| > (For me) it's mostly a transparency and trust issue. People widely suspected that it was Mozilla looking for another revenue source, they aggressively denied that money is involved. And we still don't know that money is involved. ;)
But I agree the revenue sharing arrangement should have been communicated better / earlier. > And now it turns out that there potentially is, but no details are published. It's not unusual for contracts with for-profit companies that you're not allowed to make the details public. We still don't know the exact terms of the old contracts with Google or the new ones with Yahoo, Yandex, Baidu etc. > I actually think that with the way they did the integration, they probably should have received money Like I said, I don't think Pocket, the company, is big enough. Mozilla could probably have demanded a six-digit figure for integrating Pocket, but to what end? It's too little money to really matter and would have just inspired more "Mozilla is selling out!" rants. > (Otherwise, why not do a generic "read later" button and a way for services to register instead of adding a single, proprietary service). As you can imagine, there were discussions internally about whether there should be a provider-agnostic read-later button and I don't think anyone disagreed in principle, nor is that idea dead now. Integrating Pocket first was just the cheapest and quickest way to ship something to users. |