[ObviousScience]

Historically, the binary blobs provided as "browser integrations" are both major attack vectors and used by market leaders to exfiltrate inappropriate data under the aegis of "they didn't opt-out of our totally optional service!".

So yes, the market is fundamentally shady for "browser integrations".

[Manishearth]

There are no binary blobs involved here. The API endpoint is closed source, but the Firefox-side code is not. This is true for Pocket, Hello, and Search.

[azakai]

Ok, I think I understand your objection now. I can sympathize with your position - browsers would be purer without such integrations. It would be a better world.

I do think, however, that to compete with other browsers, such integration is necessary. If Firefox doesn't integrate with search, users will not find it useful, because they are so used to using google.com and so forth.

So I agree browsers would be better with no such integrations. It's a necessary, sometimes painful compromise.

[ObviousScience]

> If Firefox doesn't integrate with search, users will not find it useful, because they are so used to using google.com and so forth.

This is a particularly weak case, because what's really needed for this feature at the browser level is an API for search providers, backed by several plugins which take advantage of the feature and offer various providers.

However, that's not what Firefox did here, as far as anyone can tell. Why not? No technical reason has been provided, and the replies have been so completely off topic as to cause a long debate thread over that very reasonable concern.

Firefox tightly coupled a technology to their platform rather than providing a service API and plugins, and we have no understanding of why a group committed to openness would make such a fundamentally close source move.

Historically speaking, the reasons groups do that is malice.