Most comments on their blogs can be paraphrased as “you’re only complaining because its a competing browser”… or “you’re only complaining because it somehow costs Mozilla money”.
Thats missing the point completely.
Here’s a quick non-browser example.
Suppose Microsoft Windows Automatic Updates (which delivers O.S. security fixes) suddenly also offered to download and install Microsoft’s GearsOfWar game? And defaulted to “yes”. Even if you never owned that game before. If you have your preferences set to “ask me”, then you get a chance to uncheck the checkbox, *if* you notice. But if your preferences are set to “apply automatically”, which is the default, you’ll just get GearsOfWar installed automatically.
The very first time this happens to me, I’d assume that the vendor considers “software update channel” to be the same as “software distribution channel”, and they want to sell me their other products. So, I’d turn off updates. Which, by the way, means I no longer get O.S. security fixes. If I was really annoyed, I might turn off updates for other vendors while I’m at it, so I no longer get Norton Anti-Virus updates either.
Agreeing to receive updates is agreeing to letting a trusted other person quickly fix problems on my computer, before I even know its a problem. Sometimes its fixes bugs in software, so users dont keep hitting problems that were fixed last year; anyone remember downloading patches for Win31? (heck, anyone remember ftp-ing downloads pre-1995?) Sometimes, the speed at which the fix is distributed is critical to protect users; anti-virus updates, browser security fixes, and O.S. security fixes are great examples of this.
If people stop trusting updates, because a few vendors abuse that trust, its bad for the software industry and its bad for users.
Its that simple.