for which Paxfire then shares the corresponding ad-related revenue with the ISPs. This practice has already been controversial.

Rerouting of requests to and responses from search engines

Paxfire's product also includes an optional, unadvertised, and more alarming feature that drastically expands Paxfire's window into users' traffic. Instead of activating only upon error, this product redirects the customers' entire web search traffic destined for Yahoo!, Bing, and sometimes Google, to a small number of separate web traffic proxies.

These proxies collect the users' web searches and the corresponding search results, mostly forwarding them to and from the intended search engines. This allows Paxfire and/or the ISPs to directly monitor all searches made by the ISPs' customers and build up corresponding profiles, a process on which Paxfire holds a patent. It also puts Paxfire in a position to modify the underlying traffic if it decides to.

Under specific conditions, the Paxfire proxies do not merely relay traffic to and from the search engines. When the user initiates searches for specific keywords from the browser's URL bar or search bar, the proxy no longer relays the query to the intended search engine, but instead redirects the browser's request through affiliate networks, as the equivalent of a click on advertisements. Using the names of popular websites, we have so far identified 170 brand-related keywords that trigger redirections via affiliate programs and result either on the brands' sites or on search assistance pages unrelated to the intended search engine results page.

The subset of customers affected varies from temporally localized deployments to apparently entire customer bases. The DNS-based redirection operates in a surgical fashion, affecting only search engines but not other services such as Google Maps or Yahoo! Mail, and remains completely invisible to the user. The treatment of Google queries varies. Charter and Cogent appear to redirect only Bing and Yahoo, while DirecPC, Frontier and Wide Open West also used to redirect Google to Paxfire proxies located within their own networks. Google has recently put significant pressure (see the answer to the question) on the ISPs to get them to stop redirecting Google searches. As of August 2011, all major ISPs involved have stopped proxying Google, but they still proxy Yahoo and Bing.

Speaking of online privacy...