* Pocket was added internally and not as an extension because it was easier.
* You don't become a Pocket user simply by using Firefox, you need to actually use the feature.
* Mozilla helped Pocket create a new privacy policy
* If you don't use it, then it is not doing you any harm. If somehow the presence of a button annoys you, then you can click the "customize" menu item and remove that button.
Firefox Hello is a collaboration, developed by Mozilla with help from Telefonica. Its videoconferencing without accounts. You don't need to create any account and it doesn't track you, how that is not good is beyond me.
The Pocket feature is really useful for those using it and harmless for those not using it. You can always remove the button or replace it with an add-on of your choice.
Instead of offering just a web view, Mozilla is trying to bundle features that the users find useful. None of the said features does you any harm if you don't use them.
Before finishing this comment, let me leave you with a little nugget of advise: Less war and more dating. Instead of being a critic and combating every form of feature that somehow you dislike. Try to see how partnerships and opportunities make things better for everyone.Lots of people are loving the Pocket and Hello features and using them on a daily basis. Instead of removing features we can think of scenarios where they are useful and understand why they are there. And again, if you don't like them, you can use the Customize feature to remove them from the toolbars.
Disclaimer: I am affiliated with Mozilla. I am not a Mozilla employee. I also care very little about the Pocket situation.
Pocket was massively mishandled. You should have seen it coming from a mile away. And when you didn't and it happened anyway, you should have backtracked a lot faster and released a public statement.
And damn it, priorities. You talk about partnerships creating opportunities etc; you have plenty of opportunities already. How about Persona, for example? How come it got moved to community support and got sod all marketing behind it, despite being a technology the open web direly needs and Mozilla being one of the only entities that can pull it off? The tech is good, too! Where's that commitment to the open web now?
How many people were complaining about their bookmark management before Pocket was introduced? Was it ever an area of firefox that needed dire improvements? Not since sync was introduced.
You have nobody to blame but yourselves. Users are hostile to change by default, you have to be able to back up the change with solid reasoning, and you have to be able to sell it to anyone who doesn't actually read what you say. You should have known better; don't be surprised about the hostile reaction now.
I agree with you on the Persona topic. I've heard that it was quite hard to maintain and it got no traction and thats why it was turned into a community project. Apparently the federation part was the hardest thing (federating identity servers and keeping trust and security is non-trivial).
As for priorities, you know that there are many teams each one focusing on a different task. Pocket is not bookmark management, it is a "read later"feature for those that want it.
> As for priorities, you know that there are many teams each one focusing on a different task.
I am well aware. Like you said though, pocket was released internally because it was "easier". That should have never happened. It should never have left the aurora builds in that shape. This is a focus problem; you prioritized releasing Pocket in the state it was in, over... not doing that.
What else could the Pocket team have focused on? How about Firefox Hello? Part of why it is being received so poorly is because of how unpolished it is. And yet, it got released; and now it's giving a good idea a bad name.
I'll give you that hindsight is 20/20, but Mozilla is not fixing the situation. You guys should know when to backtrack, when to apologize (your users are angry at you!).
As for Persona, well yeah, it's hard. It's one of the hardest and most critical problems we have on the web. So is building a web browser, though. I don't remember Mozilla ever giving up "because it's hard", and I definitely don't remember Mozilla ever abandoning something because it didn't get enough traction. Did you turn into Square Enix[0]?
This feature (or the decisions behind it) does harm non-users. Firefox devs have publicly claimed that it will replace Firefox's current reading list. Before Pocket integration, the integration of Reading List into Firefox Sync was planned, which is a end-to-end encrypted service with very strict ToS -- much stricter than Pocket's current ones: http://dustri.org/b/firefox-youre-supposed-to-be-in-my-pocke...
Claiming that no money was involved makes the situation much worse -- it implies your core values have changed.
Core values never changed. You can ask the Firefox development team at their mailing list why they decided to go with Pocket instead of building their own solution based on
Firefox Sync (which is now called Firefox Accounts).
If the ToS and practices from Read It Later or any other partner are beyond what you consider valid or good, you can always reach Mozilla through the user voices channel and the development mailing list. The Advocacy group would also probably want to hear more about your concerns. One can direct criticism into positive changes. Mozilla is what we make of it, you can help make it better by helping the processes if you don't agree with them.
Opting for the solution that is offering less privacy to users requires an explanation. This isn't one. They say that they've collaborated with Pocket on their ToS, but those are still way worse than Firefox Sync's.
> Pocket was added internally and not as an extension because it was easier.
There's the problem you need to fix. It should be just as easy (easier, frankly) to build this as an add-on. I recently built a small extension[1] that targets Firefox, Chrome and Safari (with the same code-base) and found Firefox to be - by far - the most annoying to deal with. It's sad that the browser that championed add-ons is such a pain to develop for now.
I hear you there. People are aware of this problem. The main issue is that XUL/XBL and other gecko stuff used to build add-ons (and Firefox itself) are not the easiest techology to work with. There is an effort to change that but how to fix this without breaking every single add-on out there is tricky, still IMHO is something that must be done.
As an aside to this discussion, your extension is quite excellent and saves me the RAM of keeping profile windows open during some of the extended HN debates where profile info/bio was helpful to understand where participants were coming from, or even just to check things like karma/profile age before I follow a link. Glad you mentioned it here, as I'm not sure it would have occurred to me to go looking for a solution to that particular problem.
Looking at https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/extensions/?sort=us... it looks like Adblock Plus and Video DownloadHelper are really popular. Adding those by default would make things better for everyone. Lots of people are loving those addons and using them on a daily basis. They do not do you any harm if you don't use them. You could just click the addons menu and remove them.
Yeah, petty, but well...
How many of the Firefox users actually wanted Pocket and how many are using it? AMO says 217,149 users which is a laugh.
Back in the days I felt like Mozilla was about user control and also privacy. Now you add a third-party feature that gets to know things you want to read later or your other devices without there being any need for them to know. At the very least, this information should be end to end encrypted.
> How many of the Firefox users actually wanted Pocket and how many are using it?
Honestly, since when does users (talking about your average Joe) know what do they want? IMHO, I don't see the harm of bundling Pocket if including it improves the experience of users.
The only concern should be the privacy implications.
Apart from the privacy issue, I consider the integration of a proprietary third-party provider to be a concern. I am totally fine with the functionality itself being added, but it should be a Mozilla project. I could see myself becoming a user then.
> Pocket was added internally and not as an extension because it was easier.
Not sure how it was easier, since there is already a Firefox extension for Pocket which could have been shipped as an extension installed by default (but removable by users who do not want it)
> Instead of offering just a web view, Mozilla is trying to bundle features that the users find useful. None of the said features does you any harm if you don't use them.
A lot of privacy-aware users will expect Mozilla to provide a way to easily disable and remove what are essentially features tangential to the core functionality of the browser. By making it a feature integrated into the core Firefox, the users now have to jump through various hoops to come close to achieving that. Having it as an extension makes it much easier to do so.
Disclaimer: I contribute to Mozilla Input codebase but have no affiliation with Mozilla.
> Pocket was added internally and not as an extension because it was easier.
> Not sure how it was easier, since there is already a Firefox extension for Pocket which could have been shipped as an extension installed by default (but removable by users who do not want it)
Developers said that this way was easier to maintain. I am not sure why either.
> A lot of privacy-aware users will expect Mozilla to provide a way to easily disable and remove what are essentially features tangential to the core functionality of the browser. By making it a feature integrated into the core Firefox, the users now have to jump through various hoops to come close to achieving that. Having it as an extension makes it much easier to do so.
The hops thing works both way. What is better to have features enabled and then those that do not like them disable them or the other way around? (genuine question). The thing is that Pocket is not doing anything there unless you use it. So if you're not using it, then, its not actually working and removing it is two clicks away.
So, let me ask you a question, you prefer a browser where stuff is disabled by default and you enable them at your own will? Can you give me pointers into what about discovery of said features?
Thinking the other way around, what about a browser where features are enabled and then you disable what you do not like? Why is that bad in your opinion? The customize menu that allows you to reorder and remove features is not enough for you?
This is not a taunt or dare, I am asking questions because I think that when two groups have opposing views we can make a good civil discussion and come out with positive things we can do to fix any possible problem or at least to present to other groups as our desired behavior.
It's bad (for firefox) because it's already too slow. I used to be a loyal firefox user but they have completely lost it. While I can keep tons of tabs open on chrome, on firefox when I try anything similar it just hangs a lot of times, and yes I am talking about the latest version. So I don't use firefox as my main browser anymore. I think people wouldn't complain as much if they already do well what they're supposed to do, but from my experience they have been just working on all these unfocused initiatives while the browser itself has grown to become bloated and cluttered. Lastly, the "share" button is just too clumsy. If it's a native feature it should function like a native feature and make people's lives easier. I tried connecting my gmail and all it did was load gmail website. This is no better than installing a 3rd party bookmarklet from gmail.
> So, let me ask you a question, you prefer a browser where stuff is disabled by default and you enable them at your own will? Can you give me pointers into what about discovery of said features?
> Thinking the other way around, what about a browser where features are enabled and then you disable what you do not like? Why is that bad in your opinion? The customize menu that allows you to reorder and remove features is not enough for you?
Not sure if you understood me right. All I stated was that if it had been an extension that shipped with Firefox and turned on by default, it is easier for the user to turn it off or remove it than when it is a part of core Firefox. Please see my above comment for details. I did not talk about browsers with features turned off by default.
>> "* There is no money involved in the Pocket thing."
If there was money involved I would completely respect the decision. The fact that Firefox gets no money from this boggles my mind. It really does. If I was working at Pocket I'd be sitting at my desk laughing at how lucky we got.
Exactly! I recall earlier a thread in which Mozilla employees claimed there is nothing new about Pocket as proprietary search engine UI has long been bundled. But Mozilla gets hundreds of millions of dollars annually for that placement. If Pocket were paying at least tens of millions annually, advertising it by default would be comprehensible. As is, it is totally incomprehensible. It should be returned to addon status and Pocket should pay to advertise through the sponsored tiles/adsinnewtabs program (which I think is great BTW; I'm not a Mozilla basher).
>If you don't use it, then it is not doing you any harm. If somehow the presence of a button annoys you, then you can click the "customize" menu item and remove that button.
That's extremely condescending. Program defaults, as you are aware, are very powerful. Pocket was shoved in millions of people's faces. Most won't bother or don't have the technical skills to remove it or understand the privacy implications of using it. Someone made that decision. Mozilla encouraged users to submit data to a closed source, US-based company, completely betraying its core principles on openness and freedom. If pocket was built on a generic API and I could host my own (like Sync server) I would maybe have been okay with it. Pocket, as rolled out, tarnishes Mozilla and its image.
You know what? You're right. Defaults are extremely powerful and I haven't thought about that angle. I too would have loved a public, federated and open API for a "read it later" feature but right now we don't have one. The only way to solve this was to build it or bundle some ready made solution. You can ask the Firefox Development team at their mailing list why they chose to bundle Pocket instead of developing a new standard.
As for the submission of data, the same could be said for all search engines. A browser is a communication tool, it sends data around. What we need to make sure is that it sends only the data you consent and only when/if you want.
Now, lets do a little exercise because you might know more then me about alternatives and I am using this thread to learn new things. If we want a "read it later" feature and we can't build our own, what solution you'd rather have instead of pocket? Is there any other service that you're more comfortable with? If you're not using Pocket and it is not sending any data because you're not using it, having that feature present is actually harming you?
You tried to look like you were agreeing with me but skirted the main point and instead asked me a question. Excellent PR skills :). The problem isn't the fact a utopian version of a Reader List doesn't exist, the problem is what Mozilla did in shipping Pocket. Let's not get away from that.
>> If you're not using Pocket and it is not sending any data because you're not using it, having that feature present is actually harming you?
Pocket doesn't "hurt" me, it hurts Mozilla's reputation and it hurts Firefox's less knowledgeable users, particularly because it was made a prominent default. You're handing your users over to a closed source company and not even getting paid for it!
In my opinion if Mozilla was really focused on what it says are its values, it would never have shipped with Pocket integrated like it did. Instead it would have have taken the time and developed the feature in Sync and allowed users like me to host my own. Integrating Pocket to simply rush a feature to get a PR win is the problem.
> You can ask the Firefox Development team at their mailing list why they chose to bundle Pocket instead of developing a new standard.
Firefox Sync isn't a standard, but it does its job while respecting my privacy.
There was a reading list feature in development before it was scrapped and replaced Pocket. People have asked why that decision was made. The only answer I've seen is that Pocket popular as an add-on, which just raises more questions.
> If you're not using Pocket and it is not sending any data because you're not using it, having that feature present is actually harming you?
I work with intelligent, technically knowledgeable people who didn't realize Pocket was a third-party service. Or they assumed that Mozilla wouldn't ship a feature like that without client-side encryption. My parents don't understand "client-side encryption", but they understand "even Mozilla can't see your bookmarks", which is what made them comfortable with Firefox Sync. They don't understand why the new kind of bookmark is different.
I no longer trust Mozilla to clearly communicate when, how, or why privacy has taken a back seat to developers' convenience or other goals, so I have to spend time scrutinizing every new feature. Also, getting a private reading list feature into Firefox will be harder, both politically and technically.
I don't have issues with Firefox integrating useful functionality into the browser, but what they did with the pocket integration was delegate their duty of protecting users' privacy to a third-party, profit-driven company that does not have users' best interests at heart.
This is an act that betrays the trust that users have placed in Mozilla.
> The Pocket feature is really useful for those using it and harmless for those not using it.
Textbook use case for an Addon eh.
Embedded in the install you're pushing a commercial organisations interests which might not align with those of the non-profit Mozilla orgs.
Please just remove it, and the video conferencing. Make them as addons as they should be, and work to tighten the privacy holes in firefox and put all about:config magic meat options in an advanced tab in the options menu where they should be.
Has there been any clarification on how the Pocket TOS applies to users of Firefox who aren't actively using Pocket? Because the wording seems to indicate that mere installation of "Pocket Technologies" constitutes acceptance of their TOS.
"Please read the following terms of service ("Agreement") before you install the Pocket™ application or use any of the products or services we provide through our application, software or website (all of which are referred to collectively herein as the "Pocket Technologies")... The terms of service constitute a binding legal agreement, which govern your use of the Pocket Technologies via any platform or device. By installing the Pocket™ application, visiting our website or installing or using any of the Pocket Technologies, you are accepting these terms of service."
Notice "installing or using any of the Pocket Technologies," along with the preceding definition: "application, software or website (all of which are referred to collectively herein as the "Pocket Technologies")"
Does the presence of Pocket integration in Firefox constitute installation of Pocket technologies? If so, then this TOS would appear to apply -- and it's a TOS I have no interest in accepting.
Great point, just like tons of users are using 30boxes.com starting with the Firefox v3.0 calendar integration feature.
Ohhhhhh, wait.
Why is something like gecko.handlerService.schemes.webcal.0.uriTemplate default string 30boxes.com and still even a part of the firefox core? This decision just seems like it will end up as abandonware bloat down the line.
>Firefox Hello is a collaboration, developed by Mozilla with help from Telefonica. Its videoconferencing without accounts. You don't need to create any account and it doesn't track you, how that is not good is beyond me.
Telefónica is seen as an evil company in Spain; it's the Spanish AT&T. It just doesn't look like a good match with Mozilla, really different cultures. I don't think that that's the problem, but it certainly doesn't help.
* It doesn't matter if money are involved or not. Firefox always was a pure browser free of crapware (at least that was a goal: open and free software). Now it is not. The problem is: if one piece of adware is allowed, then there would be another one and in 5 years it will be fully supporting AskToolbar. Just stick to original plan and keep it pure.
I bet there will be money involved: I just cancel my donations to Mozilla and send them to EFF instead if this adware won't be removed.
> Pocket was added internally and not as an extension because it was easier.
* It doesn't matter if it was easier if the idea was not right in a first place. According to FirefoxFeedback 92% of requesters asking to remove "feature".
> You don't become a Pocket user simply by using Firefox, you need to actually use the feature.
* Then why it is in the bundle, why it is on toolbar, why I have to perform actions to hide it? Why adBlock plus is not in the bundle (it's waaaay more popular)? Software is good when there's nothing good to remove from it; Pocket and loop (hello) are both not welcomed and not wanted pieces;
> If you don't use it, then it is not doing you any harm. If somehow the presence of a button annoys you, then you can click the "customize" menu item and remove that button.
Until someone will find exploit and create security hole. Removing the button won't remove code from codebase.
> Try to see how partnerships and opportunities make things better for everyone.
I believe it is better for everyone not to include questionable 3rd-party services into FF platform.
"Because it was easier" is not a good reason for Pocket to be internal. It should have been an extension, which gives the user more control (ie, to completely remove the bits from the system).
I have no problem with Pocket or including by default, but the user messaging and expectations were badly mishandled. People hold Firefox to a higher standard than the other major browsers.
No money may have changed hands, yet nevertheless the whole thing acted as publicity for Pocket. Whether it was intended to do that or not is up to Mozilla to prove.
Further, I personally fight features in Firefox that could be extensions, because Mozilla has already removed core features that were only of good value to the users, with the excuse that they could become extensions.
You don't get to preach water and drink wine without getting ridicule in response.
Mozilla has to respect its users first before it can even consider asking for ANY kind of respect.
I'd rather Mozilla didn't just add third-party components via a silent update, without even giving me a choice.
I didn't complain, I didn't criticize...I simply uninstalled Firefox.
Lots of people use lots of extensions on a daily basis, but they don't give preferential treatment to those extensions. I am trusting Mozilla less and less and I'm not going to complain very loudly about it - but I am just going to leave.
I completely agree with using what feels comfortable with ones values and ideals. Can you tell me what browser you moved to?
One thing that we can talk about is that Mozilla is the single browser vendor working in the open. The source code, the development process, the roadmap and teams are all open. You can be a part of the development process and help make the Firefox you want.
The cool thing about the Web is that we can all be makers in this medium. Our collective strength and will can do amazing things when we work together. If you moved to a closed source browser or to some browser where the development is not that open, then, why not move back and help make it better?
> You can be a part of the development process and help make the Firefox you want.
In theory. In practice you get white-knighted to death by people who don't even read to the half-way point of your email.
You're falling prey to the open source fairy tale of "everything is open so you can make it what you want!", which leaves out the part: "but many things you might want can only become reality if you're willing to sacrifice years of your life, and they'll only usefully be available to yourself, thanks to open source ALSO having politics".
Some people like a browser to be a browser, not something which grows into a poorly engineered, sand-boxed, slow operating system inside of another operating system.
Sorry, I just don't trust JavaScript developers that much.
I can remember when the whole point of creating Firefox was as a response to a bloated Netscape that included an email client, newsreader, kitchen sink etc.
Now it seems they're trying to bundle everything back in again.
I don't understand the complaint here. Do people expect Mozilla to build everything themselves?
Reader View is a great feature that was clearly missing. Adding a third party sync to it is really no different from picking a default search engine to serve location bar entries.
Pocket is fine, best of the trio (Instapaper, Readability) IMHO. I actually switched to Pocket from Readability, which was getting buggier, a few weeks before it was integrated.
Getting all that while bringing revenue for Mozilla to support further development of Firefox is a win-win-win. Unlike Hello or "Share This Page" which I have never seen anyone use.
The complaint is the fact that Pocket is now natively built into Firefox, which if you read the Pocket ToS, can be considered a violation of privacy. That, and the fact that because it is natively built in rather than a default extension, it cannot be removed, only disabled.
It's something that couldn't be farther from necessary. That's the complaint here.
What's the difference between removing and disabling? Aren't they effectively the same? The source is still there to read/hack. Do you care about a few lines of inactive code? If so, I'd start the purge with Hello.
I can't speak for firefox users, but when I buy a phone and it comes with a "phone company daily deals" app that that can't be removed because it's a "system component" it often seems to me that they could easily have been made it removable, and that making bloat impossible to remove was a business decision.
I love the pocket integration. The built-in functionality definitely works much better than the plugin, which was weirdly slow sometimes and had some glitches. Pocket has changed how I use the web. With a single click I send any substantive article to get automatically synced to my Kobo ereader, which also has built-in pocket integration.
It is definitely convenient -- in fact, using one system exclusively almost always provides the best user experience. (Apple has had great success with that idea.) Having Pocket bundled with eBook readers and browsers is convenient, but that doesn't fit the idea of an open web, which is what Mozilla is supposed to be supporting. I understand when Kobo does it, but Mozilla is supposed to operate under a different set of principles.
I use firefox and pocket but I still don't like that it's baked into the browser. If I change my mind and stop using pocket I can't actually get rid of it. I can disable it but without digging through the source code (which I can do but most users really can't) I have no idea what that actually means. To me that's a problem and it reduces the level of trust I have with the Mozilla organization.
Mozilla is not a merry band of hackers anymore. They're a bona fida corporation with its own agenda. Their agenda depends on having as many users as possible so they're trying to make everything they can for that. The free web, choice and all that become second place now.
At least it means Mozilla has reviewed the Pocket code embedded in the browser and it doesn't send every single keystroke to GetPocket. It's good, because I don't usually install browser extensions for the very reason that I don't know what parts of my privacy I'm giving up.
Btw, just a question because I'm not sure. They've reviewed the Pocket code, right?
Is the code on the Pocket servers open source? Can I point Firefox at my own Pocket server (or a Pocket server run by any organisation other than Pocket)?
You currently cannot point Firefox to your own Pocket-compatible service. The Firefox integration uses non-public parts of the Pocket API. A Mozilla employee opened a bug for this: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1179699
The Mozilla Corporation is completely owned by the Mozilla Foundation, a non-profit with a manifesto https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/manifesto/details/ that reads in part, "Individuals’ security and privacy on the Internet are fundamental and must not be treated as optional."
Somehow the part about privacy seems to refer to a 'special' form of privacy... look at FF hello:
Mozilla about FF Hello [1]: "Firefox Hello is provided to you in collaboration with TokBox, Inc. ("TokBox") and sends data to TokBox as a part of the function of the service."
Tokbox (Telefonica)[2]: "We neither rent nor sell your information to anyone. We don’t share your information with other organizations or individuals outside of TokBox, except as described below"
below:
- "With our affiliates and trusted business partners that cooperate with us to provide you our services"
- "We may share Aggregate Data publicly and with our partners."
Please try to contact Mozilla and tell me who these 'trusted business partners' are. I tried and did not get anywhere...
I am a former customer of Telefonica and they sure tried very hard to appear as a 'will mug you for money' type of company.
Until a group of outsiders on social networks with no stake in Mozilla came in with shame tactics. Even people with little connection to them would use them as a vehicle for their own benefit.
When did they build in Pocket? I didn't like when they added Hello but this seems even stranger. I guess they're getting money from Pocket for it in the same way they get money from Google for search but users can opt-out of Google search - from those complaints it doesn't sound possible for Pocket. (Please let me know if I'm wrong).
About a month or so ago. The rationale was that Firefox used to have or intended to have a similar read for later feature but they decided to scrap it in favour of direct integration with Pocket. Oddly enough, Mozilla employees claim there wasn't money involved in the integration. See this thread for more: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9667809
You can delete the button, and you can go into about:config, turn off switches and set strings to "null". But the code is baked in, and your work to disable it will likely be reversed with each Firefox update. There's nothing nefarious about the Pocket code in Firefox from what I've seen, but the service it connects your browser to is opaque, closed source, and the ToS is hostile and aggressive towards openness.
I don't know why exactly they chose to include pocket into Firefox. I do know that it has been stated that Mozilla does -not- receive money from Pocket usage.
I'm very confused as to why they didn't just leave it as an opt-in plugin.
Which is odd, because that means Mozilla is paying Pocket for it by funding developer and support time. The fact Pocket is not paying is a bad thing: it's a one-way drain on Mozilla resources. How is this a fair partnership?
The thing with Pocket is that it's basically an extension installed by default. This is the first time Mozilla does such a thing to Firefox, and this doesn't please the community, including myself.
I though that the whole point of integrating a new feature is to really implement it into the software, where you can make it efficient and reliable, where you don't rely on a third party to make it work and where users' data is bundled to their Firefox profile only.
If they think it was not worth it to implement it, then they could just label the extension "featured", make a blog post to advice it to the community and call it a day. Otherwise they can just start integrating any popular extension, call it a new "feature" and defend themselves by saying that people use it so it's important.
"Firefox Input is Mozilla's primary feedback mechanism for products.It is set up to be a method of one-way communication about your experiences in using our products, the Internet you view it through, and what Mozilla can do to make that experience better"
So please provide do provide feedback on various Mozilla products on Mozilla Input and not just limit it to this Pocket integration.
Most of the comments center around the same idea: Mozilla removed the choice of which "read later" service to use by default, by baking it into the browser itself instead of leaving it as an extension or add-on, where it and all the other services like it belong.
So, now if you have a user who doesn't want a "read later" service, they have to take the extra steps to disable the button and go into about:config to completely turn it off. For the users who do want a "read later" service but don't want to use Pocket, they now have whatever they install via extension, plus Pocket, which is redundant and silly.
Basically, all this integration has accomplished is bloating Firefox to serve the single digit percentage of past Pocket extension users (many of whom will continue to use the extension since that's what they are used to), and maybe grab a few hundred more who see the new Pocket icon and decide to keep using it after trying it out.
If they had gone with an open platform for this service, or even better, their own homegrown solution, I wouldn't be upset by it. As it stands, Firefox was supposed to be the open standard the other browsers should strive to imitate; instead, it is steadily spiraling downward. This is becoming a pattern, and it's not a pretty one.
So, now if you have a user who doesn't want a "read later" service, they have to take the extra steps to disable the button and go into about:config to completely turn it off.
Actually the user would do absolutely nothing, and presto, no read-later service. You have to create an account with Pocket before you even have the option of saving anything.
Neither of those is a good choice. The custom Firefox-only would be a waste of developer resources. Similarly, picking a winner is also a waste of developer resources: there were already extensions that had far more functionality. Firefox should have added a more general "Experience Enhancements" feature that suggested great features that could be enabled and offered a few options. This same concept of periodically offering enhancements to users could be presented periodically and offer any number of things over time.
My complaint is the Mozilla folks missed a more general, better capability they could have built.
I'm sure Mozilla did what they thought was best for themselves at the time.
For me personally, I would prefer most to see it separated from the browser, available as an extension only, so that there is better competition in the extension space, and so the users have the absolute most choice. Barring that, I would prefer to see Mozilla roll their own rather than, as you put it, "pick a winner".
Hard-coding a third party's product into your own is a bad idea; what if Pocket changes their terms of service to be even more user-hostile than it is now? What if they decide to start doing things the Mozilla Foundation can't stomach? Mozilla would then have to go through the same steps again to integrate a different third party, if they decided to keep the same paradigm in place. And I'm not just picking on Pocket, I would be saying the same thing with any proprietary third party service.
Yes sure, It's really negative feedback here but the majority of users commenting there have technical knowledge as you can see in the comments and most people are only commenting when they don't like things anyway, you never have any thanks if they like things (if you ever created something used by other people, you know what I'm talking about).
So we can see that technical people (including me) don't like so much this feature but it does not help to know if the average user is finding it useful, I would bet on my case average users are not even using it since you need to create a separate account, but anyway, we will see.
And also, in my opinion, Firefox became a great product by trying new things. And as always, when you change things, sometimes it does not work, sometimes you explore in other directions, you need to experiment a bit.
I understand the hip trend of only thinking about an inept fool who can barely click a link in a browser, but the reality is that a large percentage of Firefox's users are educated users who are concerned about things like openness and privacy. Chrome, Safari and Internet Explorer have a fairly strong grip on the technically unskilled user. Can Mozilla survive in marketshare without this group? I have a feeling we are going to find out soon enough.
very much agree. I honestly don't see what the hubub is all about.
Re: privacy, Firefox maintains it's commitment and integrity. The pocket integration is very transparent (pocket has agreed to open-source it), and the tech-saavy people that seem to be the only people this offends can disable with about:config.
Honestly, it seems that people seem to be upset about the idea that Firefox is raising money outside of donations. I for one am very happy about them finding revenue sources that also add functionality for users, all while maintaining user privacy as a main interest.
> We may work with trusted third parties that we refer to as internal service providers to facilitate or outsource one or more aspects of the products and services that we provide to you, and we may provide some of your personal information directly to these internal service providers.
If Mozilla is going to start including proprietary closed platforms like pocket, what do they offer that Chrome is not? WebKit is much more targeted by web developers so I'm going to have a slightly better experience with Chrome. Without the moral high ground of openness and privacy why would anyone chose Firefox over the competition?
Mozilla is receiving no monetary compensation from Pocket's inclusion. See also my comment re: Pocket's TOS applying by virtue of installation, not usage. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9885795
* There is no money involved in the Pocket thing.
* Pocket was added internally and not as an extension because it was easier.
* You don't become a Pocket user simply by using Firefox, you need to actually use the feature.
* Mozilla helped Pocket create a new privacy policy
* If you don't use it, then it is not doing you any harm. If somehow the presence of a button annoys you, then you can click the "customize" menu item and remove that button.
Firefox Hello is a collaboration, developed by Mozilla with help from Telefonica. Its videoconferencing without accounts. You don't need to create any account and it doesn't track you, how that is not good is beyond me.
The Pocket feature is really useful for those using it and harmless for those not using it. You can always remove the button or replace it with an add-on of your choice.
Instead of offering just a web view, Mozilla is trying to bundle features that the users find useful. None of the said features does you any harm if you don't use them.
Before finishing this comment, let me leave you with a little nugget of advise: Less war and more dating. Instead of being a critic and combating every form of feature that somehow you dislike. Try to see how partnerships and opportunities make things better for everyone.Lots of people are loving the Pocket and Hello features and using them on a daily basis. Instead of removing features we can think of scenarios where they are useful and understand why they are there. And again, if you don't like them, you can use the Customize feature to remove them from the toolbars.