[realusername]

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.

PS: Downvoting-me does not change these facts.

[hiou]

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.

[ArekDymalski]

>it does not help to know if the average user is finding it useful

The feedback itself isn't helpful, but the data about the percentage of users using the Pocket add-on should be.

[jszymborski]

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.

[lagadu]

Allow me to quote the Pocket ToS[1]:

> 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.

I feel that speaks for itself.

[1] https://getpocket.com/privacy

[jszymborski]

That's the Pocket ToS... you only agree to it when you use Pocket, not firefox.

[hiou]

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?

[sanxiyn]

Firefox uses less memory than Chrome, for example.

[muraiki]

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