[gcommer]

Their video on the front page contradicts itself. They highlight the UI coded by "user interaction" and no surprise, the Pocket button in the URL bar has tiny usage. And yet, in the new design? It's bigger and more prominent. And they try to say this is data-driven in the voice-over.

Now, yet again, I'll have to just pin Firefox and stop updating it everywhere for a few months until the inevitable "undo all these changes" plugins are ready.

Update: Just tried the new design. As expected, the new tabs take up substantial vertical space and even compact mode (now hidden behind about:config) barely helps. Time for more userChrome.css...

[reinforcedpaper]

Only 10% of users are using compact mode: Time to remove it.

Only 1% of users are using Pocket: Make it more prominent to increase usage.

Data-driven design!

[morpheuskafka]

The funny thing is I didn't use compact mode before (although I did know it was there), and after upgrading to the new UI, the first thing I did was find it and enable it because of how enormous they made the tabs and buttons.

[sva_]

Maybe the kind of people who use compact mode turn off usage statistics, and those who use pocket (non-accidentally) don't turn them off.

[myphs]

I wonder how many users who disable telemetry are also using compact mode and how many people are actually disabling telemetry.

[KirillPanov]

I run a large farm of VMs with telemetry turned on. I programmed them to make happy mouse movements whenever Mozilla embiggens their UI elements. My herd of shill-VMs has totally swamped out whatever telemetry-votes you compact-mode people are casting.

[estaseuropano]

I don't understand the hate or why this seems to take so much headspace in so many (or at least here very vocal) minds. It's a single button, not flashy or animated or otherwise annoying. When the rest of the world spies on you or pushes crypto tokens and abuses websites by replacing their ads with own advertisements, that is what bothers you most and makes you consciously choose an outdated version?

[gcommer]

Aside from being unwanted, it also is symbolic of much of Mozilla's worst behavior. During launch, it was specifically described as not being a paid placement: "There's no monetary benefit to Mozilla from the integration: Pocket didn't pay for placement in the browser"[1]. This way key to the discussion about why they chose Pocket over any other reading list plugins -- but this turned out to be a lie: "Hum. Apparently, _someone_ in bizdev thought that "revenue sharing" doesn't involve money, and spread information inside Mozilla accordingly. :rolling eyes:"[2]

Also, I can't find the reference anymore, but I definitely remember promises of getting a pref to use a different backend. AFAICT, that was another lie.

So multiple lies surrounding this product, along with it being continuously pushed on users (I've had it disabled via pref since day 1, and then it started showing up on the new tab page regardless).

And people are surprised when it gets hate.

[1]: https://www.pcworld.com/article/2930532/reading-service-pock... [2]: https://groups.google.com/g/mozilla.governance/c/2PYq2w8tejs...

[45ure]

>(I've had it disabled via pref since day 1, and then it started showing up on the new tab page regardless)

I have done the same. You can use this add-on to remove it from your new tab: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/new-tab-overr...

I am in agreement. Although you can tweak and customise FF endlessly, however, you shouldn't have to delve into about:config to disable a malignant feature. The comment by [pseudalopex] probably sums up my view.

Revenue is good. Sacrificing privacy for revenue is debatable. Misleading people about sacrificing privacy for revenue is dishonest.

[estaseuropano]

Ok so is your issue that Mozilla makes revenue (which I think is GREAT as that gets them off the google dependency) or that it ignores previously set preferences?

In the latter case 100% agree and Mozilla is shooting itself in the foot as users that actively turned it off probably simply don't want it and will be a tiny minority. But do we know yet whether this happens again with this update?

[pseudalopex]

Revenue is good. Sacrificing privacy for revenue is debatable. Misleading people about sacrificing privacy for revenue is dishonest.

[ralfn]

The button of betrayal is right there in the demo.

Your privacy is not safe with Mozilla. It requires the same level of distrust as other browser vendors, but at least with those vendors people already know. Mozilla luls people in to trusting them and then uses that trust to fund a business model that is specifically about collecting and uploading user data.

[ralfn]

What is the point of firefox if it comes with spyware?

This supposed feature is nothing more than a css tweak that somehow needs to upload your urls to this 3rd party provider that is not bound by the privacy guidelines of Mozilla.

It is makes Mozilla a bunch of liars in a way that Google isn't lying. Actually. Google isn't sharing your data with another party.

I wont be switching back to Firefox until they remove the pocket thing and enact policies preventing this from happening again.

Now it's just a worst chrome, with better promises that turn out to be bigger lies.

[basch]

>upload your urls to this 3rd party provider

First party provider. Mozilla owns Pocket.

[godelski]

I think HN just has hate for certain products and undying love for others. When you hate something then everything bothers you. When you love something you look the other way.

[jansan]

I saw criticism in the original comment, maybe cynicism, but no hate. Hate is a strong word, we should not set the bar too low for using it.

[nindalf]

It is hate, but worse than that, it’s tedious to read. I saw their video and thought “yep, top comment is going to be about Pocket integration” and it was. It’s the same in every thread about Firefox - someone complaining about pocket, someone complaining about tree style tabs, someone saying they shouldn’t have changed the plug-in model.

It would be nice to have some new comments for a change.

[riffraff]

I've used pocket since it was called ReadItLater and love it, and the original comment didn't seem to be just hate for it.

It seemed mostly criticism of an approach where marketing says X ("we look at what users really use") but the product says Y ("we push feature X cause we like it eve if users don't").

[enriquto]

The thing is that these are anti-features. The world needs a minimalist browser, which is just single rectangular canvas that renders the web. All other features are unnecessary clutter best left to separate applications, because not everybody needs or wants the same.

[drw85]

I'd love a browser like that and we used to have something like that.

If you wanted a specific feature, you'd install an extension / plugin.

Software has been going that way since forever, just think back to Nero Burning Rom. Which went from a very capable, heavily specialized application to burn all kinds of CDs with to a collection of mediocre tools to do everything but burn CDs with.

[jiofih]

If you could predict it, maybe you should consider taking that criticism seriously then instead of brushing it off as “boring”.

[nindalf]

There's one person in this thread complaining about how tree style tabs was taken away from them in November 2017. It was yes, but it's also available now (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-GB/firefox/addon/tree-style-ta...). How can I possibly take this person seriously? They're complaining about how something doesn't exist when it does.

As for Pocket, I fail to see how someone's experience is ruined by the mere existence of a feature. Obviously they could ignore it. But they're complaining and have been complaining for 4 years like the sky was falling. Again, how can I take such people seriously?

Lastly, I'm not a Firefox developer. I don't need to take any criticism of Firefox seriously just because some person said it. No doubt the devs need to say "the customer is always right" or some such. Whereas I'm free to call it like I see it.

[jiofih]

In what timeline would you take them seriously? Why would they stop complaining if nothing has changed? Your position is illogical, you’re simply refusing to even entertain the idea that they might have a point.

[opheliate]

It looks like Pocket has been moved from the URL bar to where extensions are located. While it is larger, if Mozilla feel they must include it for whatever reason, it makes more sense to have it look like an extension than an integral part of the browser. Hopefully this also corresponds with the ability to remove it from the extension box, as you can do with other extensions.

[cqz]

Not so, it's just supervised data-driving:

Observation: The Pocket button is used very infrequently

Conclusion: To encourage more usage the Pocket button should be made larger

[alanbernstein]

Also "remove clicks" and "remove clutter" are directly contradictory... I want to be able to configure my browser to minimize clicks FOR ME, and I'm ok with having a lot of "clutter" i.e. functionality.

[paxys]

That button takes two clicks to remove. Those who use it will appreciate the new design. Those who don't will never see it anyways.

[mrweasel]

The new tabs also look nothing like tabs. It’s now a button bar.

It looks great, but it’s not really an inprovement and is clearly designed on a large monitor.

[jansan]

They will go back to the conventional tab design, I am pretty sure about this. Tabs should look like they look in Chrome, not like in Firefox or VSCode. Tab design has pretty much been settled in the 90s, no need for experiments.

[ComputerGuru]

It takes a lot to convince UI designers to admit they made a mistake. Just look at any redesign ever.

[mariusor]

Just to provide a contrary opinion, I find the pocket button very useful.

Pocket has out of the box integration with the Kobo ebook readers. This means that the amount of work I need to do to read an article on my device is one click[1]. That seems a lot better than any alternative that I know of.

[1] After, of course, authorizing both Firefox and the Kobo device.

[Semaphor]

> As expected, the new tabs take up substantial vertical space

I just tried it, the vertical difference is 5 pixels, horizontally it’s about twice as much with 5 pinned and 9 normal tabs. Amazing? No. But that doesn’t really seem substantial.

This is with compact mode in both versions.

[pseudalopex]

Compact mode is hidden and not supported now. Count on them removing it.

[ComputerGuru]

I don’t think testing it in compact mode is the idea.

[Semaphor]

GP said "and even compact mode barely helps"

[0xy]

Consider yourself lucky there isn't a giant banner ad for Mr Robot in the title bar. Mozilla's CEO really needs another pay rise for overseeing plummeting product market share.